A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS or PATTERNS OF SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS CHARACTERIZING FAMILIES IN FOLK-RURAL. RURAL, AND URBAN suscun‘uass IN ms SAME LOCALE OF MICHIGAN Thesis for tho Dear» of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Kamal Said SaIeh I966 I/IIII’I‘IIIIi/III/IIIIIII’I/IIIIIIII I’m-Hm fies _..’I.,."._;,J 323:1: University This is to certify that the thesis entitled fl C’mflara/vbc F744 /7r/‘1 a p fix/é‘unr gfi 5’an [eh/rmloff Klaracétm [Saunas In H/IK-flumj, 160—6 WI MM gaze/ram In 25‘ Qtlc Loot/e 0p ”/9454”. presented by (M W gm: has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for (24 Q degree inniziaéjy 0-169 -.-_ ——- .—._ ..——_____._-—_V__,-4__ ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PATTERNS OF SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS CHARACTERIZING FAMILIES IN FOLK-RURAL, RURAL, AND URBAN SUBCULTURES IN THE SAME LOCALE OF MICHIGAN by Kamal Said Saleh Community studies conducted of the folk and urban types indicate that the Redfield and'Wirth hypotheses have serious theoretical and empirical limitations. These studies suggest the existence of folk characteristics in urban settings and urban elements in folk cultures. The alternative proposed here is that a folk society may be considered as a part of a larger social unit, either a small community or a city. In this case, felk and urban are not polar concepts. Rather, they re- present integral parts of a socio-cultural unit. Fbllowing Foster's conceptualization. distinction between "folk cultures" and "folk socie— ties" was used to define types of subcultures and communities under conditions of non-geographical isolation. The purpose of this study was to compare the subcultures of middle-class Protestant families residing in three different communities in the same locale of Michigan. Two of these communities were rural and the sample chosen from them represents full-time farmers. One of these farming groups was thought to be characterized by'a "folk-like" sub- culture. These two groups of farmers were to be compared with a third group characterized by "non-folklike" subculture where individuals have nonfarm occupations. Specifically, this study investigates the degree of cultural contact of the Mennonites viewed as a homogeneous 2 Kamal Said Saleh group, and attempts to determine the effects of cultural isolation on their subculture and the relationships between members of the group. The "folk-rural" community of Mennonites was hypothesized as reflecting higher levels of cultural isolation on a series of objective measures as compared with the rural and urban groups. If the assumption of greater cultural isolation on the part of Mennonites is borne out, it should follow that they will exhibit the attributes of a folk subculture. Further, if the Mennonites were highly isolated and manifested a folk subculture, it should follow that members of the group will exhibit folk-like patterns of social relationships. These three general hy; potheses were operationalized, and a number of measures was used re- garding each of the relevant variables. Communities selected in this study were Newark and New Haven in Gratiot County, Bengal township, and St. Johns, Clinton County, Michi- gan. The criteria used in the selection of the cases were: (1) child- ren at the fburth grade level in elementary schools; (2) students at the junior and senior garde levels in high schools; (3) full-time farmers in both the "folk-rural" and "rural" communities; and (h) complete families. The total number of cases from each community was 48. The interview schedule was used, supplemented by observer as a participant. On a series of objective measures, it was found that the Menno- nites were not only culturally isolated but they also exhibited a high degree of homogeneity manifested in a unified body of shared beliefs, customs, and standardization of appearance. As a consequence of the high degree of cultural isolation, the Mennonites held lower educational aspirations than the control groups. Mennonites preferred farming and 3 Kamal Said Saleh the transmission of father's occupation to his sons. Housewife roles were the roles appropriate for girls. Furthermore, the Mennonites pre- ferred large families. The Mennonites also exhibited preference for staying in the local community; Mennonites exhibited high frequency in performing religious activities. Traditional traits of behavior in children were preferred by the Mennonites in contrast to the rural and urban groups preferring secular traits. It was found that Mennonites not only show respect for older persons and males, but also they tend to follow the views of older per- . sons and males on political, economic, and religious issues. The Men- nonites had a larger number of living relatives residing both inside and outside the local community than the control groups. Preference for face-to-face interaction was manifested in high frequency of visit— ing the relatives regardless of the distance of residence. The results indicate that the Mennonite kinship network was characterized by'a high degree of "connectedness" relative to the other research groups. The extended type was characteristic of the Mennonites. The modified ex» tended family was characteristics of the rural group where high frequency of interaction with relatives was maintained without much familial in- fluence exerted. The nuclear family type was found to be characteristic of the urban group. Relationships with relatives were maintained pri- marily through phone contact and little familial influence was indi- cated. It is concluded that under conditions of non-geographic isola— tion, non—self;sufficiency, and a.money economy, groups may consciously erect boundaries that effectively isolate them from contact with the 4 Kamal Said Saleh dominant culture. Three specific conclusions are indicated: (1) the rural and urban groups manifest greater secularization than the rural- folk group; (2) the least isolated and the most heterogeneous of the groups studied is the most individualized; and (3) the highly isolated group is organized according to principles of organization that are different from the less isolated and heterogeneous groups. That is, the non-isolated rural and urban groups do not necessarily exhibit cultural disorganization. A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PATTERNS OF SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS CHARACTERIZING FAMILIES IN FOLK-RURAL, RURAL, AND URBAN SUBCUL'IURES IN THE SAME LOCALE OF MICHIGAN By Kamal Said Saleh A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of SoCiology 1966 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his gratitude to The Government Of The United Arab Republic and to The Ministry Of Social Affairs for granuég me the study leave that contributed to the completion of this study. Sincere appreciation is due to the members of my guidance com- mittee for their constructive criticisms and suggestions. These members were Drs. J. Allan Beegle, Chairman, Jay Artis, James McKee, and Sheldon Lowry. The author is particularly indebted to Dr. J. Allan Beegle who contributed greatly to the organization and content of this research. Not only his ideas and suggestions, but also his time, patience, and encouragement which made it easy to carry on. Thanks is due to members of the sample whose cooperation made interviewing a delightful experience. Appreciation is extended to my colleagues for their constructive suggestions. Mrs. Nancy Mbore deserves special gratitude for typing the final copies of the manuscript. Lastly, special appreciation is expressed to my immediate family and relatives whose symbolic support and encouragement have largely contributed to the completion of this dissertation. The writer is forever grateful to his family who was deprived of his attention for three long years. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A CKNOWL MMEN TS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O i 1 LIST OF TABLfi . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O 0 iv Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction to the General Problem . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Specific Empirical Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 The Problem of the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Theoretical Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Thesis Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 II. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Procedures for Selecting the Communities . . . . . . 36 Selection of Samples . . ... z . . . . . . . . . . . . . #2 Research Instruments and Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . 51 The Interview Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Observation as a Participant . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5h Measures and Their Components . . . . . . . . . . 56 Methods Used in Analyzing Data and Testing Hypotheses . . 64 Summary of Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 I II 0 ANALYSIS OF REULTS O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 68 Comparative Analysis of Varying Degrees of Cultural Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7? Comparative Analysis of the Three Subcultures . . . . . . 80 Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Comparative Analysis of Patterns of Social Relationships 119 Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 summary Of Chapter 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O 141 IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1&3 Interpretation of the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1U3 Relevance of Findings to Sociological Theory . . . . . . 1H9 Implications of the Results for Future Research . . . . . 152 LIST OF REmeCE O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O 0 151+ APPmDICE O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 160 iii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. The social and economic characteristics of St. Johns, Clinton County, Michigan, 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2. Distribution of informants in the three community types, by sex ‘9 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c o 0 41+ 3. Distribution of informants in the three community types, by age 1 O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 [4'5 4. Distribution of informants in the three community types, by religious preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5. Distribution of parents in the three community types, by total annual gross income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 6. Distribution of informants in the three community types, by grade in school and highest grade completed by parents . 47 7. Distribution of parents in the three community types, by occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 8. Distribution of parents in the three community types, by number of children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 9. Distribution of parents by number of memberships in volun— tary organizations in the local community . . . . . . . . 7O 10. Distribution of parents by number of memberships in volun— tary organizations outside the local community . . . . . 71 11. Distribution of youth and parents (combined) in the three community types, by number of days spent in the last vacation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 12. Distribution of youth and parents (combined) in the three community types, by place where the last vacation was spent 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 73 13. Distribution of youth and parents (combined) in the three community types, by whether vacation was spent with family or relatives or not . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 14. Distribution of youth and parents (combined) in the three community types, by categories of persons sought for adVice O O O O O O I O O O O 0‘ O O O O O O O O O O O O O 75 iv Table 150 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27o 28. Page Distribution of youth and parents (combined) in the three community types, by monthly frequency of visiting with best friends residing outside the local community . . . . 76 Distribution of youth and parents (combined) in the three community types, by yearly frequency of visiting with best friends residing outside the local community . . . . 77 Existency (+) or absence (-) of specific cultural items in the three community types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Summary of acceptance (+) and rejection (-) of the hypoth- eses and sub—hypotheses dealing with the differences be- tween the folk-rural, rural, and urban community types regarding degree of cultural isolation . . . . . . . . . 79 Distribution of youth in the three community types, by value orientation to length of formal education . . . . . 81 Distribution of parents in the three community types, by value orientation to length of formal education for boys 82 Distribution of parents in the three community types, by value orientation to length of formal education for girls 83 Distribution of youth, parents, and parents' parents (com- bined) in the three community types, by consensus on desired length of formal education . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Distribution of parents in the three community types, by feelings toward having boys drop out of school . . . . . 85 Distribution of youth (boys) in the three community types, by occupational aspirations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Distribution of youth (boys) in the three community types, by value orientations to occupational involvement . . . . 87 Distribution of fathers in the three community types, by occupational aspirations when youths . . . . . . . . . . 89 Distribution of fathers in the three community types, by value orientations to occupational involvement when youths O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 89 Distribution of youth, parents, and parents' parents (com- bined) in the three community types, by consensus on preference for occupational involvement for boys . . . . 90 V Table Page 29. Distribution of parents and mothers' mothers (combined) in the three community types, by consensus on pref- erence for housewife roles for girls . . . . . . . . . . 91 30. Distribution of youth (boys and girls) in the three com- munity types, by value orientation to in—community preference in mate selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 31. Distribution of parents and their parents in the three community types, by actual residence of mate . . . . . . 94 32. Distribution of youth, parents, and parents' parents (com- bined) in the three community types, by consensus on in— community preference in mate selection . . . . . . . . . 95 33. Distribution of youth in the three community types, by value orientation to the ideal number of children in a fa-rnily O O O I I O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O I O O 0 O 96 34. Distribution of parents in the three community types, by value orientation to the ideal number of children in a faulily o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 97 35. Distribution of youth and parents (combined) in the three community types, by consensus on ideal number of children in a family 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 98 36. Distribution of youth in the three community types, by value orientation to leaving home community . . . . . . . . . . 99 37. Distribution of youth, parents, and parents' parents (com— bined) in the three community types, by consensus on preference to reside in the local community . . . . . . . 101 38. Distribution of youth and parents in the three community types, by frequency of going to church . . . . . . . . . 102 39. Distribution of youth and parents in the three community types, by frequency of saying grace before meals . . . . 103 40. Distribution of youth and parents in the three community types, by frequency of saying prayers before going to bed 103 41. Distribution of youth and parents in the three community types, by value orientation to preference for own religion 0 o ‘o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 101+ 42. Distribution of parents in the three community types, by similarity of denominational background . . . . . . . . . 105 vi Table 43. 44. 1+5. 2+7 0 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. Distribution of parents in the three community types, by whether or not they have always been members of present denomination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of youth and parents (combined) in the three community types, by plans to change present religious preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of parents in the three community types, by feeling if sons joined a different denomination . . . . . Distribution of boys and parents in the three community types, by value orientation to "most liked" behavioral traits in boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of boys and parents in the three community types, by value orientation to "most wanted" behavioral traits in boys I I O I I O I I I I O I I I \ I I I I I O 0 Distribution of girls and parents in the three community types, by value orientation to "most liked" behavioral traits in girls I I I I I I I I I O I I I I O I O I I O I Distribution of girls and parents in the three community types, by value orientation to "most wanted" behavioral traits in girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of youth and parents (combined in the three community types, by consensus on preference to "most liked" and "most wanted" behavioral traits in children. . Summary of acceptance (+) and rejection (—) of the hypotheses and sub-hypotheses regarding the relation— ship between cultural isolation and value orientations; and the differences in value orientation and intergener- ational consensus in the three community types . . . . . Distribution of parents in the three community types, by agreement or disagreement that age itself merits respect Distribution of parents in the three community types, by agreement or disagreement that respect and obedience for older peOple are important virtues children should learn Distribution of parents in the three community types, by whether they follow views of older persons more than middle—aged persons on political, economic, and religious 1881188 I I I I I I I I I I I O I I O I I I I I I I I I 0 vii Page 106 107 108 110 111 113 114 115 116 120 122 123 Table 55- 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. Distribution of parents in the three community types, by agreement that sex itself merits respect . . . . . . . . Distribution of parents in the three community types, by agreement that respect and obedience for males are im- portant virtues children should learn . . . . . . . . . Distribution of parents in the three community types, by whether they follow views of males more than females on political, economic, and religious issues . . . . . . . Distribution of parents in the three community types, by number of living relatives and by place of residence . Distribution of parents in the three community types, by frequency of visiting siblings and parents' siblings in the past year by siblings place of residence . . . . . Distribution of parents in the three community types, by frequency of calling siblings and parents' siblings in the past year by siblings place of residence . . . . . Distribution of parents in the three community types, by agreement that "having many relatives in the local com- munity" merits respect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of parents in the three community types, by whether views of individuals having many relatives in the local community were followed and by perception that peo— ple in their community follow views of those having many relatives more than they follow individuals having few relatives on political, economic, and religious issues. . Summary of acceptance (+) and rejection (-) of the hy- potheses and sub-hypotheses dealing with patterns of social relationships with respect to age, sex, and the kinship network in the three community types . . . . . . Appendix.A — The Interview Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B a. Distribution of parents in the three community types, by membership in varying organizations in the local comnity I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I b. Distribution of parents in the three community types, by membership in varying organizations outside the local comni ty I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I viii Page 125 126 127 129 131 134 136 138 140 160 189 189 Table Page Appendix C Distribution of youth and parents in the three community types, by having friends residing outside the local community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Appendix D a. Distribution of youth, parents, and parents' parents in the folk—rural community, by the desired length of formal education for boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 b. Distribution of youth, parents, and parents' parents in the folk-rural community by the desired length of formal education for girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 c. Distribution of youth, parents, and parents' parents in the rural community by the desired length Of formal edu- cation for boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 d. Distribution of youth, parents, and parents' parents in the rural community by the desired length of formal edu- cation for girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 e. Distribution of youth, parents, and parents' parents in the urban community by the desired length of formal edu- cation for boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 f. Distribution of youth, parents, and parents' parents in the urban community by the desired length of formal edu- cation fbr girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Appendix E a. Distribution of fathers in the three community types, by perception of their parents value orientations to occu- pational involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 b. Distribution of fathers and mothers in the three community types, by value orientations to occupational involvement for boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 c. Distribution of boys -in the three community types, by per- ception of their parents value orientation to occupa- tional involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 ix Table Page Appendix F a. Distribution of mothers' mothers in the three community types, by value orientation to preferred roles for girls 0 I o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 197 b. Distribution of fathers and mothers in the three community types, by value orientation to preferred roles for girls 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 197 Appendix G a. Distribution of parents in the three community types, by whether or not they are influenced by Opinions of rela- tives regarding political, economic, and religious issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 b. Distribution of parents in the three community types, by whether or not they are influenced by opinions of mem- bers of the group regarding political, economic, and religious issues . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . 198 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In this introductory chapter the main ideas of the study are introduced. The chapter consists of an introduction, a statement of the purpose of the study, and a definition of the problem with which this research deals. Also included in this chapter are the theoreti- cal framework, definitions of key terms and concepts, a formal state— ment of the hypotheses, and an outline of the expected relationships. The last part of this chapter will include an outline of the organiza- tion of thesis in terms of chapter content. Introduction to the General Problem Sociologists have long been concerned with the cultural and social characteristics of city life as contrasted to rural life. While sociologists have been more concerned with studies of the rural-urban contrast within one culture, anthropologists were engaged in studies of a wide range of small primitive communities. That much recent re- search in many parts of the world has focused upon the small community is too well known to be documented. Both sociologists and anthropolo- gists have found some similarities between certain aspects of primitive and rural cultures, and the contrast between these and the modern city. In primitive and peasant communities, indicators of conflict and cultural l disorganization seem to be few; these cultures may be viewed aSIhomo- geneous and traditional. Secular values and impersonal relationships seem to dominate interrelationships in the city. These contrasting types of cultural and social organization have been analyzed by various scholars in somewhat differing frames of reference, but they do have one element in common, namely, to distin— guish different types of social organization in order to establish a range within which transitional or intermediate forms can be compre- hended. In this respect McKinney and Loomis say: Despite the age of the tradition it still has a marked vitality, and appears to be one of the fundamental ap- proaches to sociological phenomena. Such familiar con- ceptualizations as Maine's status society and contract society; Spencer's militant and industrial forms; Rat- zenhofer's conquest state and culture state; wundt's natural and cultural polarity; Tonnies' Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft forms; Durkheim's mechanical and organic solidarity; Cooley's primary and secondary (implicit) groups; MacIver's communal and associational relations; Zimmerman's localistic and cosmopolitan communities; Odum's folk-state pair; Redfield's folk-urban continuum; Sorokin's familistic vs. contractual relations; Becker's sacred and secular societies; as well as such non-personalized but common dichotomies as primitive-civilized; literate-non- literatf; and rural vs. urban are examples of this tra- dition. One of the earliest important typologies designed to generate research problems and to have explanatory virtues is Robert Redfield's the "folk-urban" classification. Redfield used the concept "folk culture" and "folk society" indiscriminantely to describe relatively simple cultural types which are in the process of being modified because —v 1John C. McKinney and Charles P. Loomis, "The Typological Tra- dition," in J. S. Roucek (ed.), Readings in Contemporary_American Sociology, New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1961: p. 557. of modern industrial and urban forces. The focus in mainly on examin— ing the effects of the contact between the city and the village. The folk society, (or culture) in Redfield's conception, is characterized by being small, isolated, nearly self—sufficient, and homogeneous with respect to race and custom.2 Redfield's conception specifies that this type is characterized by an interdependent relation among some or all the mentioned characteristics. Moreover, personal relationships are face to face, technology is simple, and the division of labor is minimal.3 The family has a major role in societal institutions, sacred sanctions are applied, piety is emphasized, and ritual which functions as an expression of the wishes and fears of the people is highly develop— ed. Redfield continues to say that such a society is relatively im- mobile, change is slow, the ways of life form a single web of inter- related meanings, and habits of members tend to correspond to custom. These characteristics, mentioned in the previous paragraph, describe a hypothetical soceity; any particular real society would have most but not necessarily all of the elements. "But the more elements we add, the less possible it becomes to arrange real societies in a single order of degree of resemblance to the type, because one of the 2Robert Redfield, "The FOlk Society," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 52, (January, 1947), p. 293. 3"There is some or natural or interdependent relation among some or all of these characters, in that change with regard to certain of them tend to bring about or carry with it change with respect to others of them." Robert Redfield, The Folk Culture of Yucatan, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941, p. 343. u"There is so marked a tendency for some of these characteris- tics to occur together with others that the interrelations among them must be in no small part that of interdependent variables." Redfield, op. cit., p. 307. two societies will be found to resemble the ideal type strongly in one character and weakly in another, while in the next society resemblance will lie in the latter character and not in the former."5 In a comparative study of the types of cultures developed, Red- field analyzed in his book The Folk Culture of Yucatan (1941), the cultural differences between an urban city and a folk culture. This book reported results of a study of four communities in Yucatan which were chosen to represent points along the path between the folk and the urban. The four communities showed an increasing amount of con- tact with Euro-American civilization. The four communities represented: a "tribal village," a "peasant village," a "town," and a "city" - but all extended along a geographical line. Going from the village to the city, each community was described as becoming more heterogeneous, less custom bound, more individualized and secular. The conclusions of this study were that loss of isolation and loss of cultural homogeneity which led to social disorganization were sufficient causes for the development of secularization and individualization. The "ideal urban" stands at the opposite pole with respect to characteristics. The "ideal urban" is characterized by social hetero- geneity, personal individuality, secular rather than familial and reli— gious institutions of control, complex division of labor, a money economy, 5Redfie1d, op. cit., p. 294. 6"Disorganization, individualization, and secularization have not been simply copied from the city but are causally related to hetero— geneity, mobility, and to one another. . ." Redfield, The Folk Culture of Yucatan, op. cit., p. 369. and impersonality in interpersonal relationships.7 As has been mentioned, Redfield's scheme defines an ideal type "the folk society" which is the polar opposite of "the urban society". "The ideal type is a mental construct, it is created only because through it we may hope to under- stand reality. Its function is to suggest aspects of real societies which deserve study, and specially to suggest hypotheses as to what, under certain defined conditions, may be generally true about society." Redfield's definition of the characteristics of the "folk type" of society regards isolation and homogeneity as the independent vari- able which affects or causes disorganization, secularization, and in- dividualization (in case of lack of isolation and heterogeneity) - the dependent variables. In other words, lack of cultural isolation by exposure and interaction with others and their ideas, and increasing heterogeneity causes disorganization, secularization, and individuali- zation. Redfield's definition of characteristics of the "urban type" bears kinship to Louis Wirth's criteria or urbanism.9 Wirth said, "For sociological reasons a city may be defined as a large, dense, and permenant settlement of socially heterogeneous individuals ,. . . the city brought together people from the ends of the earth because they are different and thus useful to one another, rather than because they 7Redfield did not describe the characteristics of the "urban type". The mentioned characteristics are drawn from his field data of "Yucatan", and they may be regarded as opposites to the elements of the "folk type". 8 Redfield, "The Folk Society," 02. cit., p. 295. 9Louis Wirth, "Urbanization as a way of Life," American Journal of Sociology (July, 1938), pp. 1-24. [P are homogeneous and like minded."10 Wirth's three variables were: number, density of settlement, and degree of hetereogeneity of the urban population. Wirth's criteria of urbanism were supposed to explain the characteristics of urban life and to account for the differences be— tween cities of various types and sizes. "Wirth advanced his criteria of urbanism as a preliminary statement; subsequent research has shown them to need revision even for limited application in the United States."11 Thus, Redfield listed the polar opposites of Wirth's urban criteria, converting them into a linear typology, and hypothesizing that urban influence moves outward. Specific empirical studies.- Scott Greer summarized the results of empirical studies made in the United States during the last one and a half decades. Included were studies by Komarovsky, Janowitz, Greer, Bell, Axelrod, and Foley in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Fran- cisco, Detroit and Rochester respectively.12 Greer's summary points out that all the studies show the importance of kinship relations for the urbanites, friendship outside the organizational context is nearly universal in the city, the degree of interaction between neighbors varies by local areas but the average urban resident has some informal neighboring relations, urbanites show a wide variation in their degree of local community identification and participation, a majority of the loWirth, ibid., pp. 1-24. 11 Ralph L. Deals, "Community Typologies in Latin America," Anthropological Linggistics, Vol. 3, No. 1 (January, 1961). 2 1 Scott Greer, "Individual Participation in Mass Society," in Young and Mack (eds.), Principles of Sociology, third edition, New York: American Book Company, 1965, pp. 205-219. urbanites are members of churches, and mass media is enjoyed at home in the context of family participation. Greer's conclusions are "that the conjugal family is very powerful and that the individual's involve— ment in formal organizations and work based friendship is weak; the mass media are most important in a family context; participation with kin and friendship circles is powerful."13 These findings go largely against the Wirth and Redfield hypotheses of urban life. The point is that in order to analyze city's social life one has to account for variation from area to area and from one socio-ecOnomic group to another within the city; It is explicit in the Wirth—Redfield criteria for urbanism that kinship does not play a very important part in industrialized societies; relations with kin other than the members of the nuclear family are not considered important except in certain rural areas.lu But very few studies have been conducted to examine the kinship relations in urban areas. Talcott Parsons has presented an analysis which is of great importance as an interpretation of the effect of the occupational system on the kinship system, but Parson's analysis is not based on field research and it is confined to the kinship system of the 13Greer, ibid., p. 208. 1“See as examples: M. Arensberg and S. T. Kimball, Family and Communit in Ireland, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1948 - J. S. Brown, "The Conjugal Family and the Extended Family Group," American Sociological Review, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1952, pp. 297-306 - A. Curle, "Kinship Structure in an English Village," Mgg,‘Vol. 52, 1952, pp. 68—69 - A. D. Rees, Life in a Welsh Countryside, Cardiff: University of wales Press, 1950. ‘1' __. middle—class.15 Dotson reports that fifty members of the working-class in New Haven had many relationships with kin but few with voluntary associations.16 Firth conducted an empirical investigation of the urban kinship system among the working-class and Italian families in London, from which he reports that they have extensive and important relationships with their relatives.17 Several studies of the relation- ships of working-class families with their relatives have been con— ducted by Young and Willmott (1957)18 and Elizabeth Bott (1957)19 in London. The results indicate that certain working-class families, ethnic families, and middle-class Protestant families have a great deal of contact with their relatives. Relevant to this point, Bott says, The elementary family does not stand alone; its members keep up frequent and intimate relationships with parents and with at least one of the siblings, uncles and aunts, and cousins of the husband and wife. But, at the same time, it is quite clear that kinship does not provide the basic framework of the total social structure as it does in so many small-scale primitive societies, even 15Talcott Parsons, "The Kinship System of the Contemporary Uni- ted States," American Anthropologist, Vol. 45, No. l, 1943, pp. 22-38, and "The Structure of the Family" in R. Anshen (ed.), The Family: Its Function and Density, New York: Harper and Bros., 1949, Chapter X, pp. 173-201. 16F. Dotson, "Patterns of Voluntary Association among Urban Working-Class Families," American Sociological Review, Vol. 16, No. 5, 1951. PP- 687-693- 17Raymond Firth (ed.), Two Studies of Kinship in London, London: Athlone Press, 1956. lBMichael Young and Peter Willmott, FamilLand Kinship in East London, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1957. 19Elizabeth Bott, Family and Social Network, London: Tavistock Publications Limited, (Second Impression), 1964. those with a bilateral kinship system of the same basic type as that found in Western Europe. Several studies have been conducted in the developing countries within the conceptual framework "folk—urban". Long ago Sol Tax (1939) felt that the nonfolk—like qualities of Guatemalan Indian society are nut due to recent contact with urban life, but that a stable rural social type can and does exist in which urban characteristics, as described by Redfield, are an integral part of the picture. Tax con- cluded that the associations found by Redfield in Yucatan were not found in the Indian communities in Guatemala.21 Herskovits (1948) pointed out that Redfield's ideal type falls far short of explaining the folk aspects of West African urban centers ranging up to 350,000 inhabitants. "These populations have complex specialized economies exhibiting . . . the use of money and the presence of profit motiva- tion. Yet in these cities relationships are as personal as in any folk society, and religion is the focal aspect of the culture."22 In his famous study of the Tepoztlan families, Oscar Lewis' (1951) data shows that commercialization is accompanied by little evidence of family disorganization. Lewis found that families who have migrated to Mexican cities continued to live under the former folk-values. Families remainedIstfong and there was little evidence 20Bott, ibid., p. 116. 21 Sol Tax, "Culture and Civilization in Guatemalan Societies," Scientific Monthly, Vol. XLVIII, (May, 1939), pp. 463-467. ZZMelville Herskovits, Man and His Works, New York: Alfred Knopf, 1948, pp. 604-607. 10 of dissatisfaction with city life. There were no more separations or divorce than in the villages. Nor was there any significant cleavage in values and in general outlook. Still, religion was vigorous though the form changed from Indian to Catholic.23 Bruener's article based on a study of North Sumatra concludes that, "Contrary to the traditional theory, we find in many Asian cities that society does not become secularized, the individual does not be— come isolated, kinship organizations do not break down, nor do social relationships in the urban environment become impersonal, superficial, and utilitarian."2u This study explicitly indicates that a majority of folk characteristics can largely be well maintained in the large cities especially when a large body of migrants occupy a particular locality facilitating an in-group feeling and solidarity. In the United States, an attempt to test Redfield's "folk- urban" hypothesis was made by Neal Gross (1948).25 Gross analyzed the data of four published contemporary studies.26 The communities were all rural and they differed only in the degree and not in kind regarding: the relation between cultural isolation and the system of interaction, the family, religion, and education. The findings support Redfield's hypotheses of certain relationships between cultural isolation and the 23bscar Lewis, "Urbanization'Without Breakdown: A Case Study," Scientific Monthly, Vol. 75, 1952, pp. 31-41. 24E. M. Bruener, "Urbanization and Ethnic Identity in North Sumatra," American Anthropologist, Vol. 63, 1961, p. 508. 25Neal Gross, "Cultural Variables in Rural Communities," Th2 American Journal of Sociology,_March, 1948, pp. 344.350. 