69-20,855

FRANZ, Verl R. W., 1923MICHIGAN FARMERS1 PURCHASING COOPER­
ATIVES TESTING FOR AN IDEOLOGY.
Michigan State U niversity, Ph.D ., 1969
Sociology, general
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan

(C ) Copyright by
VERL R. W. FRANZ
1969

•

MICHIGAN FARMERS’
PURCHASING COOPERATIVES

TESTING FOR AN IDEOLOGY

by
Verl R. W. Franz

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Sociology

1967

ABSTRACT
MICHIGAN FARMERS' PURCHASING COOPERATIVES
Testing for an Ideology
by Verl R. W. Franz

The major goal was to test assumptions of various sociologists concerning ideo­
logical belief systems as they pertain to modern Michigan Farmers' Purchasing Co­
operatives.

In order to study the dynamics of Michigan Farmers' Purchasing Coopera­

tives, consideration was given as to whether or not these cooperatives fit the model
of a social movement, are

committed to a cooperative ideology and/or a business

ideology, and whether differential commitment to these ideologies is associated

with

individual and organizational characteristics.
A review of the literature on the history of cooperatives,

on the implications

pertinent to the theory of social movements, on ideology, on theory of ideology, on
the sociology of knowledge, on belief systems, and on value orientations was made.
Hypotheses resulting from these theoretical positions were formulated.

Through

personal interviews, data were gathered on a random sample of thirty managers,

thirty

board members, and thirty farmer members of thirty Michigan Farmers' Purchasing Co­
operatives.

Questions included pertained to personal information (age, education,

training, experience), size of cooperative (based on gross annual sales), and attitudes
toward cooperatives in general and toward the respondent's specific cooperative.

A

sixty-two item questionnaire was used to gather information on the cooperative mem­
bers ' attitudes toward traditional values and beliefs, the free enterprise system,
individual opportunity, desire for achievement and success, relationships between
and among cooperative membership, overall economic transactions, and on their feel­
ings toward community and
The items to test the

social interaction in the community.
major hypothesis that an ideology if present would scale

were statistically analyzed by the use of various item analysis techniques:

the

V e r l R. W. Franz
h i g h - l o w dichotony,
reached

trace

line analysis,

and f actor a n a l y s i s methods.

Conclusions

indicate that n o discernible a n d / o r s i g n i f i c a n t cooperative ideology or

b usiness i deology could b e found.
M i chigan Formers'
business-like

P u r c h a s i n g C o operatives wer e f o u n d not

in values;

lo be typically

n e i t h e r could e v i d e n c e be f o u n d that an unanticipated,

u n d e r l y i n g cooperat i v e v a l u e structure

is hel d b y m e m b e r s and leaders.

Past theory has led us to believe t h a t f a r m e r s ' c o o p e r a t i v e s fall w i t h i n the
f r a m e w o r k of so c i a l m o v e m e n t theory.
may be

The

r esults of t h i s study indicate that it

impossible to d e m o n s t r a t e that a w e l l - d e f i n e d

a mong M i c h i g a n Farmers'
F r o m this study,
s ocial movement,
help p r i nciples

P u r c h a s i n g Cooperatives.

it is concluded t h a t if farmers'

they a r e now,
of t r a d i t i o n a l

m o d e r n b u s i n e s s beliefs.

c o o p e r a t i v e ideology exists

c o o peratives were ever a

f r o m a v a l u e p o i n t of view,

a m ixture of the self-

c o o peratives a n d the c o n s u m e r service values of

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
"No man is an H a n d , intire of itselfej every man is a peece of the Continent,
a part of the maine; if a Clod be washed away b y the Sea, Europe 13 lease, as well
as if a Promonotorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne
were; any m a n ’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And there­
fore' never send to know for who m the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
JOHN DONNE (1573-1631)
Devotions XVII

When one is "over-age in grade" it is all too easy sometimes to wonder "for
whom the bell tolls."
In retrospect, when I felt I was being "washed away by the
Sea," it was ray dear family, friends, teachers and fellow graduate students who
guided me ba c k "to the maine," who insisted that I a m "a peece of the Continent"
and who restored my perspective.
If this single work ever represents the culmination of a long arduous journey
through "academic land"; if this work will ever make a contribution to b e ing "in­
volved in Mankind e , " it will do so only as a result of the fellowship, support,
faith and dedication of my friends, family and teachers.
To all these people I
express humble and grateful appreciation.
I want, first, to extend my appreciation to Mr. M. D. Brownlee and Farm Bureau
Services, Inc., of Lansing, Michigan, for their financial support and managerial
insight to sponsor this research, as well as the Michigan State University
Agricultural Experiment Station for their administrative support.
To Drs. A. 0. Haller and J. Allan Beegle, who separately and jointly served as
advisor and chairman of my thesis committee, a special thanks.
Special thanks are
due Dr. Beegle, who in addition to listening to every idea about cooperatives and
helping me sift the chaff from the wheat, served as my "office landlord," p r o ­
tagonist at the "brown-bag seminars, and as ny editorial consultant, along with
John Stoeckel, to the "Bruno Bronski Story."
A debt of gratitude must go to Dr. Haller who made it possible for me to resume
iry graduate study--for his faith in ny "delayed" potential and for his insistence
that "rigor is the better part of valor " A grateful thanks to Drs. W. H. Form,
D. W. Olmsted, and John U s eem for serving on m y thesis committee.
These good men,
along with Drs. C. P. Loomis and C. R. Hoffer, contributed greatly to this thesis
and to my student career as advisors and teachers (the most noble of professions).
All in all, I have been blessed with great teachers, like Drs. Harry Trice,
William Sewell, Eugene Wilkening, and Douglas Marshall.
The contributions of my peers certainly will linger in my memory as elements
of great significance to completing this endeavor,
for without the mutual aid and
reinforcement from my good friends in the OSS (our social system) the structuralfunctional process would certainly have reached a point of disequilibrium many
times.
Therefore, to Gene Erickson and Bob Holloway, as charter members of the
OSS, ny deepest and sincerest gratitude for being "involved in Mankinde."
In
short, if all of the leaves in the forest had tongues they could not begin to e x ­
press ny indebtedness.

To my wife, Margaret, I can only say "How does one express gratitude for
seventeen years of love, trust, faith and confidence"?
Thanks are due Drs. R. K. Burns, W. G. Lonergan, and M e l a n y K. Baehr of the
Industrial Relations Center, The University of Chicago, who not only accepted me
as a colleague but also tolerated the inevitable "stress" problems during the final
writing stage.
Finally, a word of appreciation to all of the Organization Research Staff at
the Industrial Relations Center who kept the "ship afloat" to free some time for
writing: to Sally Jacobson, Sally Greisdorf, Mike Manning, and Alvin (Bo) Huffman,
III, thanks.
Likewise, thanks to all of the dear ladies who fought the "battle"
of typewriter, commas and footnotes--Mrs. Paul, Mrs. Jamison, and Sandra Davenport.
Special thanks to Frances Burns, Peggy Vecchione and Stan Powers for t h eir talented
editorial help.

Verl R. W. Franz

1967

Margaret
family
Uncle Louis Wrensch and
Aunt Alma Franz Wrensch

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter

Page

I

Introduction...........................................

1

II

Literature on Cooperatives............................

7

History of Cooperatives and the
Cooperative Movement..............................

7

III

• IV

V

Theoretical Considerations in the Study
of Cooperatives..............................

23

Literature on Social Movements...................

23

The Place of Ideology in the
Study of Farmers' Cooperatives...................

30

The Study of Ideology as a
Function of the Sociology of
Knowledge.........................................

42

The Relation of Belief Systems
and/or Value Orientations to
the Theory of Ideology...........................

51

General Hypotheses................................

56

Methodology, Pertinent Variables, Analysis
of Data, Tests of Hypotheses and Findings ...........

58

Michigan Cooperatives.............................

59

The Sample........................................

62

Pertinent Variables and Hypotheses ..............

65

Independent Variables.............................

