‘Jh ‘ a." I. I “w ' ‘h . I laqn‘fi- . fl . 1 $1.3.“ “A I :25 f5’:‘x{l:‘}t Ell-1X5: >4. A‘nh‘b' ~LT Ia; 9% Lg: , .. :4 v {““I , Sft": 46237723 (felt, . r . . M 73".“ ‘ iv * 'i‘ \ .gg'vk g 3:: 3|.wa 53% I‘vn~::"'3{'"' "“ LUIW m k' , I i“- 'I. "C I g'l‘v $321“! '. ‘r}v~»€}; n 31,3 ~~o k LI- tea. ‘ .L . 1d 3)., hi 3:" 1%f'flk‘” I"... I "'11: 'L‘ . t ;_,w. . ’_I'«’ V.‘ ~ f I‘r EW- II I ‘I "NWIL , "I: .H. . In (H l -223 :u: 3 3m ’ H. "—. y..-_._—’- —w— u- A - I‘,‘ I ‘b I I‘ a: I H I I?“ o_ ‘ ..' I,-vv :" I |‘-'-‘ u‘-_ Q'll . I » .IA I 'II .'.' ‘I' . "‘ 'r II I b ‘. . I I r' ‘ ' I I. U‘ I ‘ I ll ‘ I If '.I ' 1" u I' I . :' :' «- ~ a‘ I I. H .Wh I .,‘ . . 'I' f , . “I"... 11"1' I ., - r I H 'I ‘ .I »I' ”I' ‘-”‘I ' .‘III'I "I '. ' I H I‘ v . I II”. MI'IIII .IH‘I-l( 1_ ‘I‘."I -‘\I‘I’* I. . p , I‘ o I It } ‘ ”I I’ II NL'.‘ .I.I ‘ I -' I“. "."I II "I I 'I'}' I|:‘.VE'D:H‘I~"-'tz‘lill'c."11..+“l‘."{ 'Iv I. I 1.0“”. .. DI";" “qu -I a J. R. ‘3‘} ‘l I" JIM", :‘I' I‘;;‘ THFIUI'PA ' "E'Ii I ‘ '35" ""II; 2' “‘1': I I“ 'l\ . Ilr'lI:,‘l:‘-I1"Ew‘ h ‘l “Ii"rvn' ~« I: i’x I" I”: 1} “8.! "§Q*§?I‘;;:'I 9m 161“ W W. “r” ' I'Ili my my. ?\I‘; 1'1”: (a: IHIHHlIHHIIIlllllHlllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllilllll 3 1293 10521 4435 This is to certify that the thesis entitled How is Z Community?» The Phenomenology of Community presented by Linda Stoneall has been"accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Sociology “t ' “Vi/[WWW Major‘professor Date (kin/”9' 9‘8) W7 5P3 0-7639 © 1978 LINDA LEA STONEALL ALL RI GHTS RESERVED in HOW IS Z A COMMUNITY? THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF COMMUNITY By Linda Stoneall A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1978 G} //¢Q (5:97 ABSTRACT HOW IS Z A COMMUNITY? THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF COMMUNITY By Linda Stoneall This dissertation combines a delineation of major paradigmatic elements of the concept of community with a case study of a specific community, 2. The concept of community is clarified by examination of the ele- ments of the concept of community according to the perspective of four major sociological theories: functionalism, human ecology, conflict, and phenomenology. These elements include metaphor, key sub-concepts, the genesis of community, the location of community, the dynamics of community, and the methodology. It is argued that phenomenology is most appropriate for studying the particular setting, 2. The setting 2, which was examined through participant observation which included interviews, observation, collection of life histories, and maps gathered over a period of twelve months residence, is pre- sented ethnographically in terms of the demography, history, physical setting, and characteristic of core families in Z. The setting proves to be lacking in consistent boundaries, local institutions, and cen- tralization. 2 seems to be a limiting case of functionalism, human ecology, and conflict theories because they seem unable to account for the fact that Z is considered a community even though ‘the requisites specified by these theories are not present. Z is a'» q lerlOaS :9 4-— yy' . rA‘ l ‘I‘ I bUTJv-‘Iv'c U 0 : ple- ‘A -vw by A.“ A. a'BUrU‘ d ‘ TE'QCVEFT‘ U ' I I" Linda Stoneall Z is analyzed phenomenologically in terms of perceptions and situations. In 2 community is viewed in terms of senses of community. Community is not a monolithic whole, but is perceived differently by various people. Specifically, there is a sexual division in senses of community. Also, senses of community go in and out of existence according to situations of Opposing, helping, and sociability which temporarily unite people under the label of community. It is hypoth- esized that perceptions and situations which were more visible in Z, are also important processes in other communities. Far :ri i'ZSe USE-"re: V only nagg— tr- Eipeciaily t' C U‘r‘a' It: ,tn’ 1 PEI'G '1r59 tUE in ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For this dissertation I am greatly indebted to the pe0ple of Z whose openness, c00peration, and concern for me and this project not only made this study possible, but also made it very enjoyable. I eSpecially thank: the Bellands, L. Briel, J. Bouvier, the Cornues, the Dantumas, A. Erikson, the Gethans, L. Happ, G. Hardwick, S. Hatch, the Haydens (eSpecially Kay), the Johnsens (especially Frieda), the Krebs, J. Kromwall, the Laudenbecks, the Lottigs, the Masseys, C. Martin, L. Mergener, the Merwins, 1. Miller, the Nichols, the Palmers, the Pankonins, F. Patten, the Polyocks, the Porters, the Schwabes, the Snuddens, the Smiths, the Speckmans, the Tibbits, the Wahlsteadts, the Walshes, the Nissells, N. Wilson, and the Yorks. Of the Z residents, those who helped me the most include my parents, Rex and Madge Stoneall. My father‘s care and continuance of "the farm" have provided a legacy to me, as well as credentials for being a long-term Z resident. My mother's outgoing friendliness made it possible for me to know many peOple in Z. Many people at Michigan State University contributed to my professional growth and making this dissertation possible. Above all is Peter Manning. In addition to his published works, his sug- gestions, criticisms, and assistance as my dissertation advisor throughout the course of study have been invaluable. Not only is he a great role model, but also his concern has helped me in many ways. ii harness c‘ -«~; :NiuiE_"‘ Barrie Thorne and Bo Anderson, in addition to Peter Manning, taught me to appreciate the complexities of everyday life and nurtured my interest in phenomenology. Barrie Thorne especially helped develOp my awareness of the importance of feminist dimensions in the study of society. I have learned about teaching as well as about communities by working with Marilyn Aronoff and Elianne Riska. I appreciate their helpful comments on the dissertation. Finally, I would like to thank Fred Waisenan for helping me secure an NIMH Traineeship which parti- ally financed the fieldwork. m iT'fl ’0‘. Ltdl U ‘1;- LIST OF F"' ‘ OU‘ C:§"ER I IH‘D II ’grs FJr; H423 Csnf 53cm Uver Y '5 v k” a my VI filhi vQ.‘ the HELP . R‘ l g. Y ‘B~&0Ifl:' h. U:W.V:Y [- hki’i (W TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ........................ v LIST OF FIGURES ....................... vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ..................... l II THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO COMMUNITY ......... 4 Functionalism .................... 5 Human Ecology .................... l8 Conflict ....................... 30 Social Construction ................. 46 Overview ....................... 63 III METHODOLOGY ..................... 75 IV THE COMMUNITY .................... 89 V CHARACTERISTICS OF CORE FAMILES IN 2 ......... 120 VI COGNITIVE MAPPING: DEFINING AND ACTING ....... l3l VII BEHAVIORAL DIMENSIONS OF COMMUNITY: OPPOSING, HELPING, SOCIABILITY ................. l80 VIII CONCLUSION ...................... 236 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... 24l APPENDIX A GUIDE TO NAMES IN Z ................. 25l B INTERVIEW GUIDE ................... 253 C SAMPLE MAPS ..................... 255 iv 6'3 NJ.” 6.4 L3CE 6.5 Lacs 6.6 LDC,- L7 Loci Re 68 pEr Thi 6.9 Con 6.10 Ty; 6.1] “he 7,] AL In CO!“ 7.2 F- LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.l Major Paradigmatic Elements of Theoretical Schools in Community Analysis .................. 6 3.l Age and Sex of Z Residents Interviewed ......... 82 3.2 Age and Sex of Z Residents Who Drew Maps of Z ...... 85 4.l Age Distribution in Linn Township ............ lOO 5.l Characteristics of Core Families in Z .......... lZl 6.l Configurations on Maps Drawn by 2 Residents ....... l4l 6.2 Boundaries in Each_Direction Indicated on Maps Drawn by Z Residents . . . . ................... l44 6.3 Number of Respondents in the Two Most Frequently Named Boundaries on Maps Drawn by 2 Residents ......... l48 6.4 Location of Grocery Shopping for Z Residents ...... 164 6.5 Location of Doctors for 2 Residents ........... 166 6.6 Location of Banks for 2 Residents ............ l68 6.7 Location of Local Facility Use for Thirty-Three 2 Residents ........................ l69 6.8 Percentage of Facility Use for Various Locations by Thirty-Three Z Residents ................ l7O 6.9 Concentration of Facilities in Certain Places ...... l7l 6.lO Typology of Location of Shopping with Location of Doctor and Bank ........................ l7l 6.ll Where Z Residents Say They are From ........... l74 7.1 A Listing of Opposing, Helping, Sociability Situations in the Context of Major Variables in the Community Concept ......................... l8l 7.2 Formal to Informal Continuum of Sociable Occasions in Z . 2l8 Table Page 7.3 Places of Sociable Interaction in Z ........... 228 vi Figure H ”E; of I 4.2 The 101:: 6.l Pan 0.‘ V. 5-2 “5331:. LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 4.l Map of Z Village .................... 92 4.2 The Location of Z in Relation to Other Towns ...... 95 6.l Map of Most Commonly Named Roads in Z . ........ 