26 The four communities included an Older Order Amish Community. ll mentioned variables. But as Gross put it, "However, it should be noted that Redfield's concepts of organization-d1sorganization are subject to severe limitations. They force the analysis into an organization- disorganization framework and neglect the possibility that there may exist different levels of organization in cultures."27 Gross makes an important observation, that is, communities may be organized on different levels or principles. In this respect, Hostetler examined the Amish charter (or what may be called their value system)28 and he found evidence of stress patterns manifested in: "thwarted motivations for higher education, the practice of marginal occupations, the presence of suicide behavior, and rowdyism."29 These findings contradict the common known general- ization that the Amish30 are a stable and homogeneous people, consis- tent in their moral values. Contrary to the common belief that the rural people are more organized than the urban people, Schroeder and Beegle found that rural males in Michigan exhibit higher suicide rates 31 than urban males at almost all ages. 27Gross, op. cit., p. 350. 28The interpretation is mine. 29John A. Hostetler, "The rate of suicide among the Amish may be higher than that of the rural United States population in general — possible even as high as that for rural Michigan which exceeds that of the urban population." "Persistence and Change Patterns in Amish Society," Ethnology, Vol. III, April, 1964, pp. 185.198. 30 The Amish are a socio-religious group with traditional social organization and they live in almost complete isolation from the larger cultural system. 31W.‘Widick Schroeder and J. Allan Beegle, "Suicide, An Instance of High Suicide Rates," Rural Sociology, Vol. 18, 1953, pp. 45-52. 12 The studies mentioned which analyzed patterns of social inter- action and of social life in large cities and in small communities in America, England, and in some of the developing countries make clear that while some of the Wirth and Redfield hypotheses were verified in both the developed and the developing countries, other hypotheses were not verified. Hence they need modification based on research findings. Apart from the fact that the city is essentially different from the folk village, it is also important to note that even within a large metropolis, the nature of social life varies from one locality to the other. 'Wirth was always concerned with the heterogeneous nature of the city and therefore did not see the importance of the homogeneous groups within it. Redfield was focusing on the influence of the city, in a one way direction from the city to the village, thus ignoring the effect of the village on the city itself. It is always evident that ethnic groups, racial groups, and the lower socio-economic strata have a strong in—group feeling within a heterogeneous population. The city society may be viewed as a compound of communities based upon locality and a "we" feeling. In such a case, then, there shall be no conflict between the two polar types of social life, folk and urban - rather they can be complementary and co-exist in the city and in the village in varying degrees. Foster, in his important theoretical article, points out that a folk society is not a whole society and can never be viewed as such.32 It is a "half-society" part of a larger social unit, usually a nation 32George Foster, "What is Folk Culture?", American Anthropologist, VOIO 559 NO. 2: 19539 Pp. 159-173. 13 which is horizontally and vertically structured. The folk component of this unit bears a symbiotic spatial—temporal relationship to the more complex component which is formed by the upper classes of the pre- industrial urban center. Viewed in this manner folk and urban are not polar concepts but rather integral parts of the definition of a single sociocultural unit at the center of which is the pre-industrial city. The urban unit does not threaten the folk society but rather it is a precondition for its existence. To some extent Foster's analysis corresponds with Redfield's description of "peasant societies". Foster prefers to call them folk societies so that he can distinguish between "folk culture" and "folk society" and that they may exist in a city or in a small community. Foster defines a folk culture as "a common way of life which charac- terizes some or all of the people of many villages, towns, cities within a given area." And a folk society "may be thought of as an organized group of individuals characterized by a folk culture."33 From the above statements it is evident that folk culture is not con— terminous with folk society, and that one may find, as Lewis has found, elements of folk cultures outside of peasant and folk societies, in certain types of cities. The converse of this statement is not true and folk societies cannot exist apart from folk culture. The concepts of "folk culture" and "folk society" define types 34 of subcultures and communities and afford a useful framework for 33F 31.; Subculture refers to the partially distinct cultural system within a larger system. oster, ibid., p. 170. l4 empirical research.35 Foster suggests that folk cultures can be analy- zed from two points of view: their content36 and their organic rela- tionship to the more complex non-folk cultures. Foster strongly dis- agrees with Redfield's emphasis on the criteria of the isolation of the folk society, especially if one is to examine the cultural content. Foster contends that if one is to examine the content of folk cultures the striking thing "is the importance of these elements which are there precisely because the society is not isolated."37 The important contribution this article makes to problems re- lating to the "folk-urban" continuum is the distinction between "folk culture" and "folk society", allowing for the formulation of more specific questions about the content of particular folk cultures and the extent to which some of these elements may be found in the urban component of a society. These questions and the answers to them can then be distinguished from a different set of questions relating to the structural features of folk society. Keeping these two variables separate and recognizing that they may vary independently of each other will allow greater specificity in the delineation of types of sub- cultures and communities. And, the focus on the symbiotic relation- ship between folk and non-folk postulated as the key concept of folk 35Foster, op. cit., p. 163. 36Content of a culture: refers to the most significant elements within a culture. The origin of these elements points up the relation- ships to the larger cultural system either in historical times or at the present time. 37Foster, op. cit., p. 164. Cultural isolation: refers to lack of cultural contact and was not intended by Foster to mean lack of individual mobility, in the sense of travel and geographical distance. 15 culture, implies that the direction of culture flow is not only from city to country but rather is a circular phenomena in which folk cul- ture, though to a lesser degree, contributes to non-folk societies. In summary, the studies mentioned clearly indicate, based on empirical evidence from communities of the urban and the folk types in the United States, England, and in some developing countries, that the'Wirth and Redfield hypotheses have serious theoretical and empiri— cal limitations. Despite obvious differences, the folk-urban typology lumped together distinct geoups of people: from the most primitive, e.g., polar Eskimos, to the various types of peasants in Europe and Asia,39 and to mixed rural cultures in Latin America. Communities were either inadequately analyzed or were forced into conformity with the typology. As has been shown, the studies conducted within the typo— logical framework indicated the existence of folk characteristics in urban settings and urban elements in folk cultures. No serious attempt has been taken to define the class of phenomena involved. And, no attempt to redefine the concepts based on the research findings have been made. Moreover, evidence of disorganization in the urban type and its indices were either poorly defined or examined, suggesting that urban societies were disorganized and neglecting the fact that societies might be organized on different principles. The alternative, suggested 38Foster, op. cit., p. 169. 39See Eric wolf, "Closed Corporate Communities in Mesoamerica and Central Java," Southwestern Journal of Anthrgpolpgy, Vol. 13, 1957, pp. 1-18. In this article welf deals with types of peasantry and not with types of communities. His major contribution to community typology is his bi-polar classification of open and closed corporate communities. 16 here, is that a folk society may be considered as a part of a larger social unit, either a small community or a city. In this case folk and urban are not polar concepts. Rather, they represent integral parts of a sociocultural unit. The distinctions between "folk cul- tures" and "folk societies" allows us to define types of subcultures and communities, and it makes it easy to analyze folk cultures in rural communities and in cities in conditions of non-isolation. This posi— tion is supported by empirical results conducted within the folk-urban 40 conceptualization and the theoretical analysis provided by Foster and Lewis.)+1 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to compare the subcultures of middle-class Protestant families residing in three different contemporary communities in the State of Michigan. Two of these communities are rural and the group membership chosen from them represents full—time farmers. One of the two groups of farmers is thought to be character— ized by a "folk-culture"; the second group by a "non—folk culture". These two groups of fullntime farmers will be compared with a third group representing an urban group characterized by a "non-folk culture" where individuals have non—farm occupations. None of the groups chosen in this research is geographically isolated. quoster, op. cit., pp. 159-173. 1Oscar Lewis, "Life in a Mexican Village," 1951, pp. 432—440. In his conclusions Lewis cites his major criticisms of the folk-urban continuum, and he suggests an identification of the concepts "folk" and "rural," and his argument is largely concerned with the problem of definition of the polar types. 17 The subcultures characterizing each of the three groups selected will be compared with each other in an attempt to identify the similari- ties and differences between them which may be a consequence of differ- ential degrees of cultural isolation (or lack of culture contact). The Problem of the Present Study The main focus of the present study is the investigation of differentials in degree of cultural isolation and homogeneitygz among members of three groups, each characterized by a particular subculture. More specifically, this study investigates and analyses the degree of cultural contact of the Mennonite“3 families viewed as a homogeneous group, and attempts to determine the effects of cultural isolation on their subculture and the relationships between members of the group. There are three main areas of analysis into which the data of the pre- sent study can be divided: 1. Differences in the degree of participation in or- ganizations, length and character of vacations, in-group identification, and use of mass means of communication and the degree of cultural isolation. 2. Differences in value orientations and intergener- ational consensus regarding education, occupation, 2 . . . . Hemogene1ty refers to a group of peOple shar1ng Similar norms, values, and rituals where the boundaries of the group are clearly de- fined for every individual and can easily discriminate between the in- group and those who belong to out-group; heterogeneity refers to oppo- site characteristics cited above. u3The Mennonites: An out-growth socio-religious group from the Amish; some of the Anabaptists come to be known as Mennonites, taking their name from Menno Simons: an early Anabaptist leader in The Nether- lands and Germany. The Mennonites have their own definition of Pro- testantism, and specific rituals are practiced. As members of a "sect" they are conscious of their alienation from the surrounding environment, this process is emphasized by adopting distinctive patterns of behavior and compelling group endogamy. 18 family, migration, religion, and preferred behavioral traits in children in the three community types. 3. Differences in patterns of social relationships with respect to age, sex, and the kinship network in the three community types. The present study is limited to the study of the concept "folk culture" and "folk society". However, it seems to have direct impli- cations for the better understanding of solidarity groups, such as the Mennonites, by examining the content of their subculture and their specific patterns of social relationships. This claim is justified by the fact that due to the design of this study, it will be possible to make a comparison between value orientations and values of different generational levels in each group studied. This comparison may provide some basis for determining the norms of education, occupation, family size, migration, and religion by identifying the mutual understandings between different generational levels in each group. Moreover, it may be expected to shed light on the process by which a relatively closed system, like the Mennonites, maintains boundaries with relative stability from generation to the other. Such a scheme would have the obvious practical value in dealing with rural development programs, but it may also be of significance to sociological theory. Theoretical Framework Sociologists have been interested in describing, analyzing, and explaining the nature of human bonds that contribute to achieve co- hesion and promote equilibrium in the social system. Sociologists believe that there are natural forces making for order and stability, and there are other equally natural forces making for disorder and conflict. The interest here is to examine the forces that operate in 19 either case: equilibrium and conflict may be viewed as two sides of the same coin. The starting point is a social system in which norms exist and individuals are largely governed by these norms. The term "system" is important, for the conceptual framework of this study is that of inter— acting subsystems within the larger system of the total society. Such subsystems may include the family, the school, the church, the govern- ment, among others. In this respect Loomis and Beegle view the social system as: In the first place, a social system may be considered a concrete interactive social structure, such as a Farm Bureau local, a family, a church congregation, or a dairy herd improvement association. The members of such organ- izations interact more with members than with non—members when participating in the organization as an on-going concern. . . In the second place, a social system may be viewed as a more abstract unit, or one in which patterns of relation- ships prevail from generation to generation and from re- gion to region. . . Social systems, whether studied as going concerns in the present or from a historical point of view, are composed of social interactions and thg4cultural factors which structure those interactions. Sociologists believe that there must be uniformities and regu- larities in social life. Every society must have some sort of order or its members cannot live together. People know the kind of behavior they expect from others. And individuals coordinate their activities in submission to the norms and the values of their system. People can predict each other's behavior because every society has a pattern which 1111 Charles P. Loomis and J. Allan Beegle, Rural Sociology: The Strategy of Change, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., (third printing), 1963, pp. 1 and 2. 20 can be described and analyzed in terms of a social system or a social structure. Such a strategy views norms as the governors of social behavior, and thus escapes the problem which Hobbs asked: "Why there is not war of all against all?" This idea also implies that there is some consistency and harmony between the parts that make up the social system. Kroeber and Parsons (1958) advised that the concept of culture may be restricted to refer to "transmitted and created content and patterns of values, ideas, and other symbolic meaningful systems as factors in the shaping of human behavior and the artifacts produced through behavior." On the other hand, we suggest that the term society, - or more generally, social system, - be used to designate the speci- fically relational system of interaction among individuals and col- lectivities."l+5 The distinction between cultural phenomena and social .phenomena has been observed by earlier thinkers, for example, by Sorokinu6 and by‘Weber.47 However, the distinction was made, especially by Kroeber and Parsons, in order to indicate the subject matter and concerns of both cultural anthropology and sociology and does not ignore the interrelationships between cultural and social phenomena. L]. 5A. L. Kroeber and T. Parsons, "The Concepts of Culture and of Social System," American Sociolo ogic cal Rgview, Vol. 23, October, 1958, pp- 582-583 46P. Sorokin, Society, Culturei and Personality, New York. Harper. 194?. p 313 z”Alfred weber, "Fundamentals of Culture-Sociology," in T. Parsons et al. (eds), Theories'of Society, Glencoe: The Free Press, Vol. 11, 1961, pp. 1274—1283. , 21 Kluckhohn's definition of culture as "the distinctive way of life of a group of people, their complete design for living,”8 and the definition proposed by Redfield, who viewed culture "as consisting of those conventional understandings, manifested in act and artifact, which characterize particular groups,”9 will be followed in this study. The concern here will be with what Redfield called, "under- standing manifested in action" where reference is made to those beliefs and assumptions which regulate the behavior of a group of people. And that any group that persists develop a distinctive set of basic norms which make up their total "design for living," as Kluckhohn put it. The concept of subculture assumes that there is a general cul- ture having characteristics which permeate all groups in a society. Subcultures have elements of the basic culture, plus their distinctive features which constitute the subculture. Members of a group learn their subculture, share its elements, and transmit them to their children through the process of socialization. Subcultures persist because usually members of a group live in physical proximity to each other, share common norms and values, and interact mostly with members of the immediate family, relatives, and members of the in-group. Thus, the concept subculture assumes that groups of different educational, occu- pational, religious, and socio-economic statuses will have different u8Clyde Kluckhohn, "The Concept of Culture," in D. Lerner and H; D. Lasswell (eds.), The Policy Sciences, Stanford: University of Stanford Press, 1951, p. 86? ugRedfield, The Folk Culture of Yucatan, op, cit., 1941, p. 132. 22 normpvalue systems because they interact more with groups holding similar norms and values. The present position will focus on the system of norms and values which organize human behavior and bring it under their control. Norms refer to "any standard or rule that states what human beings should or should not think, say, or do under given circumstances."50 The most general hypothesis concerning the organization of human be- havior centers on the concept consensus. Shibutani (1964) defines consensus as "the extent to which independently motivated men are able to coordinate their respective activities depends upon the degree of consensus that exists among them. Consensus refers to some kind of mutual understanding, a sharing of perspectives."51 Men would be able to cooperate with relative ease because ". . . they share common under- 52 standings as to what each person is supposed to do." Shibutani was referring to norms when he used the concept "common understanding," thus, when men share basic norms they also have common expectations of one another. The previous conception suggests that norms are explicitly de- fined, and it also implies that people are aware of them. "Group norms 53 are not merely ways of doing things; they are the correct ways." Norms cover the various activities in which people engage in their day 0 5 Judith Blake and Kingsley Davis, "Norms, Values, and Sanctions," in Robert Faris (ed.), Handbook of Modern Sociology, Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1964, pp. 456-484. 51T. Shibutani, Society and Personality, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc., (fifth printing): 1964, p. 40. 2 5 Shibutani, ibid., p. 40. 23 to day work. The totality of the norms which defines various activi- ties of a collectivity may be referred to as the "subculture" of that group. The concept of value orientation has been defined by Florence Kluckhohn as, "Value orientations are complex but definitely patterned (rank-ordered) principles, resulting from the transactional interplay of three analytically distinguishable elements of the evaluative process - the cognitive, the effective, and the directive elements - which give order the direction to the ever flowing stream of human acts and thoughts 54 as these relate to the solution of common human problems." Three major assumptions underlie Kluckhohn's classification of value orienta- tions. The first is that there is a limited number of common human problems for which all people at all times must find solutions. The second is that there is a limited range of variability in the solutions to problems. The third assumption is that all variations of recurring solutions are, with varying degrees of emphasis, present in all societies at all times. There will be, therefore, in every society not only a dominant value orientation for each of the common human problems, but 55 also one or more variant value orientation for each problem. 53Shibutani, ibid., p. 45. u 5 Florence R. Kluckhohn and Fred L. Strodtbeck, Variations in Value Orientations, New York: Row, Peterson and Company, 1961, p. 4. 55F. Kluckhohn has defined five common human problems for which people in any society must find solutions; these common problems concern the nature of man himself, his relation to nature and supernature, his place in the flow of time, the modality of human activity, and the re- lation between man to man. She and her co-workers have gathered data on value orientations in five different cultures. Kluckhohn and Strodt- beck, ibid., pp. 10-20 and 340-344. 24 Thus norms and values in this study will refer to those partic- ular and basic understandings which are learned and shared by a speci- fic group of people. Norms and values of a particular group unite them, regulate their behavior, and characterize their distinctive way of life. These learned and shared norms and values are transmitted from generation to generation through the process of socialization within the family, the relatives, the members of the in-group, and the school. The transmission of norms and values from generation to the other is maintained with relative stability by applying sanctions which function to bring about an individual's conformity to group norms and values. Cultural norms and values are internalized within the indivi- 56 dual's personality through the processes of socialization. It follows from the previous process that behavior will differ from culture to culture, and from one subculture to another, within a particular cul- ture. "What people regard as morally right and wrong influences their behavior as profoundly as any other factor. The value system is ex. pressed by and governs behavior, and therefore values and behavior can only be fully understood when considered together."57 The simplest value orientation scheme is the dichotomy of "traditionalism" and 56Parsons says in this respect, "This fact of the internaliza- tion of values was independently and from different points of view discovered by Freud in his theory of the superego and by Durkheim in his theory of the institutionalization of moral norms." in T. Parsons and E. Shils (eds.), Toward a General Theory of Action, Harper Torchbook Edition, 1962, p. 22. 57 Lowry Nelson, C. Ramsey, and C. Verner, Community Structure and Change, New Yerk: The McMillan Company, 1960, p. 93. 25 "rationality,"58 the latter being viewed as an urban characteristic. Becker used the term secular to describe value systems which are oriented toward change and for those oriented to resist change he used the term sacred.59 Since men's behavior is not always rational the dichotomy which will be used in this study may be constructed as "traditional" vs. "secular" value systems. 'With regard to value orientations, F. Kluckhohn's definition cited earlier, begins with the key statement: "Value orientations are complex but definitely patterned (rank—ordered) principles. . ." Further, she suggested three classes of determinants which exercise a major influence in accounting for variations in value orientations: culture, social structure, and behavior sphere. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck were focusing, in their book, on differences between cultures in account- ing for differences in value orientation. The present research deals with differential preferences for value orientation between subcultures and social structures. Differences in value orientations will be ex- plained, then, as differences between subcultures, with each having a different pattern of relationships. Subcultures within a culture also differ because of cultural isolation, that is, lack of cultural contact. The functional principle that emerges in connection with the analysis of the relationships between the family as a social group, and other solidary systems, is that social solidarity may be maintained and 58 Nelson, et al., ibid., p. 98. 59H. Becker, Through Values to Social Interaction, New York: Durham, Duke University Press, 1950, Chapter 5. 26 the commitment greater, when the boundaries of the group are sharper. In this respect Loomis and Beegle say, "Boundary maintenance signifies activity to retain and identity, value orientation, and interaction pattern of a social system. The process of boundary maintenance re- quires that the system actively resist forces which tend to destroy the identity and interaction pattern."61 Boundaries are erected and sharply defined when the world beyond a collectivity is defined as dangerous. Further, the distinction can be reinforced by defining who is a member of the in—group and who is not, thus the boundaries of a group can be clearly specified. The boundaries of the kindred are clear enough as far as ego is concerned, thus facilitating interaction with kin. And when the group share common norms, understandings, and conduct the required rituals in a collective manner, all these process define the group boundaries. The more boundaries that are erected, the more the group is isolated from other groups. And the more members of the group have similar identities and more interaction with the in—group, the more homogeneous the group becomes. The next concern will focus on the interpersonal relations with- in and among families, and how they are adapted to the wider social con- text. Through the process of socialization, the nuclear family functions as a mediator for the acquision of group norms and values by its young members. Fellowing Levi-Strauss, the family may be defined as a group manifesting the following organizational attributes. It finds its 6OJesse Pitts, "The Structural-Functional Approach," in H. Christen- se2n(ed.),6Handbook of Marriage and the Family, Chicago: Rand McNally, 19 .P-9- 61Loomis and Beegle, op. cit., p. 9. 27 origin in marriage; it consists of husband, wife, and children born in their wedlock, though other relatives may find their place close to this nuclear group; and the group is united by moral, legal, economic, religious, and social rights and obligations. The family viewed as a social system consists of parts which are bound together by social interaction and interdependence. Attention will focus upon some of the internal workings of the family system, but the basic concern will be on the relationship between the family and other social systems. The internal activities and their functions seem to be related to the position of the family in society. This study will be concerned with middle—class families, excluding the very rich and the very poor, in an attempt to control for the economic factor.63 And since religion is related to beliefs and norms, and as such affects the internal activities of the family, an attempt will be made in this study to control for religious affiliation. The internal activities of the nuclear family must be performed within it, so that the interchanges with the external system may be accomplished. The family functions as the society's basic socializing agent by interalizing the norms and values of the group within the personalities of the young. However, there is evidence that there is considerable variation between families in the degree of intergenera— tional consensus on the preferred norms and values. The family may be viewed as providing a necessary amount of norm continuity from one 62Claude Levi-Strauss, "The Family," in Harry L. Shapiro (ed.), Man, Culture, and Society, New York: Oxford University Press, 1960. 63The American middle-class families may be defined as those earning annual gross income between $4,000-$12,000. 28 generation to another. Members of the family acquire certain expecta- tions about the right or proper behavior. These expectations are re- lated to more general standards, and together they constitute a system of norms and values for organizing and giving direction to various family activities. Bell and Vogel say in this respect, "This value system provides a hierarchy of goals and a body of rules for their attainment."64 And, although the family value system is more specific and concerns only the behavior of family members, yet it is related in many aspects to the societal value orientation which covers a society's basic norms and values. The external relationships may be viewed as a series of func- tional interchanges between the family system and other systems. The interrelation takes place in terms of specification of standards for behavior, compliance to those standards, and conformity. The ideals or values as sets of norms may be viewed as the major constituent of culture. Thus, the organization of norms and values will be different in different subcultures and groups. The exchange between the nuclear family and the normatives system takes place in that the normative system specifies the standards for behavior which members of the family have to accept or they will be sanctioned. Thus, the group specifies the norms which constrain the members of the nuclear family to conform to its rules. The normative system specifies what behavior is legiti- mate and desirable. Religion, defined broadly, fulfills a part of this function, which is distinct from many other activities that may be 6“Norman W. Bell and Ezra F. Vogel, A Modern Introduction to The Family, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1960, p. 27. 29 associated with a single religious group. The basic norms of a society may also be enbodied in the educational system. The nuclear family either accepts or does not accept the standards presented by repre- sentatives of both the religious and the educational system. The nuclear family socializes its members according to the norms thought to be proper, and which give it the required approval with other nuclear families that make up the group. Thus, in striving to maintain a satisfactory relationship with the group, the nuclear family yields to the shared norms and values. Conformity to the shared norms and values of a group is reinforced by the process of rewarding those who conform and by punishing families who deviate from the basic norms and values of the group.65 The American kinship system is differentiated from that of other social systems. Nevertheless, both empirical and theoretical considerations suggest significant points of continuity between kinship and other parts of the social system.66 Person (1954) attempted to 6 5Durkheim, insists on the collective aspect of ritual, which unites the group in a single locale and thus reinforces the constrain- ing power of the collective representation upon the individuals. E. Durkheim, The Elementary Perms of the Religious Life, Trans. Joseph V. Swain, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1954, pp. 230-231. For Radcliffe- Brown, the maintenance of conformity is achieved through the transfor- mation of important articulating events or things into sacred occasions marked by a taboo. A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, Structure and Function in Primitive Society, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1952, pp. 136-152. To some extent, all institutions may be viewed as having a social control dimension which is exercised through specifying clearly the character- istics of conforming behavior and the reinforcement of the wish to conform through the rewarding of conformity and the punishment of the deviance. 66 . . . . D. M. Schneider and G. Homans, "K1nsh1p Terminology and the American Kinship System," American Anthropologist, Vol. 57, No. 6, December, 1955, pp. 1194-1208. 30 describe social solidarity among siblings and suggested that "sibling solidarity is the fundamental kinship bond" in the bilateral system of which the American kinship system is a particular instance. 7 It is a general belief in both sociology and anthropology that kinship does not play a very important role in industrial societies. The nuclear family - father, mother, and their dependent children - is believed to stand alone. "Relations with other kin are not considered important, except in certain rural areas."68 The recent literature‘ on the American family includes a number of investigations of the struc- ture of intergenerational relationships.69 Many of these studies have used Parson's conceptual framework, examining the Parsonian pro- position that the nuclear family system is the modal type and most functional in an industrial society such as the United States. These studies focused mainly on the degree of isolation and/or integration of the nuclear family units, and the relationship between the degree of isolation and vertical or horizontal mobility within the industrial system. However, the present state of knowledge indicates that most peOple still maintain intergenerational relationships with considerable 67Robert N. Person, "Bilateral Kin Grouping as a Structural Type," University of Manila: Journal of East Asiatic Studies, 1954, pp. 199-202. ' 68 Bott, op. cit., p. 115. 69Marvin B. Sussman and Lee Burchinal, "Kin Family Networks: Unheralded Structure in Current Conceptualizations of Family Function- ing," Marriage and Family Living, Vol. 24, November, 1962, pp. 320- 332; in this article a review of the literature is presented. 31 variation in the type of relationships.70 This variation may be re- lated to such factors as education, occupation, and residence (rural or urban). The distinction between the nuclear, modified extended, and extended types of families suggested by Litwak is important to the main ideas of the present study. The concept "network" will be used here to describe social relationships with relatives.71 It seems obvious that the extended family is related to a par- ticular type of occupation, that is, farming, and occupational involve- ment may be highly valued. It may also be related to low educational levels, and with rural residence. The contrary may be expected in professional and white collar occupations in urban areas where the 2 nuclear type seems to prevail. In urban communities7 characterized 7OEugene Litwak, "Occupational Mobility and Extended Family Cohesion," American Sociological Review, Vol. 25, August, 1960, p. 10 - in this article Litwak differentiates between three types of families presented in the following quotation: "(the modified extended) type differs from the "classical extended" family in that it does not demand geographical propinquity, occupational involvement,* or nepotism, nor does it have a hierarchal authority structure. On the other hand, it differs from the isolated nuclear family structure in that it does pro- vide significant continuing aid to the nuclear family." *Occupational involvement may be taken to mean continuity of occupation from father to son. 71 J. Barnes has recently used the term "network" to mean, "Each person is, as it were, in touch with a number of people, some of whom are directly in touch with each other and some of whom are not . . . I find it convenient to talk of a social field of this kind as a 'net- work'. The image I have is of a net of points some of which are joined by lines. The points of the image are people, or sometimes groups, and the lines indicate which people interact with each other.", p. 43 in "Class and Communities in a Norwegian Island Parish," Human Relations, Vol. 7, No. l,_l954, pp. 39-58. 72Urban and rural_gommunities: The U. 3. Bureau of the Census has used size and legal status as criteria to distinguish "urban" from ”rural" communities, and has traditionally drawn the line by identify- ing "urban" communities as incorporated places of 2,500 or more inhabitants. 32 by industrialization where freedom of choice, success, and acceptance 73 of change are highly valued, it is probably that the less demanding collateral bonds are emphasized. Ideally, mutual dependency and mutual aid are absent and sociability is predominant.74 This definition has been a matter of administrative convention, however, the occupational criteria might be observed, that is, urban communities might be viewed as centers of manufacturing, while rural communities may be thought of as agricultural in character. Loe F. Schnore, "The Rural Urban Variable: An Urbanite's Perspective," Rural Sociology, Vol. 31, No. 2, June, 1966, pp. 131-143. ' 73Since the interest in this study focuses upon middle-class families where achievement is "so highly valued within the middle class family" as Rose Coser says in The Family: Its Structure and Functions, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1964, p. xix, some studies investigating the relationship between social and economic class on the one hand, and family values on the other hand will be cited here. The main assumption of Melvin L. Kohn, "Social Class and Paternal Values," is that social classes as subcultures of the larger society, each has a relatively distinct value orientation. In this study, Kohn found that parents, whatever their social class, deem it very important that their children be honest, happy, considerate, obedient, and dependable. The second conclusion is that, whatever the reasons may be, parents' values are related to their social position, particularly their class position. [kohn used Kluckhohn's definition of values, "A value is a conception, explicit or implicit, distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirable which influences the selection from avail- able modes, means, and ends of action. (C. Kluckhohn, "Values and Value Orientations," in T. Parsons and E. Shils (eds.), Toward a General Theory of Action, Harvard University Press, 1951, p. 395.):7 Kohn in Coser, ibid., p. 491; the study conducted by Elizabeth Douvan where she found that middle-class children were urged to individual achieve- ment and were taught to respond to symbolic as well as motivational re- wards, "Social Status and Success Striving," The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psybhology, V01. 52, March, 1956, pp. 219-223; and the study done by Cyrus M. Johnson and Allan Kerkhoff, "Family Norms, Social Positions, and the Value of Change," Social Forces, Vol. 43, No. 2, December, 1964, pp. 149-156. 7L». Elaine Cumming and D. M. Scheinder, "Sibling Solidarity: A Property of American Kinship," American Anthropologist, Vol. 63, 1961, pp. 498-507. 