70

Test of Hypotheses................................

"Jk

Cooperative Ideology..............................

85

American Business Ideology.......................

87

Summary and Conclusions ..............................

102

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendixes
A

A-l

B

Page
Correlation Matrix for the o2 Selected
Items........................................

Questionnaire Items Included in the
Correlation Matrix .............................

..............

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

117

A Trace Line Plot of the Anti-Big Business

Index Composed of Items C-3> C-31> and C-3^*
D

115

A Trace Line Plot of the Competitive
Yardstick Index Composed of Items C-5*

C-7, C-13, and C-k2.
C

109

• •

A Trace Line Plot of the Pro-Business Index
Consisting of Items C-10 and C-53..........

H®

119

A Trace Line Plot of the Index of Coopera­
tives as a Source of Political Power
Consisting of Items C-l6, C-23, and C-62. . . .

120

A Trace Line Plot of the Index of Coopera­
tive Idealism Consisting of Items C-20,
C-26 , c-27, C-35, C-37, C-^5, C - W , c- 56,
C-59, and C-60..............................

121

A Trace Line Plot of the Index of Favorability
Toward Economic Goals of Cooperation Consist­
ing of Items C-13> C-3^> C-7> and C-5......

122

A Trace Line Plot of the Index of Orientation
Toward Economic Democracy Consisting of Items
C-26, C-27, C-56 , and C-60.....................

123

A Trace
Line Plot of the Traditional Indi­
vidualism Index Consisting of Items B-l, B-6,
B-lk, and B-4l...................................

12k

A Trace
Line Plot of the Index of the
Centrality of the Free Enterprise System to
the American Society Consisting of Items B-ll,
B-28, B-44, and B-l+6. . .
.............. .. . .

125

A Trace
Line Plot of the Index of Individual
Opportunity, Desire for Achievement, Success
and Upward Mobility Consisting of Items B-17>
B-21, B-30, B- 36 , B- 38, and B-50..........
. .

126

A Trace
Line Plot of the Index of the Rigors
and Demands of Leadership Consisting of Items
B-2k, B-kO, B-52, B-55, and B-6l...............

127

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendixes
M

N

0

P

Q

R

S

T

Page
A Trace Line Plot of the Free Enterprise Creed A, Consisting of Items B-l, B-6, B-l4, B-1T,
B-24, B-28, B-3o , and B-44.........................

128

A Trace Line Plot of the Free Enterprise Creed - B,
Consisting of Items B-l, B-6, B-l4, B-17, B-24,
B-44,and B-50.
............

129

A Trace Line Plot of the Index of Individualism
Consisting of Items B-l, B-l4, B-17, B-24, and
B-50................................................

130

Index of Cooperative Economic and Occupational
Normlessness Consisting of Items N-2, N-29,
N-39, N-43, N-47, and N-54..........................

131

A Trace Line Plot of the Index of Economic
Powerlessness - A, Consisting of Items P-8,
P-15,P-32, P-49, P-58, and N-29....................

132

A Trace Line Plot of the Index of Economic
Powerlessness - B, Consisting of Items P-15,
P-32, P-49, and P -58...............................

133

Index of Isolation from Social Interaction
in the Community Consisting of Items S-4,
S-9, S-22, and S-25.................................

134

The Interview Schedule Used...................... .

135

Bibliography..................... ...........................

.

l44

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

I

Percent

of Population Represented by the Sample . . . .

oh

II

Percent
Members

of Managers, Board Members, and Farmer
by Age in the Sample...........................

66

III

IV

V

VI

Difference in Age between Board Members and
Farmer Membersin the Sample...............................

66

Years of Formal Education of Managers, Board
Members, and Farmer Members in the Sample by
P e r c e n t ..................................................

67

Years of Managerial Experience of Managers
by Size of Operation of Cooperatives in the
Sample by P e r c e n t ........................................

68

Size and Number of Local Cooperatives Based
on Gross Annual Sales for i960 as Represented
in Sample.................................................

69

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure

Page

1.

Factor I (6$ of Variance of 62 x 62 Matrix)...........

95

2.

Factor II (6$ of Variance of 62 x 62 Matrix) . . . . . .

5.

Factor III (6$ of Variance of 62 x 62 Matrix).........

98

A.

Variables with Communalities (h^) Greater
Than . 3 0 ..............................................

99

-

97

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Sociologists, psychologists,' economists, and historians have
concerned themselves with the birth, growth, and death of social
movements for quite some time.

Foremost among sociologists are

rural sociologists who concern themselves with farmers' coopera­
tives.

Their efforts, while serious and scholarly, are often

directed out of historical perspective.

The need to study farmers'

cooperatives within their historical frame of reference is demon­
strated by the following three citations:
There is no doubt that King's idea of cooperation
was one of social reform. King does not regard coopera­
tion merely as a means of imposing limits on or exter­
minating the middleman, or augmenting the productive
power of labor. . . He hopes by means of the coopera­
tive society to transform the structure of our economic
life as a whole, and thus liberate labor from subjection
to and dependence on capital.
It is obvious. . . that
he looks upon the interest of capital and labor as
being hostile the one to the other, . . . he (King)
considers cooperation the means to be adopted in the
conquest of capitalism and its wage system. . .1
Although consumers' cooperation on the Rochdale
principles was introduced in the United States during
the nineteenth century, particularly in the Granger
movement and in some labor unions during the latter
^-Cited by A. J. Kress, Ed. Introduetioh to the Cooperative
Movement (New York: Harper & Brothers, 19^1), PP- 10-12. Dr!
Hans Miller, Secretary of the International Cooperative Alliance,
found a file of twenty-eight numbers of Dr. William King's
Brighton Cooperator in the British Museum.
He devoted much of
the International Cooperative Alliance Yearbook for 1913 to an
exposition of King's writings. Miller places King, a con­
temporary of Robert Owen and a colleague of Ricardo, as the
first theorist of the modern cooperative movement.
King pub­
lished the Cooperator some time around 1827.

1

2

third of the nineteenth century, the cooperative pur­
chase and distribution of goods was often confused
with the cooperative producing and marketing of
commodities and in any case the ventures were highly
unstable, given to extreme fluctuations of momentary
success and utter failure, while the movement itself
remained undirected, uncoordinated, and haphazard.
Impartial experts and cooperative leaders are gen­
erally agreed upon those factors in the American
environment which militated against the steady and
sturdy growth of consumers' cooperation.
The pro­
ducer orientation of American business, labor, and
agriculture is most often cited, and with large
validity, as a primary force keeping citizens from
recognizing their role as consumers.^
; Always his (Miller's) vision has been that co­
operatives bring to their members that special ini­
tiative, health, and hope that one usually associates
with arguments advocating capitalism.
He carries the
message everywhere that cooperatives are a natural
and vital segment of a successful capitalistic
private enterprise system.3
Which of these three representative quotations reflects the
ideological belief system of modern Michigan farmers' purchasing
cooperatives?

Does an ideology of this or any kind still persist,

and does it order and structure individual and organizational b e ­
havior?

How do cooperators in Michigan resolve these paradoxical

beliefs?

An attempt to answer these questions will be the major

goal of this thesis.
Two strong ideas are characteristic of United States farmers
generally, and Michigan farmers specifically.

One is the long

^C. A. Chambers, "The Cooperative League of the United States
of America, 19l6-196l: A Study of Social Theory and Social Action,"
Agricultural History, XXXVI, No. 2 (April, 1962 ), 59-8l*
3Written by Vernon R. Alden in the foreword of Raymond W.
Miller, A Conservative Looks at Cooperatives (Athens, Ohio: Ohio
University Press, 1964).

standing adherence to freedom of individual choice.

The other is

the traditional belief that their localities are autonomous and
sacred.

Farmers' Cooperatives, both producer and consumer, are

an expression of these localistic ideas in response to economic
conditions.
The early economic development of United States industry and
agriculture was primarily local.

Small businesses in small cities

could not serve farmers adequately, and, even when they could,
business transactions between city and farm residents left much to
be desired.