139 6.2 Composite of Boundaries Drawn on Maps by 2 Residents . . l43 vii T'i‘ls C ity exist it" by ful‘ICt‘iCOE 3;;roach is vidual resic lt‘j. THUS E particular 5 tutional an: lit-at : to have d“. f CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This dissertation is an investigation of how senses of commun- ity exist when few remnants of the phenomena labelled as "structure" by functionalists and human ecologists remain. A phenomenological approach is utilized to delineate the mechanisms by which the indi- vidual residents construct and maintain personal senses of commun- ity. Thus senses of community are continually reconstructed in particular situations by the members involved rather than by insti- tutional and ecological macro-structuring. What does the concept "community" mean? Sociologists continue to have difficulty defining community and, despite the importance of community studies, a number of potentially relevant theoretical issues have not been adequately addressed. Specifically, how is it possible that senses of community can be sustained by individuals if the mater- ial bases for the community are minimal? What are the experiential or phenomenological components of community that exist even in the absence of geographical or institutional boundaries? A working def- inition of community as a process which is invoked in particular situations and leads to certain emotional definitions about a par- ticular place will be defended as the most powerful in explaining the setting of interest, here called 2. Z is lacking many attributes of communities discussed in the l literati're, s, bursaries, a ttetseives pg r" 16" . 'v'pcc.ies 126 In Q1 II:EV:¢. -u>,_‘ TC; \ amp, :JItj literature, such as integrated local institutions (though voluntary organizations remain strong community institutions in 2), consistent boundaries, and a centralized political unit. People who consider themselves part of the 2 community may live on either side of a state line, have several different mailing addresses, and be serviced by different telephone exchanges. The center, a village, meets very few of the educational, service, or marketing needs of the residents. Thus the setting of Z raises many issues about the conmunity process not previously considered and facilitated the discovery of perceptions and situations as important elements of community. These elements are hypothesized to be active in other communities. In order to explain Z as a community, an extensive review of the literature on communities was undertaken only to reveal the conceptual ambiguity and the difficulty in defining community. In order to clar- ify the concept of community, sub-categories of the concept were de- veloped and organized under four major sociological theories: func- tionalism, human ecology, conflict, and phenomenology. These theories are presented in Chapter II. It is argued that the phenomenological approach is most appropriate to the setting and incorporates aspects of community that have been previously overlooked. The argument of ChapterfiIIIis that field methods were most appropriate for examining the phenomenology of community. In order to understand and analyze how people perceive the community and build meanings of community in interactions, it was necessary to know the people directly and have first-hand experience in the community it- self. In Chapter IV, the temporal and spatial dimensions of Z are discussed through an examination of physical, demographic and historical iata. Chaser ISII: that a re autsi ers and -‘ data. Chapter V focuses on participatory and historical character- istics that are used to differentiate between the core families and outsiders and marginals. The characteristics examined in Chapter V are further developed in Chapter VI which examines individuals' perceptions and experience of the Z community. The cognitive processes revealed in the way people draw maps of Z, the way they shop, and the way they talk about Z are analyzed. Finally, the situational dimensions are discussed using the concepts of opposing, helping, and sociability, the major behavioral situations in which community is activated. To reiterate, the goal of this dissertation is to theoretically clarify and empirically examine phenomenological components of commun— ity. The major argument is that individual residents have different senses of community which have been influenced by history, territory, and community institutions. In addition, the 2 community is a series of dramas played out in certain situations (namely, helping, opposing, and sociability) which residents label as symbolic of community. The thesis analyzes how perceptions and situations are relevant to the creation and maintenance of community. CHAPTER II THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO COMMUNITY ‘ This chapter shows the advantages of using a social construc- tionist perspective to analyze Z in light of criticisms and inade- quacies of a structural-functional approach, an ecological approach such as the Chicago school, and conflict approaches. These approaches are called "paradigms" as analogous to the original sense of that word which is a grammatical model comparing verb and noun forms across different types of conjugations and declensions. Thus each theory of community has a different analogy, emphasizes different concepts, sees the genesis, location and process of community differently and employs divergent methodology for analysis just as Latin noun forms have different case endings. The utility of the paradigms is heur- istic--to reveal conceptual dimensions of community which are less evident in collecting lists of definitions (e.g. Hillery, l955). Four paradigms and their boundaries are arbitrarily considered. For ex- ample, the participant observations studies by the Chicago school are excluded from human ecology, and radical and conservative approaches are combined in the conflict section. In reality, community studies are not such clear-cut divisions, but the divisions are emphasized here to bring out salient dimensions of the concept of community for different paradigms. This allows a clarification of the concept so that it may be seen which elements are relevant to a particular setting. 4 As a re: mity are pri— €.E'+3".S er: ‘3 eTe'e'its fer .~ U e'esis of c:~ by ‘ . LQ IFYEStTCE‘ First .. \p k. w l r I ‘~' 'elitln: ., U U h- ”! CFESPh‘ira ‘W CH“ 5" '0 . 4.1“!“ tre:lr]es * n.“ J P' H.715). ks has As a means of reviewing the literature, four paradigms of com- munity are presented in Table l-l to make salient their particular elements and emphases of research. Each paradigm has a number of elements for dealing with community. These include metaphor, concepts, genesis of community, the location of community, the process of com- munity, and methodology. These provide separate frameworks that guide * the investigation of community. Functionalism First the functionalist approach to community will be discussed by relating the parts as delineated in the paradigm, Table l-l and by presenting criticisms of this approach. In subsequent sections on other theories, functionalism will be compared to human ecology, con- flict, and social constructionist approaches. Functionalism has dom- inated sociology (for example, Parsons, l95l; Merton, l968) and so it is not surprising that most community studies are functionalist. Many community studies are not explicit about theory; concepts and defini- tions are assumed rather than overtly discussed. On the other hand are text books and theories of community (for example, Bernard, 1973; Bell and Newby, l97l; Stein, l964; Warren, l966) relating several com- munity studies. The majority of both of these use a functionalist approach and organize the data on the community around the institutions and ranking systems of a particular community. Structural-functional- ism was originally used by anthropologists for studying small, isolated communities of tribes or peasants. This perspective was brought to * This approach of organizing themes of research into conceptual frameworks has been inspired by Nanette Davis' work on deviance T975). t. m.) . CI< )gu . 22.5.2...» 2‘ r s :Cibr, ~CQ. u wizzsih k C a u 2.2:.v5u Us u pktscmx.» CL 1.x (.35.: K .N mus sz mampmxm mewxceg peeLewwwe we mceweeee Lezee mesegm xuweessee cwmuewee teen mxwwuceew mme>wem new mcewuapwumcw ocean cewpweoe ea Empmxm ecech seumxm tawny mum—e eweeee 3e: .mmmmmpe cw wecuceu -Eeo we ee>mwgo< m>es ea xgemmeeez mcwxcem we zmweeoe we mmexu an mcewpue eerwmzuw tee; we coweeewwwexu mmewee xuwcze peeeceweecz mcewp case; we mewgm -Eee we :ewue>gem tezuwm Lewsowugee cw Peewuwwee use ewEe teewpeweg Pewumem twee Lew emuewo eeumeco eeceewwwcmwm teeem magogecew: e» eeueeeEeee< -eucw z_wgemmeoez mcewuapwumcw Au =eeeeeeuewms cewpeapwm new: acmecaee= ”mm:_e> emcese xes mem>weugee weewuwwea weewmxce >2 eecwEwepmo mmwgeeczem Am mace; ce>wm e cwspwz mucwee mowege mesmewmew ceEEee memes ecu mace we mezwm> mmcewpem we mmeeeee emcmzm mapweeeseo eepwez ecepeacum tempew meow e» meow cw amewemew mew .mmce>we “geeseecw> .ceee eeegme e>wwesge= emuewueme: xwucmumeeu tuewpwcee .Peguceu .:m e» emceemeg < see mewcecetge>o ecu meawe> A< mueeeeeu .HH mwmeweexm Emumxm “we: eeeecmu Peewmzse eu emceem we mecmcepcwea mange meweeee >e mums tewes meczemec tee ”mmwuwc255ee “we>w>gzm Lew xgem .mcwuemge .mcwewwem e newseeeem weewee new peep; tweee: Hewsmwcemgo mcesemumz .H pmweewueegumceu peweem pewpwceu zmepeem ease: Emwwecewaecsw mwmzwec< xpwczeeeo cw mweezem weewumgeezw we muemEm—m ewumsmwemgea some: F.N epemw ! i . f -l .IIII I ll.. lll‘ii‘l. .il Ill:|l.l|lllltl l 9 t! I‘I"-Illcllt' uwwccwuuzLavccu .cqum up... pwtcu x30~oug 25:2: Ev..