33 Theoretical Hypotheses This study assumes that groups possessing different educational, occupational, racial, religious and socio—economic backgrounds not only possess distinctive subcultures but also vary in degree of isolation from the larger cultural system. The folk-like Mennonite group is, of course, assumed to be more culturally isolated than the farm or urban groups located in the same geographical area. If the Mennonite group in fact is more culturally isolated than the two control groups, iso- lation from the dominant cultural system should be reflected by lower participation rates in voluntary social organizations, in less spatial mobility, in greater in-group identification, and by less contact with mass means of communication. Hence, the first general hypothesis is concerned with degree of cultural isolation. General Hypothesis I. The "folk-rural" community of Mennonites, as compared with the rural and urban groups, will exhibit higher levles of cultural isolation on a series of objective measures. It is ex- pected that members of the folk-rural group will exhibit: (1) lower participation rates in voluntary social organizations; (2) lower rates of mobility during vacation periods; (3) greater in-group identifica- tion; and (4) lower exposure to mass media and cultural themes of the dominant culture, than members of the rural and urban control groups in the same geographical area. These pr0positions are operationalized as sub-hypotheses in Chapter 3. If the assumptions of greater cultural isolation on the part of the folk-rural community of Mennonites is borne out, it should follow that they will manifest the attributes of a folk-like subculture. 34 Specifically, the Mennonite group should be characterized by value orientations and an intergenerational consensus that distinguish it from the rural and urban groups in the same geographical area. Value orientations derived from major institutions, and intergenerational consensus regarding these value orientations, are explored. General Hypothesis II. The "folk-rural" community of Menno- nites will possess value orientations markedly different from those of the rural and urban groups. Further, intergenerational consensus with respect to these value orientations will be greater for Mennonites than for the control group. It is expected that the folk-rural group will be markedly different from and that intergenerational consensus will be greater than the rural and urban groups in regard to value orienta- tions to: (1) education; (2) occupation; (3) mate selection and family size; (4) migration; (5) religion and (6) preferred behavioral traits in children. These propositions are operationalized as sub-hypotheses in Chapter 3. If the assumptions of greater cultural isolation on the part of the folk-rural community of Mennonites indicated the manifestation of "folk-like" subculture, it should follow that members of the group will exhibit "folk-like" patterns of social relationships. Specifically, the Mennonite group should be characterized by folk patterns of relation- ships that distinguish it from the rural and urban groups. Attitudes toward different age and sex categories will be examined. Moreover, frequencies of interaction with relatives will be explored in order to investigate degree of connectedness of the kinship network and familial influence. Therefore, the third general hypothesis is concerned with 35 the nature of social relationships based upon age, sex, and the kinship network. General Hypothesis III. The "folk-rural" community of Menno- nites will exhibit patterns of social relationships markedly different from those of the rural and urban groups. It is expected that members of the folk-rural group will recognize age and sex as the basis for social relationships to a greater extent than the rural and urban groups. Further, it is expected that "folk-rural" group will manifest "closely— knit" relationships characteristic of the "extended family” type that is markedly different from that of the rural and urban groups. These propositions are operationalized as sub-hypotheses in Chapter 3. Thesis Organization An introduction to the general problem of this study has been stated in this chapter. The theoretical framework and a formal state- ment of the hypotheses were also part of this chapter. Chapter II deals with methodology. It includes an exposition of the selection of the communities, the sample, and the research instruments and techniques used. Also included in this chapter is a description of the methods used in analyzing the data and in testing the hypotheses. Chapter III contains the results of the comparative analysis and tests of the Opera- tional hypotheses. Chapter IV presents a discussion of the findings and draws conclusions from the results obtained. CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the complete design of the study, con- sisting of four main parts. The first is concerned with a description of the procedures used in the selection of the communities. The second presents the procedures for selecting the sample. The third part is a discussion and presentation of the research instruments used in gather- ing the data, such as the interview questionnaires, the observer as a participant, and the measurements used. Finally, the fourth part in- cludes a presentation of the statistical techniques and tests used in analyzing the data and in testing the hypotheses. Procedures for Selecting the Communities The problem focused upon in this research required the selection of three communities thought to possess different subcultures. To ob- tain a range in presumed cultural isolation, a rural community thought to be folk-like was required. At the other extreme a non-rural commu- nity was needed. Falling between the extremes, an average agricultural community was required. It was essential that the three communities be located in close proximity to each other. A major concern in the selec- tion process was to scale down the scope of the research so that adequate effort could be carried out in each. The required data were intended 36 37 to be obtained mainly through interviewing which requires considerable field effort and preparation. Therefore, the number of communities selected was limited to three for theoretical as well as practical rea- sons. The communities, then were selected to satisfy the following criteria: (1) Folk-like subculture, full-time farming activities, middle-class, white, and Protestant; (2) Non-folk-like subculture, full- time farming activities, middle—class, white, and Protestant; and (3) Non—folk-like subculture, non-farming activities, middle-class, white, and Protestant. One could have studied one community in depth, that is, con- ducting extensive interviewing and participating fully in community life. Obviously this alternative would have required an extended resi- dence in the community. Another alternative approach to the problem of this study would have been to investigate a racial, ethnic or religious subculture and compare this system with other groups within a single city. However, it is obvious that the design of the present research attempted to control for factors such as religion, economic-status, race, and occupation. Still another alternative would have been to study the problem of this research on a cross cultural basis. But, this alternative would have been prohibitive in both time and money. Con- sidering the alternatives, a decision was made to select three commu- nities in Michigan. Procedures for Selecting the "Folk-Rural" Community Thought to Possess Folk-Like Characteristics.- The literature gave evidence that the Amish, have special mechanisms designed for boundary mainten- ance. At an early age children are taught that the Amish are a chosen but a persecuted peOple and that 38 many types of activity involving non-Amish peeple are sinful. Tales of immorality in the high schools of surrounding communities are circulated continuously to prevent children from wanting to attent and to prevent adults from giving in to the state laws which require attendance. The distinctive dress, grooming, and taboos on travel and interaction of the Amish are all mechanisms which assist the comm nities and the whole subculture in boundary maintenance As a rural socio-religious sect, the Amish represent a way of life which is quite different from that of other American communities. The somewhat successful maintenance of this Amish way of life in a sur- rounding culture of constant change offers many possibilities for the study of certain sociological processes operative in the social system.76 The three largest concentrations of the Amish today are found in Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. Since there were no easily accessible Amish communities in Mich- igan, a decision was made to study the Mennonites who are from the same 77 socio-religious stem as the Amish. There is considerable variation 75C. P. Loomis and J. A. Beegle, Rural Sociology, New York: Prentice-Hall, 1957, p. 48. 76Literature and studies dealing with the Amish: Walter M. Kollmorgen,'Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community: The Older Order Amish of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania," Rural Life Studies, No. 4, United States Department of Agriculture, September, 1942; John A. Hostetler, Amish Life, Penn.: Herald Press, 1953; J. A. Hostetler, Annotated Bib- liography on the Amish, Penn.: Mennonite Publishing House, 1951; J. A. Hostetler, "Persistence and Change in Amish Society," Ethnology, 1964, Op. cit., pp. 185-198; Elmer L. Smith, The Amish Peeple, New York: Ex- position Press, 1958. 7fidterature and studies dealing with the Mennonites: Melvin Gingerich, The Mennonites in Iowa, Iowa City: The State Historical Society of Iowa, 1939; Henry C. Smith, The Story of the Mennonites, third edition (revised and enlarged) Cornellius Krahn, Kansas: Mennonite Pub- lication Office, 1959; Alvin J. Beachy, "The Rise and Development of the Beachy Amish Mennonite Churches," Mennonites Quarterly_Review, Vol. XXIX, .April, 1955, pp. 118-140; John A. Hostetler, "Religious Mobility in a Sect Group: The Mennonite Church," Rural Sociology, Vol. XIX, September, 39 within the Mennonites - from the conservative extreme which does not encourage education beyond high school and farming is highly valued among them, to the other extreme which pursues higher education and professional occupations. A decision was made to select a community from the most traditional Mennonite group. The objective of this study was explained to a Mennonite grad- uate student at M.S.U. who invited the researcher to attend a Menno- nite church meeting. To gain confidence, the research objectives were explained to the key persons as clearly as possible. However, the ‘ Mennonite group first visited did not fit the design of this study. Many of the members did not reside in the local community, few had farming occupations, and many did not meet the economic criterion. The intention of selecting a traditional group of Mennonites was discussed with the pastor of this congregation who suggested a con- tact with the senior pastor of a traditional group in the adjacent 78 county. The minister volunteered to introduce the writer to the senior pastor and an appointment was made. A trip was made to the senior pas- 79 tor's house and an attempt was made to answer the various questions asked by the minister and others from the religious structure who were present. Initially, those present were suspicious of such research, 1954, pp. 244-255; Histories of the Congregations: The Church of God in Christ, Publication Board, Hesston, Kansas, 1963; Harold S. Bender and C. Harry Smith, Mennonites and Their Heritage: A Handbook of Menno- gite History and Beliefs, Penn.: Herald Press, 1964. 8. 7 in Newark, Gratiot County, Michigan. 9 ' . 7 We refer to Pastor Longnecker (of the radical Mennonites who we first visited), Professor Beegle, and the writer. we visited Pastor Litwiler (of the conservative Mennonites) on February 7, 1966. 40 especially since they themselves and members of their group, would be the object of the inquiry. This reaction was anticipated, considering the boundary maintenance activities necessary on the part of the Menno- nites. However, after several hours of conversation, suspicion faded and permission was granted to conduct the study. The Mennonite commu- nity, located in Southern Gratiot County, met the criterion of a "folk- like" subculture of considerable size. At this meeting, a decision was made to accommodate the writer in the residence of the "junior pastor." This meant acceptance by the religious structure of the proposed re- search and virtually guaranteed its success in the community. Thus, New Haven and Newark, in Gratiot County, were selected to represent what was thought to be a folk-like rural community. Procedures for Selecting the Rural Community.- The next concern was to select an agricultural community in the same general locality of the Mennonite community in which most of the people were engaged in farming. Census data for several counties were examined for various alternative sites. Clinton County seemed to offer several possibili- ties which fit the research design. This County occupies an area of 571 square miles in the south central part of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. According to the 1960 Census, the total population was 37,969, the total urban population being 8,288 and the total rural population being 29,681.80 The historical background of the County, its geography, and land use were reviewed. Information was also obtained about the agricultural characteristics, population characteristics, and the 8 . ' OUnited States Census of Population, 1960, pp. 24.154, 24-341. 4l religious composition of the different townships which make up the County.81 Various townships were reviewed in cooperation with the County Agent, and Bengal was tentatively selected to represent the rural com- munity. The County Agent provides farmers with agricultural information and advises in various social activities. A list of all farmers re- siding in the County are on file in his office. A trip was made to the County Agent82 and an attempt was made to familiarize him with re- search objectives. His cooperation was obtained in being introduced to the rural community and in providing the needed records. Bengal township, located in northwestern Clinton County met the criterion of a typical rural community. After this meeting with the County Agent, we moved around the boundaries of the township to identify the agri- cultural characteristics, location of schools, and other needed infor- mation.83 Thus, Bengal township, in Clinton County, was selected to represent the rural community. Procedures for Selecting the Urban Community.- St. Johns, the county seat of Clinton County, was chosen to represent the urban com- munity. The social and economic characteristics of St. Johns as shown in the 1960 Census fit the research design. Since the city is located 81Ella M. Beck, Ethel L. Huot, Claribel R. Meyers, John Parker, Helen A. Lewis, Karlene Eckert, Sister Jacinta, Earl R. Lancaster, Gladys E. Bullard, Ardis B. Utterback, Evelun A. Wielend, and Roger N. Shutes, "Unpublished Class Project in Rural Sociology: Clinton County," Sociology: 437, 1965. A paper presented to Professor Beegle. 2 Professor Beegle and the writer visited Mr. Haus, the County Agent on February 7, 1966. 8 3Professor Beegle and the writer. 42 about 20 miles to the north of Lansing, Michigan, and is near to the other communities, St. Johns was selected to represent the non-rural urban community. Table 1 summarizes the social and economic character- istics of St. Johns.8u A trip was made to explore the social and cultural characteris- tics of the City of St. Johns. A visit was made to the high school where the writer was introduced to the school board.85 The City seemed to fit the research design and a decision was made to select St. Johns to represent the urban community. Before starting the field work, the writer was provided with a document from the authorities at M.S.U. to prove his identity and his relation to the University. The author stayed in a motel located about one mile north of the City. However, in order to make his presence known to as many people as possible, the researcher frequented public places in the City during his stay. Selection of Samples The samples drawn in the three communities represent a rela- tively small percentage of the total population in each of the commu- nities studied. The samples were not random and one of the main pur- poses of this section is to explain the procedures in selecting them. A total of 48 cases were obtained in each of the three communities. 8“U. S. Census, 1960, pp. 24-183. 85Mr. E. Lancaster, the Clinton County Superintendent of Schools, and Mrs. Ethel Huot, Principal of Swego Elementary School at St. Johns, were students of Professor Beegle who called both of them, recommended the writer, explained the research objectives, and obtained permission for the writer to examine the school records and interview students at school. 43 TABLE 1.--The social and economic characteristics of St. Johns, Clinton - County, Michigan, 1960* Total population 1960. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,629 Percent foreign born . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Percent native of foreign or native parents . . . . . . . . . . 11.6 Persons 25 years old and over Median school years completed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 Percentage who completed 4 years of high school or more . . . 46.1 Non-worker - worker ratio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.46 Females 14 years old and over - percent in labor force . . . . . 39.8' Civilian labor force - percent unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Employed persons - percent in manufacture industry . . . . . . . 29.5 Families Median income dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6,606 Percent with income of Under $3,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.0 $10,000 and OVBI‘ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1700 *Source: U.S. Census 1960 p. 24-183. 44 The criteria used in the selection of the cases in each commu- nity were: 1. child were eligible. in elementary schools were eligible, level in high school were eligible, Only those children who were at the fourth grade level Only those students who were at the 11th and 12th grade Only those who were engaged in full-time farming in both the Mennonite and the rural communities were eligible, Only complete families, where parents had at least one These criteria for case selection were established to assure degree of control of some factors assumed to be important, and to assure relative homogeneity among the cases. and economic characteristics of the total sample. TABLE 2.--Distribution of informants in the three community types, by sex Community Type The following tables summarize the social # 4- Folk-rural Rural Urban No. 75 No. i No. 7 Male (24) 50 (28) 58 (25) 52 Female (24) 5o (20) 1+2 (23) 48 Total (48) 100 (48) 100 (48) 100 As shown in Table 2, males and females were approximately equally re- presented in each of the three communities. The age distribution of the samples ranged from 10 to 12 for children, 16 to 18 for students, and from 25 to about 60 for the parents. presented in Table 3. The specific distribution is 45 TABLE 3.--Distribution of informants in the three community types, by age if Community Type Folk-rural Rural Urban No: 6 No. 2 No. - fl Children 10-12 (8) 16 (8) 16 (8) 16 Students 16-18 (8) 16 (8) 16 (8) 16 EEEEEEE 25-35 (19) 41 (6) 12 (3) 7 36-45 (5) 10 (19) 41 (17) 36 46-55 (6) 13 (6) 13 (ll) 23 56.60 (2) 4 (1) 2 (1) 2 Total (48) 100 (48) 100 (48) 100 Table 4 shows the distribution of the sample by religious pre- ference. The cases selected from the community thought to be "folk- like" were all Mennonites. Approximately 54% from the "rural" commu- nity were members of the E.U.B. church and about 50% of the cases selected from the urban community were Methodists. The detailed dis- tribution is presented in Table 4. Table 5 shows the distribution of sample according to total annual gross income. Table 5 indicates that all cases selected from the three communities earn annual gross income that was considered to be the middle-class, i.e., where income ranges between $4,000 to $12,000 per year. Table 6 shows the distribution of children and students in the sample by grade in school as well as the distribution of parents in terms 46 TABLE 4.--Distribution of informants in the three community types, by religious preference Religious Community Type #4 Preference Folk-rural Rural Urban No. % No. % No. % Mennonites (48) 100 - - - - Lutheran - - (8) l7 (9) 19 E. U. B. - - (26) 54 - - Congregational - - (6) 13 (ll) 23 - Methodist - - (4) 8 (24) 50 Baptist - - (2) 4 - - Presbyterian - - - - (4) 8 Christian Science - - (2) 4 - - Total (48) 100 (48) 100 (48) 100 TABLE 5.--Distribution of parents in the three community types, by total annual gross income Total annual gross Community Type income in dollars Folk-rural ' Rural Urban No. *3 No. 6 No. it 4.000 - 5.999 (2) 6 (6) 18 (2) 6 6,000 - 7,999 (4) 12 (2) 6 (4) 12 8.000 - 9.999 (10) 32 (12) 38 (8) 25 10,000 - 12,000 (16) 50 (12) 38 (18) 57 Total (32) 100 (32) 100 (32) 100 47 of the highest grade of school completed. Table 6 shows that 43% of the Mennonite parents completed grade school or less, and none of them attended college. In contrast, 46% of the rural parents and 50% of the urban parents completed high school. Less than 10% of these two samples either attended or completed college. TABLE 6.--Distribution of informants in the three community types, by grade in school and highest grade completed by parents Age by grade Community Type in school Folk-rural Rural Urban No. 5 No. i No. 1 Children 4th grade (8) 16 (8) 16 (8) 16 Students 11th, 12th grades (8) 16 (8) 16 (8) 16 Highest_g:ade of school completedjbyiparents Grade school or less (20) 43 (l) 3 (1) 3 Some high school - did not graduate (11) 23 (6) 13 (3) 6 High school (1) 2 (22) 46 (24) 50 Some college - — (2) 4 (2) 4 Completed college - - (l) 2 (2) 4 Total (48) 100 (48) 100 (48) 100 Table 7 shows the distribution of the parents from each commu- nity by occupation. Table 7 indicates that fathers from the Mennonite group have farming occupations, while mothers were housewives only. 48 Fathers from the rural group were farmers, most of the mothers were housewives although some have either professional or clerical occupa- tions. None of the parents from the urban community work in farming. They worked in professional, clerical-business, or blue collar occupa- tions. A comparable percentage of mothers from the urban and the rural communities were housewives. TABLE 7.--Distribution of parents in the three community types, by occupation Occupation Community Type Felk-rural Rural Urban No. 9 No. ,6 No. 3 Professional - - (3) 10 (6) 18 Clerical-business - - (2) 6 (7) 22 Farming (16) 50 (16) 50 - - Other blue collar - - - - (7) 22 Housewife (16) 50 (11) 34 (12) 38 Total (32) 100 (32) 100 (32) 100 —— The number of children in the family is shown in Table 8. Table 8 shows that the Mennonite families have more children than the rural or urban families. Small differences were found in family size in the latter two samples. Different procedures were used in selecting the samples from the three communities under consideration. The "Folk-rural" Communipy.- The sample comprised only Menno- nites, full-time middle-class farmers, housewives, and youth living in 49 TABLE 8.--Distribution of parents in the three community types, by number of children Number of Children Community Type 328““. NW . we ,. One _ - (2) 6 (2) 6 Two (8) 26 (10) 32 (6) 18 Three (10) 32 (6) 18 (8) 26 Four (2) 6 (8) 26 (10) 32 Five (4) l2 (4) 12 (6) 18 Six (2) 6 - - - - Seven (2) 6 - - - _ Eight (a) 12 - - - _ Nine - - (2) 6 - _ Total (32) 100 (32) 100 (32) 100 Newark and New Haven townships, Gratiot County, Michigan, in February 1966. A list of the church membership consisting of 315 members was examined. Some of the members were retired, did not have children, worked in factories, were part-time farmers, or fell below the range considered to be middle-class. A decision was made to exclude these categories from those who met the criteria. Thirty two families satis- fied the criteria and they were selected accordingly. These were dis- tributed as follows: (1) children from eight families who were at the fourth grade level; (2) students from eight other families who were at the junior and senior levels in high school; (3) sixteen families were selected: half were to be interviewed for data parallel to those of 50 children and students that are relevant to value orientations and intergenerational consensus, and the second half were to be interviewed for data regarding social relationships. The "Rural" Community.- Records available at Harper Elementary School in Bengal township were examined. Names of children registered in March, 1966 were listed. A random sample of eight children was drawn from those who met the specified criteria. All children selected resided in Bengal township. They represented sons and daughters of Protestant, middle-class, and while full-time farmers. Records avail- able at St. Johns High School provided the desired information, in- cluding father's occupation, address, and religious preference. Names of youth living in Bengal who were in junior and senior grade levels were listed and a random sample of eight students was drawn. The list containing names of all full- and part-time farmers was available at the County Agent's Office and was examined. There was no doubt that the list containing 79 farm families in Bengal was complete. Those who did not qualify on the criteria used were excluded. A random sample of sixteen families was drawn from a reduced list numbering 59 full-time farmers. Eight families were to be interviewed regarding value orienta- tions and intergenerational consensus, and another eight for data on social relationships. The "Urban" Community.- The Swego elementary school at St. Johns had the required records of children in the fourth grade. A list of names was made and a random sample of 8 children was selected. The St. Johns High School provided the records of students in the junior and senior grade levels. The total list consisted of 119 students of 51 which 67 were Protestants. Names of the Protestant middle-class stu- dents were listed and 8 were selected randomly. Another 16 students were randomly selected whose parents were to be interviewed. Half of this sample were to be interviewed regarding value orientations and intergenerational consensus, and the second half for social relation- ships. Research Instruments and Techniques By research instruments and techniques is meant the various means used to gather and analyze data. Interview schedules were used in conjunction with observation to generate data from informants. Techniques for measuring degree of cultural isolation, value orienta- tions, social relationships based on age, sex, and the kinship network will be explained. The specific purpose of various measures used and their theoretical justification will be presented after reviewing the techniques used. The Interview Schedules.- This study made use of structured interview schedules in collecting data from various respondents in each community. A c0py of the schedules may be found in Appendix A. The form of the schedules was varied for each of the age and sex cate- gories of informants. A certain degree of parallelism was built into all the questions examining content of the subcultures in terms of value orientations derived from major institutions, and intergenera- tional consensus regarding these value orientations. A series of parallel questions were constructed to measure the degree of cultural isolation of the groups studied. Adults were asked to indicate their participation in various types of voluntary social 52 organizations both inside or outside the local community. Three ques- tions eliciting the place, length of time, and with whom vacation time. is spent were designed to measure the extent of geographical mobility. A set of questions was designed to measure the source from whom advice is sought when children, students, and parents are confronted with prob- lems. Another series of questions was intended to measure frequency of interaction outside the local community. A specific set of questions was designed to measure the value orientations of children, students, and parents toward (1) education; (2) occupation; (3) mate selection and family size; (4) migration; (5) religion; (6) preferred behavioral traits in children. These questions were also used in measuring intergenerational consensus regarding the mentioned value orientations and behavioral values. The second group of parents selected was interviewed using a different set of questions intended to investigate social relationships based on age, sex, and kinship. Informants were asked to indicate their attitudes of respect for different age and sex categories both inside and outside the kinship structure. A Specific series of ques- tions was asked to investigate influence of different age and sex cate- gories on informants' political, economic, and religious opinions. Interaction with relatives and familial influence were examined in the same questionnaire. Before any interviewing was done, the interview schedules were pretested with children at Foster Elementary School, in Lansing, Michi- gan - and among graduate colleagues in the Department of Sociology, M.S.U. In the rural and the urban communities, letters were sent to informants 53 selected and appointments were arranged by phone. Informants residing in the Mennonite community, however, were interviewed directly without prior contact. While conducting the interviews, each informant was handed a questionnaire and the researcher read the questions to them and checked the responses. Clarifications were provided when needed, and they were repeated identically when the same point was raised. Interviewing in the folk-rural community occurred between February 14, 1966, to February 21, 1966; in the rural and urban com- munities it took place between February 28, 1966, to March 18, 1966. Generally the writer interviewed from 9:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. during the period where the field research was conducted. The children's schedule averaged about 20 minutes per interview, the student's schedule averaged about 30 minutes, and each parent's schedule lasted about 60 minutes. Children and students in the folk-rural community were inter- viewed at their homes apart from the rest of the family. The children and students in the rural and urban communities were interviewed at their schools in separate rooms provided. When both husband and wife were to be interviewed, each was interviewed independently but with identical schedules except in the section dealing with occupational involvement. Excellent cooperation was achieved and there were no refusals. There seemed to be no hesitancy on the part of respondents to provide the information sought both in the structured questions and in answer to the writer's comments. It should be pointed out that the strategy of interviewing varied in the community types. In the folk-rural commu- nity, interviews were first conducted with all "key" persons in the community. One of the junior pastors accompanied the writer, visiting 54 with each family while interviews were conducted. Prior to the inter- viewing in the rural and urban communities, the researcher started by projecting slides for the children and students in their classrooms and in the churches. The slides projected showed historical and in- dustrial characteristics of Ancient and Modern Egypt, U.A.R. The writer conducted interviews with parents by himself either at their homes or at work. Observation as a Participant Through observation the researcher has the opportunity of noting facts which the people themselves may not be aware of. By seeing, hearing, and recording various activities, it is possible to understand why people behave the way they do. When conducting systema- tic observations, the investigator must know what aspects of group be- havior and activities are relevant to his research and must develop a systematic plan for recording the observations. The type of participa- tion used in the present study was that classified by Junker as "observer as a participant."86 The observer as a participant role is usually used in studies involving visits. Basically, it calls for formal ob- servations. However, the writer attempted to obtain informal observa- tions as well. 86Buford Junker, Field Work: An Introduction to the Social Sciences, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960, pp. 38 and 39. Junker suggested four theoretically possible social roles for sociologists conducting field work: (1) complete participation: in this role the field worker's activities as such are wholly concealed, he becomes a complete member of an in-group; (2) participant as ob- server: in this role the field worker's observation activities are not wholly concealed; (3) observer as a participant: in this role the ob- server's activities as such are made publicly known at the outset; (4) complete observer: as in laboratory studies, it removes a field worker entirely from social interaction with infbrmants. 55 Kaplan says that observation is a deliberate search which is carried out with care and foresight. "Observation is purposive be- havior, directed towards ends that lie beyond the act of observation itself - the aim is to Secure materials that will play a part in other phases of inquiry, like formation and validation of hypotheses."87 The specific data produced by this technique in the present study were in relation to cultural isolation and group homogeneity. The function of the observer was to observe as fully, intensively, and extensively as possible the existence or absence of specific tul- tural items, for example. Observation was systematically conducted to record various rituals performed by the groups studied. Arrange- ment of furniture and fashion of dress and children's toys were data obtained. Social importance of vacations and shopping outside the com- munity were observed and recorded. All observations were recorded in a brief outline noted immediately after the interview was over. At the end of interviewing, detailed statements and observations were recorded. In summary, the interview schedule and observer as a partici- pant were chosen in this study as the most appropriate means of col- lecting data for the following reasons: 87Abraham Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquipy, San Francisco, Cal.: Chandler Publishing Company, 1964:pp. 126-127. In this respect Claire , Sellitz et a1. say that observations become a scientific technique to the extent that it: (1) serves a formulated research purpose, (2) is planned systematically, (3) is recorded systematically and related to more general propositions rather than.being.presented as a set of in- teresting curiosa, and (4) is subjected to control on validity and reliability. Claire Sellitz, et al., p. cit., pp. 200-234. 56 1. It is doubtful whether a mailed questionnaire would have received an adequate response. 2. Since the norms, values, and Opinions as well as the social relationships based on age, sex, and kinship network were of major concern, the only efficient method seemed to be to ask the informants directly, supplemented by observation. 3. Some of the questions needed clarification in order to ob- tain the required data. 4. The folk-rural community was a relatively closed system, consisting of a homogeneous, comparatively isolated group. PrOper entree and techniques were necessary in order to obtain any responses. 5. The methods used permit the collection of additional data based on observation. The reciprocal relationship which develops during the interview between the respondents and the researcher helps to produce more data. 'Thus, the data were strengthened by the writer's observations of various attitudes and activities. Measures and Their Components Measures of cultural isolation, value orientations, values of behavior, consensus, age, sex, and kinship network will be presented. The Specific purpose of the various measures used in this study, their theoretical justification and the components of each measure are pre- sented below. 1. Cultural Isolation (Independent Variable) Groups are assumed to vary in terms of their contacts with the dominant culture. Four question areas were used to measure cultural 57 isolation. These include: (1) social participation; (2) mobility; (3) in-group identification in terms of (a) orientation to solving prob- lems, and (b) orientation to friendship residing outside local community, and (4) measure of cultural items. The four measures were considered together in determining the degree of isolation of a specific sub- culture. (1) Social participation.- As one dimension of cultural isolation, membership in clubs, social groups, and other types of asso- ciations were considered important. Four questions eliciting number and types of voluntary social organizations, in and outside the local commu- nity, are the components of this measure. Social participating as an index of cultural isolation can range from low to high. Low cultural isolation would be reflected in high frequencies of group membership in various types of social organizations inside and outside the local community. High cultural isolation would be reflected in low fre- quencies of membership in organizations. (2) Mobility.- A second measure of cultural isolation is based upon vacation patterns. Three questions eliciting the place, length, and with whom vacation time was spent are ingredients of this measure. In the context of vacations, this measure tells us the extent of geographical mobility, and the amount of exposure to ideas outside the informants' community. Mobility, as a measure of cultural isolation can range from "low" to "high". Low cultural isolation would be re- flected by long vacation periods away from the local community and apart from members of the immediate family or relatives. High cultural iso- lation would be reflected by short vacations, either in the local commu- nity or near to it, and with family or relatives. 58 (3) In-Gropp Identification (a) Group orientation to solving problems Individuals who identify themselves with the in-group rather than with the larger cultural and social system, are culturally iso- lated and confined only to their subculture. Groups differ with respect to their attitudes toward asking advice from significant persons in their communities. Individuals who seek advice on problems from family and relatives tend to identify with the in-group and thus they are culturally isolated. The index consisted of presenting specific prob- lems to informants concerning: education, occupation, marriage, mobility, and religion. Orientation to solving problems can range from ”high" to "low". High frequencies in seeking advice on problems from family and relatives would be a manifestation of high in-group identification and consequently reflects high cultural isolation. Lower frequencies in seeking advice from family and relatives reflects lower in-group identi- fication and reflects lower cultural isolation. (b) Group orientation toward interaction with friends residing outside informant's local community A second dimension of in-group identification is based upon maintaining interaction with friends residing outside informant's local community. Having and maintaining relationships with friends signifies participation in out-group acitivities, and exposure to ideas of the larger cultural system. This measure consists of a set of questions intended to gather data concerning the number and frequency of inter- action with best friends. Thus, orientation toward having and main- taining continuous interaction with best friends residing outside local community, as an aspect of out-group identification, can range from "high" to "low". Low cultural isolation would be reflected in having 59 many best friends residing outside informant's local community and high frequencies of visiting with them. High cultural isolation would be reflected in lower frequencies on the same measure. (4) Presence of Cultural Items A fourth measure of cultural isolation is based upon measuring the existence of specific cultural items such as newspapers, radio sets, television sets, and movie theaters. The use of mass media of commu- nication signifies the transmission of ideas of the larger cultural system. Thus, lack of the mentioned cultural items indicates a high degree of cultural isolation. Existence of mass media items would manifest a low degree of isolation from the larger cultural system. Data relevant to this dimension were collected by means of observation and were systematically recorded. 