As mechanization took over the farm, as the size of

farm operations increased, the farmer needed elevator and distri­
bution facilities which could not, or would not, be provided by
city business interests.

The American farmer, somewhat alienated

because of a self-sufficient past, responded to economic needs by
self help.
The need for supply and distribution facilities when not met
by the business community was solved by the development of coopera­
tives.

The American farmer had been accustomed to mutual help

principles.

He had helped his neighbor raise his barn; the thresh­

ing season had brought all neighbors together to complete the
harvest; so it was not unusual that he should join with his
neighbors to collectively buy seed, corn, or to market cream, and,
ultimately in the Midwest, to form elevator cooperatives.
Cooperatives in Michigan were originally organized locally to
meet local economic problems.

These relatively small organizations

k
were a response to a need to protect prices for produce, as well as
to gain favorable farm supply costs.

It was natural that farmers

should solve these problems jointly as they had solved others in
the past.

Kercher wrote in 19^1:

It has been in the intimate, neighborly social
setting of the hamlet, village, or small town that the
cooperatives as a whole have had their firmest roots.
Here occupational and other class differences are
minor factors, and consequently economic wants are
sufficiently commonplace and uniform to be served by
a relatively simple institutional structure.
Further­
more, the face-to-face contacts of every day life pro­
vide the ideal social experience for the development
of common understanding and the formation of attitudes
of group solidarity so essential to voluntary coopera­
tive effort.^
Present day changes in the economic structure of agriculture
tend to .challenge Kercher's "commonplace and uniform economic-wants
to be served.by a relatively simple institutional structure."
modern farmer must be rational to survive.

The

High cost mechanization,

high cost production and distribution, and large, expensive farm
operations have demanded that farmers become highly skilled
managers with a knowledge of all aspects of the agricultural
economic structure.

This demand for modern management has placed

the Michigan farmer in a conflicting position which is expressed
in his attitude toward his cooperative.

On the one hand his

traditional way of life demands that he be independent in decision
but tied strongly to his intimate, face-to-face experiences in his
^L. C. Kercher, V . S . Kebker, and W. C. Leland, Jr., Consumers'
Cooperatives in the North Central States, Part I. (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 19^1)•

own locality with life-long friends and acquaintances who band to­
gether cooperatively to meet common and uniform problems.

On the

other hand he has been caught up by increasing industrialization
and mechanization on the farm.

He finds he must compete in large

markets; he must purchase from nationwide manufacturers and must
learn to operate in a business community which is large and com­
plex and adheres to rules unlike any in his local community.

He

finds his local cooperative inadequate to meet the challenges of
modern agriculture, and he finds that he must think about the
place of his cooperative in these changing times.
likely to do?

What is he most

Will the Michigan farmer, the cooperative board

members, and the cooperative manager accept the fact that they
must affiliate in some way with large complex production and
distribution systems, or will they hold more tenaciously to
their traditional sentiments of localism and individualism?
This thesis is an effort to study the dynamics of Michigan
Purchasing Cooperatives in terms of:
1.

Whether or not they fit the model of a social move­
ment, especially in respect to the existence of
ideological prerequisites.

2.

Whether or not members are committed to a co­
operative ideology.

3-

Whether or not managers are committed to a busi­
ness ideology.

4.

Whether or not differential commitment to ideologies

is associated with individual and organizational,
characteristics.
Chapter II w i 1 include a review of literature on the history of
cooperatives.

Chapter III will include implications germane to the

theory of social movements, ideology, the theory of ideology and the
sociology of knowledge, belief systems and value orientations.

Con­

clusions and hypotheses resulting from these theoretical positions
will be presented.

Chapter IV will include the methodology used,

significant variables, analysis of data, tests of hypotheses, and
research findings.

Chapter V will include the conclusions and their

theoretical and empirical implications.

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE ON COOPERATIVES

For the most part the published works about cooperatives in
general and Farmers' Cooperatives in particular cover a wide range
of approaches.

Various authors have written from the sentimental

and evangelistic point of view, others have been somewhat neutral
and objective, while still others have been picayune and empiri­
cally sterile.

In an effort to recap the literature from an

analytical point of view it became necessary to develop a classi­
fication system within which to analyze the various approaches and
concepts used for the study of cooperatives generally and farmers'
purchasing cooperatives specifically.

History of Cooperatives and the Cooperative Movement
The first awareness of works on cooperatives, and possibly the
most obvious, were those of a broad historical, partisan nature.
These works include historical compilations by non-historians.

The

authors are loyal partisans who in many cases approached the task
as a "labor of love" and were dedicated to being the chroniclers of
the "holy histoiy."

Probably foremost among the "emotional" doc­

trinal authors is Voorhis.

In his most recent book, American

Cooperatives, Voorhis serves up a wide range of fare in cafeteria
fashion.

He reiterates the glorious past of why and how coopera­

tives developed; he explores the human motives and "naturalness"
of cooperation versus conflict; he explores cooperative health plans,

8

and reiterates the ancient wrongs of monopoly and big business.

In

short, his publication is a folksy, popular version of pseudo­
cooperative ideology characteristic of the Cooperative League of
which he was executive director at the time.
Of the historical treatment of cooperatives, three authors stand
out as having produced accurate, well thought out, scholarly works.
They are Daniels, published in 1938; Kress in 19^1, and Casselman
in 1952.

Daniels deals with the history of cooperatives in America,

while Casselman, a Canadian labor economist, is concerned mainly
with consumer cooperatives, the major schools of cooperation, and
cooperatives' relations with other institutions such as the state
and labor.

He does not agree with the commonwealth ideal because it

is too utopian but does present a case for the competitive yardstick
goal as the only practical approach.

Casselman uses the terms co-

operatism and cooperativism instead of cooperation or the coopera­
tive movement because these terms better describe the phenomenon as
a system of economy, whereas cooperation gives a better indication
of the movement as a method or technique.
Daniels presents some significant insight into the historical
relationship between consumer and farmer cooperatives.

He tries

desperately to include farmers' purchasing cooperatives within the
framework of consumer cooperatives but in so doing stretches a
point which cannot be corroborated by experience, analysis, or
reality.

His history and certainly his predictions are in error

when he says:

9

As the farmers' purchasing cooperatives keep on moving
consumerward, in the process.of orientation through which
they are now passing, it looks as though they will soon
emerge from the twilight zone into the sunlight of con­
sumers' cooperation, there to join forces with urbane
cooperatives in the common cause of bringing to all
elements of the American people still better standards
of living and more of the joy of life.l
His observations regarding the Farm Bureau are, however,, more
accurate and to the point.

He states:

The principle objective of this organization (the
American Farm Bureau Federation) is evidently to shape
national policies affecting agriculture, and much of its
effort is brought to bear upon influencing Congressional
legislation and federal action.
As compared with the
Grange and the Farmers Unions, the Farm Bureau Federation
has more of a business character and viewpoint, and is
more pragmatic and less idealistic.
As regards coopera­
tion, the national organization is on record as strongly
favoring cooperative marketing, and cooperative purchasing
of farm supplies in production.
But it has not yet taken
a definite stand on cooperative distribution of consumers'
goods.^
Andrew J. Kress edited a book, Introduction to the Cooperative
Movement, which is the most comprehensive, well organized, and best
documented analysis available.

Kress traces the development of

the social philosophy which underlies the cooperative idea from its
very beginning in 1798 in England, through its .various ideological
and organizational phases to 19^-1> the date of his publication.
His excellent analysis of the various movements, cooperative move­
ments that had worldwide implications, deals with all aspects of
cooperation expertly and completely: political, economic, medicine
Ijohn Daniels, Cooperation: An American Way.
Friede, 1938> P- 193*
2Ibid., p. 26 l.

New York: Covici-

(health), consumers, producers, marketing, financial, philosophical,
international, and statistical.

His is the only source which ac­

curately places American farmers' cooperatives in a reasonable
ideological and historical perspective.