— ~MZOquC‘ek .O'o..l lo... 1.50. ......... .u. IIIII .I(IOOIIUDIOO.7|.OIPV.VII.UIE.IIm mcewpeeew woewnge we» “seem news we meepm e mmcewueeecee .mewe -eme mmcweeee e>wuweoeu meow“ -emcmuew ece mcewu -mzpwm m.wa=ew>wecu wow::EEee empeewe we eewpeewwe> ecu eewpeeweeeseu geommge came mcw>ez mmgepee xe mewcmee we cewuozgpmceoem xawcss -Eee we :ewueagumeee cw new: ecm em>weegee mcemcme .eeewe .eewu ce—zewp twee we mmeceumseegwo weepeegamewwcw sewage PQUw upwwee we eewueELeu pewwwcee ”memmewe emezpee ”mmmw -LmZee\w:wLmzea eegew newcwEqume < mmegeemew we :ewp neoewwe weep—ecu -eee we on meg< :ewpese teen we meewpewee ”mewxeeteewmweeo Agnew: awweemev ace» twcceu weewmxge mmeeege ezegm mzwe xseegmeEmo me—exu mgzueegum Feweem mecweceaeo mezwe> .mELec .mwwew me mcewuspwmcw cw zewzcwe -eee .Leege ”menu -eegum m>wuesgez zuwc355ee on» we mcwcewueeaw mg» op mpeewcpcee page mcceupme mwem cewpawe>m =mum_a <= xuwessseu we cewueeeu .>H xuwcseseu we mwmecmw .HHH mcewpeegeucw A: scoemwz Aw xgeuwgcew Au cowemaewm Am pmweewueacumceu Feweem eewwwcoe ameweem ease: Emwweeewuecaw Aeoacwpcoev ~.N w—ne» N“ u .v. wCC—u UDLu mCCU —tw 93¢. i. , .L nnnnnnn xccwbuu :tEt: Sew ~cttwwttzt xuwcae -Eee we weesuemce use meewpeewwwexe .meeee twewpcee pesgpmceoem Amew newe; .cewperweweem mewmeeeev mcwmce>eee .ocwzwwexp .mcwewwee .cewuwemee weeew>we:H cewuwmeeEee mmewe .mewmze; .eEeeew ”memo .muewww teee ewees we :ewp teacumceeec .mpeme teeee weewceumw: emcege mmwm tesuczm .mwmezp -wucm .mwmech some cwcpwz muwumw -Leuemcmge :ewpewa teen ece auwe we mmeeN mewecepeo cow“ -eeeEeeee .cewm -mmmeoem .eewuwu teeeee we mewexu Legummep em meewuauwumew epecgm teesee “me=_e> pmwe sew; newwwzee egezew smo_oao;emz .H> 5., -cseaeu we mew tsmcxo\mmeeega .> pmweewpesgumceu woweem Sewwwcoe ameweem amazz Emwweeewueczw Remacwecoev P.N open» c; ":1 . 9- (b I a ll. " l63t (I ‘ LO the ‘ DattErr 9 United States communities by the Lynds (1929, 1937), Warner (1941), West (l945), and others. The work of a functionalist may be defined as relating the parts to the whole with the theoretical orientation that "all major social patterns operate to maintain the integration or adaptation of the larger social system" (Cancian, 1968: 29). For example, Warner de- fines a community as a "working whole in which each part had definite functions which had to be performed or substitutes acquired if the whole society were to maintain itself” (l94l: 12). Metaphor. Metaphors are symbolic summaries of the image a so- cial scientist has in mind when thinking about community. The anal- ogy with which functionalists envision a community is that of a living organism. The parts of a community are different just as the liver and heart are different, yet they interact to keep the organism alive; so the institutions of a community are integrated to maintain the community and keep it alive with special sustaining, distributive, and regulating systems. The biological metaphor is also taken from Darwinism in seeing societies evolve and grow toward greater differ- entiation and adaptation. Sorokin (1928) analyzes bio-organismic theories in sociology and summarizes Spencer in the following way: He indicates that the social and the biological organisms are similar in the following important respects: both have phen- omena of growth; in the process of growth both exhibit differ- entiation in structure and functions; in both there exists an interdependence of their parts; both are composed of units (cells and individuals); destruction of an organism or of a society does not always mean the destruction of the units of which they are composed; both have a special sustaining (ali- mentary) system, a special distributive system (vascular and circulatory system in an organism and arteries of commerce in a society) and a special regulating system (nervous system in an erganism and governmental systems in a society) (1928: 202 . raw f5?“ 10 Concepts. Values and normative structures, institutions and ranking systems are the most important concepts for a structural- functionalist who studies communities. A functionalist sees a com- munity as goal-oriented toward the values of a society which are reached by means of the normative structure. Value§_are conceptions of the desireable and criteria for judgment, action, and choice, whereas germs are rules of conduct. Values are more general than norms and not as dependent on specific situations. Values, as stand— ards for establishing what should be regarded as desireable, provide the grounds for accepting or rejecting norms (R. Williams, 1968: 283). The values are over-arching and hold people together in a community. For example, in Middletown, the main value is making money and people do this through jobs, the norm. Institutions are sub-parts of a society which function to meet collective needs. The parts of a community, which are generally in- stitutions such as governmental, economic, religious, educational, occupational, are integrated, the parts fit together. Institutions are defined by Hughes in two different ways: The term may be applied to features of particular societies which have outlasted many biological generations and have sur- vived many catastrophes and changes, as to the festivals of the turning of the seasons, known to us as Easter and Christmas. Institutions thus last and last and outlast. On the other hand, institutions may be considered as universal and timeless, spring- ing up wherever humans live in communities: kinship and marriage, control over production and distribution of goods and services, performance of sacred rites, regulation of conflict, provision of sanctions for the breaking of rules, and assignment of per- sons by sex, age, or other characteristics to categories which define duties and privileges toward others. Institutions in this sense, since they sprin up anew in various forms, are generic rather than historical ?1969: 125). Functionalists consider both these kinds of definitions for institutions .‘d an- 1', 11 in a community--as patterns which last beyond particular individuals and as normative agencies to meet group needs. Hughes points out that sociologists are more interested in how institutions are estab- lished and maintained than in how they are defined. The Lynds (1924) drawing on social anthropology set the pattern for studying communi- ties in terms of institutions by organizing their material under: getting a living, making a home, training the young, using leisure, engaging in religious practices, and enjoying in community activities. Functionalists (e.g. Davis and Moore, 1945) see ranking systems as necessary since they are found in all societies. According to the functionalist perspective, ranking systems provide rewards of prestige, income, education, and other values of society to recruit and maintain people in the jobs that are most necessary for society. They assume social inequality is universal and necessary and that because of a prob- lem of motivating people to important tasks, reward systems are estab- lished. Warner's main project was to delineate the different ranks in Yankee City as determined by what people have and how others value them. Values and norms, institutions and ranking systems are all dir- ected toward the survival of the community, preventing it from "dying." History is seen in terms of evolution, adjustment and adaptation of the organism as the community moves toward some modern, more complex end. Like a living organism, a community may grow and exhibit differ- entiation in structure and function. Many theories of community dis- cuss implications of these changes as losses of intimate, communal ties (e.g. Stein, 1964; Redfield, 1941). The organism analogy also implies a membrane, holding the organs in and therefore some kind of boundary, generally determined by the TIRES IUT O ; of a system The 35“” of sag‘l' tuiticrs‘ télh CC'[ or icvf': are ta 2% stem: :5: h ,' ‘ Jetwance .2051: lrteratti ist, ray be 59.. ME to the c; DFHBI for fj t le'erence is r 12 values for a community. Boundary maintenance expresses the autonomy of a system. The definition of a system as boundary-maintaining is a way of saying that, relative to its environment, that is to fluc— tuations in the factors of the environment, it maintains cer- tain constancies of pattern, whether this constancy be static or moving . . . From a certain point of view these processes are to be defined as the processes of maintenance of the con- stant patterns (Parsons, 1951: 482). Deviance functions in providing the bounds of