2. Value Orientations (Dependent Variablo) The value orientation measures used consisted of a series of questions intended to ascertain respondents' value orientations toward: (1) length of formal education; (2) occupational involvement; (3) mate selection and ideal family size; (4) migration and (5) religious in- volvement and activities. Value orientations toward these elements can vary from "high" to "low" depending on the degree of isolation from the larger cultural system. Hence, a "folk-like" subculture would be reflected by: (1) high frequencies selecting high school or less as an end of formal education; (2) high frequencies in selecting the same occupation as that of the father or preference of being housewive only as the mother; (3) high frequencies selecting mates from the same local community, and high frequencies wanting (or having) large families; (4) high frequencies wishing to remain in the local community; and 60 (5) high frequencies involved in religious activities. A "non-folk" subculture would exhibit low frequencies in these areas. 3. Values Preferred in Children's Behavior (Dependent Variable) The purpose of this measure was to differentiate between the groups with respect to values preferred in the behavior of children. Traditional values would characterize folk subcultures that are cul- turally isolated, while secular values would be characteristic of non- folk subcultures. The first system emphasizes compliance to the trans- mitted way of life by means of religion; the second encourages question— ing and achievement by means of learning. The measure consisted of a story including certain values, namely: "obedience to parents" and "trust in God" (considered together as representing "traditional values"), "honesty" and "happiness" (considered together as representing "middle- class values"), and "success and interest in school" and "curiosity" (considered together as representing "secular values"). Preference to traditional traits of behavior can vary from "high” to "low" depending on the degree of isolation from the larger cultural system. Hence, "folk-like" subculture would be reflected by high frequencies preferring "traditional traits" of behavior in children as most desired. Lower frequencies selecting these behavioral traits would be a manifestation of a "non-folk-like" subculture. 4. Group Consensus (Dependent Variable) The purpose of measuring group consensus was to differentiate between the groups studied with respect to mutual understandings that exist between different generational levels concerning value orienta- tions and values constituting each subculture. In the context of inter- generational consensus, this measure will indicate the different principles 61 upon which common understandings and common expectations exist in each group. The measure consisted of combining responses obtained from different generational levels regarding the mentioned value orienta- tions. A folk subculture would be reflected in: (1) high intergenera- tional frequencies selecting "high school" as an end of formal education; (2) high intergenerational frequencies selecting same occupation as that of the father; (3) high intergenerational frequencies selecting (and having selected) mates from those residing in the same local community, and high intergenerational frequencies wanting (and having) large fami- lies, (4) high intergenerational frequencies selecting to stay (and having stayed) in the local community, (5) high intergenerational fre- quencies of religious involvement, and (6) high intergenerational fre- quencies selecting "traditional traits of behavior" as most desired in children. A "non-folk” subculture, manifesting characteristics of the larger culture, would reflect low intergenerational frequencies on each of the mentioned elements. 5. Relationships Based upon Age (Dependent Variable) The purpose of this measure was to differentiate between the groups studied regarding their recognition of age as a basis for social relationships. Groups differ regarding the relative importance they attach to age categories depending on degree of isolation from the larger cultural system and the prevailing subculture. The measure included a set of statements to which respondents agree or disagree. The first statement was intended to elicit whether "age" by itself merits respect. The second statement was intended to indicate degree of agreement that respect and obedience for older people are important virtues that children should learn. Then, a line of statements was 62 designed to elicit the degree of influence of older persons on infor- mants' political, economic, and religious Opinions. Young age was defined as ranging between 17 to 29, middle aged between 30 to 55, and old age was defined as 56 and over. A folk group then would manifest high frequencies selecting: (1) that "older persons" are worthy of more respect than other age groups, (2) "respect and obedience” for older persons are important virtues children should learn, and (3) that res- pondents "follow" the Opinions of older persons regarding political, economic, and religious issues. A "non-folk" group would reflect "low" frequencies on each of these elements. 6. Relationships Based upon Sex (Dependent Variable) This measure was intended to differentiate between groups studied with relation to their recognition of sex as a basis for social rela- tionships. Groups differ concerning the nature of social relationships between males and females depending on the degree of cultural isolation and characteristics of the shared subculture. The measure used in this study consisted of a set of statements to which respondents ”agree" or "disagree". The first statement was intended to elicit from respondents whether they ascribe more respect to males than females. The second statement was intended to indicate respondents' agreement "that respect and obedience for males are important virtues that children should learn." Also, a group of questions were designed to elicit the degree of influence of males on informants' political, economic, and reli- gious opinions. Hence, a "folk" group, would manifest high frequencies selecting: (1) that "males" are worthy of more respect than "females," (2) "respect and obedience" for males are important virtues children should learn, and (3) that respondents ”follow" opinions of males 63 concerning political, economic, and religious issues. A "non-folk" group would reflect "low" frequencies on each of these items. 7. Kinship Network (Dependent Variable) The purpose of a kinship measure was designed to differentiate between groups studied by delineating degree of "connectedness" of each network in terms of number of relatives, frequencies of inter- action, and familial influence. Groups differ in terms of number of living relatives comprising each kinship network. They also differ regarding maintenance of interaction with relatives despite the dis- tance of their residence. Lastly, groups differ in degree of familial influence on individuals' Opinions - depending on the degree of cul- tural isolation and the character of the subculture prevailing. The measurement of kinship network consisting of the delineation of: (1) number of living relatives; (2) their place of residence; and (3) fre- quency of interaction with them. The measure also included a series of statements to which respondents agree or disagree. The first state- ment was intended to elicit from reSpondents whether individuals having many relatives in local community were ascribed more respect than those having fewer relatives. The second statement was intended to indicate the degree of influence of those having many relatives in local commu- nity on informant's political, economic, and religious Opinions. Hence, a folk group would exhibit a kinship network characterized by close-knit' relationships manifested in high number consisting informants' network, and high frequencies of interaction with relatives residing in the local community. A folk group would also ascribe respect to those having many relatives residing in the local community manifested in following their political, economic, and religious Opinions characterizing the extended 64 family type. A "non-folk” group would reflect ”low” frequencies on each of these items, characterizing either the modified extended or nuclear family types. Methods Used in Analyzing Data and Testing Hypotheses As the types of data and the methods by which they were col- lected have been varied, so also have the analytical tools used to test significance. Numerical data are presented in tabular form which com- pare three independent samples drawn from the three communities. Some of the tables are presented in a three by two form and they deal with simple dichotomous items. Tables which present intergenerational con- sensus have been collapsed from original breakdowns. The unit of com- parison in these tables will be the combined responses of different generational levels. Some tables used in this presentation, combined cells of children and students; the term "youth" will be used to refer to both age groups. When cells of both fathers and mothers are com- bined, the term parents will be used. The chi square test was used in all cases except where the frequencies are too small to allow expected frequencies of at least five in each cell of the three by two table.88 Frequencies and per- centages were presented in these situations. The chi square will test the hypotheses that two characteristics are related and whether the three groups differ significantly with respect to these characteristics. 88 Sidney Siegel, Non Parametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1956, p. 46. 2 89The formula used for‘X2 is X2 =2E1fj ; F1) where f1 is the 1 observed, and F1 is the theoretical frequencies in a given category. 65 The differences is percentages will Show whether the direction pre— dicted by the hypotheses is identical to that shown by the data. How- ever, since the criteria of random sampling, independent observations are violated in this study, the results Show a SOmewhat inflated (No.).90 Responses should be placed in one and only one category. With these limitations the statistical inferences are not fully justified. Statis- tical tests of hypotheses by using the chi square will be made, however, keeping in mind that all its assumptions are not fully met. It is perhaps unavoidable that these methodological problems will be present in sociological research. Summary of Chapter The main purpose of this chapter has been the description of the procedures and techniques used in the present research. This des- cription covers the procedures in the selection of the communities studied and the procedures for selecting the samples. Research in- struments used were also presented and the techniques used in analyzing the data and testing the hypotheses. Communities selected for this study were Newark and New Haven in Gratiot County, Bengal township, and St. Johns, both in Clinton The null hypothesis of independence or that the groups do not differ significantly will be rejected at the .05 level, and (r - I) (c - 1) degrees of freedom. Where (r) is the number of raws and (c) the number of columns in the contingency table. Siegel, ibid., pp. 104-107. 90Siegel, pp. 44 and 109 - see also Herbert M. Blalock, Social Statistics, New York: McGraw-Hill Company, 1960, for the independence and random sampling criteria in using X2, pp. 108-111 and especially p. 110; and Wilfred Dixon and Frank Massay, Introduction to Statistical Analysis, second edition, New York: McGraw-Hill Company, 1957, pp. 224- 225. 66 County, Michigan. The first two townships represent the "folk-rural" Mennonite community. Bengal township represents the ”rural" commu- nith where full-time farmers were found. St. Johns represents the "urban" community. Specific criteria were followed in selecting the communities: (1) folk-like subculture, full-time farming occupations, middle-class, white, and Protestant families, (2) non-folk-like sub- culture, full-time farming occupations, middle-class, white, and Pro- testant families, and (3) non-folk-like subculture, non-farming occu- pations, middle-class, white, and Protestant families. The samples drawn were a fairly small percentage of the total population in each of the three communities. The criteria used in the selection of the cases were: (1) only those children who were at the fourth grade level in elementary schools were eligible for selection, (2) only those students who were at junior and senior grade levels in high school were eligible for selection, (3) only those who were engaged in full-time farming in both the "folk-rural" and the "rural" communities were eligible, and (4) only complete families, where parents had at least one child were eligible. The total number of cases selected from each community was 48. Different procedures have been used in selecting the samples from the three communities. The main technique in producing data of this study was the interview schedule. The design intended to examine responses obtained from different age and sex categories which necessitated the construc- tion of varied forms of schedules, but, a high degree of parallelism was observed in all the questions used. Different procedures of in- terviewing were used in each community which contributed to successful cooperation on the part of informants; no refusals occurred. Observation 67 as a participant was used to generate data regarding a specific dimen- sion of cultural isolation and group homogeneity. This method per- mitted the collection of additional data which strengthened the results. A total of seven measurements were used: (1) degree of cul- tural isolation in terms of four dimensions: (a) social participation, (b) mobility, (c) in-group identification reflected in orientation to solving problems and orientation to interaction with friends residing outside local community, and (d) presence of cultural items; (2) value orientations; (3) preferred behavioral values in children; (4) inter- generational consensus; (5) social relationships based upon age; (6) social relationships based upon sex; and (7) degree of "connected- ness" of the kinship network. These indices were described in terms of the purpose of each, theoretical justification and its components. The last part of this chapter dealt with the description of techniques used in analyzing the data and testing the hypotheses. From a methodological point of view the comparative framework was the main approach followed in this study. Based on the concept "folk culture" and "folk society" a number of empirically testable hypotheses were presented in Chapter I. By using specific measures the intent was to differentiate between the three subcultures and groups studied. The Operational hypotheses and the comparative analysis of results and hypotheses testing will be presented in Chapter III. CHAPTER III ANALYSIS OF RESULTS This chapter is reserved for a presentation of the data bearing upon the operational hypotheses of the study. Data are presented rele- vant to three major areas of concern delineated in this study. The first tests the proposition that the three community groups vary with respect to degree of cultural isolation. The second concerns the re- lationship between cultural isolation and value orientations toward major life situations held by members of the three communities. The third explores the general proposition that varying degrees of cultural isolation on the part of the communities will engender different pat- terns of social relationships based upon age, sex, and kinship. Comparative Analysis of Varying Degrees of Cultural Isolation Cultural isolation in modern American society is assumed to be incomplete. That is, one group may be viewed as relatively isolated in comparison to another. It is assumed, based on prior studies, that cultural isolation is relatively great for Mennonites compared with other groups. Crucial dimensions of cultural isolation which can be measured are: participation in organizations, length and character of vacations, sources of advice regarding problems, visiting friends re- siding outside the local community, and use of mass means of communication. 68 69 Greater cultural isolation of Mennonites as compared with a rural and an urban group in the same geographic area is hypothesized for each of the following dimensions. A. Participation in Organizations and Cultural Isolation Hypothesis 1 - Members of the Mennonite group will exhibit lower membership rates in voluntary organi- zations both inside and outside the local community, than members of the rural and urban groups. B. Mobilitypand Cultural Isolation Hypothesis 2 - Members of the Mennonite group will exhibit shorter vacation periods than members of the rural and urban groups. Hypothesis 3 — Members of the Mennonite group will exhibit less spatial mobility in vacation periods than members of the rural and urban groups. Hypothesis 4 - Members of the Mennonite group will more fre- quently Spend vacation periods with family or relatives than members of the rural and urban groups. C. In-Group Identification and Cultural Isolation Hypothesis 5 - Members of the Mennonite group will more frequently seek advice on problems from family and relatives than members of the rural and urban groups. Hypothesis 6 - Members of the Mennonite group will exhibit lower rates of visiting best friends resid- ing outside the community than members of the rural and urban groups. D. Use of Mass Means of Communication and Cultural Isolation Hypothesis 7 - Members of the Mennonite group will exhibit lower rates of mass media use than members of the rural and urban groups. Tables 9 and 10 show the frequency of memberships in voluntary organizations, inside and outside the local community, for the Menno- nites, rural and urban samples. The differences with respect to frequency 70 of membership in local organizations were significant. The data shown in Table 9 indicate that the "Mennonite-rural-farm-group"91 participated in one organization only. Only 19% of the rural and of the urban groups participated in one organization. The data Show that the differences were in the hypothesized direction. The type of participation in selected voluntary organizations is given in Appendix B. All parents from the Mennonites participated in the church, while 19% from the rural group and a similar percentage from the urban group participated in religious organizations only. Thus, Mennonites interact more with members sharing the same religious belief. They do not participate in other in-community organizations characteristic of the larger cul- tural system TABLE 9.--Distribution of parents by number of memberships in voluntary organizations in the local community Local Community Parents, by Community Typg Number of Organir Folk-rural Rural Urban zational Membership No. Z No. % NO. Z One (16) " 100 (3) 19 (3) 19 Two - three (0) o (12) 75 (8) 50 Four - five (0) O (l) 6 (5) 31 Total (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 x2 = 33.56 df = 2 P = .001 Hereafter "Mennonite-rural-farm-group" will be referred to as the "folk-rural group", the "rural-farm-group" will be referred to as the "rural group", and the "urban group" will be referred to as the "urban group". 71 In order to extend the dimension of social participation to aspects of social life wider than the boundaries of the local commu- nity, informants were asked about membership or organizations outside their community. Table 10 shows the results dealing with membership in organizations outside local community. The differences between the groups studied were significant (at the .05 level). The results Show that Mennonites held few organizational memberships outside the local community as predicted by the hypothesis. The rural group held more memberships in organizations outside the community than did the urban group, 56% as compared to 31%. Farmers and their wives often parti- cipate in farming and other social organizations located in the County seat. Members of the urban group participated in various types of voluntary organizations located more than 20 miles outside their com- munity (see Appendix B). TABLE lO.—-Distribution of parents by number of memberships in voluntary organizations outside the local community Non-local Number Parentsy by Community Type of Organizational Folk-rural Rural Urban Memberships No. % No. % NO. % None (14) 88 (7) 44 (ll) 69 One and more (2) 12 (9) 56 (5) 31 Total (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 2 X = 6.94 df = 2 P = .05 Thus, the data shown in Tables 9 and 10 indicate that the Menno- nite group exhibits lower rates of membership in organizations, both inside and outside the community, than the rural or urban groups. The 72 differences were consistent with the hypothesis and were found signi- ficant. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted. The results bearing on length and character of vacation periods are shown in Tables 11, 12, and 13. Table 11 shows the results dealing with the length of vacation periods. As shown in this table, all members of the urban group reported vacations last year. During the same period 25% of the Mennonite and 22% of the rural groups did not take a vacation. The highest percentage, 38% of the Mennonites, spent 1 to 4 days in vacation; 50% from the rural group spent from 5 to 8 days in vacation; and 44% of the urban group spent 9 or more days in vacation. Differences were highly significant. TABLE 11.--Distribution of youth and parents (combined) in the three types, by number of days spent in the last vacation — -_ Number of Youth.and.Parents,* by Community Type Days Spent Folk-rural Rural Urban No. % No. % No. % 1 - 4 days (12) 38 (7) 22 (5) 16 5 - 8 days (3) 9 (16) 50 (13) 4O 9 or more days (9) 28 (2) 6 (14) 44 Did not take vacation (8) 25 (7) 22 (0) 0 Total (32) 100 (32) 100 (32) 100 x2 = 28.24 df = 6 p = .001 *Hereafter the term youth will refer to children and students of the sample. The term parents will refer to fathers and mothers of the sample. 73 Table 12 shows the results of spatial mobility during vacation periods. Table 21 shows that there are differences between the groups studied with regard to the place where vacations were spent. However, the pattern of the data was not in the direction predicted by hypothesis 3. A high percentage, 63% from the Mennonites spent their vacation periods outside the State, while only 24% of the rural and 47% Of the urban groups spent their vacation outside the State. This unexpected result is due to the expansion of Mennonites in many states. .Members of the sample have obligations toward their relatives which must be observed and are manifested in vacation visiting with them. Hence, it seems that Mennonites did not intend to have vacations per se. Rather, the in- tention was to fulfill a social duty. TABLE 12.--Distribution of youth and parents (combined) in the three community types, by place where the last vacation was spent - 11%.... ' Tl fiw Place Where Youth and Parents (who had vacations) _ the Last by Community Type Vacation Folk-rural Rural Urban Was Spent NO. % No. % No. % In the same state (8) 33 (19) 76 (13) 41 Out of the state (15) 63 (6) 24 (15) 47 Out of the county (1) 4 (0) 0 (4) 12 Total (24) 100 (25) 100 (32) 100 2 X = 18.35 df = 4 P = .01 Table 13 shows the results dealing with whom vacation periods were spent. The data show that 92% of the Mennonites spent the last vacation with the family or with relatives. In contrast, 40% of the 74 rural and 44% of the urban groups spent the last vacation with family or with relatives. Differences were highly significant; TABLE 13.--Distribution of youth and parents (combined) in the three community types, by whether vacation was spent with family or relatives or not With Whom Youth and Parents (who had vacations) Vacation ‘ by Community Type . Was Spent Folk-rural \ Rural Urban No. % No. % No. % With family or relatives (22) 92 (10) 4O (14) 44 Not with family or relatives (2) 8 (15) 60 (18) 56 Total (24) 100 (24) 100 (24) 100 2 X = 16.98 df = 2 P = .001 Thus, the data shown in Tables 11, 12, and 13 indicate that the Mennonite group differs significantly from the rural and urban groups with respect to length of vacations, where vacations were spent, and with whom vacations were spent. Except for hypothesis 3, differences were consistent with the hypotheses and were found significant in the hypothesized direction. Hence, hypotheses 2 and 4 are accepted, and hypothesis 3 is rejected. Table 14 shows the results bearing upon hypothesis 5 concerning sources of advice on problems. The pattern of results in Table 14 shows significant differences between the groups. Fifty-six percent of the responses obtained from the Mennonite group mentioned members of the immediate family and relatives. Fifty-five percent of the rural and 44% of the urban responses mentioned the same category. Only 8% 75 of the Mennonite responses mentioned non-relatives. Eleven percent of the rural and 17% of the urban responses mentioned the same category. The group differed significantly in the direction predicted by the hypothesis. Therefore it is accepted. TABLE l4.--Distribution of youth and parents (combined) in the three community types, by categories of persons sought for advice Categories Sought Youth and Parentpy by Community Type* for Advice Folk-rural Rural Urban No. % No. % No. % Nobody (19) 6 (9) 3 (24) 7 Family or relatives (190) 56 (184) 55 (147) 44 Non-relatives (26) 8 (39) 11 (58) 17 Teacher (23) 7 (24) 7 (45) 13 Minister (78) 23 (80) 24 (62) 19 Total (336) 100 (336) 100 (336) 100 x2 = 69.34 df = 8 P = .001 *Combined responses obtained from youth, fathers, and mothers. .Each respondent chose 3 categories out of 10 presented, regarding advice on problems concerning education, occupation, marriage, migration, and religion: N0. = 32 from each community. Tables 15 and 16 contain the results of testing Hypothesis 6 which bears upon the frequency of visiting best friends outside the local community. The pattern of results in Table 15 show that 59% of the Mennonites did not visit with their best friends residing outside the local community. Only 22% of the rural and 28% of the urban groups did not visit with their best friends in the past month. The differences were significant. 76 TABLE 15.--Distribution of youth and parents (combined) in the three community types, by monthly frequency of visiting with best friends residing outside the local community Mbnthly Frequency YOuth and Parents,"l by Community Type of Visiting Fblk-rural Rural Urbgp, No.‘ 7 No. i No. i Many times (9) 41 (21) 78 (22) 72 Not at all (13) 59 (6) 22 (8) 28 Total (22) 100 (27) 100 (28) 100 x2 = 8.06 df = 2 P = .02 *Responses of youth and parents who reported having best friends re- siding outside local community. (See Appendix C). The same pattern of visiting with best friends residing outside the local community was maintained as shown in the yearly frequency presented in Table 61. Differences are shown in percentages in Table 16, where 23% of the Mennonite group did not visit with their best friends residing outside the local community in the past year. Only 4% from the rural and 11% from the urban groups did not visit with their best friends in the same period. Hence, results shown in Tables 15 and 16 indicate that Menno- nites exhibit lower rates; measured by monthly and yearly frequencies, in visiting with best friends residing outside the local community. The groups differed significantly in the direction predicted by the hypothesis. It is therefbre accepted. Table 17 contains the results relevant to Hypothesis 7 regarding use of mass media. The data shown in Table 17 indicate that Mennonites lack the basic means of communication through which the ideas of the 77 TABLE l6.--Distribution of youth and parents (combined) in the three community types, by yearly frequency of visiting with best friends residing outside local community Vi Yearly Frequency Youth and Parentslr by Community Type of Visiting Folk-rural Rural Urban No. 3 No. i No. 5 Many times (17) 77 (26) 96 (25) 89 Not at all (5) 23 (1) 1. (3) 11 Tbtal (22) 100 (27) 100 (28) 100 *Responses of youth and parents who reported having best friends re- siding outside local community. (See Appendix C). larger culture are carried to various individuals in the society; Men- nonites differed from the rural and the urban groups in being isolated from the political, economic, educational, and aesthetic aspects of the larger cultural system. The test of this hypothesis is based on data collected by observation. Results shown in Table 17 confirm the hypothesis, and it is accepted. Summary of Findings Measuring Cultural Isolation Table 18 summarizes the results of testing the hypotheses deal- ing with relationships between social participation in voluntary organi- zations, mobility, in-group identification, and use of mass means of communication, and the degree of cultural isolation. Also, Table 18 presents results of the sub-hypotheses dealing with the differences between the fblk-rural, rural, and urban community types regarding degree of cultural isolation. 78 TABLE l7.--ExiStence (+) or absence (-) of specific cultural items in " the three community types Selected Community Type Cultural Folk-rural Rural Urban Items Newspapers - + + Magazines - + + Agricultural reprints + + _ Encyclopedia Americana + + - Radio sets - + + Musical records - + + Television sets - + + Home projectors - + + Motion picture theater - - + The findings yield evidence of a high degree of cultural iso- lation by the Mennonite group relative to the other two groups studied. Not only was the Mennonite group isolated from the larger cultural system, but they also manifested a high degree of group homogeneity. An individual is or is not a member of the Mennonite group. All members of the Mennonite group belong to the same church. When men join the Mennonite church, they start growing a beard. Men never wear neckties, smoke, or use strong drinks. Women never wear earrings, facial orna- ments or makeup and they dress in a uniform fashion. A sharp division of labor exists based upon sex. Men perform farm activities and the hard work, while women do housekeeping and rearing of children. The pattern of arranging furniture, decorating homes, and types of utilities 79 TABLE 18.--Summary of acceptance (+) and rejection (-) of the hypotheses and sub-hypotheses dealing with the differences between the folk-rural, rural, and urban community types regarding degree of cultural isolation Hypotheses and High Degree .Low Degree- Sub-hypotheses of Cultural of Cultural Isolation Isolation Rural and Folk-rural Urban A. Participation in Organizations 1. Membership rates both Folk-rural:low + inside and outside Rural :high + the local community Urban :high + B..Mobility Folk-rural:short + 2. Vacation periods Rural :1ong + Urban zlong + 3. Spatial mobility in Folk-rural:low - vacation periods Rural :high - Urban :high - 4. Vacation periods Folk-ruralzhigh + were spent with Rural :low + family or relatives Urban :low + C. In-GroupyIdentification 5. Advice on problems Folk-rural:high + was sought from Rural :low + family and relatives Urban :low + 6. Visiting best friends Folk-rural:low + residing outside Rural :high + the local community Urban :high + D. Use of Mass Means of Communication 7. Existence of mass Folk-ruralzlow + means of Rural :high + communication Urban :high + 80 are standardized in Mennonite group. Mennonite children play with the same type of toys, that is, toys representing tractors, cows, trucks, etc. probably in an attempt to familiarize them with adult roles. The samples selected from the rural and the urban communities were comprised of members of different denominations. Heterogeneity is manifested by different church membership, by different occupations (except for farmers selected from the rural community) and a wide variety in dress and in personal attitudes. Individual taste and pat- terns characteristic of the mass society was observed in arranging furniture, decorating homes, and utilities used by the rural and the urban groups. Both sexes COOperate in maintaining the family and some- times in household duties. Children play with toys that attempt to familiarize them with recent advances in science and to stimulate their curiosity. Thus, the findings based upon testing the hypotheses of cul- tural isolation and observing the degree of homogeneity of groups studied, show that the Mennonite group is more culturally isolated and more homogeneous than the rural and the urban groups. Comparative Analysis of the Three Subcultures With regard to the dimensions explored, the Mennonite group is relatively isolated from the larger cultural system, at least in com- parison to the rural and urban groups residing in close proximity to it. It is assumed that elements of the value orientations of the Mennonites which sustain this subculture, thought to be folk-like, will form an identifiable pattern and will be sharply differentiated from the rural and the urban subcultures. The general expectation is that 81 the isolated Mennonite subculture will differ systematically from the two other subcultures with respect to value orientations, behavioral values, and intergenerational consensus regarding these value orienta- tions and values of behavior. Hypotheses are generated with respect to education, occupation, mate selection, ideal family size, migration, religion, and preferred behavioral traits in children. A. Cultural Isolation and Value Orientation Regardipg Education Hypothesis 1 - The value orientation to schooling held by Mennonite youth will specify shorter formal education than those held by comparable rural and urban groups. Table 19 contains the results bearing on the hypotheses dealing with value orientations of youth with respect to length of formal edu- cation. All Mennonite youth aspire only to a high school education. Only 19% of the rural youth and 6% of the urban youth aspire to complete high school only. Differences were highly significant in the direction predicted by the hypothesis. It is therefore accepted. TABLE l9.--Distribution of youth in the three community types, by value orientation to length of formal education i ‘- — Value Orientation Youth, by Communiterype to Length of Folk-rural Rural Urban Formal Education No. % No. % NO. % High school only (16) 100 (3) 19 (l) 6 College only (0) O (13) 81 (12) 75 Beyond college (0) O (O) 0 (3) 19 Total (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 2 X = 38.43 df = 4 P = .001 82 Hypothesis 2 - The value orientation to schooling held by Mennonite parents will specify shorter formal education for their children (boys and girls) than those held by rural and urban groups. Tables 20 and 21 contain the results bearing on this hypothesis. Table 20 presents data dealing with value orientations held by parents toward length of formal education for boys. Table 20 shows that all parents from the Mennonite group wanted their boys to complete high school education only. No parents from the rural or urban groups desired sons to complete this relatively low level of education. Differences between the groups were highly significant in the hypothesized direction. TABLE 20.--Distribution of parents in the three community types, by value orientation to length of formal education for boys L Value Orientation Parents, by Community Type to Length of Folk-rural Rural Urban Formal Education No. % No. % No. % High school only (16) 100 (O) 0 (0) 0 College only (0) 0 (13) 81 (12) 75 Beyond college (0) 0 (3) l9 (4) 25 Total (16) 100. (16) 100 (16) 100 2 X df = 4 P = .001 Table 21 presents data dealing with value orientations held by parents from the three community types to length of formal education for girls. The table shows that all parents from the Mennonites want their daughters to complete high school education only. Only 6% of the rural parents and none of the urban parents desired daughters to complete this low level of schooling. .Differences were highly significant 83 and the percentages show that the differences were in the direction pre- dicted by the hypothesis. TABLE 21.--Distribution of parents in the three community types, by value orientation to length of formal education for girls 4‘ I —L if 1 Value Orientation 7 Parentsi* by Community Type to Length of Folk-rural Rural Urban Formal Education No. % No. % No. % High school only (16) 100 (l) 6 (O) 0 College only (0) 0 (14) 88 (15) 94 Beyond college (0) 0 (l) 6 (1) 6 Total (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 2 X = 43.88 df = 2 P = .001 *Cells of "college" and "beyond college" were combined to complete X2 test. Hence, data shown in Tables 20 and 21 indicate that the Menno- nite parents held value orientations toward schooling specifying shorter formal educational levels for their children (both boys and girls) than rural and urban parents. Differences were consistent with the hypothesis and it is therefore accepted. Hypothesis 3 - Intergenerational consensus on length of de- sired formal education among the Mennonites will specify shorter levels than among com- parable rural and urban groups. Results relevant to the hypothesis may be found in Appendix D and in Table 22. Appendix D presents responses obtained from three generational levels in each community type. Responses obtained from the Mennonite group indicate a sharing of almost identical values with regard to adequate length of formal education. The three generational 84 levels share basic values concerning the desired length of education, that is, high school or less. The data shown in the Appendix Table exhibits a greater range and a lower degree of consensus on desired schooling held by the rural and urban groups. The three generations from each of these two communities regarded college or beyond college levels of training as desired length of formal education. Table 22 shows the comparative results on norms of desired edu- cation computed by totaling responses obtained for three generational levels. The results shown in Table 22 indicate that the Mennonite responses manifest sharing of common expectations between the three generations that high school or less is a desired length of education. Twenty-five percent of the Mennonite responses regarded "less than high school" as an ideal, and the rest regarded "high school only" as an adequate length of education. Only 16% and 9% of the rural responses considered these two educational levels, respectively, as adequate. Comparable responses from the urban group were 11% and 8%. The groups studied differ significantly and percentages show that differences were in the hypothesided direction. Hence, the hypothesis of greater inter- generational consensus on norms of desired education among Mennonites is accepted. Hypothesis 4 - The value orientation to schooling held by the Mennonites will reflect less disappoint- ment if children drop out of school than for comparable rural and urban groups. Table 23 presents the results of this hypothesis. The results presented in Table 23 show that 25% of the Mennonite parents would be disappointed if their children did not complete high school. Ninety- four percent of the rural parents and all urban parents would feel disap- pointment if their children did not complete high school. Differences 85 TABLE 22.--Distribution of youth, parents, and parents' parents (combined) in the three community types, by consensus on desired length of formal education Value Orientation Three Generations,§ by Community Type to Length of Folk-rural Rural Urban Formal Education No. % No. % No. % Less than high school (16) 25 (10) 16 (7) 11 High school only (48) 75 (6) 9 (5) 8 College only (0) 0 (43) 67 (44) 69 Beyond college (0) 0 (5) 8 (8) 12 Total (64) 100 (64) 100 (64) 100 2 X = 116.09 df = 6 P = .001 *Combined responses of youth, parents, and parents for their parents (See Appendix D), No. for each community is 32. between parents from each community type were highly significant. The percentages show that the differences were in the hypothesized direction. It is therefore accepted. TABLE 23.--Distribution of parents in the three community types, by feelings toward having boys* drop out of school Parents' Parents, by Community Type Disappointment Folk-rural Rural Urban No. % No. % No. % Both parents will be disappointed (4) 25 (15) 94 (16) 100 Both parents will not be disappointed (12) 75 (l) 6 (0) 0 Total (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 2 X = 28.07' df = 2 P = .001 *Identical results were obtained regarding parents' feelings if "girls" dropped out before finishing high school. 