His grouping of the total

historical development of cooperatives, his analysis of the ideological
underpinning and the relation of consumer cooperatives to farmer co­
operatives in the United States far eclipses that of any sociological
publication brought to the attention of this author.

Kress's work

is indeed a classic in the history of cooperatives and as such will
be relied upon heavily throughout this thesis.
Three other important works contribute to the historical treat­
ment of American farmer cooperatives.

This treatment is not a specific

goal of the publications but is a welcome by-product of their efforts.
The earliest, Justus Solon Buck's study of the Granger Movement, has
sections in which he describes the Grange Agencies, business coopera­
tion (cooperative buying and selling, cooperative stores, manufacturing,
banking, and insurance) activities of the Patrons of Husbandry.

Hicks,

in The Populist Revolt published in 1913* devotes considerable time
and effort to farmers' grievances between 1870-1897* which figured
significantly in the early rise of farmers' cooperatives and farmers'
organizations, which in turn led to the Populist Revolt.

A more

modern historical treatment has been done by Saloutos in his analysis
of Farmer Movements in the South. 1865-1933. reprinted in i960 .
While much of his work overlaps Buck's study of the Granger Movement
and Hicks's Populist Revolt, Saloutos' contribution is significant

11

because it deals with causes and reasons for agrarian unrest for that
period.

It is especially significant in background material for this

thesis because he deals with the failure of the Farm Bureau to in­
fluence the South.
Another historical publication of significance to this review of
the literature is the somewhat partisan history of the Farm Bureau
Federation by 0. M. Kile, published in 1948.

While it is rather

partisan, it does give interesting and accurate insight into the
issues and philosophy which guided the development of the Farm Bureau.
Kile also does well to demonstrate the relationship of the Bureau to
the cooperatives' development, especially in the Midwest.
covers in detail the Bureau's political activities.
important to this thesis for two reasons:

He also

This work is

first, because

the data have been collected from Michigan cooperatives affiliated
with the Farm Bureau and, second, because it does not deal with the
extreme change in approach taken by the Farm Bureau Federation since

19J+8.
The utopian views of social reformer, Robert Owen, in his New
View of Society: or, Essays on the Principle of the Formulation of
the Human Character, published in l8l3, represents the most liberal
root of the cooperative movements--a collectivism conceived and
nurtured to counteract the child labor abuses, poverty, degradation,
and economic slavery of the industrial worker caught in the
Industrial Revolution and Factory System of l8th Century England.
In 1964, in affluent America, a publication brings to full

12

circle the wide range of approaches to cooperatives.

Raymond W.

Miller, Harvard Business School Lecturer; President, Public
Relations Research Associates, Inc. and World Trade Relations, Inc.;
a member of the Board of Trustees of American University; and a
member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, has
written a book called A Conservative Looks at Cooperatives.

His

book is dedicated to two great 20th Century "bridge builders of
cooperation"--Edward A. Filene (founder of the Credit Union Move­
ment) and Herbert Hoover (twenty-ninth president of the United
States).

To demonstrate the unusual nature of this publication

it may be well to quote Vernon R. Alden, President, Ohio Univer­
sity, who wrote the foreword to Miller's book.

In it Alden says

of Miller:
Throughout his career, he has been a constant
champion for the cooperative cause. . . .Always his
vision has been that cooperatives bring to their
members that special initiative, health, and hope
that one usually associates with arguments advocating
capitalism.
He carries the message everywhere that
cooperatives are a natural and vital segment of a
successful capitalistic private enterprise system
. . . they represent a step upward toward a more
enlightened capitalism.3

In the preface Miller states:
. . . My belief is that a conservative is one
who recognizes the need for sensible utilization of
the resources available, and that a cooperative is
an instrument through which a greater distribution
^Raymond W. Miller, A Conservative Looks at Cooperatives.
(Athens, Ohio; Ohio University Press, 1964), pp. ^-6.

15
of ownership can be maintained. . . . Cooperatives bydefinition are the furthest reach from statism; and con­
servatives, when faced by economic and social problems,
try to solve them in voluntary joint effort, going to
government for help only as a last resort. . . . Co­
operatives and conservatives are ideological twins. . . .
My hope is that this book will serve as a statement of
my belief that cooperatives are conservative organiza­
tions dedicate'! to individual ownership and to the
principles of fficient and enlightened operation.

Historically, thought about the function, purposes, and reasons
for cooperative organization has gone from the very far left to the
very far right.

On the one hand, as Kress and his colleagues point

out, the cooperative movement grew out of the utopian community,
collectivism, and abusive capitalistic traditions; that it flourished,
grew, and was imported to America via Canada as a response to abuses
and inequities of early capitalism.

On the other hand, As Miller

and most American historians purport, the cooperative movement is not
only specifically and indigenously American but also rural and farm;
and a cooperative is a farm-owned business directed toward meeting
farmers' economic needs.

It is "ideological twins with conservatives,"

and a vital segment of a successful capitalistic private enterprise
system."

These then have been the two poles representing the extremes

of thought about the philosophic and ideological background of co­
operatives.

Even so, up to this point we are still unaware of the

true nature of the ideological position of farmer cooperatives as
held by the people who manage them and who are members of them.

An

attempt to gain some insight into this problem is the purpose of this
thesis.
^Ibid., pp. 8-9.

lb

Sociological Analyses of Cooperatives
For the most part it can be observed that sociological effort
in the study of cooperatives has been deficient in the following
areas:
1.

Very little attention has been paid to the histori­
cal perspective.

2.

Little work has been done on the historical relation­
ship between consumer and producer cooperative
ideology.

3.

While sociologists have often referred to the
phenomenon as the "cooperative movement" it has
not been studied as a social movement.

4.

Most sociological work has handled farmers' coopera­
tives within the framework of farmers' organizations.
This in itself is not a glaring fault, but it may
have contributed to a lack of interest in ideological
issues.

5.

Because cooperatives (especially farriers' coopera­
tives) have not been viewed as a movement, they
have not been studied within the broader framework
of either the world cooperative movement or the
American agrarian movement.

Consequently, no

adequate, systematic study of cooperative
ideology has been made, much less studies which
would allow one to observe ideological change over

15

time, fusion with business ideology or insti­
tutionalization into the broader societal
"cultural norms." This has been abdicated to
essayists, speculative propagandists, and
thoughtful historians.
Within the past eight to ten years there have been two attempts
to review and organize sociological research done on farmers' coopera­
tives.

These efforts were directed toward developing a research

frame of reference and general hypotheses for future guidance and
testing.

Unfortunately both attempts have been heavily influenced

by Taylor's contention that since farmers' organizations and agricul­
tural cooperatives grew up together they can be researched together.
Wakeley's report to the Rural Sociological Society,5 a report
of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Farmers' Organizations and Agricultural
Cooperatives, reflects the influence of Taylor's theoretical approach
to conceptually combining farmers' organizations with.farmers' co­
operatives of all kinds.

This is a position held by Taylor since

1933 when he stated that cooperative marketing was the end product
of the farmers' movement.^

This in itself deserves no criticism

^Ray E. Wakeley, "Sociological Research on Farmers' Organizations
and Agricultural Cooperatives, " Rural Sociology, XXII, No. 3 (September,
1957)/ 27^-280. This is a report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Farmers'
Organizations and Agricultural Cooperatives for the Rural Sociological
Society.- Members of the committee were Carl C. Taylor (chairman),
Howard W. Beers, Lowry Nelson, Macklin John, Duane L. Gibson, George M.
Beal, and Emory J. Brown.
^Carl C. Taylor, Rural Sociology (rev.). (New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1935)^ P* 6 7 ^

16
except that it has in some ways stifled the development of theoretical
thinking about cooperatives.

It has had, as pointed out above, some

effect on the treatment of farmers' cooperatives outside of the
theoretical realm of the world cooperative movement and restricted
them to an ancillary result of econo-political farmer movements.
C. C. Taylor was chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee; Wakeley's
report reflects Taylor's early views on how cooperatives should be
studied.