normality. In fact, boundary is rarely mentioned and the communities are studied within the legal city limits (as in Yankee City, Middletown, and Elmstown). Interactions, although not centrally important to a functional- ist, may be seen as patterns organized into roles that in turn contri- bute to the continuance of the group. Any idea of territoriality is minimal for functionalists; a place or location is assumed and no reference is made to the situational aspects of interaction. Genesis. Functionalists are not much concerned with the orig- ins of communities, though the community itself may be seen as resid- ing in the abstractions of the normative structure and in institutions as roles, norms, and values, the location. Process. Though functionalism is primarily a static approach, it considers the process of a community as toward equilibrium. The cxnnnunity is a self-regulating, feedback system that brings deviants back in toward homeostasis. Methodology, Sociologists of a functionalist perspective have studied communities by living in the community for an extended time; they participate in events and talk to people, with the end of collec- ting as much data as possible. Warner's team even stopped pe0p1e passiru; through to get their impressions. Dean describes her methods 13 for comparing five communities: Much of our method was anthropological. That is, we spent as much time as we could just wandering about, soaking up the community atmosphere. We stayed in the principal hotel if there was one, read the local papers regularly, collected doc- uments from the Chamber of Commerce and drank in the hotel lounge (1967: 21). Warner ignores any written documents--histories, diaries, periodicals, statistical records--of Yankee City, but others who have studied other communities, use such materials, as for example, the Lynds did. The data are gathered with the end of understanding the whole of the commun- ity which is described in terms of its units, that is, institutions, and how these are integrated. The unstated purpose is usually to demonstrate social order and unity. For the most part, functionalists' work depends largely on the ability of the observer to consider functions performed by par- tial structures, correlations, integrations, and so on . . Social phenomena are viewed as if they are unfolding toward the achievement of definite ends (Davis, 1975: 91). The functionalist, then, in presenting the data on community, abstracts from it in order to give a picture of unified parts. Criticisms of Functionalism Functionalism may be criticized from a number of points-~its tautological reasoning, methodological problems, taking the organismic analogy too seriously, considering communities as isolated and yet representative of the entire society, failing to consider change, and failing to show how the community is socially constructed. First, functionalist reasoning is tautological; that is, saying parts of the community are necessary for its existence and proving it by the fact that the community is still existing, is circular: commun- ity + integrated institutions + community. It is a vacuous explanation. n .v «c V 1 “.u 14 Functionalism contains implicit assumptions of what is needed for survival without being definitive about what is necessary. A func- tionalist would have to list all the substitution possibilities and the conditions that could fulfill any particular function. It is also difficult to list all the values of a society which are rarely entirely agreed-upon. Functionalism has been cirticized for taking the organismic an- alogy too seriously, for example, by Sorokin: If we take off these analogies and the identification of soci- ety with an organism from these theories, there remains very little in them. Their originality and specific nature disap- pear; and through that, disappears the school itself (1928: 208). The analogy becomes problematic at times in deciding where one com- munity ends and another begins, or how a community is be be judged "sick" or "dying." The functionalist assumption of communities as isolated and autonomous does not usually hold, as Vidich and Bensman have demon- strated: Since the work of Vidich and Bensman it has been increasingly impossible to conceptualize communities as 'isolates,‘ for they showed that it was only possible to make sociological sense of what was going on in Springdale by viewing the community within the framework of large-scale bureaucratic mass society rather than as the polar opposite of urban society (Bell and Newby, 1971: 116 . Warren also distinguishes the vertical axes of community which relate such community institutions as the Catholic church, YMCA, and other similar organizations to national or international controls (1966). On theeother hand, communities are sometimes assumed to be represent- ative of the entire American society when in fact, no sampling pro- cedure was utilized, but rather, convenience of the place to the age ‘p Mufti-c ally 9.11 This reia 1' "C “h -21 exa’ b I e, CCudtly 91's pm {—9 U. H '1‘ ——- :3 . (I) '3 - 1 ('D (l’) L) __4 O) ‘1’ l l ,‘A vb ‘ U151 53" 0:11 511 “imer'g h“ A one Sponge “New. . "1u5C1 3311.51 ty HYD .' 8111 15 researcher determined the choice of a study site. Warner is especi- ally guilty of this and once claimed "all America is Jonesville." This relates to further problems of methodology. The field work technique for community studies is faulted (for example, by Bell and Newby, 1971; and Effrat, 1973) for being non- cumulative and unscientific because it is dependent on the research- er's personality and lacks replicability. In field research, much of the material gathered is impres- sionistic, difficult to quantify, and subject to filtering by the researcher's own predilections before the perceived data are recorded; different researchers also organize their mater- ial differently, focus on different issues, etc. Moreover, each researcher's personality, sex, ethnicity, social class, etc., give that person more access to some segments of the pop- ulation than to others, and make some pieces of information or some interpretations seem more believable to him or her than others (Effrat, 1973: 13). Another aspect related to the methodology are the imprecise def- initions and the assumption of community. The functional definitions are loose so that almost anything could be defined as maintaining the system. For example, Mills criticizes Warner's definition of class: "Warner's insistence upon merely one vertical dimension led to the consequent absorbing of three analytically separable dimensions into one sponge word, 'class'" (1963: 41). This leaves many confusions and inadequacies in Warner's analysis of community. Effrat points out that comnmnity is often pre-defined rather than being subject to empirical investigation: By not leaving "communityness" itself completely open to in- vestigation, researchers make it difficult to ever completely characterize the fundamental components of a community, and hence to clearly tell a community from a noncommunity, other than on the basis of size (1974: 14). She suggests community being seen as an ordinal, multidimensional variat. #1 SUEr h. tufiarg actiors 16 variable so that one may speak of degrees of "communityness.” Another criticism is that functionalism does not adequately deal with change. Change is seen as something wrong with the system which must be brought back into line. Functionalists ignore contra- dictions and conflicts. As such, functionalism has a conservative bias, tending to support the status guo. Finally, the functionalist approach to community fails to con- sider how consensus on values and norms is negotiated and how insti- tutions and senses of community are constructed in the symbols and actions of everyday life. Systems goals are conceived of as unitary processes, but gen- eralizations about goals in an abstract, post hoc fashion ig- nore the process by which specific organizational goals are created, struggled over, and negotiated (Davis, 1975: 91). The anthropologist Buraway in a recent book review points out that "for Parsons, value consensus is somehow given and primordial" (1977: 16). In considering a macro-level integration, the functional- ist approach is holistic and abstract, and often lacks grounding in concrete situations. It does not say much about ordinary people in everyday life where few interactions are based on internalized norms. While most critics agree that internalization of the sort en- visioned by structural theorists does occur, they also note that relatively little routine interaction appears to be guided by deeply internalized norm sets . . . The vast bulk of everyday life is experienced as open and negotiable (Stokes and Hewitt, 1976: 840). Functionalism does not deal with Openness and negotiability in commun- ity and ignores the common individual. 