86 In summary, the results presented in Tables 19 through 23 indi- cate significant relationship between degree of cultural isolation and value orientation regarding education. Data presented indicate that the highly isolated Mennonites subculture specified lower value orienta- tions to length of formal education than those held by the rural and urban groups. The data indicate the existence of norms of education among Mennonites that were significantly different from norms of edu- cation shared among the rural and urban groups. Results shown support the hypotheses prOposed. B. Cultural Isolation and Value Orientations Regarding Occupa- tion Hypothesis 1 - The value orientation to occupational involve- ment held by Mennonite boys will specify higher rates desiring occupations similar to that of their fathers. The results of this hypothesis are presented in Tables 24 and 25. Table 24 presents occupational aspirations of boys toward different types of occupations. Table 24 shows that 88% of the Mennonite boys wanted to be farmers. Seventy-five percent of the rural and 89% of the urban boys aspired to professional occupations. Table 25 presents value orientations of boys toward having occupations that were similar to or different from that of their fathers. Results shown in Table 25 indicate that 88% of the Mennonite youth aspired to occupations similar to their fathers. Since the sample was selected from full-time farmers, it is evident that Mennonite boys aspired to be farmers in the tradi- tion of their fathers. This signifies a high rate of occupational involvement and probably transmission of occupation from father to son. Only 25% of the rural boys aspired to farming; the same occupation as that of their fathers. Thirty-three percent of the urban boys aspired 87 occupations similar to their fathers. the three community types were significant regarding value orientations to occupational involvement. Differences between boys from direction and the hypothesis is accepted. The differences were in the hypothesized TABLE 24.--Distribution of youth (boys) in the three community types, by occupational aspirations Types of Youth (Boys) by Community Type Occupations Folk-rural . Rural Urban Desired by Boys No. % No. % No. % Professional (0) O (9) 75 (8) 89 Clerical-Business (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 11 White collar (0) O (0) O (0) 0 Blue collar (1) 12 (0) 0 (O) O Farming (7) 88 (3) 25 (0) 0 Total ‘(8) 100 (12) 100 (9) 100 TABLE 25.--Distribution of youth (boys) in the three community types, by value orientations to occupational involvement Aspire to Occupations Youth (Boys) by Community Typefigi Same or Different Folk-rural Rural Urban from Father No. % No. % No. % Same occupation as father (7) 88 (3) 25 (3) 33 Different occupation from father (1) 12 (9) 75 (6) 67 Total (8) 100 (12) 100 (9) 100 2 X = 8.25 df = 2 P = .02 88 Hypothesis 2 - The value orientations to occupational in- volvement held by Mennonite fathers when young, will Specify higher rates than com- parable rural and urban groups. The results of this hypothesis are presented in Tables 26 and 27.9 Table 26 presents occupational aspiration of fathers, when young men, toward different types of occupations. Results shown in Table 26 indicate that all Mennonite fathers, 75% of the rural fathers, and 25% of the urban fathers aspired to be farmers when they were young men. None of the Mennonite fathers, 25% of the rural fathers, and 50% of the urban fathers aspired to professional occupations when they were young. Table 27 presents responses by fathers when young men toward having occupations that were similar to or different from that‘of their fathers. Results shown in Table 27 indicate that all Mennonite fathers, 75% of the rural fathers, and only 25% of the urban fathers aspired to occupations similar to their father. The results signify high rate of occupational involvement due to the fact that Mennonite fathers, being full-time farmers, have achieved their aspirational plans when youths. The groups studied differed significantly regarding parents value orientations to occupational involvement when they were youth. The percentages show that the differences were in the hypothesized direction and the hypothesis is accepted. Hypothesis 3 - Intergenerational consensus on preferred occupations for boys held by the Mennonites will specify higher rates of occupational involvement than among comparable rural and urban groups. Results relevant to this hypothesis may be found in Appendix E and in Table 28. Appendix E presents responses obtained from three generational levels in each community type. ReSponses obtained from 89 TABLE 26.--Distribution of fathers in the three community types, by occupational aspirations when youths Types of Father§4,py,Communitnyype Occupations Folk-rural Rural Urban when Youths No. % No. % No. % Professional (0) O (2) 25 (4) 50 Clerical-Business (0) 0 (0) O (1) 12 White collar (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 Blue collar (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 12 Farming (8) 100 (6) 75 (2) 26 Total (8) 100 ,(8) 100 (8) 100 TABLE 27.--Distribution of fathers in the three community types, by value orientations to occupational involvement when youths Aspire to Occupations Fathers, by Community Type Same or Different Folk-rural Rural Urban from Fathers No. % No. % No. % Same occupation as father (8) 100 (6) 75 (2) 25 Different occupation from father (0) O (2) 25 (6) 75 Total (8) 100 (8) 100 (8) 100 2 X = 10.44 df = 2 P = .01 the Mennonite group indicate a sharing of nearly identical assumptions between different generations regarding occupational involvement. The three generational levels share basic values concerning the desired type of occupation, that is, farming which is similar to father's 90 occupations. The data shown in the Appendix Table exhibits a lower degree of consensus on desired type of occupation in the rural and urban groups. The three generations from each of these two communities desired that sons may have occupations different from that of fathers. Table 28 shows the comparative results on norms of occupational invOlvement computed by totaling responses obtained from three genera- tional levels. The results presented in Table 28 show that Mennonite responses manifest sharing of common expectations between the three generational levels indicating that occupational involvement is desired. Ninety percent of the Mennonite responses aspire that boys would have same occupations as fathers. Only 27% and 28% of the rural and urban responses indicated preferences for boys to have similar occupations as that of the fathers. Differences between the groups with respect TABLE 28.--Distribution of youth, parents, and parents' parents (combined) in the three community types, by consensus on preference for occupational involvement for boys Aspire to Occupations Three Generations,* by Community Type Same or Different Folk-rural Rural Urban from Fathers No. % No. % No. % Same occupation as father (43) 90 (21) 27 (14) 28 Different occupation from father (5) 10 (35) 63 (36) 72 Total (48) 100 (56) 100 (50) 100 x2 - 43.12 df = 2 P = .001 *Combined responses of boys for their parents, parents, fathers for their parents. No. is 16, 20, 17 in the Folk-rural, Rural, Urban community types respectively. 91 to norms of occupational involvement for sons were highly significant. The differences were in the hypothesized direction. Hence, the hy- pothesis of greater intergenerational consensus on norms of preferred occupations for sons is accepted. Hypothesis 4 - Intergenerational consensus on housewife only rules for girls held by Mennonite mothers will Specify higher rates than among compar- able rural and urban groups. Results relevant to this hypothesis may be found in Appendix F and in Table 29. Appendix F presents responses from two generational levels in each community type. Responses obtained from Mennonite mothers indicate a sharing of common understanding between the two generatiOnal levels concerning preferred roles for girls. The data shown in the Appendix Table exhibits a lower degree of consensus on desired roles for girls among the rural and urban mothers. Responses from each of these two communities specified that mothers preferred girls not to be housewives only. TABLE 29.--Distribution of parents and mothers' mothers (combined) in the three community types, by consensus on preference for housewife roles for girls Aspire to Two Generations,* by Community Type Preferred Folk-rural Rural Urban Roles for Girls No. % No. % No. % Housewives only (20) 83 (4) l7 (8) 33 Career (4) 17 (20) 83 (16) 67 Total (24) 100 (24) 100 (24) 100 2 X - 23.39 df = 2 P = .001 *Combined responses obtained from mothers, mothers for their husbands, and mothers for their mothers, N0. = 8 from each community type. 92 Table 29 shows the comparative results on norms of preferred roles for girls computed by totaling responses representing two genera- tional levels. The results shown in Table 29 indicate that Mennonite responses signify sharing of common expectations between two genera- tional levels regarding preferred roles for girls. Eighty-three percent of the Mennonite responses desired girls to be housewives only. In contrast to 17% and 33% of the rural and urban responses respectively preferring girls to be housewives. Differences between the groups with respect to norms of preferred roles for girls were highly signi- ficant. Differences were in the hypothesized direction. Hence, the hypothesis of greater intergenerational consensus on norms of housewife roles for girls is accepted. In summary, the results presented in Tables 24 through 29 indi- cate significant relationship between degree of cultural isolation and value orientation regarding occupation. Data presented indicate that the culturally isolated Mennonites specified higher value orientations to occupational involvement for boys that those held by the rural and urban groups. .The results indicate the existence of norms of occupa- tional involvement among Mennonites that were significantly different from those shared among the rural and urban groups. The data also indicate the existence of norms specifying the role of housewife among Mennonites which were significantly different from those shared by the rural and urban groups. Results shown support the hypotheses proposed. C. CulturalgTsolation and Value Orientations Regarding_Mate Selection and Ideal Family Size Hypothesis 1 - The value orientation to in-community pref- erence in mate selection held by Mennonite youth will be greater than for comparable rural and urban groups. 93 Table 39 contains the results bearing on this hypothesis. Table 30 shows that 69% of Mennonite youth will be likely to select mates from those residing in the same local community. The same per- centage was obtained from the rural youth, but only 44% of the urban youth will be likely to select mates residing in the same local com- munity. Differences between the groups were not significant and the hypothesis is therefOre rejected. Preference in mate selection did not conform to the expectation since Mennonites were located in many states where considerable interaction is maintained. Probably many of the youth aspire to marry Mennonite mates regardless of place of resi- dence. It may also be that there were insufficient mates in the local community. TABLE 30.--Distribution of youth (boys and girls) in the three community types, by value orientation to in-community preference in mate selection 'Will Likely Youth (Boys and Girls), by Community Type Select Mate Fblk-rural _ Rural Urban From W W No. Same local community (9) 69 (ll) 69 (7) 44 Different local community (4) 31 (5) 31 (9) ‘56 Total (l3)* 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 x2 a 1.83 or = 2 127.05 *Three "don't know" were not included. Hypothesis 2 - The value orientation to in-community pref- erence in.mate selection held by Mennonite parents will be greater than fer comparable rural and urban groups. Table 31 presents the results to test this hypothesis. Table 31 shows that only 37% of the Mennonites selected mates residing in the 94 same local community. In contrast 67$ of the rural and 42% of urban groups selected mates residing in the same community. Differences between the groups were significant but the percentages show that the direction is contrary to that predicted by the hypothesis. It is there- fore rejected. Preference in mate selection did not conform to expecta- tion probably because Mennonites move from one state to the other seeking good farms. Thus, colonies are found in a number of states where con- tinuous interaction is maintained. TABLE 31.--Distribution of parents and their parents in the three community mates, by actual residence of mate —7_ Actual Residence Parents and Their Parents,* of Mates by Community Type Fblk-rural Rural Urban No. $ No. 7 No. Same local community (9) 37 (16) 67 (10) 42 Different local community (15) 63 (8) 33 (14) 58 Total (24) 100 (24) 100 (24) 100 x2 = 9.34 or = 2 P = .01 *Combined responses of parents and each for his/her parents; No. for each community type is 16. Hypothesis 3 - Intergenerational consensus on preference for mates.residing in the same local com- munity held by Mennonites will specify higher rates than among comparable rural and urban groups. Table 32 presents the results bearing on this hypothesis, ob- tained from three generational levels. Results presented in Table 32 show that Mennonite responses manifest a lower degree of consensus 95 between the three generations indicating the absence of mutual under- standing on preference in mate selection. Fbrtyznine percent of the Mennonite responses indicated the likelihood of selecting (or selected) mates residing in the same local community. Sixtyaeight percent and h2$ of_the rural and urban responses respectively, preferred selecting (or selected) mates residing in the same local community. The data did not exhibit significant differences between the groups and the pattern is not in the direction predicted by the hypothesis. It is therefore rejected. Results obtained did not conform to the expecta- tions probably because there are many Mennonite groups in other states sharing spiritual and kinship ties. TABLE 32.-~Distribution of youth, parents, and parents' parents (combined) in the three community types, by consensus on in-community preference in mate selection Residence Three Generations,* by Community Type of Mates Folk-rural Rural Urban No. A? No. i No. i Same local community (18) 49 (27) 68 (17) #2 Different local community (19) 51 (13) 32 (23) 58 Total (37) 100 (#0) 100 (40) 100 2 X = 5.39 df = 2 P .05 *Combined responses of youth, parents, and parents for their parents, No. = 32 in each community except 3 "don't know" were not included in the folk-rural community. Hypothesis 4 - The value orientation to ideal family size held by Mennonite youth will specify larger families than for comparable rural and urban groups. 96 Table 33 contains results bearing on this hypothesis. Table 33 shows that none of the Mennonite youth thought that only 2 or 3 children would be an ideal number of children in a family. On the other hand, 31% of the rural and 62% of the urban youth thought that this number would be ideal. One fourth, a relatively high percentage, of the Menno- nite youth considered 5 to 9 children to be ideal. Approximately 19% of the rural youth and none of the urban youth thought this number ideal. The youth from the three groups differed significantly, and the percentages show that the differences are in the direction predicted by the hypothesis. It is therefore accepted. TABLE 33.--Distribution of youth in the three community types, by value orientation to the ideal number of children in a family .1— Value Orientation Youth, by Community Type to Ideal Number Folk-rural Rural, Urban of Children No. $ No. $ No. A; 2 children (0) O (l) 6 (5) 31 3 children (0) 0 (h) 25 (5) 31 h children (12) 75 (8) 50 (6) 38 5-9 children (h) 25 (3) - l9 (0) 0 Total (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 2 ___ X = l7.h9 df = 6 P = .01 Hypothesis 5 - The value orientations to ideal family size held by Mennonite parents will specify larger families than for comparable rural and urban groups. .Table 3h presents results to test this hypothesis. Table 34 shows that a high percentage (75%) of the Mennonite parents thought 97 that 5 to 9 childred would be an ideal number of children in a family. Nineteen percent of the rural and urban parents thought this number would be ideal. Differences between the groups were significant in the direction predicted by the hypothesis. It is therefore accepted. TABLE 3#.--Distribution of parents in the three community types, by value orientation to the ideal number of children in a family Value Orientation Parents, by Community Type to Ideal Number Folk-rural Rural Urban of Children No. i No. 2 No. 2.3 children (0) 0 (5) 31 (6) 37 u children (a) 25 (8) 50 (7) 1+4 5.9 children (12) 75 (3) 19 (3) 19 Total (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 x2 = 15.9u or = a P = .01 Hypothesis 6 - Intergenerational consensus on ideal family size held by Mennonites will specify larger families than among comparable rural and urban groups. Table 35 contains the results bearing on this hypothesis. The results presented in Table 35 indicate that Mennonite responses manifest sharing of common understanding between the two generations explored that large families is an ideal. All responses among Mennonites re- garded U or more children as an ideal number, 69% of the rural responses and only 50$»of the urban reoponses showed preference to this number of children in a family. Differences between the groups studied were highly significant and percentages show that differences were in the hypothesized direction. Hence, the hypothesis of greater intergenerational 98 consensus among Mennonites on norms specifying large families is accepted. TABLE 35.--Distribution of youth and parents (combined) in the three community types, by consensus on ideal number of children in a family ‘— _ I Ideal Number Youth and ParegggL,by'Community Type of Children Folk-rural Rural Urban No. i No. ’1 No. 1 2 children (0) O (2) 6 (6) 19 3 children (0) O (8) 25 (10) 31 4 children (16) so (16) 50 (13) #1 5-9 children (15) 50 (6) 19 (3) 9 Total (32) 100 (32) 100 (32) 100 x2 = 27.77 or = 6 P = .001 In summary, the results presented in Tables 30 to 32 indicate the absence of significant relationship between degree of cultural isolation and value orientation to preference to inpcommunity mates. Data presented indicate that the culturally isolated Mennonites did not differ significantly from comparable rural and urban groups in planning selection nor in actual selection of mates. Moreover, inter- generational responses did not exhibit higher consensus on preference for mates residing in the same local community than the rural and.urban groups. Results presented in Tables 33.35 indicate significant rela— tionship betweenjdegree of cultural isolation and value orientation to ideal family size. Mennonites specified higher value orientations to larger families than those held'by the rural and urban groups. The 99 results indicate the existence of basic values specifying large number of children in a family which are shared among the Mennonites. These values were sharply differentiated from those shared among the rural and the urban groups. D. Cultural Isolation and Value Orientations Regarding Miggation Hypothesis 1 — The value orientation to leaving home com_. munity held by Mennonite youth (boys and girls) will specify less mobility than com- parable rural and urban groups. The results relevant to this hypothesis are presented in Table 36. Results presented in Table 36 show that 69% of the Mennonite youth in— tend to remain in the local community while the remainder were planning to migrate. Fiftyesix percent of the rural youth and only 25% of the urban youth indicated intentions to stay in the local community. Youth from each community type differed significantly in the predicted direc- tion and the hypothesis is accepted. TABLE 36.--Distribution of youth in the three community types, by value orientation to leaving home community Value Orientation YOuth, by'Community Type to Leaving Folk-rural Rural Urban Home Community’ No. 1 No. i No. +— Planning to stay after completing school (11) 69 (9) 56 (4) 25 Planning to leave after completing school (5) 31 (7) an (12) 75 Total (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 x2=6.u8 df=2 P=.05 lOO Hypothesis 2 - The value orientation to leaving local com- munity held by Mennonite parents will specify less mobility than comparable rural and urban groups. Results of this hypothesis indicate that parents from the groups studied did not differ in their responses. All parents from each com— munity type intended to remain in the local community. Therefore the hypothesis is rejected. Parents' value orientation to leaving home community did not conform to expectations probably because parents from the rural and urban groups have established occupations and have developed many relations which seem to prevent them from planning to migrate. Hypothesis 3 - Intergenerational consensus on preference to continuous residence in the same local com. munity (nonpmobility) held by Mennonites will specify higher rates than among comparable rural and urban groups. The results relevant to this hypothesis may be found in Table 37. Results presented in Table 37 show that the Mennonite and the rural responses were comparable. Fiftyesix percent of the Mennonite responses and 63% of the rural responses have always resided in the same local community. In contrast, only'27% of the urban responses who have always stayed in the same local community. The differences were highly signi- ficant indicating high degree of mutual understanding between several generational levels exhibited in higher rates of consensus obtained from.the Mennonites and the rural groups. Since these two groups were farmers they exhibited higher attachment to land by continuous resi- dence in the same locality for several generations. Hence, the hypo- thesis of greater intergenerational consensus among Mennonites on norms specifying preference to continuous residence in the same local commu- nity is accepted. 101 TABLE 37.--Distribution of youth, parents, and parents' parents (combined) in the three community types, by consensus on preference to reside in the local community Residence Three Generations,* bnyommunity Type Folk—rural Rural Urban No. % No. % No. Always in the same ’ 1 local community (36) '56 (40) 63 .(l7) 2? Has been in more than one community (28) #4 (2h) 37 (#7) 73 Total (61+) 100 (6h) 100 (6a) 100 2 e_ X = 18.89 df = 2 P = .001 *Combined responses of youth, parents, and parents for each parent; No. = 32 in each community. In summary, the results presented in Tables 36 and 37 indicate significant relationship between degree of cultural isolation and value orientation regarding migration. Data presented indicate that the culturally isolated Mennonite youth specified higher value orientations to planning to stay in the local community than comparable rural and urban youth. Intergenerational consensus on preference to the local community among Mennonites was comparable to the rural group, but was significantly'different from the urban group.. The results indicated no differences between parents from each community type regarding in- tentions to migrate. All parents intended to remain in the local community. E. Cultural Isolation and Value Orientations Regarding Religious Activities and Religious Involvement Hypothesis 1 - The value orientation to performing religious activities held by Mennonite youth and parents will specify higher rates than for comparable rural and urban groups. 102 Tables 38, 39, and no present results bearing on this hypothesis. Results relevant to three religious activities were delineated. The first, regarding frequency of going to church is presented in Table 30. Results presented in Table 38 indicate that Mennonites frequent their church every Sunday. Fiftyathree percent of the rural group and 31% of the urban group perform this activity every Sunday. Differences between the groups were highly significant in the hypothesized direction. TABLE 38.-~Distribution of youth and parents in the three community types, by frequency of going to church Frequency of Youth and Parents, by Community’Type Going to Church Folk—rural Rural Urban No. i No. Z No. z Every Sunday (32) 100 (17) 53 (10) 31 Often (o) o (9) 28 (13) 41 Not so often (0) O (6) l9 (9) 28 Never (0) O (O) O (O) 0 Total (32) 100 (32) 100 (32) 100 2 X = 33.30 df = h P = .001 Table 39 contains results dealing with the second religious activity explored. Frequency of performing prayers before meals are presented in Table 39. The results indicate that all Mennonites say Grace before having meals. Seventyafive percent of the rural group and 56% of the urban group usually perform this activity before meals. Differences between the groups were highly significant in the antici- pated direction. 103 TABLE 39.-~Distribution of youth and parents in the three community types, by frequency of saying Grace before meals Frequency of Youth and Parents, by Community Type Saying Grace Folk-rural Rural ' Urban Before Meals No. 1 No. i No. f Usually says Grace (32) 100 (2h) 75 (18) 56 Usually does ppp say Grace (0) O (8) 25 (14) 4# Total (32) 100 (32) 100 (32) 100 x2 = 17.46 df = 2 P = .001 The third religious activity concerning frequency of saying prayers before going to bed is presented in Table 40. Results shown in Table 40 indicate that 97% of the Mennonites, 69% of the rural and 66% of the urban groups usually say prayers before going to bed. The differences were highly significant in the anticipated direction. TABLE hO.--Distribution of youth and parents in the three community types, by frequency of saying prayers before going to bed Frequency of Saying Youth and Parents, by Community Type Prayers Before Folk-rural» Rural Urban Going to Bed No. 1 No. % No. 1 Usually say prayers (31) 97 (22) 69 (21) 66 Usually does pgt . ' say prayers (1) 3 (10) 31 (11) 3“ Total (32) 100 (32) 100 (32) 100 x2 = 10.70 df = 2 P = .01 104 The results presented in Tables 38, 39, and 40 indicate that Mennonites exhibited higher rates in performing religious activities than comparable rural and urban groups. Groups studied differed sig- nificantly in the direction predicted by the hypothesis. Hence, the hypothesis of higher value orientation to performing religious acti- vities held by Mennonites manifested in higher frequencies in (1) going to church, (2) saying grace before meals, and (3) in saying prayers before bed than for comparable rural and urban groups, is accepted. Hypothesis 2 - The value orientation to preference for own religion held by Mennonite youth and parents will be greater than for comparable rural and urban groups. The results of this hypothesis are presented in Table 41. Re- sults shown in Table 41 indicate that 78% of the Mennonites think "that their church is better than other churches." Only 6% of the rural and none of the urban groups held strong value orientations to own religious denomination. Differences between the groups were highly significant in the direction predicted by the hypothesis. It is therefore accepted. TABLE 41.--Distribution of youth and parents in the three community types, by value orientation to preference for own religion "My Church is Ybuth and Parents, by Community 1 e Better than Folk-rural Rural Urban Other Churches" No. 1% No. $ No. % Strongly agree (25) 78 (2) 6 (0) 0 Agree (7) 22 (18) 57 (20) 63 Disagree (0) o (12) 37 (12) 37 _ Strongly disagree (0) 0 (O) ? 0 (0) 0 Total (32) 100 (32) 100 (32') 100 X2 = 77.40 df = 1+ P = .001 105 Hypothesis 3 - Intergenerational consensus on preference to own religious denomination held by Mennonites will specify higher rates of religious in- volvement than among comparable rural and urban groups. Tables 42, 43, and 44 contain results bearing on this hypothesis. Table 42 presents the results relevant to the denominational background of parents from each group studied. Ninetyathree percent of Mennonite parents belong to same denomination as their parents. Seventyaone per- cent of the rural parents and only 381 of the urban parents held similar religious preference as their parents. Differences were significant in the anticipated direction. TABLE 42.-~Distribution of parents in the three community types, by similarity of denominational background v.7.— ——i Denominational Parents; by Community Type Background Folk—rural ' Rural Urban No. 3 No. $ No. % Both parents same as informant (14) 93 (10) 71 (5) 38 Both parents different from informant (l) 7 (4) 29 (8) 62 Total (15) 100 (14) 100 (13) 100 12 = 9.87 df = 2 P = .01 Table 43 presents results relevant to continuation of religious preference from parents to children. That is, whether or not parents from each group, have maintained the same religious preference trans— mitted from the previous generation. Table 43 shows that all Mennonite parents have always been members of their present denomination. Eightyaone 106 percent of the rural group and only 37% of the urban group maintained their religious preference. TABLE 43.--Distribution of parents in the three_community types, by whether or not they have always been members of present denomination Membership in Present Parents, by Community Type Denomination Folk-rural , Rural Urban No. i No. 1 No. fl Always been a member (16) 100 (13) ' 81 (6) 37 Has ppp_a1ways been a member (0) 0 (3) 19 (10) 63 Total (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 X2 = 16.67 df = 2 g P = .001 Table 44 indicates further evidence for the transmission process. Data presented in this table indicate the likelihood that youth and parents from.each group may join a different denomination than the present preference. Results presented in Table 44 show that only 3% of the Mennonites might think of joining another denomination different from the present preference. In contrast to 44% of the rural group and 37% of the urban group who may change the present preference. Dif- ferences between the groups were highly significant in the predicted direction. . The results presented in Tables 42, 43, and 44 indicate that 93% of the Mbnnonite parents belong to same denomination as their parents, all parents have been always members of the present preference, and 97% of the youth and parents will not change their present denomination, In contrast, 71% and only 38% of the rural and urban parents respectively 107 belong to same denomination as their parents. Eightyaone percent and only'37% of the rural and urban parents respectively maintained their religious preference, while 56% and 63% of the rural and urban groups respectively will not change their present denomination. Mennonites exhibited higher rates of religious involvement than comparable rural and urban groups signifying mutual understanding between several genera- tions on religious norms. Differences between the groups were highly significant and the differences were in the direction predicted by the hypothesis. Hence, the hypothesis of greater intergenerational con- sensus among Mennonites on norms specifying preference to their religious denomination is accepted. TABLE 44.--Distribution of youth and parents (combined) in the three community types, by plane to change present religious preference Change Youth and Parents,,by;Community Type Religious Folk-rural Rural Urban Preference No. % No. 4% No. A; May change denomination (l) 3 (14) 44 (12) 37 Will p23 change ‘ denomination (31) 97 (18) 56 (20) 63 Total (32) 100 (32) 100 (32) 100 2 X = 15.14 df = 2 P = .001 Hypothesis 4 - The value orientation to religion held by Mennonites will reflect high disappointment if children join a different denomination than for comparable rural and urban groups. Table 45 presents the results of this hypothesis. The results presented in Table 45 indicate that all Mennonite parents will be iia thr Hi1 H Pare Dis; Bot} nc Tote 108 disappointed if their children joined a different denomination. Sixty- three percent of the rural parents and only 50% of the urban parents will be disappointed for the same reason. Parents from each community type differed significantly. The percentages show that the differences were in the hypothesized direction. The hypothesis is therefore accepted. TABLE 45.--Distribution of parents in the three community types, by feeling if sons joined a different denomination w— — Parents' Parents, by Community Type Disappointment Folk-rural 1 Rural y Urban No. i No. % No. Both parents will be disappointed (16) 100 (10) 63 (8) 50 Both parents will ppp be disappointed (O) O (6) ~37 (8) 50 Total (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 2 _. ._ X = 10.48 df = 2 P = .01 In summary, the results presented in Tables 38 through 45 indi- cate significant relationship between degree of cultural isolation and value orientation regarding religious activities and religious involve- ment. Data presented indicate that the culturally isolated Mennonites specified higher value orientations to frequency of performing religious activities than rural and urban groups. The findings indicate that Mennonites held strong value orientations to their religious denomina- tion. The results presented show that Mennonites exhibited higher intergenerational consensus specifying preference to their denomination than for comparable rural and urban groups. Hence, the findings indi— cate that religion is a focal point in the Mennonite subculture. . 109 F. Cultural Isolation and Value Orientations RegardingyBehavioggl Traits in Children Hypothesis 1 - The value orientation to preference for "tra- ditional" traits in boys"behavior held by Mennonites will be greater than for compar- able rural and urban groups. Tables 46 and 47 present results bearing on this hypothesis. Table 46 contains results relevant to behavioral traits that are "most liked" and "next most liked" in boys. Table 47 contains data relevant to behavioral traits that are "most wanted" and "next most wanted" in boys. The results shown in Table 46 indicate that 63% of the Mennonite responses preferred "traditional" traits as most liked in the behavior of boys. In contrast to 29% of the rural responses and only 16% of the urban responses indicated preferences for these traits in boys. Dif- ferences were highly significant. The data presented in Table 46 indi- cate that 58% of the Mennonite responses regarded "traditional" traits as "next most liked" in the behavior of boys. Only 18% of the rural responses and 24% of the urban responses selected "traditional" traits as "next most liked" in boys behavior. The differences were significant. The percentages show that the differences between the groups studied in both "most liked" and "next most liked" behavioral traits were in the direction predicted by the hypothesis. Table 47 indicates that 71% of the Mennonite responses preferred "traditional" traits as "most wanted" in the behavior of boys. In contrast 47% of the rural responses and only 12% of the urban responses preferring these traits in boys. The differences between the groups were highly significant and were in the direction predicted by the hypothesis. The data presented in Table 47 shows also that 55% of the Mennonites regarded "traditional" behavioral traits in boys as "next most 110 wanted." Twentyeone percent of the rural and l6$1of the urban groups considered these traits as "next most wanted" in the behavior of boys. Differences were highly significant and were in the hypothesized direc- tion. Hence, results presented in Tables 46 and 47 show a pattern con- sistent with the hypothesis dealing with preference for "traditional" traits in boys' behavior among Mennonites. It is therefore accepted. TABLE 46.--Distribution of boys and parents in the three community types, by value orientation to "most liked" behavioral traits in boys —1+—_ —_ #__A_ ‘.—r. Behavioral Value Orientation to Preferred Traits in Behavioral Traits in Boys Boys Folk-rural 97— Rural Urban **Next **Next **Next *MOst most *Most most tMost most liked liked liked liked liked liked No. % No. i No. i No. 1' No. a No. ; 1. Obedience to parents (2) 8 (7) 29 (l) 4 (3) ll (2) 8 (2) 8 2. Trust in God (13) 55 (7) 29 (7) 25 (2) 7 (2) 3 (4) 16 Simian; """""" (2) 8 (2) a (2), 7 (a) 29 (10) no (2) a 4. Honesty (5) 21 (7) 30 (5) 18 (7) 25 (5) 20(10) 40 3T'§;;;;;;';;a';;2;;;a ., in school (0) 0 (l) 4 (4) l4 (6) 21 (0) 0 (2) 8 6. Curiosity' (2) 8 (O) 0 (9) 32 (2) 7 (6) 24 (5) 20 Total (210100 (210100 (28)100 (28)100 (25)100 (25)100 * x2 = 20.02 df = it P = .001 n- x2 = 12.65 df = a P = .02 Frequencies in selecting behavioral traits (l),(2); (3),(4); (5),(6) 'were combined in computing the chi square. 111 TABLE 47.--Distribution of boys and parents in the three community types, by value orientation to "most wanted" behavioral traits in boys —y— i Behavioral Value Orientation to Preferred Traits in _:g Behavioral Traits in Boys Boys Folk-rural Rural Urban **Next I'""Next *tNext *Most most *Most most tMost most wanted wanted wanted wanted wanted wanted No. i No. % No. 1 No. 3 No. i No. ; 1. Obedience to parents (2) 8 (9) 38 (3) 11 (2) 7 (1) u (1) 8 2. Trust in God (15) 63 (u) 17 (10) 36 (a) 14 (2) 8 (3) 12 3. HaPPiness— ------ (1) 1+ (3) 12 (3) 1.1 (6) 22 (9) 36 (2) 8 4. Honesty (5) 21 (7) 29 (6) 22 (6) 21 (6) 24 (6) 24 5. Success:and inte;est in school (0) 0 (0) 0 (3) 10 (7) 25 (2) 8 (6) 24 6. Curiosity (l) a (1) a (3) 10 (3) 11 (5) 20 (7) 28 Total (24)100 (24)100 (28)100 (28)100 (25)100 (25)100 * x2 = 18.44 or e- u p = .001 ** x? = 16.75 df = 4 P = .01 Frequencies in selecting behavioral traits (l),(2); (3),(4); (5),(6) were combined in computing chi square. Hypothesis 2 - The value orientation to preference for "tra- ditional" traits in girls' behavior held by Mennonites will be greater than for compar- able rural and urban groups. Tables 48 and 49 present results bearing on this hypothesis. Table 48 contains results relevant to behavioral traits that are "most liked" and “next most liked" in girls. Table 49 contains data relevant t6 behavioral traits that are "most wanted" and "next most wanted" in Eifils. The results shown in Table 48 indicate that 46% of the Mennonites, 112 40% of the rural and 35% of the urban groups considered "traditional" traits as "most liked" in the behavior of girls. Although differences between the groups show a moderate trend in the hypothesized direction, yet they were not significant. The results probably did not conform to expectations because boys, as males, are considered important factors in perpetuating Mennonite subculture. Therefore, traditional traits of behavior were more desired in boys than in girls. Since all cases were selected from the middle—class, it seems that behavioral traits preferred in girls' behavior were nearly identical within the groups studied. The data presented in Table 48 indicate that 63% of the Mennonites preferred "traditional" traits as "next most liked" in the behavior of girls. In contrast, 25% of the rural and only 13% of the urban groups regarded these traits as "next most liked" in girls' be- havior. Differences between the groups were significant and the per- centages show that the differences were in the hypothesized direction. Table 49 shows that 63% of the Mennonites, 40% of the rural and 30% of the urban groups preferred "traditional" traits as hmost wanted" in the behavior of girls. Although the differences between the groups show a moderate trend in the hypothesized direction, yet they were not significant. The results probably did not conform to expectations for the same reasons cited above. Table 49 also shows that 63% of the Mennonites perferred "traditional" traits as "next most wanted" in the behavior of girls. Only 20% of the rural and 13% of the urban groups regarded these traits as "next most wanted." The differences were highly significant. The percentages show that the differences were in the hypothesized direction. Hence, results presented in Tables 48 and 49 show a pattern consistent with the hypothesis dealing with 113 preference for "traditional" traits in girls' behavior among Mennonites. It is therefore accepted. TABLE 48.--Distribution of girls and parents in the three community types, by value orientation to "most liked" behavioral traits in girls + Behavioral Value Orientation to Preferred Traits in Behavioral Traits in Girls Girls FElk-rural Rural Urban **Next I""‘Next **Next *Most most *Most most *Most most liked liked liked liked liked liked No. i No. i No. 3 No. T No. i No. i 1. Obedience to parents (3) 13 (9) 38 (O) O (3) 15 (l) 4 (O) O 2. Trust in God (8) 33 (6) 25 (8) 40 (2) 10 (7) 31 (3) 13 3:'§;;;;;;;;""""‘ (5) 21 (3) 12% (3) 15 (4) 20 (8) 35 (5) 22 4. Honesty' (5) 21 (3) 12% (4) 20 (3) 15 (4) 17 (6) 26 5:-Suc;essfiandwinterest in school (1) 4 (l) 4 (1) 5 (3) 15 (0) 0 (2) 9 6. Curiosity' (2) 8 (2) 8 (4) 20 (5) 25 (3) 13 (7) 30 Total (24)100 (24)100 (20)100 (20)100 (23)100 (23)100 * x2 = 2.36 df = 4 P > .05 ** 12 = 14.56 df = 4 P = .01 Frequencies in selecting behavioral traits = (l),(2); (3),(4); (5),(6) were combined in computing the chi square. Hypothesis 3 - Intergenerational consensus on preference to behavioral traits in children held by Mennonites will Specify higher rates of "traditionalism" than among comparable .rural and urban groups. 