Wakeley continued to reflect this thinking even until 1961,

when he published an article with Beal, to be discussed in detail
later, on research on farmer cooperatives in the United States.
According to Wakeley's report the task of the_committee was to
explore and outline the uses of sociological analysis in investigating
the problems of farmers' organizations and agricultural cooperatives
in three ways:
1.

Definition of the major research units.

2.

Consideration of useful sociological
frameworks.

3.

Description of research areas, with
selected illustration of testable hypotheses.^

References made to the study of farmers' organizations, per-se,
have little relevance for this thesis.

Therefore, the literature

cited from this point forward will be done selectively in terms
of farmers' cooperatives, and preferably farmers' purchasing
operatives.

co­

Wakeley's report states (in the section on the definition

^Wakeley, op. cit., p. 274.

IT

of research units) that Loomis and Beegle agree with Taylor that
cooperatives were organized to right actual or imagined wrongs re­
sulting from the development of the market and price system over
which farms had no effective control and to which as individuals
Q
they were unable to make any satisfactory a d j u s t m e n t s ).

When

compared to farmers' organizations, cooperatives are more economic
in function and more limited in scope, and the forms of organization
and the techniques of operation are more rigidly specified.9
Therefore, the various possible definitions of a cooperative present
somewhat different implications for research.
Three basic definitions exist.

One, the legal definition--

legally a cooperative is what the law says it is.

In most cases

this restricts or defines the possible scope, range of operations,
financial posture, and liability characteristics of the cooperative.
The Wakeley report states that this offers no common basis or
framework for scientific research.

This represents an oversight

on the part of the committee because the legal restrictions and
privileges placed on and granted to cooperatives have great in­
fluence upon their structure, mode of operation, relationship to
members, managerial capability, response to competition, capital
flow, marketing strategies, and tax obligations.

As evidence, the

American Institute of Cooperation devotes two sections of its
^Ibid., p. £75 . Also see C. C. Taylor, 195°; Chapter 29, where
he presents this contention in great detail.

9Ibid.

18

annual meeting to these problems: e. g., one section was entitled
"Attorneys Working With Co-ops" and another section "Cooperative Accountants."1*1
The second definition of a cooperative presented in the Wakeley
report was the business definition.

This definition, consistent

with the conservative historical point of view discussed earlier,
purports that a cooperative is merely a business enterprise con­
trolled by a membership corporation instead of a stock corporation
and hence is only an alternative organization and method of con­
ducting a business.11

The implication here is that if the "just

another type of business" hypothesis were true, cooperatives could
be studied within the "theory of the firm" framework placing em­
phasis on investigation of line-staff relationships, flow charts,
marketing strategy, response to competition, leadership, executive
succession, and channels of distribution.
The third definition is an economic definition.

It describes

agricultural cooperatives as participating farm firms 'joined by
agreements to conduct some business deemed essential by the par­
ticipants.

It is a means by which farm firms maximize returns from

the farm operation.

Thus, the decision to join becomes a management

decision.1^
The Wakeley report states that not all farmers' cooperatives
"conduct their affairs for prudential objectives alone . . . "

In

^American Institute of Cooperation, American Cooperation: A
Collection of Papers, pp. 151-17^ 201-217* 1952•
11Wakeley, op cit., p. 275*
lgIbid., pp. 275-276.

19

such asituation the sociologist
analysis

may be called upon to make an

of the cooperative from the standpoint of competing value

systems.
The Wakeley report makes the following suggestions or sociological
frameworks for the analysis of human relationships in cooperatives:
1.

Problem solving or social action framework— Problems
which call for research relate to the logical steps
in problem solving, the rational choices among al­
ternatives, and the application of means-ends
analysis to the attainment of chosen objectives.

2.

Formal organization framework--Emphasis in the
past has been placed on reasons for joining, on
member participation, and on factors affecting
participation.

Studies of participation have not

been fruitful because of the difficulty of measur­
ing both economic and sociological aspects.
Measures of social distance, social status, ef­
fectiveness of communication, and functioning of
leaders are needed.
3.

Ideal type and polar type framework— Measures need
to be developed so that the actual and the ideal
can be compared more accurately and completely
from both the sociological and the economic
points of view.

13wakeley,

Ibid.,

p. 276

4.

Ecological framework--The spatial distribution
of cooperatives and their members.

5.

Social systems framework--"Cultural sub-systems
which are composed of persistent patterns of
roles and relationships,

of structured systems

of values, comprise the cultural basis on
which groups operate and by which they are re­
lated to the social system.
The Wakeley report concludes by listing a number of hypotheses
which could be tested.

Those hypotheses which have some bearing on

the degree of cooperative and/or business ideology, the subject of
this thesis, will be cited.
A.

These are as follows:

Group objectives and -long-time ends
1.

Making or saving money for members is nec­
essary, but it is not a sufficient reason
for maintaining an agricultural cooperative.

2.

Farmers' organizations or agricultural co­
operatives which have only punitive, yard­
stick, or antimonopoly objectives will
decline when need for such objectives is
no longer recognized.

B.

Personnel maintenance and participation
Farmers identify more closely with farmers'
organizations and agricultural cooperatives
than they do with other private businesses

1^Wakeley, Ibid'., pp. 276-277.

21

because they are members and patrons of the
former but only customers of the latter.
C.

Processes of social interaction and change
Decisions regarding methods of interaction
and strategy are more often made by pro­
fessional or managerial personnel than by
the members of the organization."^

In 1961 Wakeley and Harp broadened their notion of research needs on
farmer cooperatives to include social systems; ecological, interdis­
ciplinary, and typological analyses; and social change.

Of past research,

they noted that:
A majority of the sociological research on farmer
cooperatives has been of a problem solving nature, and
as such is reflective of the melioristic tradition of
rural sociology. Numerous studies on member relations
and participation have been carried out over the years.
There is a need, however, for research on the genesis
and transformation of cooperatives in American society,
viewed as a social movement. To date only a few at­
tempts have been made at a typological analysis of.
socia movement.
The preceding constitutes a somewhat
neglected field of sociological inquiry.
Although research cannot say what the goals and
values of the cooperative movement ought to be, it can
play a useful role in identifying the values that are
actually held by cooperative leaders.
It seems clear
that there is not just one set of values or principles
of cooperation held by persons in positions of leader­
ship but rather that many different viewpoints are held
by different individuals and that some of £hese view­
points may be out of harmony with others.-'-0

■^Wakeley, Ibid,, pp. 2f8-279*
•'-'-’Ray E. Wakeley and John Harp, "An Overview of Sociological Research
on Farmer Cooperatives in the United States," International Archives of
Sociology of Cooperation, Paris, France (Summer" 1966), p. 6 5 .

22

If one were to heed the advice of Wakeley and his associates it
would appear that his concern about "conflicting value systems" could
be combined with the "identification of values" and the study of the
"genesis and transformation of cooperatives viewed as social movements"
for fruitful research.
In the absence of adequate longitudinal data on farmers' coopera­
tives it would appear that the suggestions that cooperatives be studied
as a social movement could be approached by studying the degree of
commitment on the part of cooperative leaders and members toward co­
operative ideology in modern farmers' cooperatives.

CHAPTER III
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN THE STUDY OF COOPERATIVES

Literature on Social Movements
Departing from the very broad definition of farmers' movements,
as outlined above in reference to Taylor, and within the framework of
social movements, it is pertinent to address ourselves to the question
of whether or not the cooperative movement can in fact be considered
within the theoretical frame of social movements in general.

Gerth

and Mills discuss social movements within the structural context of
collective behavior and view this phenomenon.
. . . in terms of the degree of explicit organization: at
one end of the scale there are what appear to be purely
spontaneous activities; at the other, there is a merging
of collective behavior with institutional organization it­
self . . . there does seem to be a sort of drift exhibited
by collective behavior, if it endures beyond the momentary,
towards institutionalization.
Furthermore, all forms of
collective behavior, no matter how momentary, are related
to various institutional orders and spheres: they cannot
be explained without reference to them. For institutional
structures are the precipitants and the foci of collective
behavior of every sort; they are the larger frameworks
within which such behavior arises and through which it
runs its course . . . but this does not mean that collec­
tive behavior does not modify the institutional structure.-1Gerth and Mills, for the sake of classification, conceive of move­
ments, parties, and pressure groups as sub-classes within the general
concept of collective behavior.