17 Application to Z One of the characteristics of Z is its disintegration and loss of local institutions. While it was once a commercial center that bought and sold to the people of the community, it also provided ed- ucational, religious, and recreational facilities, all of which have decreased. A single governmental and political unit is lacking, children go to several different school districts and this year the church has decided to relocate. More and more people are going else- where for jobs, as fewer people work a greater proportion of the land. To do a community study like Middletown or Yankee City_is impossible in 2 because such a community does not exist there. To use an approach which shows an integration of institutions is not appropriate in a setting lacking in local institutions. This lack of application to Z, coupled with the other criticisms of functionalism lead to my rejec- tion of this approach as a major orienting device for understanding Z. However, certain points do seem valid as all societies do have ranking systems and have institutionalized patterns of behavior. Hence, the concept of institutions as drawn from functionalism will be used in considering certain strong institutions in Z--marriage, family, and voluntary associations-~but the emphasis will be on the social construction of community since this process is more visible due to the lack of formal structures of community such as those func- tionalists consider (governmental, educational, economic, commercial). It is hypothesized that social construction processes are present also in places like Yankee City and Middletown. 7'? 1.1. ' l I! .. 1, 18 Human Ecology Human ecology is the study of the adaptation of human groups to their environment (Hawley, 1950). McKenzie defines human ecology with slightly different words: "the spatial and temporal relations of human beings, affected by the selective, distributive and accomodative forces of the environment" (1924: 63), while Loomis says ecology is the "specification of the space dimensions of pluralities” (1967: 657). These definitions share seeing humans as populations organized and re- lated to other human beings spatially and environmentally. Human ecologists are primarily concerned with the effect of time and space on human aggregates. They view the environment as the primary deter- minator of human behavior and of the nature of groupings. This approach to human communities emerged at the University of Chicago during 1910 to 1920 with the attempt to explore the urban settlements and commun- ities which developed in a period of rapid industrialization. The traditional human ecology school is perhaps best represented by Robert Park, Ernest Burgess, Roderick McKenzie, and Harvey Zorbaugh who in their research explored the spatial structure of the city. The concept of the "natural area" (Park, Zorbaugh) as the basis for community in a territorial sense was also the underlying assumption for the human ecologists' view of the community in a moral sense. In the latter sense the community was seen as based on primordial solidarity; that is, the existence of ties among "natural" categories based on such characteristics as race and ethnicity. In the following discussion, some of the central concepts in human ecology will be examined by delineating the elements of the paradigm found in Table 1.1 and comparing the human ecology approach huu .dr. U If“. 19 with functionalism. Metaphor. Like functionalists, the metaphor for human ecolo- gists is biological, but instead of comparing the community with a single organism, the analogy is with a group of organisms, plants and animals in an ecological system. Park calls the analogy “the web of life in which all living organisms, plants and animals alike, are bound together in a vast system of interlinked and interdependent lives" (1952: 145). Park defines community as having the following dimensions: a collection of people occupying a more or less clearly defined area . . . the community will always have a center and a cir- cumference, defining the position of each single community to every other. Within the area so defined, the local populations and the local institutions will tend to group themselves in some characteristic pattern, dependent upon geography, lines of communication, and land values (1952: 66). A human community is viewed as a natural phenomenon in a changing urban landscape. Park Speaks of areas of population segregation in cities as "natural areas" such as slums, ghettoes, ethnic neighbor- hoods. They are natural because they are spontaneous and unplanned with a natural history of growth and decay. This aspect of the met- aphor is identical to the organismic analogy of functionalism (1952: 79). Concepts. Actually the main concepts and contribution of the human ecology school is in the processes of competition, invasion, succession; human ecologists show that community is not a static ent- ‘ity, but ever-changing with new populations. These will be discussed under-the process section. As Table 1.1 indicates the main concepts for ecologists are territory and boundaries, physical outlines that are either natural or human-made. Whereas boundaries are determined lb. by 13749 as lakes portaht. ha: 11‘: 'i hm» 20 by values for functionalists, for ecologists physical boundaries such as lakes, railroads, manufacturing plants and other land use are im- portant. Somewhat closer to the functionalist view, is the notion that the dominant area of the city, the central business district, de- termines the spatial arrangements of the surrounding areas (Hawley, 1968: 334). Thus, the physical attributes (such as land, space use, distribution of different types of people), determine the community, although some ecologists with a functionalist affinity such as Hawley see less concrete boundaries as a result of dominant influence. Within a "community," such as the city, physical factors serve to attract or to repel populations and utilities, to condition and partly to determine land values, and to impede or to facil- itate movements of the various elements, thus influencing their disposition and their relationship to each other. In this way they make up the framework, the pattern, of the city (Alihan, 1938: 55). The territory, the physical-spatial aspect of community, is central to ecologists because it is the territorial basis for an emerg- ing social structure. Ecologists are less abstract than functionalists in that the former explicitly take into account the concrete spatial aspects of community. People are studied in aggregate units within the physical, spatial entity and population and demographic data are supporting evidence for the theory. Typical ecologists present maps of urban areas in order to relate types of social behavior in neigh— borhoods to a specific ecology. For example, Cavan (1928), Reckless (1926) and Dunham (1937) show distribution rates of such things as suicide, crime, and psychoses in different parts of Chicago. Another example is Burgess's concentric circle theory of Chicago which de- scribed the "zone in transition" as the slum because of its close position to the center of the city. Burgess} the structure‘ hch of these with each Sufi; Ivar)! C: This re; IO'nBY‘G ‘_ and ind, iness er the tent, sane tice attrac+4a 51‘ vaed fr: Eurgess distir~ fired 0f Irangfl Ives. "They ( A». . .N'ldal‘les “+111" A LUFS 0r Idnd V: e“ have cancer 1:39, thos (I 21 Burgess's contribution to human ecology is the delineation of the structure of cities which he conceived in concentric circles. Each of these circles contain "natural areas" which are repatterned with each succeeding wave of growth. Every community as it grows expands outward from its center. This radical extension from the downtown business district toward the outskirts of the city is due partly to business and industrial pressure and partly to residential pull. Bus- iness and light manufacturing, as they develop, push out from the center of the city and encroach upon residence. At the same time, families are always responding to the appeal of more attractive residential districts, further and even further re- moved from the center of the city (Burgess, 1925: 50). Burgess distinguishes five distinct zones: central business district, area of transition, workingmen's homes, residential, and commuter zones. "They (zones) are assumed to have centers and rims and the boundaries which frame them are either physical and geographical fac- tors or land values" (Alihan, 1938: 145). Chicago school ethnograph- ers have concentrated on the zone in transition by studying, for ex— ample, hobos (Anderson, 1923), ghettos (Wirth, 1928) and the taxi dance hall (Cressey, 1932). Although the concepts institutions and values are not as em- phasized by human ecologists as they are among functionalists, there is some consideration of these. Some degree of consensus in values is assumed to exist, although this is because of shared residential territory and a common response to the environment. Similarly, in- stitutions are accomodations to spatial relationships of human beings. Every social movement may be described as a potential insti- tution. And every institution may in turn be described as a movement that was once active and eruptive, like a volcano, but has since settled down to