114 TABLE 49.--Distribution of girls and parents in the three community types, by value orientation to "most wanted" behavioral traits in girls __' Behavioral Value Orientation to Preferred Traits in _yf Behayioralylraits in Girls Girls Folk-rural Rural_r Urban j - **Next **Next **Next *Most most *Most most *Most most wanted wanted wanted wanted wanted wanted No. i No. i No. i No. % No. 1 No. i 1. Obedience to parents (6) 25 (5) 21 (l) 5 (3) 15 (l) 4 (2) 9 2. Trust in God (9) 38(10) 42 (7) 35 (l) 5 (6) 26 (l) 4 . Happiness 3 4. Henesty 5. Success and interest in school 6. Curiosity ----------------- ---- (3) 12 (5) 21 (4) l7 (3) 12 (l) 4 (O) 0 (l) 4 (1) 4 (4) 20 (4) 20 (5) 25 (3) 15 (o) o (5) 25 (3) 15 (4) 20 (7) 31 (6) 26 (5) 22 (5) 22 (1) 4 (3) 13 (3) 13 (6) 26 Total (24)100 (24)100 (20)100 (20)100 (23)100 (23)100 * f: 5n_ «=4 P7.% ** x2 = 18.77 or = 4 P = .001 Frequencies in selecting behavioral traits (1),(2); (3),(4); (5),(6) were combined in computing the chi square. The results relevant to this hypothesis are presented in Table 50. The results shown in Table 50 indicate that 60% of the Mennonite re- sponses preferred "traditional" traits as most liked and most wanted in the behavior of children. In contrast, 30% of the rural responses and only 20% of the urban responses indicated preferences for the same traits in children's behavior. The data presented signify the greater understanding between the two generations explored among the Mennonites 115 with regard to preference for "traditional" behavioral traits than the rural and urban groups. The differences between the groups were highly significant in the hypothesized direction. Hence, the hypothesis of greater intergenerational consensus among Mennonites on norms specify; ing preferences to "traditional" behavioral traits is accepted. TABLE 50.—-Distribution of youth and parents (combined) in the three community types, by consensus on preference to "most liked" and ”most wanted" behavioral traits in children _‘ ‘—T Value Orientation Youth and Parents,* by Community Type to Preferred Folk-rural Rural Urban Behavioral Traits No. 1 No . i No . in Children Traditional traits (115) 60 (57) 30 (38) 20 1. Obedience to parents 2. Trust in God mdle-class traits (63) 33 (73) 38 (96) 50 3. Happiness 4. Honesty Secular traits (l4) 7 (62) 32 (58) 30 5. Success in school 6. Curiosity Total (192) 100 (192) 100 (192) 100 x2 = 85.13 df = 4 P = .001 *Combined responses of youth and parents; N0. = 32 from each community type. 116 In summary, the results presented in Tables 46 through 50 indi- cate significant relationship between degree of cultural isolation and value orientation to preferred behavioral traits in children. The findings presented indicate that the culturally isolated Mennonites specified higher value orientations to "traditional" traits in the behavior of both boys and girls. Intergenerational consensus on pref- erence to "traditional" behavioral traits in children held by Menno- nites was greater than for comparable rural and urban groups. Summary of Value Orientation Hypotheses Table 51 summarizes the results bearing on the hypothesis dealing with relationships between varying degrees of cultural isola- tion and value orientation, in the three community types. The same table presents results of the sub-hypothesis regarding differences in value orientations and intergenerational consensus between the groups studied. TABLE 51.--Summary of acceptance (+) and rejection (-) of the hypotheses and sub-hypotheses regarding the relationship between cultural isolation and value orientations, and the differences in value orientation and intergenerational consensus in the three community types Folk-rural value Acceptance orientations (+) Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses hypothesized as Rejection regarding value orientations reflecting greater (-) and intergenerational consensus cultural isolation of hypotheses than rural or urban 8: sub- community types hypotheses A. Value Orientations Regarding Education yes 1. youth: length of schooling yes 2. parents: length of schooling yes .+7+7+ 117 TABLE 5l.-~Continued Folk-rural value Acceptance orientations (+) Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses hypothesized as Rejection regarding value orientations reflecting greater (-) and intergenerational consensus cultural isolation of hypotheses than rural or urban & sub- community types hypotheses 3. intergenerational consensus on length of schooling yes + 4. parents disappointment if children drop out of school yes + B. Value Orientations Regarding Occupation yes + 1. boys: occupational involvement yes + 2. fathers when young: occupational involvement yes + 3. intergenerational consensus on preferred occupations for boys yes + 4. intergenerational consensus on housewives roles for girls yes + C.I Value Orientations Regarding Mate Selection yes - 1. youth: inpcommunity preference in mate selection yes - 2. parents: in-community preference in mate selection yes - 3. intergenerational consensus on preference for mates residing in the same local community yes - II Value Orientations RegardipgyIdeal Family Size yes + . youth: ideal family size yes + 5. parents: ideal family size yes + 6. intergenerational consensus on ideal family size yes + D. Value Orientations Regarding Migration yes + 1. youth: leaving home community yes + 2 parents: leaving home community yes - 3. intergenerational preference to continued residence in home community yes + 118 TABLE 51.-Continued Folk-rural value Acceptance orientations (+) Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses hypothesized as Rejection regarding value orientations reflecting greater (-) and intergenerational consensus cultural isolation of hypotheses than rural or urban & sub- community types hypotheses ‘T' E. Value Orientations RegardingTReligious Activities and Religious Involvement yes + 1. youth and parents: performing religious activities yes + 2. youth°and parents: preference for own religion yes + 3. intergenerational consensus on preference for own religion yes + 4. parents disappointment if children join a different denomination yes + F. Value Orientations Regardinngehavioral Traits in Children yes + l. preference for traditional traits in boys yes '+ 2. preference for traditional traits - in girls yes + 3. intergenerational consensus on preference for traditional traits in children yes + The findings presented in Table 51 indicate a significant rela- tionship between high degree of cultural isolation and the existence of "folk-like" characteristics in the Mennonite subculture. Research groups differed significantly in the direction predicted by the hypotheses. But, hypotheses dealing with value orientation regarding mate selection and the sub-hypothesis dealing with parents' value orientations to leaving the home community failed to conform to expectations. Hence, the findings presented in this section indicate the existence of "folk-like" 119 characteristics in the Mennonite subculture which are an attribute of high degree of isolation from the larger cultural system. Comparative Analysis of Patterns of Social Relationships Findings presented in the first and second sections of this Chapter supply evidence of a highly isolated subculture of the Menno- nite group manifesting "folk-like" characteristics. Therefore. by definition, a folk group may be thought of us an organized group char- acterized by a "folk-like" subculture. It is assumed that social rela- tionships between members of the Mennonite group will be characterized by an identifiable pattern and will be sharply differentiated from the rural and urban patterns. The general expectation is that social re— lationships between the Mennonites will differ systematically from the other two groups with respect to age, sex, and kinship. Hypotheses are generated with regard to attitudes of respect ascribed to specific age and sex categories and their influence on opinions. The kinship network will be explored in terms of number and residence of relatives, and the degrees of familial influence. A. Patterns of Social Relationships with Respect to égg Hypothesis 1 - Mennonites recognize age as basis for social relationships to a greater extent than com. parable rural and urban groups. a. Mennonite parents will exhibit higher levels of agreement that age itself merits respect. both inside and outside kinship structure than comparable rural and urban groups. The results relevant to this sub—hypothesis are presented in Table 52. Table 52 presents responses obtained from the three research groups with regard to ascribing more respect to older persons, both 120 inside or outside the kinship structure, than to otherage categories. Results shown in Table 52 indicate that all Mennonites agreed that older persons, both inside and Outside the kinship structure, should be shown more respect than younger persons. Ninetyzfour percent of the rural responses show same attitude to older persons. Eightyaseven percent of the urban responses indicated a belief that older relatives should be shown more respect than younger relatives. Only 75% of the urban parents agreed that older persons, outside the kinship structure, should be shown more respect than younger persons. Results presented in percentages, indicate moderate differences between the groups in the direction predicted by the hypothesis. TABLE 52.--Distribution of parents in the three community types, by agreement or disagreement that age itself merits respect Attitudes . Parents, by Community Type Toward Folk-rural Rural Urban Age No. i No. % “- No. % "I think that older close relatives should be shown more respect than younger close relatives." Agree* (16) 100 (15) 9a (14) 87 Disagree** (0) o (1) 6 (2) 13 Total (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 "I think that older people in general should' be shown more respect than younger people." Agree* (16) 100 (15) 9a (12) 75 Disagree“I (O) 0 (l) 6 (4) 25 Total (16) 100 (16) v 100 (16) 100 *Combined responses of "strongly agree" and "agree." **Combined responses of "disagree" and "strongly disagree." 121 b. Mennonite parents will exhibit higher levels of agreement that reapect and obedience for older people, both inside and outside the kinship structure, are important virtues that children should learn, than comparable rural and urban groups. Table 53 presents results bearing on this sub-hypothesis. The results shown in Table 53 indicate that all Mennonites consider respect and obedience for older people, both inside and outside the kinship structure, the most important virtues children should learn. Eighty; seven percent and 9&3 of the rural and urban parents respectively agreed to this statement with regard to older close relatives, but the responses reversed respectively with regard to people outside the kin. ship structure. The results presented in percentages show moderate differences in the direction predicted by the sub-hypothesis. c. Mennonite parents will exhibit higher levels of influence by older persons regarding political, economic, and religious views, both inside and outside the kinship struc- ture, than comparable rural and urban groups. The results of this sub-hypothesis are presented in Table 54. The results presented in Appendix G indicate that 94% of the Mennonites were influenced by relatives, while 91% were influenced by members of the group on general political, economic, and religious issues. -Fiftya two percent of the rural and only 25% of the urban parents indicated that relatives influence their opinions, while 60% and 50% of these two groups respectively were influenced by'nonprelatives. The findings pre- sented in Table 5h indicated that 67% of the Mennonites, 60% of the rural parents and only 25$ of the urban parents follow views of older relatives more than middle-aged persons on political, economic, and religious issues. Differences were significant in the direction 122 TABLE 53.--Distribution of parents in the three community types, by agreement or disagreement that respect and obedience for older people are important virtues children should learn __4_ .- Attitudes of Respect Parents, by;Community Type and Obedience Folk-rural , Rural Urban Toward Age No. _ 3 No. $ No.”‘ ‘W "Respect and obedience for older close relatives are the most important virtues children should learn." Agree* (16) 100 (1h) 87 (15) 94 Disagree** (0). O (2) 13 (1) 6 Total (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 "Respect and obedience for older people are the most important virtues children should learn." Agree* . (16) 100 (15) 9h (14) 87 Disagree** if' (0) o (1) 6 (2) 13 Total (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 *Combined responses of "strongly agree" and "agree." **Combined responses of "disagree" and "strongly disagree." predicted by the sub-hypotheses. Sixty-nine percent of the Mennonites in contrast to Zhfi and 26% of the rural and urban parents respectively indicated that they follow views of older persons more than middle-aged persons on political, economic, and religious issues. Differences were highly significant in the hypothesized direction. Hence, results presented in Tables 52 through 5“ indicate significant relationship between "folk-1ike"_characteristics sustaining the Mennonite subculture and recognizing age by itself as a basis for social relationships. Mennonites believe that older persons should be 123 TABLE 5h.--Distribution of parents in the three community types, by whether they follow views of older persons more than middle—aged persons on political, economic, and religious issues Influence Parentsl by Community Type of Age Folk-rural Rural Urban No. i No. $ No. Influence of Age Inside Kinship Structure* Follow views of older persons more than middle-aged (20) 67 (15) 60 (3) 25 Do 223 follow views of older persons more than middle—aged (lo) 33 (10) no (9) 75 Total (30) 100 (25) 100 (12) 100 Influence of Age Outside fiipship Structure** Follow views of older persons more than middle-aged (20) 69 (7) 2h (7) 26 Do 323 follow views of older persons more than middle-aged (9) 31 (22) 76 (20) 74 Total (29) 100 (29) 100 (27) 100 * 2 - — x = 6.25 or - 2 P — .05 ** x2 = 15.uo , or = 2 P = .001 These are combined responses of those who indicated that their opinions are influenced. See Appendix G for the detailed distribution of in- fluence of both relatives and members of the group. Mennonites do not participate or discuss political issues, therefore their responses regarding political issues were excluded. 124 shown more respect and consider respect and obedience for older people the most important virtues children should learn. They follow views of older persons more than middle-aged persons on political, economic, and religious issues. The findings indicate that Mennonite attitudes toward older persons were identical with regard to both relatives and non- relatives. The Mennonites differed significantly in this respect from the rural and urban groups. The percentages show that differences were in the hypothesized direction. Therefore, the hypothesis of re- cognition of age among Mennonites as a basis for social relationships is accepted. B. Patterns of Social Relationships with Respect to Sex Hypothesis 1 — Mennonites recognize "sex" as basis for social relationships to a greater extent than com— parable rural and urban groups. a. Mennonite parents will exhibit higher levels of agreement that "sex" itself merits respect, both inside and outside the kinship structure, than comparable rural and urban groups. Table 55 presents results bearing on this sub-hypothesis. The results shown in Table 55 indicate that 87% of the Mennonite parents thought that males, both inside and outside the kinship structure, should be shown more respect than females. Only 13% and 6% of the rural and urban parents respectively thought that male relatives should be shown more respect than females. And, only 6% of both the rural and urban parents thought that males should be shown more respect than females. The results presented in percentages show significant dif- ferences between the groups regarding attitudes of respect toward sex. Differences were in the direction predicted by the sub-hypothesis. 125 TABLE 55.--Distribution of parents in the three community types, by agreement that sex itself merits respect Attitudes ‘ Parents, by'Community Type Toward Sex Folk-rural Rural Urban No. % No. 1 No. "I think that close male relatives should be shown more respect than close female relatives." Agree* (1h) 87 (2) 13 (1) 6 Disagree** (2) 13 (1“) 87 (15) 9“ Total (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 ----------------—-——-------- ----- --_ ---- --—-------—-------- -----—--- "I think that males generally should be shown more respect than females." Agree* (lb) 87 (l) 6 (l) 6 Disagree** (2) 13 (15) 9“ (15) 94 Total (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 *Combined reSponses of "strongly agree" and "agree." *‘Combined responses of "disagree" and "strongly disagree." b. Mennonite parents will exhibit higher levels of agreement that respect and obedience for older people, both inside and outside the kinship structure, are important virtues that children should learn, than comparable rural and urban groups. The results of this sub-hypothesis are presented in Table 56. The results shown in Table 56 indicate that 94% of the Mennonite parents, in contrast to 13% of the rural parents and 19% of the urban parents, consider respect and obedience for male relatives "the most important virtues children should learn." Eightyaseven percent of Mennonites, only'6fi of rural parents, and 19% of the urban parents agreed to this statement concerning males outside the kinship structure. Hence, data 126 presented in Table 56 show significant differences between the three groups in the anticipated direction. TABLE 56.-~Distribution of parents in the three community types, by agreement that respect and obedience for males are important virtues children should learn —— i Attitudes of Respect ___ _, Parentsppby Communitijype and Obedience Folk-rural . Rural Urban Toward Sex No. $ No. $ No. 8% "Respect and obedience for close male relatives are the most important virtue children should learn." Agree* (15) 9h (2) 13 (3) 19 Disagree** (1) 6 (1h) 87 (13) 81 Total (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 "Respect and obedience for males are the most important virtue children should learn." Agree* (14) 87 _ (l)' 6 (3) l9 Disagree** (2) 13 (15) 9h (13) 81 Total (16) 100 (16) ‘ 100 (16) 100 *Combined responses of "strongly agree" and "agree." I"*Combined responses of "disagree" and "strongly disagree." c. Mennonite parents will exhibit higher levels of influence by male persons regarding political, economic, and reli- gious views, both inside and outside the kinship structure, than comparable rural and urban groups. The results of this sub-hypothesis are presented in Table 57. The results presented in the Appendix G indicate the proportion of parents from each community type who specified influence exerted on their opinion regarding political, economic, and religious issues. 127 TABLE 57.--Distribution of parents in the three community types, by whether they follow views of males more than females on political, economic, and religious issues Influence Parents, by Communityygype of Sex Folk-rural Rural Urban No. i No. i No. % Influence of sex inside kinship structure* Follow views of males more than females (30) 100 (20) 80 (7) 58 Do 223 follow views of males more than females (0) 0 (5) 20 (5) “2 Total (30) 100 (25) 100 (12) 100 ----------- -‘ -------—-- -- -’---------------= ‘------------- Igfluence of sex.outside kinship structure“l Follow views of males more than females (29) 100 (21) 72 (19) 70 Do 393 follow views of males more than females (0) O (8) 28 (8) 30 Total (29) 100 (29) 100 (27) 100 2 * X = 12.53 df = 2 P = .01 M x2 = 10.2u df = 2 P = .01 These are combined responses of those who indicated that their Opinions are influenced. See Appendix G for the detailed distribution of in- fluence both of relatives and members of the group. Mennonites do not participate or discuss political issues, therefore their responses regarding political issues were excluded. Table 57 shows that Mennonites follow views of males, both inside and outside the kinship structure, more than females. Almost identical responses were obtained from the rural persons in this respect. Only 58% of the urban parents indicated that male relatives influence their 128 opinions, while 70% of their responses indicated influence of male non—relatives. Differences between the research groups with respect to influence of males, both inside and outside the kinship structure, were highly significant in the hypothesized direction Hence, the results presented in Tables 55 through 57 indicate significant relationship between "folk-like" characteristics sustaining the Mennonite subculture and recognizing sex by itself as a basis for social relationships. Mennonites believe that males should be shown more respect and consider respect and obedience for males the most important virtues children should learn. They follow views of males on political, economic, and religious issues, more than females. The findings indicate that Mennonite attitudes toward males were identical with regard to both relatives and non-relatives. The Mennonites dif- fered significantly in this respect from the rural and urban groups. The percentages show that differences were in the hypothesized direc- tion. Therefore, the hypothesis of recognition of sex among Mennonites as a basis for social relationships is accepted. C. Patterns of Social Relationahips with Respect to "Connected- ness" of the ginship Network Hypothesis 1 - Mennonite parents will exhibit higher rates in recognizing their relatives and their parents' relatives residing in the same local community, county, state, and out of the same state than for comparable rural and urban groups. The results relevant to this hypothesis are presented in Table 58. The results presented in Table 58 indicate that Mennonite parents recog- nized 297 living relatives residingain the local community, county, State, and in other states. Rural parents recognized only 150 living 129 TABLE 58.--Distribution of parents in the three community types, by number of living relatives and by place of residence Place of Parents-Relativesi* br CommunityAIYDes Residence Folk—rural Rural Urban No. 9% No. S No. 5 Residing in same community (98) 33 (32) 21 (26) 16 Residing in same county (19) 6 (16) ll (14) 9 Residing in same state (12) h (80) 53 (80) 50 Residing in different states (168) 57 (22) 15 (39) 25 Total number of relatives (29?) 100 (150) 100 (159) 100 2 X = 191.99 df = 6 P = .001 I"Included are (l) grandfather father's side; (2) grandfather mother's side; (3) grandmother father's side; (4) grandmother mother's side; (5) father; (6) mother; (7) uncles, father's side; (8) uncles, mother's side; (9) aunts, father's side; (10) aunts, mother's side; (11) brothers; and (12) sisters. N0. = 16 from each community type. relatives and urban parents recognized 159 living relatives residing in informant's same community, county, state, and in other states. Thirtyathree percent of relatives of the Mennonites reside within confines of informant's local community in contrast to 21% of relatives of the rural parents and only 16% of relatives of the urban parents. Six percent, 11% and-9% of relatives of the Mennonite, rural, and urban parents reside in informant's same county. Only 4% of relatives of the Mennonites reside in informant's same state in contrast to 53% of relatives of rural parents and a similar percentage (50%) of relap tives of the urban parents. Results indicate that 57% of the Mennonites' 130 relatives reside in different states, while only 15% of the relatives of rural parents and 25% of the relatives of urban parents reside in other states. The data presented in Table 58 indicate that Mennonite kinship is concentrated in the same local community as well as in other states. Most rural and urban relatives were concentrated in the same state. The research groups differed significantly with regard to number of recognized living relatives and with respect to concentration of re- latives by place of residence. The differences were in the hypothesized direction. Therefore the hypothesis is accepted. Hypothesis 2 - Mennonite parents will exhibit higher rates of visiting relatives, regardless of their place of residence, then for comparable rural and urban groups. a. Mennonite parents will exhibit higher rates of visiting their siblings and their parents' siblings in the past year, re- siding in same community and county, than for comparable rural and urban groups. The results of this sub-hypothesis are presented in Table 59. Results indicate that during the past year Mennonite parents visited 94% and 89% of their relatives residing in same community and same county respectively. In the past year rural parents have visited 92% and all their relatives residing in same community and same county respectively. During the same period urban parents visited 86% of their relatives residing in same community, and only 58% of their relatives residing in same county. Since Mennonites see their rela- tives nearly every Sunday, the results presented show the extent of connectedness of their kinship network manifested in high frequency of Visiting. Groups from each community type differed significantly in the frequency of visiting relatives residing in informants same community 131 TABLE 59.--Distribution of parents in the three community types, by frequency of visiting siblings* and parents' siblings in the past year by siblings' place of residence Siblings Visited in Parents, by Community Type Past Year by Place Folk-rural Rural Urban of Residence No. A; No. 4% No. i g — Total No. of Siblings in Same Community (85) 100 (13) 100 (14) 100 Number visited many times (80) 94 (12) 92 (12) 86 Number never visited (5) 6 (l) 8 (2) 14 Total No. of Sibligg infSame County(127 (18) 100 (14) 100 (12) 100 Number visited many times (16) 89 (14) 100 (7) 58 Number never visited (2) ll (0) O (5) 42 Total No. of Siblings in Same State—Igl— ' (11) 100 (74) 100 (65) 100 Number visited many times (7) 64 (50) 68 (38) 58 Number never visited (4) 36 (24) 32 (27) 42 . (A Total No. of Siblin s i ip_0ther States (3) (158) 100 (21) 100 (42) 100 Number visited many times (81) 51 (5) 2“ (121- 22; Number never visited (77) 49 (16) 76 (30) 71 (1) x2 = 10.99: df = 2 P = .01 (cells of siblings residing in informant's same community and same county were combined in computing chi square.) (2) X2 = 1.24 df = 2 P> .05 (3) x2 = 10.88 df = 2 P = .01 132 TABLE 59.--Continued (footnote) I"The categories of siblings included in this Table were: (1) uncles, father's side; (2) aunts, father's side; (3) uncles, mother's side; (4) aunts, mother's side; (5) brothers; and (6) sisters. TMany visits" stand for combined frequencies of "once," "twice," and "many" visits made by respondents. N0. = 16 in each community type. and same county. The differences were in the direction predicted by the sub-hypothesis. b. Mennonite parents will exhibit higher rates of visiting their siblings and their parents' siblings in the past year, residing in same ,state, then for comparable rural and urban groups. There were no significant differences between the groups studied concerning yearly frequency of visiting relatives residing in informant's same state. Results presented in Table 59 indicate that.Mennonite parents visited with 64% of their relatives, rural parents visited with 68% of their relatives, and urban parents visited with 58% of their relatives. Results shown conform to the literature indicating that urban families maintain considerable interaction with their relatives. The data also show that Mennonites still maintain kinship ties regard— less of distance of relatives' residence. c. Mennonite parents will exhibit higher rates of visiting their siblings and their parents' siblings in the past year, residing in other states, than for comparable rural and urban groups. Results relevant to this sub-hypothesis are presented in Table 59. The findings indicate that in the past year Mennonite parents visited 51% of their relatives residing in other states. In contrast, rural parents visited only 24% of their relatives and urban parents visited only 29$ of their relatives residing in other states. Differences between 133 the groups were highly significant in this respect and are in the anti- cipated direction. Results bearing on sub—hypotheses 2.a, 2.b, and 2.c, presented in Table 59 indicate that Mennonite parents exhibited higher rates of visiting with relatives, regardless of place of residence than the rural and urban groups. The differences between the groups were signi- ficant. The percentages show that differences were in the direction predicted by the hypothesis. It is therefore accepted. Hypothesis 3 — Mennonite parents will exhibit lower rates of telephone calling relatives, regardless of their place of residence, than for com- parable rural and urban groups. a. Mennonite parents will exhibit lower rates of calling their siblings and their parents' siblings in the past year, residing in same community and county, than for comparable rural and urban groups. Results relevant to the sub-hypothesis are presented in Table 60. Results presented in Table 60 indicate that in the past year Mennonite parents called 76% and 67% of their relatives residing in same commu- nity and same county respectively. During the same period rural parents called 92% and 86% of their relatives residing in same community and same county respectively; Urban parents called 64% and 42% of their relatives residing in same community and same county respectively. The results shown indicate that differences between the groups studied were significant in the hypothesized direction. b. Mennonite parents will exhibit lower rates calling their siblings and their parents" siblings in the past year, residing in same state, then for comparable rural and urban groups. 134 TABLE 60.--Distribution of parents in the three community types by frequency of calling siblings* and parents' siblings in the past year by siblings' place of residence ‘ Calling Siblings in Parents, by Community Type Eisfieiiiinii ”a“ Sifk'mmlg Wm“ VII—1&7 223 1 No. of Siblipgg in Same Community (85) 100 (13) 100 (14) 100- Number called many times (65) 76 (12) 92 (9). 64 Number never called (20) 24 (l) 8 (5) 36 floéofiitiiibfim (18) 100 (14) 100 (12) 100 Number called many times (12) 67 (12) 86 (5) 42 Number never called (6) 33 (2) 14 (7) 58 Totaero. of Sibliggg in §§E§p$t&tg_£§1§ (11) 100 (74) 100 (65) 100 Number called many times (4) 36 (34) 46 (23) 35 Number never called (7) 64 (40) 54 (42) 65 Tptal No. of Siblingg igvather States (2) (158) 100 (21) 100 (42) 100 Number called many times (34) 22 (3) l4 (14) 33 Number never called (124) 78 (18) 86 (28) 67 (1) X2 = 8.57 df = 2 P = .02 (Cells of siblings residing in informant's same community and same county were combined in computing chi square.) (2) x2 (3) x2 *The categories of siblings included in this Table were: (1) uncles, father's side; (2) aunts, father's side; (3) uncles, mother's side; (4) aunts, mother's side; (5) brothers; and (6) sisters. "Many calls" stand for combined frequency of "once," "twice," and "many" calls made by respondents. N0. = 16 in each community type. lo68 df = 2 P7 .05 3.62 df = 2 P) .05 135 There was no significant difference between the groups studied concerning frequency of calling relatives who reside in the same state. Results presented in Table 60 indicate that Mennonite parents called 36% of their relatives, rural parents called 46% of their relatives, and urban parents called 42% of their relatives. Although results presented did not conform to the predicted difference between the groups under consideration, they show moderate trends in the hypothesized direction. c. Mennonite parents will exhibit lower rates of calling their siblings and their parents' siblings in the past year, residing in other states, than for comparable rural and urban groups. There was no significant difference between the groups studied concerning yearly frequency of calling relatives residing in other states. Results presented in Table 60 indicate that Mennonite parents called 22% of their relatives, rural parents called only 14% of their relatives, and urban parents called 33% of their relatives, residing in different states in the past year. Although results presented did not show significant difference between the research groups, the tendency was very moderate in the direction predicted by the sub-hypothesis. Results bearing on sub-hypotheses 3.a, 3.b, and 3.c, presented in Table 60 indicate that Mennonites exhibited lower rates of calling relatives, regardless of place of residence. The differences between the groups were significant with regard to calling relatives residing in same local community and same county. Differences with regard to calling relatives residing in informant's same state and in other states were moderate, but they were in the anticipated direction. Therefore, the hypothesis of lesser phone interaction of Mennonites with their relatives is accepted. 136 Hypothesis 4 - Mennonites recognize "having many relatives" as a basis for social relationships to a greater extent than comparable rural and urban groups. a. Mennonite parents will exhibit higher levels of agreement that "having many relatives in local community" merits respect, than com. parable rural and urban groups. Results relevant to this sub-hypothesis are presented in Table 61. Results shown in Table 61 indicate that 25% of the Mennonite parents show respect to individuals having many relatives in the local community more than to individuals having few relatives. ‘Only 6i of both rural and urban parents thought that having many relatives, itself, merits more respect. Thus, results preSented in Table 61 show significant differences between the groups studied in the direction predicted by the sub-hypothesis. TABLE 61.--Distribution of parents in the three community types, by agreement that "having many relatives in the local community" merits respect Attitudes of Respect Parents, by Community Type and Obedience Toward Folk-rural Rural Urban Those Having Many No. 1 No. i No. El Relatives "I think that individuals who have many close relatives in my community should be shown more respect than those who have few relatives." Agree* (4) 25 (1) 6 (l) 6 Disagree" (12) 75 (15) 94 (15) 94 Total (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 I"Combined responses of "strongly agree" and "agree." "*Combined responses of "disagree" and "strongly disagree." 137 b. Mennonite parents will exhibit higher level of influence by individuals having many re- latives in the local community, regarding political, economic, and religious views, than comparable rural and urban groups. The results of this sub-hypothesis are presented in Table 62. The results shown in Table 62 indicate that 63% of the Mennonites, in contrast to only 15% and 8% of the rural and urban parents, respectively, were influenced by individuals having many relatives in the local comp munity regarding political, economic, and religious views. Differences were highly significant in the hypothesized direction. Ninetyafbur percent of the Mennonite parents, in contrast to only 33% and 40% of the rural and urban parents respectively, perceived that people in their community follow views of those having many relatives. They were less likely to be influenced on political, economic, and religious views by individuals having few relatives. Differences between the research groups in this respect were highly significant in the hypothesized direction. Hence, results presented in Tables 61 and 62 indicate that .Mennonites recognized that "having many relatives" as a basis for social relationships than comparable rural and urban groups. The groups differed significantly with regard to attitudes of respect Shown to individuals having many relatives and concerning influence 01' these individuals on political, economic, and religious views. The dinfferences were in the hypothesized direction. Therefore the hypothesis Of' recognition of "having many relatives" among Mennonites as a basis f0]: social relationship is accepted. Hi .1- .v' V II]. 0‘4 r t r th3f 138 TABLE 62.--Distribution of parents in the three community types, by whether views of individuals having many relatives in local community were followed and by perception that people in their community follow views of those having many relatives more than they follow individuals having few relatives on political, economic, and religious issues Familial Parents, by Community Type Influence Folk-rural Rural Urban No. *1 . No. i No. 1 Influence of relatives on informants opinions* Follow views of indivi- duals having many rela— tives in local community more than those having few relatives. (20) 63 (7) 15 (4) 8 Do p93 follow views of individuals having many relatives more than those having few relatives. (12) 37 (41) 85 (44) 92 Total responses (32) 100 (48) 100 (48) 100 Informant§_perceppion of 7 Lbs influence of havipg many relatives on members ijlocal communit .** Follow views of indivi- duals having many rela— tives in local community more than those having few relatives. (30) 94 (16) 33 (19) 40 Do 9.9.1: follow views of individuals having many relatives in local com- munity more than those haying few relatives. (2) 6 (32) 67 (29) 60 Total responses (32) 100 (48) 100 (48) 100, * X2 = 34.59 df = 2 P = .001 .001 ** 12 31.90 df = 2 P (Sets Appendix G for detailed distribution of parents by influence.) 139 In summary, the results presented in Tables 58 through 62 in- dicate significant relationship between "folk-like" characteristics sustaining the Mennonite subculture and the "connectedness" of the kinship system. The Mennonite kinship network may be thought of as exhibiting "closelyaknit" network of social relationships. "Closelya knit" kinship network are characteristic of the extended family type manifesting higher levels of familial influence. On the other hand, the rural and the urban networks may be thought of as "looselyzknit" networks. "Looselyaknit" kinship networks are characteristic of modified extended and nuclear family types manifesting lower levels of familial influence. Mennonites exhibited higher rates in recognizing their relatives and their parents' relatives than for comparable rural and urban groups. ,Mennonites exhibited higher rates of face-to-face inter- action manifested in high frequency of visiting relatives and lower frequency of calling them - regardless of their place of residence - than for comparable rural and urban groups. The Mennonites exhibited higher levels of familial influence manifested in attitudes of respect shown to individuals having many relatives and the influence of these individuals on political, economic, and religious views, than for comparable rural and urban groups. The Mennonites differed significantly in those respects from the rural and urban groups. The percentages Show that differences were in the direction predicted by the hypotheses audvanced. Summary of Social Relationships Hypotheses Table 63 summarizes the results bearing on the hypotheses dfiaaling with patterns of social relationships with respect to age, sex, 140 TABLE 63.--Summary of acceptance (+) and rejection (-) cf the hypotheses and sub-hypotheses dealing with patterns of social relationships with respect to age, sex, and the kinship network in the three community types Folk-rural rela. Acceptance(+) Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses tionships hypoth- Rejection (-) regarding social relationships esized as charac- of hypotheses with respect to age, sex, and terizing a group and sub- kinship possessing "folk- hypotheses- ' like" sub-culture ' n; . A. Patterns of social relationships with respect to age yes + 1. age as a basis for social relationships yes + a. age itself merits respect yes + b. respect and obedience for older people yes + c. influence of older persons yes + B. Patterns of social relationshipp with respect to sex yes + 1. sex as a basis for social relationships yes + a. sex itself merits respect yes + b. respect and obedience for males yes + c. influence of males yes + C. Patterns of social relationships with respect to "connectedness" gfpthe kinship network ‘9 git yes + 1. number of living relatives by residence yes + 2. visiting relatives yes + a. residing in the same local community and county yes + b. residing in the same state yes - c. residing in other states yes + 3. calling relatives yes + a. residing in the same local community and county yes b. residing in the same state yes - c. residing in other ’states yes - 4. having many relatives as a basis for social relationships yes + a. having many relatives itself merits respect yes + b. influence of individuals having many relatives yes + T..