-LHans Gerth and C. Wright Mills, Character and Social Structure.
(New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1953 )> P- ^28.

23

24
A movement attempts to change institutions, from the
outside, from the inside, or both.
Like institutions,
movements are organized enough to permit a turnover of
members without loss of identity as movements, and their
members are more or less aware of themselves as having
common interests and/or principles.
It recruits members,
usually from selected class and status levels, who are
more or less ready to act in certain ways, and it lends
to them its orienting aim:
in some way to change some
institutional setup.
Whether based on interest, on
principle, or on both, people are united in voluntary
associations in a more or less energetic struggle for
power, which, so far as the leadership is concerned,
means power of an instituted sort for the leaders,. . .
Pressure groups are associations which use political
means for the promotion of strictly economic, usually
class, interests; parties do the reverse; even declared
"class parties" use economic means, as well as political,
for both economic and political ends."1
Movements are composed of people who are attempting
to change their position with reference to the'personnel
or the structure of institutions.
The people involved
need not share common values; and they may be quite
variously motivated in such a way as to converge or
coincide in the movement's direction.
But whether or
not the people involved are conscious of common ends
or are propelled by similar motives is not necessary
to their definition as a movement, but must be deter­
mined in any given case . . . movements may be located
in any one or in several of the institutional orders
. . .(and) may also be classified in terms of how fargoing their aims may be . . . therefore, in examining a
social movement one may first locate it at each phase
through which it runs, within institutional orders and
spheres, and within classes and status levels--in terms
of at least three aspects:
1. Its professed goals and policies, whether
they are reformative or revolutionary and
what their specific contents are;
2.

The recruitment and composition of its
members and leaders; and

5.

Its objective functions; that is, one must

2Ibid., pi. 458-439.

25

ask cui bono--to whose benefit does its
existence and operation redound?3
Gerth and Mills conclude their treatment of social movements on a
methodological note when they say:
We can describe them (anti-capitalistic move­
ments and parties) systematically, as we can describe
any movement or party, by examining their (l) u l ­
timate goals and (2) typical ways of attaining them,
(5) their immediate expectations and (k) demands,
(5) their general conception of history and (6) the
organizational levers they would use, (7 ) their
dominant mode of action and (8) the composition of
their predominant membership, (9 ) the types of
leaders and staff they have displayed, and (lO)
their objective political results.
Broom and Selznick, in their discussion of social movements, tend
to emphasize the primacy of ideology as a necessary feature in the
development of such movements.

They also treat their study within

the framework of collective behavior and social change, with heavy
emphasis on the latter.

Like Taylor, they are concerned with felt

maladjustments and presumed evils as the impetus of the movement.
In discussing social movements, they state:
For the most part, social change occurs gradually
and without design.
However, new perspectives and as­
pirations often generate collective action to combat
presumed evils and to institute new ways of life.
Sometimes the action is sporadic and temporary, as in
the case of isolated uprisings against oppressive con­
ditions. When collective action is more unified and
lasting and has certain characteristic features, we call
it a "social movement." The main features of a social
movement' are:
1.

A distinctive perspective and ideology.

"’Ibid., pp. AbO-44l.
Ibid., p. A51-

The

26
ideology of a movement provides direction and self­
justification; it offers weapons of attack and de­
fense; and it holds out inspiration and hope.
Great
emphasis is placed on ideology, particularly when
other sources of orientation and cohesion are lacking.
2.

A strong sense of solidarity and idealism. Membership
in a movement typically means more to the individual
than other affiliations.
He is a "dedicated" man and
feels part of an idealistic and active enterprise.
Idealism plays a role in all movements, political or
religious, "progressive" or "reactionary," and it is
especially important in the early stages.

3.

An orientation toward action. The very word "movement"
suggests unconventional methods of appeal, such as
street meetings and the sale of propaganda tracts.
Small movements can sometimes gain wide attention by
dramatic actions, particularly if they involve violence.-.
The stress on action in part reflects the problem of
maintaining interest and solidarity. There is a
constant need to "give the members something to do"
to keep them from slipping away to other interests
and involvement is usually made up of a variety of
forms and groupings . . . tends to follow a roughly
discernible "career," from its origins in unrest to
its end in institutionalization.5
Turner and Killian suggest four types of movements, based upon

the public definition of the movement's relation to the basic value
scheme of the society, and accordingly involving the general type of
opposition that will be evoked and the access to legitimatechannels
of action.

For example:

Public Definition

Type of Opposition

Means of Action

(1) Respectable-nonfactional

Disinterest and token

Legitimate means

(2) Respectable-factional

Competing movements
advocating same gen­
eral objective

Legitimate means

^Leonard Broom and Phillip Selznick, Sociology: A Text With
Adapted Readings. (Evanston, Illinois: Row Peterson and Company, 1955)>
pp. 302-304 .

27

(5) Peculiar

Ridicule and
ostracism

Limited access to
legitimate means

(*0 Revolutionary

Violent suppression

Chiefly il
mate means1

Hopper suggests a natural history approach to the analysis of
social movements and postulates

that revolutionary movements pass

through four stages in their development.

These stages are:

1.

The preliminary stage of mass (individual) excitement

2.

The popular stage of crowd (collective) excitement and unrest

3.

The formal stage of the formulation of issues and
■formation of publics

k.

The institutional stage of legalization and social
organization?

Smelser distinguishes between norm-oriented and value-oriented
movements.

The norm-oriented movement he defines as one which attempts

to restore, protect, modify, or create norms in the name of generalized
belief.

Participants may be trying either to affect norms directly
Q

or to induce some constituted authority to do so.

Likewise, a value-

oriented movement is a collective attempt to restore, protect, modify,
or create values in the name of a generalized belief; however, such a
belief necessarily involves all the components of action; that is, it
envisions a reconstitution of values, a redefinition of norms, a

^Ralph H. Turner and Lewis H. Killian, Collective Behavior.
(Englewood Cliffs, N. J . : Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957); PP* 307-308*
^Rex D. Hopper, in R. H. Turner and Lewis H. Killian, Collective
Behavior, pp. 310-319•
®Neil J. Smelser, Theory of Collective Behavior. (New York: The
Free Press of Glencoe, 1963), p. 270.

28

reorganization of the motivation of individua's, and a redefinition of
situational facilities.'
In discussing the concept of social movement, Heberle points out
that the criteria for defining such a movement are as follows:
1.

That a social movement aims to bring about funda­
mental changes in the social order, especially in
the basic institutions of property and labor rela­
tionship .

2.

That mere similarity of sentiments occurring inde­
pendently among a large number of people does not
constitute a movement, nor does mere imitative
mass action.

A sense of group identity and

solidarity is required, for only when the acting
individuals have become aware of the fact that
they have sentiments and goals in common--when
they think of themselves as being united with'
each other in action through these sentiments
and for these goals--do we acknowledge the
existence of a social movement.
In short, Heberle treats social movements as a "kind of social
collective" as distinguished from pressure groups, parties, and action
groups.^

Abel views social movements as a mode of pluralistic

^Ibid., p. 513 Rudolf Heberle, Social Movements: An Introduction to Political
Sociology. (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1951), PP- &-9*

29

behavior--a collective effort occurring within the medium of a com­
munity.

He points out the importance, in defining a social movement,

of including values (ideology) which are a threat to existing values,
as well as stressing the opportunity to promote certain values.^
King says that social movements may be distinguished from other
phenomena on the basis of the kind of goals to which they are committed
--their goal is to change relationships, or norms, or beliefs, or all
of thesej they employ organization as a means of achieving their goals,
and they become formalized to some extent; finally, they may be
identified by their geographical scope.

Contrary to Abel, King feels

that social movements tend to extend beyond single communities or
local bonds.