something like routine activity. It has, to change the metaphor, defined its aims, found its place, and function in the social complex, achieved an organization, and, presumably, provided itself with a corps of functionaries U16 5 tion 01‘ 19 Elite 15 ta ”‘6 do; 22 to carry on its program. It becomes an institution finally when the community and the public it seeks to serve accept it, know what to expect of it, and adjust to it as a going concern. An institution may be regarded as financially established when the community and the public in which and for which it exists claim as a right the services to which they have become accustomed (Park, 1952: 245). Definitions of institutions and values by human ecologists are virtu- ally non-existant. However, the discussion quoted from Park above illustrates the process orientation; human ecologists consider insti- tutions and values as changing with the different waves of invasion and succession. Park does suggest institutions are necessary to community; the reason why there is no sense of community in the zone in transition is because there are no local institutions. Ranking_systems invoke the human ecologists' concept of domin- ance. Ranking systems refer to one's location in the city with the dominant or fittest group obtaining the best position. Instead of seeing ranking systems abstractly as reward systems necessary for the system, ecologists such as Park see them as a result of competi- tion of aggregates. Different parts of a city or community are more or less desireable and through competition, certain groups get the more desireable parts. These groups are called dominant. The process is taken from an analogy with the survival of the fittest from Dar- winian evolution which suggests a process of ferreting out and ranking with the dominant species analogous to the dominant class or group in social terms. Thus the principle of dominance, operating within the limits imposed by the terrain and other natural features of the loca- tion, tends to determine the general ecological patterns of the city and the functional relation of each of the different areas of the city to all others (Park, 1952: 152). The dominant species is related to the environment in such a way that it is at cessior: mm; in iErT tion t: CESSES 23 it is able to control and maintain the community (until a new suc- cession) (Hawley, 1968: 329). Rather than seeing history as goal-directed, like an upward- moving line, as the functionalists see it, the ecologists see history in terms of cycles, repeating competition, succession, and accomoda- tion to a particular physical place (cf. process section). The pro- cesses appear as impersonal or "subsocial" forces. In discussing human ecology, I have emphasized only the ecolog- ical side of the Chicago school and of Park who in fact closely ex- amined interactions and situations, for example, in considering def- erence and demeanor in race relations (1950). The process notion implies interaction, but strict ecologist interactions tend to be described in terms of groups and aggregates. Specific situations are only touched on taking the ecological side of Park. Human ecology has been narrowed to exclude Park's students who studied parts of Chicago (such as Cressey, 1932; Shaw, 1966) because although these were closer to the phenomenological approach advocated here by considering situations and perceptions, they contain less information about com- munity. The emphasis is on deviance and very minimally on community. Genesis of community. The genesis of the community for ecolo- gists is in demography plus group processes for ecologists rather than in the normative structure and order and continuity as it is for functionalists. Ecologists require a concentration of people in order for a community to exist. Locatjpn of community. Ecologists view the community as located in the physical territory whereas functionalists believe institutions are of prime importance. Ecologists consider how natural features I'll 1‘1 24 such as rivers and mountains as well as human-made spatial dimensions like roads, railways and specialized land use influence the location of people and the nature of the community. Processes of community, The dynamics of communities for ecol- ogists is found in the cycles of competition, invasion and succession. The cycles are thought of as initiated in a "catastrophic" manner, so that change takes place, not as a continuous, uninterrupted process, but rather as spasmodic upsets of the existing equilibrated pattern (Alihan, 1938: 139). McKenzie distinguishes five ecological processes: concentration, centralization, segregation, invasion, and succession. Succession is the main process and defined by McKenzie as a process of group displacement (1925). Succession has several parts. First, invasion, a new group enters an occupied space, usually a transitional area. Then there is competition for land and services accompanied by the processes of centralization and segregation. The early stages are usually marked by keeness of competition which frequently manifests itself in outward clashes. Busi- ness failures are common in such areas and the rules of compe- tition are violated. As the process continues, competition forces associational groupings. Utilities making similar or complementary demands of the area tend to group in close prox- imity to one another, giveing rise to subformations with def- inite service functions (McKenzie, 1925: 76). Competition is the struggle for existence, as Park and Burgess claim, it is "the process through which the distribution and ecological or- ganization of society is created" (1924: 508). Human ecologists emphasize competition as an unconscious ferce resulting in a plural- istic notion of power rather than conflict which is a zero sum game. In the final stage a new group is dominant in the particular place and an equilibrium is maintained until a new invasion. While func- tionalists minimize change, change is important to ecologists, though 25 when the competition is over and succession has taken place, a temp- orary equilibrium may occur. Methodology. Human ecologists (excluding the participant ob- servations studies in Chicago) rely on statistical data, primarily using the census and other data collected through survey techniques. They also delineate zones of a city, as Burgess did, or of a county as Galpin (1915) did. The latter used the method of asking shop keepers, bankers and the like to indicate on maps the extent of their service area. The end result is a model relating population variables with spatial arrangements. Criticisms of Human Ecolqu Wilhelm's (1964) critique of the human ecology approach focuses on three aspects: fallacious or inadequate explanations; mixed order of data; and problems with aggregate data. I shall summarize his critique, including agreement by other authors. 1. Explanations. Wilhelm accuses ecologists of tautological reasoning. "After positing data relevant only to the ecological com- plex as 'analytically distinguishable elements,‘ neoclassical mater- ialists then proceed to explain their ecological data by the identical 'ecological complex'" (1964: 140). Ecologists take a severely limited definition of problems and data allowing for very little of the social or pSychological aspects of such things as social organization to be considered relevant. Thus by radical limitation of the problem, they're able to obtain very high inter-correlations among variables. Ecolo- gists (such as Hawley and Duncan) show an inter-relationship among population, social organization, environment and technology and then 61. t1 an,~ of. 26 explain the relationship by this same complex of variables. However, this tells us nothing about other variables that might bear on these same matters. In the same vein, Bell and Newby (1971) argue that the location of a community in a certain zone of the city does not provide a suf- ficient explanation of its existence: Common location in the physical structure of a community may be a starting place for an investigation, though few modern sociologists would now treat this factor as a sole, or at least as a very important independent variable, or for that matter as an independent variable at all (1971: 94). Bell and Newby also blame the human ecologists of the Chicago school for generalizations; that is, assuming that all cities are like Chi- cago without having taken a statistical random sampling. Using the physical, ecological complex and the subsocial forces as the explaining variables are not sufficient to understand land use patterns as Firey (1945) found in his study of urban differentia- tion in Boston. There, sentiments and symbols and conscious choice by individuals determined land use in certain parts of the city. Bell and Newby also note the lack of consideration of individual choice by ecologists: "The Chicago school in general fails to take account of the general tendency in industrial societies toward individuation and the extent to which people positively choose city life for what it can offer" (1971: 100). The