———— and in . cul‘ of : fou: Res the vis on sec mes la: PFC Vie Orz' Pu] 141 and kinship network in the three community types. The findings presented in Table 63 indicate significant relationship between Mennonite sub- culture possessing "folk-like" characteristics and the specific patterns of social relationships with regard to age, sex, and kinship that were found to be sharply differentiated from the rural and urban patterns. Research groups differed significantly in the direction predicted by the hypotheses. But the sub-hypotheses dealing with the frequency of visiting and calling relatives residing in the informant's same state and in different states failed to conform to expectations. Summary of Chapter The purpose of this chapter was to present the findings bearing on the operational hypotheses. This chapter was divided into three sections. In the first section, four hypotheses were preposed for measuring the degree of isolation of the research groups from the larger cultural system. The results relevant to these hypotheses provided evidence of high degree of cultural isolation of the Mennonites, viewed as a homogeneous group, relative to the rural and urban groups. It was assumed in the second section of this chapter that value orientations of the Mennonites which sustain their subculture will manifest "folk-like" characteristics sharply differentiated from the rural and urban subcultures. Six hypotheses were prOposed in this section dealing with value orientation to education, occupation, mate Selection, ideal family size, migration, religion, and preferred beahavioral traits in children. The findings generally supported these hyfipotheses, except that dealing with mate selection failed to conform to expectations. The data provided evidence that the Mennonite 142 subculture possessed "folk-like" characteristics which differed markedly from the rural and the urban subcultures. It was hypothesized in the third section of the chapter that social relationships with regard to age, sex, and kinship network among the Mennonite group would be characterized by an identifiable pattern sharply differentiated from the rural and urban groups. The findings confirmed the three hypotheses proposed in this section. The Menno- nites may be viewed as a "folk' group exhibiting patterns of social relationships identical to groups characterized by "folk-like” sub- cultures. The other two groups manifested patterns of social relation- ships identical to that of the larger social system. Therefore, the findings presented in this chapter generally confirm the ideas proposed in this study. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS A discussion of the findings, and conclusions drawn from the results, will be presented in this chapter. The chapter consists of three sections. The first presents a systematic discussion and inter- pretation of the results obtained. The second section deals with the relevance of the findings for sociological theory. In the third section the implications of the results for future research will be discussed. Interpretation of the Results This section will deal with assembling, discussing, and inter- preting the findings with respect to cultural isolation and homogeneity - the independent variable - and its effects on the cultural contents and patterns of social relationships that characterize the three commu- nity types. Deggee of Isolation Four dimensions were investigated to ascertain the degree of isolation of the subcultures studied. The results obtained indicate lower rates of participation for the Mennonites than for comparable rural and urban groups. The Menno— nsites participated in religious organizations only. Hence, the Menno- nzites interacted only with individuals who were members of the same 143 144 religious denomination. Therefore, they were relatively immune from exposure to variant types of organizations representing several activi- ties of the larger cultural system. The rural and urban groups, in contrast to the Mennonites, exhibited higher rates of membership in many types of organizations which allow them to be in contact with the ideology of the dominant culture. The Mennonites exhibited shorter vacation periods than for com— parable rural and urban groups. Vacation periods were spent by the Mennonites with members of the immediate family or with relatives. Hence, meanings stemming from the in-group were projected to things and events through the family. The rural and urban groups showed varying patterns of vacationing indicating contact with diverse persons and places. Therefore, the rural and urban groups were more frequently exposed to the ideology of the larger culture. The Mennonites exhibited a higher degree of in—group identifi- cation than did comparable rural and urban groups. The Mennonites interacted little with people outside the local community. They main- tained few relations with people outside their own group. Mbreover, the Mennonites tended to seek advice from members of the immediate family and relatives when they were confronted with problems. Hence, the Mennonites restricted interaction largely to members of the in—group ‘Who shared the same body of beliefs and held a similar outlook. Solu- ‘tions to problems were provided through the family and relatives. ZPherefore, the Mennonites manifested a high degree of in-group identifi- csation. The rural and urban groups maintained relatively high rates C>f interaction with people residing outside the local community. 145 Members of these two groups tended to seek advice from non-relatives with regard to problems. Therefore, it would appear that members of the rural and urban groups identified with the larger system more frequently than did the Mennonites. The Mennonites lacked the major means for receiving messages originating from the dominant cultures. By deliberate action on their part, the Mennonites fought against exposure to the various aspects of the dominant culture. Other rural and urban groups were in continuous contact with the dominant culture transmitted by mass means of communi- cation. Hence, the results obtained indicate that the Mennonites have consciously erected boundaries to prevent them from coming in contact with the larger culture. Therefore, they were more culturally isolated than the rural and urban groups. The differences between the latter two groups with regard to isolation from the dominant culture is prob- lematic. The Mennonites were not only culturally isolated but they also exhibit a high degree of homogeneity. Group homogeneity was manifested in a unified body of shared beliefs, customs, and standardi- zation of appearance. These specific aspects of the Mennonite way of life unite them and reinforce the boundaries erected which alienate them from neighboring groups. Content of theLSubcultures The content of each subculture was explored with regard to value orientations and intergenerational norm consensus.) The findings indi- cate important differences between the Mennonites' value orientations on the one hand and those of the rural and urban groups on the other 146 hand with regard to cultural elements derived from the basic institu- tions. The isolated Mennonite subculture exhibited "folk-like character- istics. As a consequence of the high degree of cultural isolation, the Mennonites held lower educational aspirations than the comparable rural and urban groups. The high school level was preferred by several gener— ational levels as an adequate length of formal education. The rural and urban groups exhibited contrasting value orientations with regard to education. The results indicate that both groups prefer higher edu- cational levels. Farming was considered by the Mennonites as the preferred oc- cupation for boys. The Mennonites exhibited high rates of preference for transmitting father's occupation to his sons. Housewife roles for girls were the only roles considered appropriate. The rural and urban groups on the other hand showed preference for professional occupations for boys and girls were permitted to aspire to a career, Furthermore, the Mennonites, in contrast to the rural and urban groups, preferred large families. The Mennonites also exhibited preference for staying in the local community. The rural and urban groups, in contrast, showed some preference for migration. The Mennonites exhibited a high frequency in the performance of religious activities. Their denomination was considered the best, and affiliation with this denomination was transmitted from one generation to the other. .The rural and urban groups exhibited lower frequencies in performing religious activities. Religious affiliation was con- sidered by these two groups as a personal preference and not necessarily 147 to be transmitted from one generation to the next. Traditional traits of behavior in children were preferred by the Mennonites in contrast to the rural and urban groups who preferred secular traits. Preference for mates from among those residing in the same local community failed to conform to expectations. There are numerous Mennonite collectivities in many states and it is expected that mates will come from the same religious group. Hence, the question should be stated differently to elicit preference for mates: from the same denomination or from a different denomination. The Mennonites considered high school education to be an ade- quate educational level appropriate to farming. For many generations, farming has been regarded the ideal occupation. It does not require a higher educational level. They rely upon the technical information provided by the Agricultural Extension Agent. Farming requires many activities which must be performed, therefore, large number of children in the family seem suitable for performing these activities where the family cooperates as‘a working unit. Farming encourages stability and requires non-mobility. Investments are placed in immobile goods that can be transmitted through the family line. Thus, there are moral as well as economic attachments to land. Agricultural activities provide many sources of anxiety. Rain is needed in due time, livestock must remain fit, and crops should be sold with profit. In a sense, religion functions as a safety valve for releasing the various anxieties farmers have. Therefore, the Mennonites do not consider religion in a separate compartment. Rather, it covers many aspects of social life. Hence, preference for traditional traits in children's behavior, namely, 148 "obedience to parents" and "trust in God" signify conformity to older generations and hope derived from religion. These cultural aspects specifying the Mennonites' design for living are characteristic of isolated "folk" cultures. AThe non—isolated rural and urban groups, on the other hand, held higher education to be of value. The college educational level was common in the aspirations of the rural and urban groups. The rural group, being farmers, were not satisfied with this occupation for their children, and parents of both groups desired that their children aspire to different occupations than their own. Both groups indicated a pref- erence for professional occupations. A small family, then, would be suitable and encourages both horizontal and vertical mobility. Inter- action with the out-group and the mass media provide the necessary in- formation with regard to the occupational structure. Norms and values, of the dominant culture indicate that advancement in the occupational sphere depends upon individual achievement. Religion, therefore, does not function exclusively to relieve anxiety. Rather, it becomes a matter of individual conviction or preference. Hence, the family being aware of the basic norms and values of the larger culture, attempts to socialize the children in harmony with success and achievement. Patterns of Social Relationship_ The Mennonites not only show respect for older persons and males, but they also tend to follow the views of older persons and males on political, economic, and religious issues. In contrast, the rural and urban groups did not consider age or sex to merit respect; nor did they follow the views of both older and male persons. Individual 149 characteristics were considered more important than the ascribed ones in the rural and urban groups. The kinship network was explored in terms of number, residence, frequency of interaction with relatives, and familial influence. Since the Mennonites are culturally isolated and9possess a "folk-like" sub- culture, they exhibited a kinship network which was significantly dif- ferent from the rural and urban groups. The Mennonites had a larger number of living relatives residing both inside and outside the local community than the rural or urban groups. Preference for face-to-face interaction was manifested in high frequency of visiting relatives regardless of the distance of residence in contrast to both the rural and urban groups. Telephone calls characterized the interaction pat- tern of the rural and urban groups with their relatives. The results indicate that the Mennonite kinship network was characterized by a high degree of "connectedness" relative to the other two groups which exhibited a lower degree of "connectedness." The extended family type was characteristic of the Mennonites and the influence of relatives was shown in following their political, economic, and religious views. The modified extended family was characteristic of the rural group where high frequency of interaction with relatives was maintained without much familial influence exerted. The nuclear family type was found to be characteristic of the urban group. Relationships with relatives were maintained primarily by phone calling and little familial influence was indicated. Relevance of Findings to Sociological Theory An attempt has been made in this study to summarize specific traits characterizing particular groups of people residing in the same 150 geographical area. By using the concept "folk" culture and "folk" society it was intended to differentiate between the groups studied with regard to cultural isolation. The focus was the "folk-like" Menno- nite subculture in order to show that it is different from both the rural and urban neighboring subcultures to which they were compared. The differences found may be attributed to differences in the degree of isolation from the dominant culture. The theoretical idea of the study is that in large, industrialized, complex societies, folk cul- tures and societies can co-exist side by side with nonpfblk cultures and societies. The general conclusion of this research is that under condi- tions of non-geographic isolation, non—self-sufficiency, and a money economy, groups may consciously erect boundaries that effectively iso- late them from contact with the larger cultural system. Cultural iso- lation, it is argued, causes the manifestation of "folk-like" character- istics which differ significantly from nonpisolated subcdltures. There- fore, the Mennonites - the highly isolated and homogeneous group - is the sacred and collectivistic society. The rural and urban non—isolated and heterogeneous groups, are the secular and individualistic societies. The three groups were characterized by well organized sub-cultures, each exhibiting a high degree of consistency between its elements. Three conclusidns may now be stated. The first is that the rural and urban groups manifest greater secularization than the folk- rural group. The principal facts proposed in support of this conslusion are, in the order in which they have been presented: (1) value orienta- tions held by the groups with regard to religious activities. The rural 151 and urban groups indicated the separation of religion from other means of life. (2) Value orientations held by the groups studied with regard to the desired behavioral traits in children. The rural and urban groups indicated preference for secular behavioral traits. The second conclusion is that the least isolated and the most heterogeneous of the groups studied are the more individualized. This conclusion is supported by value orientations held by the rural and urban groups with regard to: (l) lengthy periods of formal education; ’ (2) Occupational expediency; (3) migration from the local community; (4) individual religious prefenence; and (5) individual decisions on political, economic, and religious issues regardless of age, sex, or familial influence. The third conclusion is that the highly isolated and homogeneous group is organized according to principles of organization that are different from the less isolated and heterogeneous groups. That is, the nonpisolated rural and urban groups do not necessarily have to be culturally disorganized. Contrary to the traditional theory, cultures of different community types may be thought of as being organized on different principles or levels. Consistency exists between elements of every subculture but the basis of their organization may be different. The Mennonite subculture viewed as an organization, as a design for living, involves harmony between the selected cultural elements and intergenerational mutual understanding. The efficiency of the design as a guide for conduct is increased by applying sanctions which largely stem from religion. The rural and urban subcultures specify a different design for living. The elements of the design are based upon 152 secularization and individualization, in harmony with the larger cul- tural system. In an open social structure, the efficiency of this design is increased by providing opportunities, by stimulating com. petition, and by rewarding achievement. Implications of the Results for Future Research The utility of the concept "folk" culture and "folk" society will be discussed here with regard to its importance in explaining human behavior, in generating hypotheses, and stimulating research. The discussion will be presented with relation to the rural and urban levels in both complex and developing countries. In complex, industrialized societies, the concept would be use- ful in delineating types of subcultures in metropolitan areas possessed by different occupational, racial, religious, and minority groups. Many questions with regard to the lower socio-economic stratum in city slums could be answered by using the theoretical framework provided by the concept. 0n the rural level, the concept generates many hypotheses with regard to solidary groups-in villages and the mechanisms of main- taining their boundaries. The basic questions are: under conditions of non—isolation, how do rural people differ and why do they differ from urban people? 'Hhat are the basic cultural elements of the farmer's design for living? What are the factors affecting the farmer's parti- cipation in selective voluntary organizations and its effects on their subculture? In developing countries the concept seems to be useful in exp plaining the reasons for maintenance of folk-rural cultures in cities. Rural migrants moving in large numbers to cities and ports retain their 153 subcultures in these new places of settlement. 'With regard to rural development many important questions could be answered by using the concept of "folk" culture. Some of these questions are: How does the! village preserve its design for living despite the introduction of industrialization in surrounding regions? If education is introduced in the village, will the other institutions change accordingly? Is it important to expose the new generation in the village to the advances of the dominant culture? What are the crucial points in the village system through which a proper entree can be made with regard to intro- ducing technical change? How and in what way are the cultural elements interrelated and interdependent upon each other? Can family planning be approached through motivating the younger generation to vertical and horizontal mobility? If we indicate cultural isolation, is it possible to predict'accurately a society's subculture? How and in what way can the family and the school be integrated in conformity to desired social and cultural change? LIST OF REFERENCES Books Arensberg, Conard, and S. T. Kimball. Family and Community in Ireland. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, l9h0. Becker, Howard. Through Value§_to Social Interaction. New York: Durham, Duke University Press, 1950. Bell, W. Norman, and F. E. Vogel. A Modern Introduction to The Family. The Free Press of Glencoe, 195—. Blake, J. and K. Davis. "Norms, Values, and Sanctions," in R. E. Faris (ed.), Handbook of Modern Sociology. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 196M, pp. h56lh84. Blalock, Herbert M. Social Statistics. New York: McGrawafiill Company, 1960. Bott, Elizabeth. Family and Social Network. London: Tavistock Publi- cations Limited, Second Impression, 1964. ' Coser, Rose. The Family: Its Structure and_Functions. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1953. Dixon, J. W}, and F. J. Massey, Jr. Introduction to Statistical Analysis. New Ybrk: MdGraw-Hill Book Company, Second Edition, 1957. Durkheim, D. The Elementary Forms of the Reli ious Life. Trans. Joseph V. Swain, Glencoe: The Free Press, 195 . Gingerich, Melvin. The Mennonites in Iowa. Iowa City: The State Histor- ical Society of Iowa, 1939. Greer, Scott. "Individual Participation in Mass Soceity," in Ybung and Mack (eds.), Principles of Sociology, Third Edition, New York: American Book Company, 1955, pp. 205-219. Firth, R. (ed.), Two Studies of Kinship in London. London: Athlone Press, 1956: Herskovits, Melville. Man and His work. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948. ‘— Hostetler, John. Amish Life. Penn.: Herald Press, 1953. Junker, Buford. Field work: An Introduction to the Social Sciences. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,_l950. 15h 155 Kaplan, Abraham. The Conduct of Inquiry. California: Chandler Publishing Company, 1967;. Kluckhohn, Clyde. "Values and Value Orientations," in T. Parsons and E. Shils (eds.), Toward A General Theo of Action. Harvard University Press, 1951, pp. 383:533. . "The Concept of Culture," in D. Lerner and H. D. Lasswell (eds.), The Policy Sciences. Stanford: University of Stanford Press, 1951, pp. 86-101. ' Kluckhohn, R. Florence, and F. T. Strbdtbeck. Variations_in'Valuefigrienta. tions. New York: Row, Peterson and Company, 1961. Kohn, Melvin L. "Social Class and Paternal Values," in R. Coser (ed.), The_Fami1y: Its Structure and Function. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1955; Levi-Strauss, Claude. "The Family," in Harry L. Shapiro (ed.), ManI Culture, and Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1960, pp. 261-2367 Lewis, Oscar. Lifg_in a Mexican Village: Tepoztlan Restudied. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1951. : Loomis, P. C., and J. A. Beegle. Rural Sociology: The Strategy of Change. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Third Printing, 1963. McKinney, John C. and P. C. Loomis. "The Typological Tradition," in J. S. Roucek (ed.), Readings in Contemporary American Sociolo . Paterson, N. J.: Littlefield, Adams and Co., 1953, pp. 557-532. Nelson, Lowry, E. C. Ramsey, and C. Verner. Community Structure and Change. The MacMillan Company, 1960. Parsons, T. and Edward Shils (eds.), Toward A General Theo of Action. Harper Torchbooks Edition, New York: Harper and Row, 1932. Parsons, T. "The Structure of The Family," in R. Anshen (ed.), Th9 Famil : Its Function and Densit . New York: Harper and Bros., 1959, Chapter‘x, pp. 173-201. Pitts, Jesse R. "The Structural-Functional Approach," in H. T. Christen- sen (ed.), Handbook of Marriage and The Famil . Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1965, pp. 51-12h. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. Structure and Function in Primitive Socie y. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1952.‘ Redfield, Robert. Tgpoztlan, A Mexican Village:_A Study of Folk Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930. 156 . A Village That Chose Progress, Chan_Kom Revisited. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950. ' . The Folk Culture of Yucatan. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1931. . The Little Community and Peasant Society and Culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Third Impression, 1963. Rees, A. D. Life in a Welsh Countryside. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1950. Selltiz, C., M. Jahoda, M. Deutsch and S. W3 Cook. Research Methods in Social Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965. Shibutani, Tamotsu. Society and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice—Hall, Inc., Fifth Printing, 196k. Siegel, Sidney. Non Parametric Statistics For The Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956. Smith, Elmer L. The Amish People. New York: Exposition Press, 1958. . The Story of The Mennonite . Third Edition, Newton, Kansas: Mennonite Publication Office, 1950. Sorokin, Pitrim A. Society, Culture, and Personality. New York: Harper, 19h7. —' ‘— ‘Heber, Alfred. "Fundamentals of Culture-Sociology," in T. Parsons, E. Shils, K. D. Naegele, and J. R. Pitts (eds.), Theories of Societ . Glencoe: The Free Press, Vol. II, 1961, pp. 127h—1233. Young, Michael, and'Willmot Peter. Family and Kinship in East London. Routledge and Kegan Paul, Third Impression, 196*. Articles and Periodicals Barnes, J. "Class and Communities in a Norwegian Island Parish," Human Relations, Vol. 7, No. 1, (195%), pp. 39-58. Beachy, Alvin J. "The Rise and Development of The Beachy Amish Mennonite Churches," Mennonite Quarterly Revieg,‘Vol. XXIX, (April, 1955), pp. 118-1&0 . Beale, Ralph. "Community Typologies in Latin America," Anthropological Linguistics, Vol. 3, No. 1, (January, 1961). Brown, J. S. "The Conjugal Family and The Extended Family Group,".mmerican Sociological Review, Vol. 17, No. 3, (1952), pp. 297-306- ‘157 Bruener, E. M. "Urbanization and Ethnic Identity in North Saumatra," American Anthropologist, Vol. 63, (1961), pp. 508—521. Cumming, Elaine and D. M. Schneider. "Sibling Solidarity': A Property of American Kinship," American Anthropologist, Vol. 63, (1961), pp ‘ 498- 507 o Curle, A. "Kinship Structure in an English Village," Man, Vol. 52, (1952). pp- 68-69 Dotson, F. "Patterns of Voluntary Association Among Urban Working-Class Families," American Sociological Review, Vol. 16, No. 5, (1951), pp. 687-693. Douvan, Elizabeth. "Social Status and Success Striving," The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,'Vol. 52, (March, 1956), pp. 219-223. Gross, Neal. "Cultural Variables in Rural Communities," American Journal of Sociolgy, Vol. 53, (July, l947-May, 1948), pp. 350. Foster, George. "What is Folk Culture?", American Anthropologist Vbl. 55, No.2 ,(April— June, 1953), pp. 159-171. Hostetler, John A. "Religious Mobility in a Sect Group: The Mennonite Church," Rural Sociology, Vol. XIX, (September, 1954), pp. 244-255. "Persistence and Change Patterns in Amish Society," Ethno- logy 'Vol. III, No. 2, (April, 1964), pp. 185-198. Johnson, Cyrus M. and Allan Kerkhoff. "Family Norms, Social Positions,. and the Value of Change," Social Forces, Vol. 43, No. 2, (Decem- ber, 1964), pp. 149-156. Kroeber, A. L. and T. Parsons. "The Concepts of Culture and of Social System," American Sociological Review, Vol. 23, (October, 1958), pp. 582-583 Lewis, Oscar. "Urbanization Without Breakdown: A Case Study," Scientific Monthly, Vol. 75, (1952), pp. 31-41. Litwak, Eugene. "Occupational Mobility and Extended Family Cohesion." American Sociological Review, Vol. 25, (August, 1960), pp. 9-21. Parsons, T. "The Kinship System in The Contemporary U.S.," American Anthropologist, Vol. 45, (1943), pp. 22-38. Person, Robert N. "Bilateral Kin Grouping as a Structural Type," Uni- versity of Manila: Journal of East Asiatic Studies, (1954), pp. 1993202. 158 Redfield, Robert. "The Folk Society," The American Journal of Sociology, Vol.52, (January, 1947), pp. 293-308. Schneider, D. M. and G. C. Homans. "Kinship Terminology and The American Kinship System," American Anthropologist, Vol. 57, No. 6, (Decem- ber, 1955), pp. 1194.1268. Schnore, Leo F. "The Rural Urban Variable: An Urbanite's Perspective," Rural Sociologyg Vol. 31, No. 2, (June, 1966), pp. 131-143. Schroeder, Widick and J. A. Beegle. "Suicide, An Instance of High Suicide Rates," Rural Sociology, Vol. 18, (1953), pp. 45.52. Sussman, Marvin and Lee Burchinal. "Kin Family Networks: Unheralded Structure in Current Conceptualizations of Family Functioning," Marriage and Family Living, Vol. 24, (November, 1962), pp. 320- 332. Tax, Sol. "Culture and Civilization in Guatemalan Societies," The Scientific Monthly, Vol. XLVIII, (May, 1939). pp. 463.4??? ‘Wirth, Louis. "Urbanization as a way of Life," American Journal of Sociology, (July, 1938), pp. 1-24. Wolf, Eric. "Closed Corporate Communities in Mesoamerica and Central Java," Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 13, (1957), pp. 1-18. . Others Bender, H. S. and C. Harry Smith. Histories of the Con e ations: The Church of God in Christ, Publication Board, Hesston, 1963. Ella M. Beck, Ethel L. Huot, Claribel R. Meyers, John Parker, Helen.A. Lewis, Karlene Ebkert, Sister Jacinta, Earl R. Lancaster, Gladys E. Bullard, Ardis B. Utterback, Ewelun A. Wielend, and Roger.M. Shutes. Unpublished Class Project in Rural Sociology, Clinton County; Sociology: 437, (1965), A paper presented to Professor J. A. Beegle. Hostetler, J. A. Annotated Bibliogpaphy on the Amish, Penn.: Mennonite Publishing Hbuse, 1953. Kollmorgen, Walter M. "Culture of A Contemporary Rural Community: The Older Order Amish of Lancaster, Pennsylvania," Rural Life Stzdies No. 4, United States Department of Agriculture, Sept. 19 2. 159 Mennonites and Their Heritage: A Handbook of Mennonite History and Beliefs, ('1 Penn.: Herald Press, l96h. U. S. Bureau of Census. United States Census of Population,_l960. Michigan: Number of Inhabitants. General Population Characteris- tics, General Social and Economic Characteristics. Hashington D. C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1961. APPENIDIX A A-l-l CHILDREN A-1.2 STUDENTS COMMUNITY TYPE: __ NAME ADDRESS PLACE * .. COUNTY AGE SEX RELIGION _ GRADE IN SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL j V LOCATION DATE OF INTERVIEW _ CHILDREN STUDENTS A:1-EwcATION I. 1. Do you like going to school? IES_'NO_ D.K. 2. DO you think that going to school is necessary? YES_NO_D.K._ 3. DO you find school: EASI___ NEITHER EASY NOR DIFFICULT_ * DIFFICULT__ II. 1+. How far do you think you will go in school? Finish junior high Finish high school Finish college * Finish Masters or Ph.D. Other (specify) f A-Z-OCCUPATIQQ BOYS I. 1. What kind Of job (work) do you want to have (when you grow up) (after finishing your education)? II. 2. DO you want to have the same job (work) as your father? IEs_ NO__ D.K.____ III. 3. Does your father want you to have the same kind of job he has? YES__ NO__ D.K.__ 160 161 it. Does your mother want you to have the kind of job as your father? YES__ NO_ D.K.___ IV. 5. Does your father want you to have a particular kind Of job? YES___ NO___ D.K.___ If yes, what? ,4 6. Does your mother want you to have a particular kind Of job? YES_ NO__ D.K._ If yes, what? ' GIRLS I. 1. What kind of job (work) do you want to have when you grow up? II. 2. Does your mother now have a job? YES_ NO— 3. If yes, what kind Of job? a. If yes, does your mother want you to have the same kind Of job she has? YES_ NO_ D.K._ 5. If yes, does your father want you to have the same kind Of job she has? YES__. NO___ D.K.___ III. 6. If no, did your mother ever have a job? IES___ NO___ D.K.___ 7. If yes, what kind of job was it? 8. If yes, does your mother want you to have the same kind Of job she had? YES___ NO___ D.K.___ 9. If yes, does your father want you to have the same kind of job she had? YES_ NO___ D.K._ IV. 10. Does your mother want you to have a particular kind of job when you grow up? YES___ NO___ D.K.___ If yes, what kind Of job is it? 11. Does your father want you to have a particular kind of job when you grow up? YES___ NO___ D.K.___ If yes, what kind of job is it? Ap3eMARRIAG§ I. 1. Do you think you will likely marry someone from this community? YE__ NO___ D.K._ What makes you think that way? II. 2. Do you think it is important that your parents approve of the person you marry? YES___ NO___ D.K.___ What makes you think that way? ‘ III. 3. What do you think is the right (ideal) number Of children in a family? 162 A-h—OU'IMIGRATION I. 1. Have you always lived around here? YES___.NO___ 2. If no, what other places have you lived?.' II. 3. "I think that my community is the nicest place around." STRONGLY AGREE___ AGREE___ DISAGREE___ STRONGLY DISAGRES___ III. h. (When you grow up) (After finishing your education) do you think you will likely stay around here? YES___ NO___ D.K.____ 5. Why? A-5-RELIGI ON I. 1. About how Often do you go to church? EVERY SUNDAY__ OFTEN_ NOT SO OFTEN___ NEVER 2. DO you usually say grace before meals? YES_ NO— 3. Do you usually say prayers before going tO bed? IES___ NO___ h. Are you a member Of a Sunday School class? YES___ NO___, '- 5 . DO you belong to any other church groups? YES_ NO___ If yes, what groups? II. 6. "I think that my church is better than other churches." STRONGLY AGREE_ AGREE_-_ DISAGREE___ STRONGLY DISAGREE_ III. 7. (When you grow up) Do you think you might join a different church sometime? YES_ NO_ D. K._ If yes, do you think it might be: ANOTHER— PROTESTANT CHURCH— CATHOLIC CHURCH_ lid-VALUES OF BEHAVIOR GIRLS The Browns have six girls. Their names are Susan, Jan, Phyllis, Ann, Nancy and Barbara. They are all nice children, but each is difL ferent from the other. The Oldest, Susan, is known because of her honesty. She never took anything which did not belong to her. Susan once found a $100-bill and she give it to the Police Officer who thanked her fer her honesty; gag, the second sister in the family is very interested in school. When she returns from school she starts doing her homewOrk. Her teacher likes her very much because Jan always gets good grades in school. The third daugh- ter is called Phylli . Phyllis slikes to ask questions because she wants to know about everything around her. {Agg_, the fourth daughter, always obeys her mother and father. She does everything that her parents want her to do. Annfs parents think she is a fine girl because she always 163 does what they say. The fifth daughter is called Nancy. Nancy likes to go to church. She always prays before meals and she never forgets her prayers before going to bed. Nanc is active in Sunday School where she loves to sing the hymns. The sixth daughter in the Brown‘ family is called Barbara. Barbara is always happy and smiling. In the evening Barbara is always joking and laughing and she makes the whole family happy. I. 1. Which child (girl) do you like best? 2. Which child (girl) do you like next best? II. 3. Which child (girl) Would you most like to be? 4. Which child (girl) would you next most like to be? BOYS The Browns have six boys. Their names are Jim, Tom, Pat, Tim, John and David. They are all nice children, but each is different from the other. The oldest, Jim, is known because of his honesty. He never took anything which did not belong to him. Jim once found a $lOO-bill and he gave it to the Police officer who thanked him for his honesty; 295, the second brother in the family is very interested in school. ‘When he re- turns from school he starts doing his homework. His teacher likes him very much because TOJ always gets good grades in school. The third son is called Pat. Pat likes to ask questions because he wants to know about everything— around him. Tim, the fourth sen, always obeys his mother and father. He does everything that his parents want him to do. TiJ's parents think he is a fine boy becauSe he always does what they say. The fifth son is named John. John likes to go to church. He always prays before meals and he never forgets his prayers before going to bed. John is active in Sunday School where he loves to sing the hymns. The sixth son in the Brown family is David. David is always happy and smiling. In the evening David is always joking and laughing and he makes the whole family happy. ‘ I. 1. Which child (boy) do you like best? 2. Which child (boy) do you like next best? II. 3. Which child (boy) would you most like to 53? h.‘Which child (boy) would you next most like tofibe? CHILDREN STUDENTS Cal-EXPOSURE T0 IDEAS 1. Are there other boys and girls about your age in your neighborhood? YES NO 2. If yes to 1, during the last WEEK about how many times did you spend time with the other boys and girls in your neighborhood? ONCE___ TWICE_‘ MORE THAN TWICE___ NOT AT ALL- 161+ If yes to 1, during the last MONTH about how many times did you spend time with the other boys and girls in your neighborhood? ONCE__ TNICE_ MORE THAN NICE_ NOT AT ALL_ Do you have best friends who live in this community but who are NOT neighbors? YES_NO_ If yes to lb, during the last WEEK about how many times did you spend time with the other boys and girls who are not neighbors? ONCE__ TWICE_ MORE THAN TWICE__ NOT AT ALL__ If yes to 1+, during the last MONTH about how many times did you spend time with the other boys and girls who are not neighbors? . ONCE_ TWICE_ MORE THAN TWICE_ NOT AT ALL— 10' ll. 12. 13. 1’4. 150 Do you have best friends who live outside this community? YE__NO___ If yes to 7, during the last WEE about how many times did you visit them? ONCE TWICE—MORE THAN TWICE NOT AT ALL_ . If yes to 7, during the last MONTH about how many times did you visit them? ONCE—NICE—MORE THAN TWICE—NOT AT ALL— If yes to 7, during the last YEAR about how many times did you visit them? ONCE_'IWICE_MORE THAN TWICE—NOT AT ALL__ If yes to 7, during the last WEEK about how many times did you call them up? ONCE_'IWICE_MORE THAN TWICE___NOT AT ALL— If yes to 7, during the last MONTH about how manygtimes did you call them up? ONCE___TWICE_MORE THAN TWICE—NOT AT ALL_ If yes to 7, during the last YEAR about how many times did you call them up? ONCE TWICE—MORE THAN TWICE NOT AT ALL_ Where did you spent your last vacation? CHILDREN ONLY: If you have a problem, to whom would you go FIRST for advice? To whom would you go SEOND for advice and to whom would you go THIRD for advice? your parents your teacher your brothers 8: sisters send a letter to your newspaper your relatives editor or T.V. director your neighbors others (specify) your best friends nobody your mini st er l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 165 ¢7ua104kil S¥§DEMES ONLY: If you have a problem, to whom would you go FIRST for advice? To whom would you go SECOND for advice and to whom would you go THIRD for advice? your parents your teacher your brothers & sisters send a letter to your newspaper your relatives editor or T.V. director your neighbors others (specify) your best friends nobody your minister STUDENTS If you have a problem concerning a permanent job (work) to whom would you go FIRST for advice? To whom would you go SECOND for advice and to whom would you go THIRD for advice? your parents your teacher your brothers & sisters send a letter to your newspaper your relatives editor or T.V. director your neighbors others (specify) your best friends nobody your minister If you have a problem concerning love and marriage, to whom would you go FIRST for advice? To whom would you go SECOND for advice and to whom would you go THIRD for advice? your parents your teacher your brothers & sisters send a letter to your newspaper your relatives editor or T.V. director your neighbors others (specify) your best friends nobody your minister If you have a problem concerning staying in or moving out, to whom would you go FIRST for advice? To whom would you go SECOND for advice and to whom would you go THIRD for advice? your parents_ your teacher your brothers & sisters_ send a letter to your newspaper your relatives editor or T. V. director— your neighbors others (specify)* your best friends nobody" your minister If you have a problem concerning religion and your faith to whom would you go FIRST for advice? To whom would you go SECOND for advice and to whom would you go THIRD for advice? your parents your teacher your brothers & sisters . send a letter to your newspaper your relatives editor or T.V. director your neighbors others (specify) your best friends nobody your minister 166 A-l-B FATHERS 11.1-1; MOTHERS NAME ADDRESS __ PLACE COUNTY AGE OCCUPATION (S) TOTAL GROSS FAMILY INCOME: 1 - under Show a‘ year 2 - $h000 to 5999 a year 3 - $6000 to 7999 a year 4 - $8000 to 10,000 a year 5 - $10,000 and over a year HIGHEST GRADE COMPLETED IN SCHOOL* __ NUMBER OF CHILDREN AGE AND SEX OF CHILDREN PLACE OF BIRTH DATE OF INTERVIW FATHERS MOTHERS A-l-EIIJCATION I. 1. When you were of high school age, did you like going to school? YES___NO___D.K.