His general definition is "a group venture extending

beyond a local community or a single event and involving a systematic
effort to inaugurate changes in thought, behavior, and social relation­
ships."

King specifies the relevant elements of social movements to

be (l) goals,

(2) means,

(3) ideology,

(h) group cohesion,

(5 ) or-

•I Q

ganization,

(6) a status system, and (7 ) tactics.

In summary, the central theme which runs through writings on
social movements is a theme of development.

Within the framework of

collective behavior, most authors view social movements as a group,
aggregate, or collectivity, responding to some maladjustment or felt
need for change, resistance, or innovation, and that these collectivi­
ties develop, over time, distinctive perspectives, distinctive

"^Theodore Abel, "The Pattern of a Successful Political Movement, "
American-Sociological Review, II (April, 1937); 3^7-352.
Wendell King, Social Movements in the United States. (New
York: Random House, Inc.j 1956), PP* 25 - 36 .

50
ideologies, strong

solidarity, strong idealism, leadership roles, and

membership roles; these collectivities persist over time, have varying
degrees of continuity, are oriented to varying degrees and types of
action, can be said to pass through a "life cycle," and ultimately
pass out of existence or become institutionalized.

The Place of Ideology in the Study of Farmers 1 Cooperatives
In retrospect, historical and sociological literature about co­
operatives tends to follow two different trends.

The historical litera­

ture deals almost wholly with the broad longitudinal perspective, with
great emphasis placed on the traditional beliefs and counter-beliefs
..hich serve as a basis for social action.

The sociological literature

tends to take a more pragmatic, horizontal approach, emphasizing in
*
turn structures, ecological systems, an; interdisciplinary models. Only
when it is pointed out that sociologists have been deficient in using
the social movement model for the study of farmers' cooperatives, do
they recommend the historical and longitudinal approach.

(The "natural

history" approach to the study of social movements especially as pro­
posed by Hopper is in fact a longitudinal-historical methodology.)
Throughout the published works by sociologists about cooperatives,
works in which cooperatives are constantly being referred to as move­
ments, there appear to be many latent references to an underlying belief
system and to cooperative values.

The inference undoubtedly is to- a

felt ideology, to a suspected ideological commitment, but is neither
rationally nor scientifically defined.

This is perhaps because the

concept is, in and of itself, at best, elusive.

These ideological in­

ferences are as follows:
1.

Cooperatives were organized to right actual or imagined
wrongs resulting from the development of the market and
price system over which farmers had no control.

2.

Cooperatives are merely business enterprises controlled
by a membership corporation rather than stockholders.
As such, they are only an alternative way for farmers
to conduct business.

3.

Not all farmers' cooperatives conduct their affairs
for prudential objectives alone; some have a strong
idealistic orientation and could be studied from the
standpoint of competing value systems.

h.

Cultural subsystems which are composed of persistent
patterns of roles and relationships and of structured
systems of values

comprise the cultural basis on

which groups operate . . .
5.

Agricultural cooperatives must have better reasons
for existence than being punitive, being a yardstick
to measure capitalism against., and being anti-monopoly.

6.

Farmers identify more closely with . . . cooperatives
than they do with other private businesses . . .

7.

It seems clear that there is not just one set of
values or principles of cooperation held by persons

8.

As compared with the Grange and the Farmers Union,
the Farm Bureau Federation has more of a business
character and viewpoint

and is more pragmatic and

less idealistic.
9-

Evolution may substitute cooperative democracy for
the stat e . ^

These are but a few of the examples where sociologists have in­
dicated that there seems to be a cooperative ideologica.1 value system.
The necessity for the ideological consideration in the study of social
movements has been pointed out by many.

Gerth and Mills state that

Ih

common values must be determined;

Broom and Selznick emphasize the

primacy of ideology inthe development of social movements;^
and Killian'discuss

Turner

social movements based upon the publicdefinition

of the movement's relation to the basic value scheme of the society;^
Hopper lists, as one of the stages of development, the formulation of
i s s u e s S m e l s e r describes value-oriented movements'as a collective
attempt to create values in the name of a generalized belief;

l8

Heberle

points out that a social movement comes into existence when "they think
of themselves as being united with each other in action through these

IbR. Warbasse in 1956, as quoted by A.'J. Kress in Introduction to
the Cooperative Movement, p. 291.
-^H. Gerth and C. W. Mills, op. cit.,pp. 438-439*
■^L. Broom and P.
^R.

Selznick, op. cit.,pp. 302-504.

H. Turner and L. H. Killian, op. cit., pp. 307-480.

■^R. D. Hopper, in Turner and Killian, op. cit., pp. 310-519*
^N.

J. Smelser, op. cit., p. 313*

35

sentiments and for these

g o a l s " ; -*-9

Abel defines social movements as a

mode of pluralistic behavior including values which are a threat to
existing values, as well as an opportunity to promote certain values;

PO

and King specifies ideology as one of the seven relevant elements in
social movements.^
In summary, therefore, there appears to be ample theoretical
justification for viewing the social movement phenomena in terms of the
degree and type of ideological commitment of the movement's members
(participants); that is, if the presence of a well-defined ideology is
viewed as an essential element of a social movement and if a given
social phenomenon.can be or is referred to as a social movement, the
converse is the case, viz., that if a social phenomenon is classified
as a social movement, a well-defined ideology is present.

Then it

follows that since farmers' cooperatives are referred to as social
movements, it is reasonable to hypothesize that within that movement
there exists a well-defined ideology which can be called a Cooperative
Ideology.

This follows from Wakeley and Harp who seated that "There

is a need . . . for research on the genesis and transformation of cooperatives in American society, viewed as a social movement . . . and
although research cannot say what the goals and values of the coopera­
tive movement ought to be, it can play a useful role in identifying

1^R. Heberle, op. cit., pp. 6-9.
20T. Abel, op. cit., pp. 3^7-352.
2lC. W. King, op. cit., pp. 25 -38 .

•

3^

the values that are actually held by cooperative l e a d e r s . T h i s ,

in

addition to the fact that the 1957 Wakeley report defines farmers' co­
operatives in legal, business, and economic terms, and supports the
contention that ideology is a legitimate sphere of investigation.
It has been theoretically established that some measure of
ideological commitment is a prerequisite to the identification and
classification of certain collective behavior as a social movement.
Therefore,

if we are to try to view Michigan Farmers' Purchasing Co­

operatives as a social movement, one way in which this could be done
is to attempt to operationalize and measure the degree and/or existence
of an ideology as held by leaders and/or members in the hypothesized
movement.

Since the sociological literature on social movements does

not yield useful operational models and since most of what we know to
be cooperative ideology comes from historical reviews and "movement"
documents,

it is necessary to establish a sound theoretical justifica­

tion to aid in the operationalization of ideology.

To.do this, as will

be demonstrated, it is necessary to consider not only the complex
theory of ideology but also its relation to the theory of the sociology
of knowledge and belief-value theory, for it is within the frame of
reference of social movements as related to ideology in turn related
to the sociology of knowledge that the measurement of values becomes
the operationalization of ideological commitment within the context of

^ R . E. Wakeley and J. Harp, "An Overview of Sociological Research
on Fanner Cooperatives in the United States, " International Archives
of Sociology of Cooperations,
Paris, France (Summer, 1966 ), p. 35•

55

social action; that is, value theory will furnish the operational
definition which can be justified by showing the logical relationships
among values, beliefs, knowledge, and ideology, the latter a pre­
requisite to defining social behavior as characteristic of social
movements.
Norman Birnbaum was the author of Volume IX, Number 2, i960 issue
of Current Sociology, entitled "The Sociological Study of Ideology
(19^0-60): A Trend Report and Bibliography."

In this report he re­

viewed the theoretical and research trends in ideology for the twentyyear period 19^0-60.

To discuss these trends he collected a biblio­

graphy of 702 sources but classified them into five major categories
and forty-five sub-categories.
abstract of each publication.