political struggle over land use is also ignored. In studying Lansing, Form (1954) points out the need to consider social structures in addition to spatial and cultural factors determin- ing land use. In urban zoning, powerful groups--government, realtors, big business-~determine zoning patterns. "A brief survey of . . . ursan zonir the traditi lard use C“ 513F365! PC-‘w Ur93.061 dis: .llhar hw- ”tan 9:013. FEW contra~ War .1 I ECOIO: f James 91 us 27 urban zoning points to the greater adequacy of the sociological over the traditional ecological analysis for understanding and predicting land use changes" (1954: 137). Human ecologists (such as McKenzie) assume that the concept of dominance explains land use, but it does not provide an analysis of the relationship among organizations, the members of which negotiate land use. Pahl (1975) points out that the physical does not determine social behavior; urban renewal has not changed poverty. Rather, the physical and spatial is a result of the unequal distribution of power in society. Alihan (1938) carefully examines the definitions and logic of human ecologists both among themselves and individually and she finds "any contradictions and lack of clear distinctions. For example, human ecologists distinguish community and society, yet when Alihan compares and contrasts the usage of these concepts, the distinction becomes elusive. Like Sorokin's critique of functionalism, Alihan shows problems in taking the biotic analogy too seriously. For ex— ample, the logical conclusion of the waves of succession is that the most stable part of the city ought to be closest to the center since it dominates, yet that tends to be the most unstable area. The contrast between the chameleonic character of the concepts and the rigidity of the relation between them has inevitably resulted in a peculiar discrepancy between the descriptive and the interpretative phase of the theory of human ecology (1938: 247). The conceptual apparatus with the plant community analogy does not always fit smoothly with the empirical descriptions made by human ecologists. 2. Mixed data order. The second criticism Wilhelm levels ical tan.- helm apS-JE data ”I” than a COI- 95vernmente Far Milan 6 28 against ecologists is for mixing data of different orders. In this complex, we find the neoclassical materialists indis- criminately blending the non-material elements<><><><><>< X XX X ><><><>< XX XXX *3 grade schools, 3 high schools From this table we can see that places of sociability are not equally open; some are restricted to certain sexes and ages. The church, store, and town hall generally are open to all and can include whole families, though situations within anyone of these will often be sex segregated. Both men and women interact at work, bowling, and the 229 post office, although with the exception of the latter, there is generally a separation of women and men--separate areas of the work place for women and men and separate female and male bowling teams. Children have the least places of interaction, with them dominating at schools. Men have three exclusive places of interaction--the fire station, the Red Eye, a restaurant where some men meet for coffee regularly, and hunting trips. While women may go along on the latter, it is generally to take care of the cabin and cook rather than actually go hunting. Women's domains are homes where women's clubs, card parties, and the little visiting that remains (that is, stopping at another's home unannounced). Some exceptions to this are dinner parties which include couples, but women and men tend to sep- arate from one another and talk about different topics. The church sponsored a book discussion group which met in people's homes and was not sex segregated. Women generally hold reign over the tele- phone for sociability and will spend a long time talking to one an- other. When telephones first came to Z, everyone was on a party line and could learn much about the community by over-hearing phone con- versations. Today most people have private lines, but learning about the community by overhearing conversations is returning in the form of CB radios. In sum, as we have seen with helping and opposing, the lack of institutions forces people to find other ways of getting together and creating community. In this case, Z people have instituted meet- ings to end their isolation, yet they still must be wary of over- involvement. Women are more active in the organizations of the com- munity because they recognize the need for sociability whereas men 230 feel they must do their socializing under the disguise of "business." This leads to sex segregation in many places of sociability. Now that we have considered opposing, helping, and sociability vertically on the Table 7.1, I want to compare them horizontally on the different concepts. In this way we can see how social change may come about as one situation is transformed into another. History History is like an outer rim that surrounds all the concepts because each situation is located in a particular time frame. Time is one of the essential features of each situation and in the course of the situation, the part is often selectively used to legitimate the situation or to foster the union of different people in the sit- uation. People further their communal togetherness by reference to a shared past. In general, Z people may share a past of having suc- ceeded over outside influences, of having cooperated in work or given in time Of need, and of getting tOgether in sociable situations. His- tory, then, is the collective memory, but the extent to which history is relevant changes and can be contradicted. History helps create the present situation. Institutions The paradox of saying 2 lacks institutions and then talking about institutionalized situations, is solved by different definitions of institutions. Institutions in Z are residual aspects of other things and as such, are highly truncated, rather than integrated. In the 2 case, the structure as a determinate is less strong because the majority of interpersonal relations are not governed by institutions. 231 Z lacks institutions in the functionalist sense of, for example, hav- ing a unified school district or a strongly centralized commercial- governmental area. 2 does not have institutions in this sense, rather, 2 has repeated patterns of interaction that have become institutional- ized in the sense of reification, that is, people have objectified the patterns as something apart from themselves. If one asks people why they do something in a certain way--why, for example the Neighborly Club always has a "pot luck" and a "grab bag" at Christmas time, they will say because they have always had it. That is the way it is done. However, if pushed further, they will be able to point out that some ancestor or known person in the community actually started the tradi- tion. For example, one woman told me her uncle instituted the Oyster Stew dinner as part of the Farmer's Fair. People have primarily created the institutions of Voluntary Associations, but in the normal course of their day, they do not stop to think about it as their own creation; they are reified patterns of action. The voluntary associa- tions overlap with all three situations. They were created primarily for sociability, for people to meet each other and end their isola- tion. The clubs also help through community projects, but the trans- formation into helping situations is more because people have become friends. Their acquaintanceship may begin in the voluntary associa- tions, but the friendship extends so that in times of need, they help one another. Sociability, getting together in voluntary associations, also is a media institution for retaining knowledge about one another. This knowledge, depending on the particular circumstance, can lead to helping or opposing behavior. For example, announcements of pol- itical concerns or political rallies are made at association meetings, 232 which, for that moment, politicizes the gathering. The governmental institutions themselves, such as the monthly town board meetings, often appear as sociable gatherings. Many men attend them to talk with their friends and do not have a petition or announcement (that is, they have no "official" reason to be there). Most of the busi- ness is routine. However, the governmental agencies also become politicized with certain circumstances, usually involving "outsiders." Then the government may take the leadership, for example, in putting a referendum on the ballot over a subdivision trying to come into the area. Interactions Interactions are basically talk, conversations which link peo- ple in a communal way. The most neutral base is sociable, but as with voluntary associations, circumstances of accidents or outside intrusion can politicize the talk or activate a network for providing help. Interactions are less formal, less reified situations than institutions. Sociable talk can be messages of caring by asking about another's family, but depending on the state of the family, this has the