___ 2. When you were of high school age, did you think then that going to school was necessary? YES _____NO D. K.___ 3. When you were of high school age, did you find school: EASY __NEITHER EASY NOR DIFFICULT_ DIFFICULT_ h. Do you now feel that going to school is necessary for your children? YB _NO__ D. K.— II. 5. Did you get any training beyond (the highest grade completed)? YES _NO_ D. X. _If yes, specify what kind 6. Did your parents want you to continue your schooling or go to work? CONTINUE SCHOOLING___ GO TO WORK_ D. K.____ 7. If your parents wanted you to continue your schooling, did they want you to complete: HIGH SCHOOL __COLLEGE __BEYOND COLLmE_ OTHER (SPECIFY) 167 As far as you know now how much education do you hope your son(s) will obtain: HIGH SCHOOL____COLLECE_BEYOND COLLEGE— OTHER (SPECIFY) As far as you know now how much education do you hope your 9. daughter(s) will obtain: HIGH SCHOOL__COLLEGE__BEYOND COLLEGE___ OTHER (SPECIFY)__ III. 10. Would you be disappointed if your son(s) dropped out of school before finishing high school? YES_NO__ Why? 11. If yes, what would you do if a son did drop out of school? 12. Would you be disappointed if your daughter dropped out of school before finishing high school? YES___NO__ Why? 13. If yes, what would you do if a daughter did drop out of school? A-2-OCCUPATION FATHERS I. 1. When you were of high school age, what kind of a job did you want? _ II. 2. When you were of high school age, did you want to have the same job (work) as your father? YES—N __D.K.__ III. 3. When you were of high school age, did your father want you to have the same kind of job he had? YES__NO_D.K.___ ll. When you were of high school age, did your mother want you to have the same kind of job as your father? YES___NO__D.K.___ IV. 5. When you were of high school age, did your father want you to have a particular kind of job? YES___NO___D.K. 6. If yes to 5, what? 7. When you were of high school age, did your mother want you to have a particular kind of job? YE_N __D.K.__ 8. If yes to 7, what? __ w __ _ V. 9. Do any of your children at home earn any money? YE_NO_ 10. If yes to 9, how? Please specify VI. 11. Do you want your son(s) to have~~the same kind of job as you have? YES__NO__D.K.__ 12. Why? VII. 13. 1h. 15. 16. 17. 180 190 20. 21. 22. 23. 2b. 168 Do you want your son(s) to have any particular job? YES "NO D. K.— If yes to 13, what kind of job? Does your wife want your son(s) to have the same job as you have? YES _NO_ D. K._ Do you have any idea why she feels that way? Does your wife want your son(s) to have any particular job? YES _NO_ D. K.— If yes to 17, what kind of job is it? ‘— ‘Would you be disappointed if your son(s) chose a line of work below his abilities without talking it over with you? m__NO_D . K ._ Why? If yes to 19, what would you do? WOuld you be disappointed if your daughter(s) chose a line Of work below her abilities without talking it over with you? YES_ NO_ D. K.— Why? If yes to 22, what would you do? A-Z-OCCUPATION MOTHERS I. 1. ‘When you were of high school age, did you think of having a job? YES _NO _D. K.— If yes to 1, what kind of a job did you want? __ Is your mother living?" YES___NO!__ If yes to 3, does your mother now have a job? YES___NO___ If yes to h, what kind of job is it? If yes to 3,_did she ever have a job? YES___NO__‘D.K. If yesto 6, what kind of job was it? Did your mother want you to be a housewife only? YES _NO_ D. K._ Do you want your daughter(s) to be a housewife only? YES _NO _D. K._ III. VI. VII. 10. ll. 12. 13. 22. 23. 21+. 25. 26. 27o 28. 29. 169 Does your husband want your daughter(s) to be a housewife only? YES_NO_D.K.__ If yes to 3 or 6, did your mother want you to have the same kind of a job she had? YES_NO_D.K.__ If yes to 3 or 6, did your father want you to have the same kind of a job she had? YE__NO_D.K.__ When you were of high school age, did, your mother want you to have a particular job? YES—N _D.K._ If yes to 13, what kind of job was it? When you were of high school age, did your father want you to have a particular job? YES__NO___D.K.___ If yes to 15, what kind of job was it? Do you have a job now? YE NO_ If yes to 17, what kind of job is it?fi_ Did you ever have a job? YES NO_ If yes to 19, what kind of job or jobs? If yes to 17 and 19, do you want your daughter(s) to have the same job as you have (had)? YES—NO D.K._ If yes to 21, why? If no to 21, do you want your daughter(s) to have a particular kind of job? YES—N0 D.K._' If yes to 23, what kind of job(s) is it? ’1 L 5.7— If yes to 17 or 19, does your husband want your daughter(s) to have the same kind of job you have (had)? YES—NO_DJL— If yes to 25, why? \ If no to 25, does your husband want your daughter(s) to have a particular kind of job? YB__NO__D.K._ If yes to 27, what kind of job(s) is it? Do any of your daughters at home earn any money? YES NO— If yes to 29, how? Please specify 170 VIII. 31. Wbuld you be disappointed if your daughter(s) chose a line of 32- 33. 34. work below her (their) abilities without talking it over with you? YES "NO D. K._ If yes to 31, what would you do? ‘Wbuld you be disappointed if your son(s) chose a line of work below his (there) abilities without talking it over with you?~ ~ YES_NO__D.K._ If yes to 33. what would you do? EATHERS MOTHERS 4:3-MARRIAGE I. 1. II. 5. III. 6. 9. IV. 10. 11. 12. 13. Did your wife (husband) come from the same community as you did? YES _NO_ D. K._ Was that around here? YES_NO____PLEASE SPECIFY Did your mother come from the same community as your father did? YES___NO____ was that around here? YES___NO_ SPECIFY: EATHER MOTHER What do you think is the right (ideal) number of children in a family? ._4 Before your son(s) (daughters) decides to marry, do you think it is important that he (she) talk it over with you? YES _NO_ D. K.— Why? Before your daughter(s) (sons) decides to marry, do you think it is important that she (he) talk it over with you? YES—NO_D . K ._ ‘Why? Would you be disappointed if your son(s) (daughters) marries without talking it over with you? YES _NO_ D. K.— K Why? If yes to 10, what would you do? Would you be disappointed if your daughter(s) (sons) marries without talking it over with you? YES _NO_ D. K.— 171 14.‘Why? 15. If yes to 13, what would you do? A-h—OUTIQQRAEION I. 1. Have you always lived around here? YES NQ___ 2. If no to 1, what other places have you lived? . Has your father always lived around here? YES NO___ . If no to 3, what other places has he lived? . If no to 5, what other places has she lived? 3 u 5. Has your mother always lived around here? YES NO___ 6 7 . "I think that my community is the nicest place around." STRON GLY AGREE__AGREE_DISAGREE__S TRONGLY DISAGREE_ III. 8. Do you think you will likely stay around here? YES__NQ__D.K.___ Why? ‘ IV. 9. Would you be disappointed if your son(s) moved away without talking it over with you? YES___NO D.K.___ 10. Why? 11. If yes to 9, what would you do? 12. Would you be disappointed if your daughter(s) moved away without talking it over with you? YES___NO D.K.___ 13. Why? T— lh. If yes to 12, what would you do? A-§:RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION I. 1. What is your religious denomination? W 2. Have you always been a member of the same denomination? YES NO 3. If no to 2, of what other denominations have you been a member? 4.‘What is (was) your father's religious denomination? 5. Has he always been a member of this denomination? YES__NO__D.K.__ 6. If no to 5, of what other denomination has he been a member? II. 10. ll. 12. 13. III. 15. 19. 20. 21. 22. 230 172 'What is (was) your mother's religious denomination? Has she always been a member of this denomination? YES _NO_ D. K.— If no to 8, of what other denomination has she been a member? About how often do you go to church? EVERY SUNDAY_ OFTEN_ NOT SO OFTEN_ NEVER Do you usually say grace before meals? YES___NO___ Do you usually say prayers before going to bed? YES_NO__ Do you belong to any church groups? YES___NO___ If yes to 13. what groups? "I think that my church is better than other churches." STRONGLY AGREE_ AGREE_ DISAGREE_ STRONGLY AGREE— Do you think you might become a member of a different church? YES _NO _D. X.— If yes to 16, do you think it might be: momma PROTESTANT CHURCH_ CATHOLIC CHURCH— Wbuld you be disappointed if your son(s) joined a different denomination without talking it over with you? YES__NO__D.K.__ Why? If yes to 18, what would you do? ‘Would you be disappointed if your daughter(s) joined a different denomination without talking it over with you? YES__NO__D.K.__ Why? If yes to 21, what would you do? VALUES OF BEHKVIOR.STORY BOYS The Browns have six sons and their names are Jim, Tom. Pat, Tim, John, and David. They are all good sons but each is different from the other. The first, Jim, is known for his honesty. He never took anything which did not belong to him. gig once found a $100-bill and he gave 173 it to the police officer who praised him for his honesty. 22m, the second brother in the Brown family, is very interested in school. When he re- turns from school he always starts doing his homework. His teacher likes him very much because Tgm always gets good grades. The third son is 255. Pat asks many questions because he wants to know about everything around him. 232 wants to discover how and why things fit together the way they do. TiJ, the fourth Brown son, always obeys his mother and father. He does everything his parents want him to do. TiJ' 3 parents think he is a fine boy because he always does what they ask. —The fifth son is named John. John likes to go to church. John always prays before meals and never forgets his prayers before going to bed. John is active in Sunday School where he loves to sing the hymns. The sixth son in the family is called David. David is always happy and smiling. In the evening David is always joking and laughing and he makes the whole family happy.— 1. Which boy do you like best? 2. Which boy do you like next best? 3. Which boy would you most like your son to be_like? h. Which boy would you next most like your son to be like? GIRLS The Browns have six daughters and their names are Susan, Jan, Phyllis, Ann, Nancy and Barbara. They are all good daughters, but each is dif- ferent from the other. ' The first, Susan, is known for her honesty. She never took anything which did not belong to her. Susan once found a $lOO-bill and she gave it to the Police officer who praised her for her honesty. Jag, the second daughter in the Brown family is very interested in school. When she re- turns from school she always starts doing her homework. Her teacher likes her very much because Jag always gets good grades. The third daugh- ter is Phyllis. Phyllis asks many questions because she wants to know about everything around her. Phyllis wants to discover how and why things fit together the way they do. AnJ, the fourth Brown girl always obeys her mother and father. AnJ does_ everything her parents want her to do. AnJ' 8 parents think she is a fine girl because she always does what they ask. The fifth daughter is named Nw y. mcy likes to go to church. Nancy prays before meals and she never forgets her prayers before going to bed. Nancy is active in Sunday School where she loves to sing the hymns. The sixth daughter in the family is called Barbara. Barbara is always happy and smiling. In the evening Barbara is always joking and laughing and she makes the whole family happy. 5. Which girl do you like best? . Which girl do you like next best? . Which girl would you most like your daughter to be like? . Which girl would you next most like‘your daughter to be like? CDNDO\ 174 C-3—EXPO§_URE TO IDEAS 1. 2. 3. 10. 12. 13. lhu Do you have relatives who live around here? YES___NO___ If yes to 1, about how many relatives (families) on your father's side who live around here? If yes to 1, about how many relatives (families) on your mother’s side who live around here? If yes to 1, during the last WEEK about how many times did you visit with your relatives (families) who live around here? ONCE _TWICE_ MORE THAN TWICE (M1NY)_ NOT AT ALL___ If yes to 1, during the last scum about how many times did you visit with your relatives (families) who live around here? ONCE _TWICE_ MORE THAN TWICE (MANY)_ NOT AT ALL___ Do you have relatives who live OUTSIDE this community? YES__NO__ If yes to 6, about how many relatives (families) on your father' 8 side who do not live around here? If yes to 6, about how many relatives (families) on your mother's side who do not live around here? If yes to 6, during the last WEEK about how many times did you visit with relatives (families) who live outside this community? ONCE ___TWICE_ MORE THAN TWICE (MANY)___ NOT AT ALL— If yes to 6, during the last MONTH about how many times did you visit with relatives (families) who live outside this community? ONCE _____'I‘WICE MORE THAN TWICE (MANY)___ NOT AT ALL__ If yes to 6, during the last YEAR about how many times did you visit with relatives (families) who live outside this community? ONCE_ TWICE _MoRE THAN TWICE (MANY)__ NOT AT ALL___ If yes to 6, during the last WEEK about how many times did you make long distance calls to your relatives (families) who live outside this community? ONCE____'IWICE_MORE THAN mos (MANY)___N OT AT ALL__ If yes to 6, during the last MONTH about how many times did you make long distance calls to your relatives (families) who live outside this community? ONCE ____‘1WICE MORE THAN TWICE (MANY)_ NOT AT ALL__ If yes to 6, during the last YEAR about how many times did you make long distance calls to your relatives (families) who live outside this community? ONCE _TWICE_ MORE THAN TWICE (MANY)_ NOT AT ALL___ 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 175 During the last WEEK about how many times did you visit with your neighbors? ONCE __TWICE _MORE THAN TWICE (MANY)__ NOT AT ALL_ During the last MONTH about how many times did you visit with your neighbors? ONCE __TWICE___ MORE THAN TWICE (MANY)_ NOT AT ALL_ Do you have close friends who live in this community but who are not neighbors? YES_NO__ If yes to 17, about how many? If yes to 17, during the last WEEK about how many times did you visit with your close friends who are not neighbors? ONCE __TWICE_ MORE THAN TWICE (MANY)___ NOT AT ALL_ If yes to 17, during the last MONTH about how many times did you visit with your close friends who are not neighbors? ONCE __TWICE _MORE THAN TWICE (MANY ) NOT AT ALL_ DO you have close friends who live OUTSIDE this commnity? YES_NO__ If yes to 21, about how many close friends do you have who live OUTSIDE this community? If yes to 21, during the last WEE about how many times did you visit with them? ONCE _TWICE__ MORE THAN TWICE (MANY)_ NOT AT ALL_ If yes to 21, during the last MONTH about how many times did you visit with them? ONCE _TWICE_ MORE THAN TWICE (MANY) _NOT AT ALL_ If yes to 21, during the last YEAR about how many times sid you visit with them? ON CE__TWICE___MORE THAN TWICE (MANY)_NOT AT ALL_ Where did you spend your last vacation? If you have a problem concerning the education of your children. to whom would you go FIRST for advice? To whom SECOND? To whom THIRD? your wife (husband) your minister your parents (living) the teacher your brothers & sisters send a letter to your newspaper relatives editor or T. V. director— your neighbors_ others (specify)— your best friends nobody 176 28. If you have a problem concerning the jobs or career for your children, to whom would you go FIRST for advice? To whom SECOND? To whom THIRD? your wife (husband) your minister your parents (living) the teacher your brothers & sisters send a letter to your newspaper relatives editor or T.V. director your neighbors others (specify) your best friends nobody 29. If you have a problem concerning the love affairs of your children, to whom would you go FIRST for advice? To whom SECOND? To whom THIRD? your wife (husband) your minister your parents (living) the teacher your brothers & sisters send a letter to your newspaper relatives editor or T.V. director your neighbors others (specify) your best friends nobody 30. If you have a problem concerning religion and faith of your children, to whom would you go FIRST for advice? To whom SECOND? To whom THIRD? your wife (husband) your minister your parents (living) the teacher your brothers & sisters send a letter to your newspaper relatives editor or T.V. director‘ your neighbors others (specify) - your best friends nobody 177 FATHmS-MOTHERS NAME ADDRESS ‘APLACE ‘ COUNTY AGE HIGHEST DEGREE (GRADE) EARNED IN SCHOOL OCCUPATION PLACE 0F“WORK 'WIFE'S NAME 'WIFE'S AGE HIGHEST DEGREE (GRADE) EARNED IN SCHOOL WIFE'S OCCUPATION (IF HAVING A JOB BESIDES BEING A HOUSEWIVE _A_. WIFE'S PLACE OF“WORK FAMILY GROSS INCOME! 1. below $4000 a year- . from $4000 to 5999 a year . from $6000 to 7999 a year . from $8000 to 10,000 a year . $10,000 and over a year 01pr NUMBER OF CHILDREN: MALES FEMALES AGE FIRST AGE AND SEX A. The following statements describe your opinion regarding the relation.- ships between persons who are older, same age, or younger than you. Also we are interested in knowing the relationships between males and females. First, let us talk about these relationships between persons who are‘ CLOSELY related to you. 1. Do you have close immediate relatives who live around here (in your community, village or town)? YE__NO__ 2. Do you have close immediate relatives who live in the same county? YES—NO— 3. Do you have close immediate relatives who live in the same state? YE NO . If yes to l, 2, or 3, how strongly do you agree or. disagree with the following: A. I think that OLDER CLOSE RELATIVES should be shown more respect than YOUN GER CLOSE RELATIVES. STRONGLY AGREE__AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE_ 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 130 14. 15. 16. 178 Respect and obedience for OLDER CLOSE RELATIVES are the most im- portant virtues children should learn. STRONGLY AGREE__;AGREE___DISAGREE___STRONGLY DISAGREE___ I think that CLOSE MALE RELATIVES should be shown more respect than CLOSE FEMALE RELATIVES. STRONGLY AGREE__4AGREE___DISAGREE__;STRONGLY DISAGREE___ Respect and obedience fer CLOSE MALE RELATIVES are the most im. portant virtues children should learn. STRONGLY AGREE__;AGREE___DISAGREE___STRONGLY DISAGREE___ Do you discuss elections with your CLOSE IMMEDIATE RELATIVE? YES NO If yes to 8, do all of your CLOSE RELATIVES (old, middle aged and young) participate in these discussions? YES___N‘___ Specify If yes to 8, do your close relatives (both male and female) partici- pate in these discussions? YES___NO___ If yes to 8, do your CLOSE RELATIVES influence your opinion con- cerning elections? YES___NOL__' If yes to 11, would you say that the views on elections of your OLDER CLOSE RELATIVES influence your opinion more than those of your middle-aged close relatives? YES___NO___D.K.___ Specify ~ If yes to 11, wOuld you say that the views on elections of your middle-aged close relatives influence your opinion more than those of your younger close relatives? YES___NO___ Specify If yes to 11, would you say that the views on elections of your MALE CLOSE RELATIVES influence your opinion more than those of your FEMALE CLOSE RELATIVES? YES___NO__‘D.K.___ Could you think of three close relatives who influence your opinion on political issues (e.g. elections). Please specify. older male middle-aged female older female young male middle—aged male young female If no to 11, does each one of your CLOSE IMMEDIATE RELATIVES decide for himself concerning elections? YES___NO___D.K.___ Now we would like to talk about views on jobs, wages, prices, taxes and the like. l7. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2h. 25. 26. 2?. 28. 29. 179 Do you discuss these issues with your close immediate relatives? YES___NO____Specify If yes to 17, do all of your close relatives (older, middle-aged and young) participate in such discussions? YES___NO___ Specify If yes to 17, do your close relatives (both male and female) parti- cipate in these discussions? YES___NO___ Specify If yes to 17, do your close relatives influence your opinion con- cerning such issues? YES___NO___ Specify If yes to 20, would you say that the views on such issues of your older close relatives influence your opinion more than those of your middle—aged close relatives? YES__;NO___ Specify If yes to 20, would you say that the views on such issues of your middle-aged close relatives influence your opinion more than those of your younger close relatives? YES___NOL__ Specify If yes to 20, would you say that the views on such issues of your male close relatives influence your Opinion more than those of your female close relatives? YES___NO D.K.___.Specify Could you think of three close relatives who influence your opinion on such issues. Please specify: older male middle-aged female older female young male middle-aged male young female If no to 20, does each one of your close immediate relatives decide for himself concerning these issues? YES___N ___D.K.___. Now we would like to talk about religious views, like appointing a minister, building a new church, or joining a different denomina- tion, and the like. Do you discuss these issues with your close immediate relatives? YES__NO_ Specify If yes to 26, do all of your close relatives (old, middle-aged and young) participate in these discussions? YES___NO____Specify If yes to 26, do your close relatives (male and female) participate in these discussions? YES___NO___ Specify If yes to 26, do your close relatives influence your opinion con- cerning these issues? YES NO___D.K.__ Specify .30. 31. 32. 33. 3h. 180 If yes to 29, would you say that the religious views of your older close relatives influence your Opinion more than those of your middle-aged close relatives? YES_ ONO_ D. K.— If yes to 29, would you say that the religious views of your middle- aged close relatives influence your opinion more than those of your younger close relatives? YES_ NO_ D. K.— If yes to 29, would you say that the religious views of your male close relatives influence your opinion more than those of your female close relatives? YES "NO D. K._ ' Could you think of three close relatives who influence your opinion concerning such issues? Please specify. older males middle-aged females older females young males middle-aged males young females ‘_ If no to 29, does each one of your close immediate relatives decide for himself concerning these issues? YES_ NO_ D. K.— NOW THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS DESCRIBE YOUR OPINION REGARDING THE RELA- TIONSHIPS BETWEEN PERSONS WHO ARE OLDER, THE SAME AGE, OR YOUNGER THAN YOURSELF. ALSO WE ARE INTERESTED IN KNOWING THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES. LET US TALK ABOUT THESE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PERSONS ‘WHO ARE NOT RELATED TO YOU: PERSONS WHO LIVE IN YOUR COMMUNITY. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING: l. I think that older people in general should be shown more respect than younger people. STRONGLY AGREE_ AGREE _DISAGREE_ STRONGLY DISAGREE_ Respect and obedience for older people are the most important virtues children should learn. STRONGLY AGREE _AGREE_ DISAGREE_ STRONGLY DISAGREE_ I think that males generally should be shown more respect than females. STRONGLY AGREE_ AGREE _DISAGREE_ STRONGLY DISAGREE_ ReSpect and obedience for males are the most important virtues children should learn. STRONGLY AGREE _AGREE _DISAGREE_ STRONGLY DISAGREE Do you discuss elections with other peOple in your community? YES NO If yes to 5, do all peOple (old, middle-aged and young) in your community participate in these discussions? YES _NO___ Specify 10. 11. 12. 13. 1h. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 181 If yes to 5, do both males and females from your community parti- cipate in these discussions? YES__NO__ Specify If yes to 5, do the people from your community usually influence your opinion concerning elections? YES N ___D.L____ Specify If yes to 8, would you say that the views on elections of older people in the community influence your opinion more than those of middle-aged people? YES_NO_D.L._ If yes to 8, would you say that the views on elections of middle- aged people in the community influence your opinion more than those of the young people? YES—N _D.L__ If yes to 8, would you say that the views on elections of males in the community influence your opinion more than those of females? YE__NO_D.L___ Who would you say makes decisions on political issues (e.g., elections) among the members of your community? older males middle-aged females older females young males middle-aged males young females If no to 8, does each one in your community decide for himself con- cerning elections? YES_NO___D.L_ Now we would like to talk about views on jobs, wages, prices, taxes and the like. Do you discuss these issues with other people in your community? YE NO If yes to 14, do all people (old, middle-aged and young) in your community participate in these discussions? YES__NO_D.L_ Specify If yes to 14, do both males and females from your community usually participate in these discussions? YES NO__ Specify If yes to 1h, do the people from your community usually influence your opinion concerning such issues? YES__NO_D.K._ If yes to 17, would you say that the views of older people on such issues influence your opinion more than those of the middle-aged peOple? YES__NO_D.L___ If yes to 17, would you say that the views of the middle-aged people on such issues influence your Opinion more than those of the young people? YES__NO__D.L__ 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 182 If yes to 17, would you say that the views Of males on such issues influence your opinion more than those Of females? YES___NO___D.K.___ ' Could you think Of three persons who influence your opinion on such issues? Please specify. Older males middlebaged females Older females young males middle—aged males young females If no to 17, does each one in your community decide for himself concerning such issues? YES—N __D.L___ Now we would like to talk about religious views, like appointing a minister, building a new church, or joining a different denomina— tion, and the like. DO you discuss these issues with other people in your community? YES NO If yes to 23, do all people (old, middle-aged and young) participate in these discussions? YES___NO___ Specify ___ DO both males and females from your community participate in these discussions? YES___NO___ Specify If yes to 23, do the people from your community usually influence your opinion concerning such issues? YES___NO___D.KL___ If yes tO 26, would you say that the religious views on such issues Of the Older people influence your opinion more than those Of the middle-aged people? YES—N __D.L__ If yes to 26, would you say that the religious views Of such issues Of the middle—aged people influence your opinion more than those Of the young people? YES___NO_D.L__ If yes to 26, would you say that the religious views on such issues Of the males influence your Opinion more than those Of the females? YES___NO___D.K1___ Could you think Of three persons who influence your opinion on such issues? Please specify. Older males middle-aged females Older females young males middle-aged males young females If no to 26, does each one in your community decide for himself con- cerning such issues? YES___NO___D.K.___ 183 ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU VISIT CALL BY PHONE WEEKLY MONTHLY YEARLY Number and Place ‘ . Of residence 1 2 3 *4 l 2 3 ‘4 If 2‘ 3' 4' LIVING RELATIVEsg ' g . g ,u , , . w 3 33' (U CU O CO H U 1. Sons 1 2 3 4 2. Daugh- terS 3. Broth- 61's 4. Sisters 5. Uncles Mothers side 6. Aunts Mothers side 7. Uncles Fathers side 8. Aunts Fathers side 184 ABOUT How MANY TIMES DO YOU VISIT CALL BY PHONE WEEKLY MONTHLY YEARLY Number and Place of residence 1 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 l 2 ‘3 4 LIVING RELATIVES Mary Never Never Never Same Same AOnce Twice Once Twice Many Once Twice Many Co. é .3“; 8 .05... Same 9.Grandad Fathers side lO.Grandad Mothers side 11.Grandma Fathers side 12.Grandma Mothers side 185 ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU VISIT CALL BY PHONE WEEKLY MONTHLY YEARLY Number and Place . , of residence 1 2 3 4 l 2 3 '4 1' 2; 3‘ 4f LIVING RELATIVES g 5' g . . . . . 3 3 3 (U 0 (U 0 1. Sons 1 2 4 2. Daugh- ters 3. Broth- ers 4. Sisters 5. Uncles Mothers side 6. Aunts Mothers side 7. Uncles Fathers side 8. Aunts Fathers side LIVING RELATIVES 186 ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU Number and Place of residence Same E O U Same Co. Same U (D “Y3 5m VISIT CALL BY PHONE WEEKLY MONTHLY YEARLY 1234 1234 12.34 OSfiE OSSS (08%: O'HC-> U'HG> U°HC> Sfifié’ Sfigé’ 8£§é 9.Grandad Fathers side lO.Grandad Mothers Side 11.Grandma Fathers side 12.Grandma Mothers side 187 SECOND: KINSHIP RELATIONSHIPS l. I think that individuals who have many close relatives in my com. munity should be shown more respect than those who have few relatives. STRONGLY AGREE__;AGREE___DISAGREE__;STRONGLY DISAGREE___ “buld you say that individuals who have many close relatives in your community generally influence your opinion concerning elections more than those who have few relatives? YES___NO___D.K.____ Wbuld you say that people in your community generally fellow their (those having many close relatives) opinion more than those who have few relatives? 'YES___N ___D.K.____Specify WOuld you say that individuals who have many close relatives in your community generally influence your Opinion concerning jobs, wages, prices, taxes, and the like more than those who have few relatives? YES___NO___D.K,___ Wbuld you say that people in your community generally follow their (those having many close relatives) Opinions more than those who have few relatives? YES___NO___D.K.___ Specify Wbuld you say that individuals who have many close relatives in your community generally influence your Opinion concerning appoint- ing a minister, building a new church, or joining a different de- nomination more than those who have fewer relatives? YES___NO___D.K.____ Whuld you say that people in your community generally follow their (those having many close relatives) opinions more than those who have few relatives? YES___NO___D.K.____Specify D—l-1-ACHIEVED STATUS POSITIONS l. I think that individuals who have a good education, a good job, and a high income should be shown more respect than those who have a lower education, a lower income and a poorer job. STRONGLY AGREE—AGREE DISAGREE STRON GLY DISAGREE___ 2.‘HOu1d you say that individuals in your community who have a good education, a good job, and a high income generally influence your Opinion concerning elections more than those who have a lower edu- cation, a poorer job and a lower income? YES NO D.K.____ 3. WOuld you say that peOple in your community generally fellow their (those having good jobs, etc.) opinions more than those who have a lower education, a poorer job and a lower income? YES__NO__D.K.__ Please specify 188 4. Would you say that individuals in your community who have a good education, a good job, and a high income generally influence your opinion concerning jobs, wages, prices, taxes, and the like more than those who have a lower education, poorer job, and a lower income? YFS_____NO_D.K._ 5. Would you say that people in your community generally follow their (those having a good job, etc.) opinions more than those who have a lower education, a poorer job, and a lower income? YES_NO_D.K._ 6. Would you say that individuals in your community who have a higher education, a good job and a high income generally influence your Opinion concerning religious issues (e.g., appointing a minister, building a new church, or joining a different denomination) more than those who have a lower education, lower incomes, and poorer jobs? YES_NO___D.K._ 7. Would you say that peOple in your community generally follow their (those having good jobs, etc.) Opinions more than those who have a lower education, a poorer job, and earn a lower income? YES NO___D.K._ 8. Are you a member of any organization in your community? YB_NO__ 9. If yes to 8, what organizations in your community are you a member of? 10. Are you a member of any organization OUTSIDE your community? YES NO 11. If yes to 10, what organizations outside your community are you a member of? APPENDIX B a) Distribution of parents in the three community types, by membership in varying organizations in the local community Type of Parents, by Community Type Organization Folk-rural Rural Urban No. Z NO. Z No. Z Religious only (16) 100 (3) 19 (3) 19 Both religious and non-religious (O) O (13) 81 (13) 81 Total (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 2 X = 28.36 df = 2 P = .001 b) Distribution of parents in the three community types, by membership in varying organizations in the local community Type of Parents, by Community Type Organization Folk-rural Rural Urban No. Z No. Z No. Z Religious (O) O (0) 0 (l) 6 Farming (2) 12 (4) 25 (0) O Non-religious and non-farming (O) 0 (5) 31 (4) 25 None (14) 88 (7) 44 (11) 69 Total (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 189 APPENDIX C Distribution of youth and parents in the three community types, by having friends residing outside the local community Youth and Parents, by Community Type Folk-rural Rural _ Urban No. Z No. Z No. Z Have friends (22) 69 (27) 84 (28) 88 Does not have friends (10) 31 (5) l6 (4) 12 Total . (32) 100 (32) 100 (32) 100 2 X = 4.07 df = 2 P>= .05 190 APPENDIX D a) Distribution of youth, parents, and parents' parenté’in the folk-rural community, by the desired length of formal education for boys Youth, Farents, and Grandparents ....... . by Generational Level "Youth pParents Grandparents Total No. Z No. Z No. A. Z No. Z Below high school (0) 0 (O) O (8)“100 f (8) 25 High school only (8) 100 (16) 100 (O) O f (24) 75 College (0) O (O) 0 (O) O ,.(0) 0 Beyond college (0) O (O) O (0) O (O) 0 Total (8) 100 (16) 100. (8) 100 : (32) 100 b) Distribution of youth, parents, and parents' parents* in the folk-rural community, by the desired length of formal education for girls _‘A—‘ )__— __i 4— Youth, Parents, and Grandparents by Generational Level Youth “Parents Grandparents Total No. Z No. Z No. Z No Z Below high school (0) O (O) O (8) 100 (8) 25 High school only (8) 100 (16) 100 (O) O (24) 75 College (0) O (O) 0 (0) 0 (O) 0 Beyond college (0) 0 (O) O (0) 0 (0) 0 Total (8) 100 (16) 100 (8) 100 (32) 100 *Responses obtained from parents 191 192 c) Distribution of youth, parents, and parents' parents* in the rural community, by the desired length of formal education for boys Youth, Parents, and Grandparents by Generational Level Youth Parents Grandparents Total No. Z No. Z No. Z No. Z Below high school (0) O (O) 0 (5) 63 (5) 14 High school only (1) 8 (0) O (2) 25 (3) 8 College (11) 92 (13) 81 (0) O (24) 67 Beyond college (0) O (3) l9 (1) 12 (4) 11 Total (12) 100 (16) 100 (8) 100 (36) 100 d) Distribution of youth, parents, and parents' parents* in the rural community, by the desired length of formal education for girls Youth, Parents, and Grandparents bypGenerational Level Youth . Parents Grandparents Total' No. Z No. Z No. Z No. Z Below high school (0) O (O) 0 (5) 63 (S) 18 High school only (2) 50 (l) 6 (0) O (3) 11 College (2) 50 (14) 88 (3) 37 (19) 68 Beyond college (0) O (l) 6 (O) O (1) 3 Total (4) 100 (16) 100 (8) 100 (28) 100 *Responses obtained from parents- 193 e) Distribution of youth, parents, and parents' parents* in the urban community, by the desired length of formal education for boys a f - Youth, Parents, and Grandparents by Generational Level Youth Parents Grandparents Total No. Z No. Z No. Z No. Z Below high school (0) 0 (0) O (4) 50 (4) 12 High school only (0) O (O) O (l) 12 (1) 3 College (7) 78 (12) 75 (3) 38 (22) 67 Beyond college (2) 22 (4) 25 (O) 0 (6) 18 Total (9) 100 (16) 100 (8) 100 (33) 100 f) Distribution of youth, parents, and parents' parents* in the urban community, by the desired length of formal education for girls Youth, Parents, and Grandparents by Generational Level Youth Parents Grandparents Total No. Z No. Z No. Z No. Z Below high school (0) 0 (O) 0 (3) 37 (3) 10 High school only (1) l4 (0) 0 (3) 37 (4) 13 College (5) 72 (15) 94 (2) 26 (22) 71 Beyond college (1) l4 (1) 6 (0) 0 (2) 6 Total (7) 100 (16) 100 (8) 100 (31) 100 *Responses obtained from parents APPENDIX E a) Distribution of fathers* in the three community types, by perception of their parents value orientation to occupational involvement m3. Fathers,fiby Commpniterype Folk-rural pi_Rural Urban No. Z NO. Z No. Z Fathers Same occupation as father (8) 50 (7) 44 (3) 19 Different occupae . tion from father (0) O (1) 6 (5) 31 Mothers Same occupation as father (8) 50 (6) 37 (3) 19 Different occupa- tion from father (0) 0 (2) l3 (5) 31 Total A (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 2 . X = 16:67 df*= 2 P B .001 1 *Responses of fathers and mothers were combined for computation of chi square test; No. from each community type is 8. 194 195 b) Distribution of fathers and mothers* in the three community types, by value orientations to occupational involvement for boys m ’= m Fathers, by Community Type Folk-rural Rural Urban No. Z No. Z No. Z Fathers Same occupation as father (7) 44 (l) 6 (l) 6 Different occupa- tion from father (1) 6 (7) 44 (7) 44 Mothers Same occupation as father (8) 50 (1) 6 (1) 6 Different occupa- tion from father (0) 0 (7) 44 (7) 44 Total (16) 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 2 X = 29.45 df = 2 P = .001 *Responses obtained from fathers; responses of fathers and mothers were combined for computation of chi square test; No. from each community type is 8. 196 c) Distribution of boys* in the three community types, by perception of their parents value orientation to occupational involvement Youth,pby Communiterype Folk-rural Rural Urban NO. Z No. Z No. Z Same occupation as father (6) 38 (3) 12 (3) 17 Different occupa- tion as father (2) 12 (9) 38 (6) 33 Same occupation as father (6) 38 (3) 12 (3) 17 Different occupa- tion from father (2) 12 (9) 38 (6) 33 Total (16) 100 (24) 100 (18) 100 2 X = 10.58 df = 2 P = .01 *Responses of fathers and mothers were combined for computation of chi square test; No. = 8, 12, 9 from the Folk-rural, Rural, and Urban communities respectively. a) b) APPENDIX F Distribution of mothers' mothers* in the three community types, by value orientations to preferred roles for girls Mothersi by Community Type Folk-rural Rural Urban No. Z No. Z No. Z Housewives only (6) 75 (2) 25 (2) 25 May have different occupations (2) 25 (6) 75 (6) 75 Total (8) 100 (8) 100 (8) 100 *Responses obtained from mothers regarding perception of their mothers' value orientations; No. from each community is 8. Distribution of fathers and mothers* in the three community types, by value orientations to preferred roles for girls fir Mothers,,by Community Type Folk-rural .Rural Urban No. Z No. Z No. Z Fathers Housewives only (7) 44 (1) 6 (3) 19 May have different occupations (l) 6 (7) 44 (5) 31 Mothers Housewives only (7) 44 (1) 6 (3) 19 May have different occupations (l) 6 (7) 44 (5) 31 Total (16). 100 (16) 100 (16) 100 *Responses obtained from.mothers regarding their own and their per- ception of their husbands value orientations; No. from each community is 8. 197 a) b) APPENDIX C Distribution of parents* in the three community types, by whether or not they are influenced by Opinions of relatives regarding political, economic, and religious issues Parentsi bprommunity Type Folk-rural Rural Urban No. Z No. Z No. Z Are influenced (30) 94 (25) 52 (12) 25 Are not influenced (2) 6 (23) 48 (36) 75 Total (32) 100 (48) 100 (48) 100 x2 = 36.39 df = 2 P = .001 Distribution of parents* in the three community types, by whether or not they are influenced by Opinions of members of the group regarding political, economic, and religious issues Parents, by Community Type Folk-rural Rural Urban No. Z No. Z No. Z .Are influenced (29) 91 (29) 6O (27) 56 Are not influenced (3) 9 (19) 40 (21) 44 Total 4 (32) 100 (48) 100 (48) 100 2 X = 11.41 df = 2 P = .01 *Combined responses concerning influence of members of the group on informants' political, economic, and religious Opinions. Mennonites do not participate in elections, therefore their responses regarding political issues are not included. N0. = 16 from each community. 198