potential of turning into helping acts. Likewise, sociable talk may turn into talk about "lake people“ and become political, fostering a further solidarity between the two interactants as being united against others. Ranking Systems Ranking systems are not so much a way the community is held to- gether, nor even a source of conflict, but rather, the way gender roles get worked out. Socially the sexes are segregated because of a sex 233 taboo and because of different primary interests. This spills over into helping activities which are different for women and men. Oppo- sition activities tend to obliterate the sex segments as people are equally united against outsiders, though if a leadership role is assumed, it is male. Boundaries The boundaries of all situations seem to range from isolation to intrusion. People choose to be sociable, they take a risk that the sociable will turn into helping or opposing. The greatest liabil- ity is that individual differences will become too apart and an inter- nal rift will arise. Since people usually cannot easily leave the community and there are no institutions to mediate an internal con- flict, these inter-personal disagreements become a heavy weight that never goes away. This may happen when a person goes too far in the other extreme and becomes too intrusive in anothers' privacy. PeOple must be careful about helping and are constantly trying to work out the boundaries of whether and how much they may help or be sociable. The boundaries of opposing are somewhat clearer in that one should avoid internal disputes and should rally against outsiders, though in any particular situation who is inside and who is outside is ne- gotiable. £12292. Places by themselves are neutral, but they become associated with certain situations by people's definitions of them. For example, the store would appear to be an economic institution, yet many people have turned it into a sociable place. Many public and private places 234 in Z are used for sociability, though not equally by all because of age and sex segregation. Any sociable place can become an opposing place through the politicization of talk. But the activity of mobil- izing for protests or whatever usually occurs in the town hall. Help- ing seems to occur in more private places. Conclusion The end of this discussion of Z in a way has been a return to the beginning. This dissertation started with two initially seeming contradictions: other communities studied and Z. Several sub-con- cepts of the central concept, community, were drawn from major soci- ological theories, but in criticizing these theories, it was repeat- edly shown that with the exception of the social construction theory, the theories were largely inapplicable to Z. The portrayal of Z it- self has been as an anomalie, a somewhat unusual case with contradic- tory districts and boundaries, lack of local institutions, and no strong class divisions. Yet in this chapter, I have analyzed what I call the major behavioral dimensions of community in terms of insti- tutions, boundaries, ranking systems. How did this resolution, this application of widely-used concepts of community to a negative case come about? Opposing, helping, and sociability are all situations and as such consist of single social acts rather than an over-arching, cons- tant coherence (as community is typically implied to be). Situation has been defined in terms of time, place and people perceived as sig- nificant for the creation of meaning (Manning, 1973: 205), in this case. the meaning of community. We can look at Opposing, helping, sociability, the most common situations in which the people of Z 235 create senses of community, in terms of the concepts that are import- ant to all communities. However, what is filled in the boxes that result with situations on the horizontal and concepts on the vertical are more unique for the particular 2 setting. Thus the ranking sys- tems for Z are more subtle, of sex and age differences and the bound- aries are not territorial but issues Of how much one can do for an- other; and only a few situations such as sociability have been insti- tutionalized into voluntary associations. We further see that the situations overlap processually as the conceptual emphasis in one situation is transformed into another situation. Even though situations are micro, fleeting, and unquantifiable, they still contain a certain structure, that is limits of possible behavior and repeated patterns. Thus, the original statement that Z lacks structure has been qualified to be that Z lacks integrated local institutions, it lacks permanent territoral boundaries with cycles of turn-over in group composition, and it lacks economic differences and class differences. What 2 does not lack are certain interactive, situational processes which very likely underlinetall communities; in this light, other community studies may be seen as deficient for not analyzing the social construction of senses of community in every- day situations. CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSION In this dissertation, I have attempted to combine an analysis of community studies with a case study of a single community. This combination raises some questions: How does one conceptualize "com- munity"? Particularly how does one conceptualize community when most of the conceptualizations used in the past do not work for.the case study of 2? How then is Z a community? 2 as a community is problem- atic because evaluated in terms of previous studies of communities, Z is a non-community. Communities that are marginal or not obviously defined by law have merited little attention. This dissertation has revealed that such communities are worthy of study and reveal many community processes. In analyzing the community studies, I do a number of things. First, I have abstracted the characteristics and elements of commun- ities from implications and definitions of community as found in com- munity studies. Second, I have organized these elements under four major sociological theories. Third, within each of the four theories I have arranged the characteristics of communities into concepts that make the elements of the major theories comparable across specific concepts. Fourth, I presented criticisms of these theories and add further criticisms because of their lack of application to Z. Fin- ally, I take the concepts from various theories that do help explain 236 237 this setting and analyze the setting accordingly. Each of these will be summarized. Many community studies were read in an attempt to find out what the sociological concept of community is and how it may be defined. The ways community is defined are numberless and contradictory such that a concise definition of community was impossible. However, considering these definitions according to the implied theories whence they came provided an organization for considering many characteristics of community as a concept: many presentations of community held functionalist implications, seeing it as an integration of institutions held together by shared values and norms; human ecol- ogy, a theory already developed specifically for communities as eco- systems had some other emphasis; conflict theory also contained rel- evant characteristics of community. The features of community based upon a social psychological theory or a social constructionist approach, were also considered. This analysis left only a set of concepts, or a list. Now there were four lists. However, I found I could organize the items on the lists into elements that were comparable across theories. I have called this organization "paradigms" as analogous to the original sense of that word which is a grammatical model comparing verb and noun forms across different types of conjugations and declensions. Thus each theory of community has a different analogy, emphasizes different concepts, sees the genesis, locatiOn, and process of com- munity slightly differently and employs divergent methodologies for analysis just as Latin noun forms have different case endings. My development of community paradigms makes it easier to compare 238 community studies. It also enables future students of communities to more easily draw out the important elements of the concept of com- munity in these theories. All of these theories have been criticized in the literature, but what was especially of interest here was how these theories and their concepts related to the setting of Z. 2 has a number of char— acteristics which combine into an unusual setting: Z is located in a rural area with a loosely joined center, juxtaposed to a tourist lake, which manifests few other boundaries. In addition, the Z com- munity straddles two states and is divided by several districts (school, mail, phone), none of which overlap. On the whole, function- alism, human ecology, and conflict theory were inadequate to explain Z as a community whereas social constructionism provided much of the analysis of Z. A major aim of this dissertation is to show how phenomenolog- ical sociology is applicable to analysis