In addition, Birnbaum wrote a short
He summarized the salient aspects of

the trends in the sociological study of ideology in the following
manner:
The sociological study of ideology raises, in acute form,
some of the most pressing problems of contemporary
sociology . . . (It) is at the intersection of the
empirical and philosophical components of our dis­
cipline. 23

The very diffuseness of the literature points to the
continuing problem of an adequate definition of the
notion of ideology. For this essay, it suffices to
assume that ideologies appear wherever-systematic
factual assertions about society contain (usually
by implication) evaluations of the distribution of
power in the societies in which these assertions are
developed and propagated. We may suppose that a
group generally accepts a view of society consonant
with its interests; ..e need not think that ideologies
are consciously fashioned to serve these interests or

.^Norman Birnbaum, "The Sociological Study of Ideology (19^-0-60):
A Trend Report and Bibliography," Current Sociology, IX, No. 2 (i960 ),
p. 91.

36
that groups are incapable of acting upon beliefs which
appear to contradict these interests.
According to Birnbaum, the sociological study of ideology, since
1990, may be described as follows:
1.

Empirical and theoretical work have developed in
disjointed fashion . . .There have been no
definitive theoretical advances to compare with
the work of Karl Mannheim.

2.

A revival of Marxist analysis has occurred.

5.

The enormous increase in our detailed knowledge
of contemporary social structures which has ac­
companied the widespread utilization of the
standard techniques of sociological research
has not produced a concomitant enrichment of
theory. Rather, some attempts have been made
to adjust the scope of the theory of ideology
to the limits set by these techniques.

4.

The techniques of analysis of the inner structure
of ideology originally derived from neo-positivism
have become less prominent.25

In a detailed discussion of Mannheim's work, Birnbaum pointed out
that:
Mannheim's conception of a total ideology is, in fact,
a sociological formulation of the familiar notion of
the Zeitgeist. His distinction between ideologies and
utopias, the latter opposing new ideas to existing
systems of society and thought, the former justifying
these systems# contains many inconsistencies.
It does
insert the problem of historical movement in the
analysis of ideology. Mannheim's epistemological
"relationism" is surely questionable, but it does
have the merit of drawing one of the possible conse­
quences of a sociology of knowledge; it faces up to
the problem of a standard of truth by which ideologies
may be judged.2°

2^Ibid., p. 91 .
2^Ibid., pp. 91-92.
26Ibid., p.

9k.

37

Perhaps we may assert that whereas Mannheim (who was
influenced by Weber) generalized the Marxist view of
ideology, abandoning class as the sole source of
ideologies and replacing it by the total social
structure . . . (as well a s ) a plurality of his­
torical systems in which class was but one com­
ponent . . . Weber's influence . . . consists of an
emphasis on the historical study of large scale
structural problems. . .2^
Birnbaum points out that the work of James, Veblen, and Dewey,
American behaviorists,

"clearly provided for the analysis of ideologies

as modes of adaption to changing environments, and did not make an
abstract conception of science the culmination of intellectual evolu­
tion. "28
Birnbaum states that the studies of ideology have been concen­
trated in the following areas:
1.

Studies, chiefly psychoanalytic, of psychological
processes.
a)

Some studies established connections be­
tween regularities in character formation
and the adult acceptance of certain kinds
of ideological form and content (culture'
and personality).

b)

Studies of personal adjustment to rapid change,
disappointed expectations, and personality ad­
justment, such as Erickson's studies of personal
identity, and Bettelheim and Janowitz's work on
prejudice, have been done.
Bettelheim's study
of personality in concentration camps and
American studies of "brainwashing" have
yielded interesting data on the ideological
components of the response of personality
to crisis.

c)

The influence of psychological mechanisms on
ideology formation such as The Authoritarian
Personality studies.

27rbid., p. 98.
28Ibid., p. 97*

58
2.

Studies of the structure and effects of mass communica­
tion.
-a) Inquiry into the mass media has utilized three
techniques: content analysis derived from the
history and criticism of literature; the social
survey; a formalized analysis of content de­
rived from the philosophy of neo-positivism
and m o d e m statistics.
b) These studies have demonstrated the existence
of an intellectual and ideological stratifica­
tion of modern industrial populations . . .
differences of education, associated with
differences of occupation, in turn produce
differences of experience and taste which
are reflected in, and maintained by, the
distribution of communications.
c) A counter-point states that communications
are received, interpreted, and utilized in
terms of the group's existing, ideological
pre-disposition.

5-

Studies of the internal structure of ideological systems
(including art, myth, and religion).
a) Levi-Strauss' work on myth "seeks to identify
what is essential in social structure. . .
He invariably arrives at problems of economic
power, and sexuality (kinship) . . . in which
myth and psychic structure may be understood as
ideological depictions of what Marxism knows as
the forces and relationships of production."
b) The more orthodox sort of work on the History
of Ideas has not made any theoretical advance
in the analysis of ideology.
Studies of class consciousness.
a) The study of correlations between ideology and
political behavior, or their absence, does not
necessarily afford conclusive evidence on the
depth or potential efficacy of ideologies ap­
parently inconsonant with behavior as observed
at any one moment.
b) Birnbaum criticizes contemporary data on ideology
because it is gathered from questionnaires on

39

large samples.
He does relent and agree that
there have been advances in index construction
and scaling.
c) On the basis of empirical studies revolutionary
proletarian sentiment has indeed not been found
in Western Europe and the United States of America.
d) Many studies overemphasize temporary fluctuations
in working-class attitudes and beliefs.
e) Scattered studies have been made on middle-class
consciousness as well as studies of elites, anti­
colonial movements, and nationalism.29
Birnbaum concludes his classification of the 19^-0-60 work on
ideology with the categories of (l) studies of the ideological biases
of social science and (2) studies of intellectuals.

These two cate­

gories will not be discussed because they have little bearing on the
subject of this thesis.
In

summary, Birnbaum defines ideology as a view of society and/or

beliefs

on the part of groups consistent with their interests and adds

that these views of society and/or beliefs arise wherever they (members
of groups) become aware of the distribution of power within these
groups (societies).

This definition intimates the possibility of

making an ideological analysis of total societies but does not restrict
such analysis to this area.

One gets the impression that he is un­

clear on this point.
In

the preface of his translated work of Karl Mannheim, Ideology

andUtopia,30 Louis

Wirth discusses two vital issues in the study of

2^Ibid., pp. 107-108 .
3°Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the
Sociology of Knowledge, translated from the German by Louis Wirth and
Edward Shils. (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1936).

ideology.

His first discussion revolves around the presence of con­

flicting and anomic norms and beliefs in his contemporary society.

He

becomes concerned with the general distrust of the validity of ideas,
where self-aggrandizement rather than truth are the goals of the in­
tellectuals.

His is indeed a world of secularization,

nisms, and competition,

social

antago­

impinging upon regions heretofore reserved

wholly to the disinterested and objective search for truth.

He dwells

on the difficulties of social scientists in participating in open,
frank, and objective inquiry of social ideas.

This is difficult be­

cause in most societies an inquiry into the most sacred and cherished
institutions and beliefs is restricted,

i.e., societal norms prescribe

what one in fact is allowed to investigate.

In addition, it is diffi­

cult for social scientists to be objective, i.e., to have no prefer­
ences, predilections

or prejudices, no biases, no preconceived values

or judgments in the presence of facts.

One must be aware of the

problems and pitfalls in the search for valid social knowledge, es­
pecially when one is studying social knowledge (ideas) itself.

The

second issue, a philosophical-anthropological issue, is addressed to
the proposition that "if . . . the social sciences are concerned with
objects that have meaning and value, the observer who attempts to
understand them must necessarily do so by means of categories which in
turn depend on his own values and meanings.

Wirth points out that .

there has been relatively little attention given by American sociologists
to the concrete analysis of interests and values in historical doctrines

31Ibid., pp. xx-xxi.

-

and movements.

hi

At this point, Wirth deals with ideology.

He reviews

what in his judgment is the treatment of the subject by Mannheim.
Mannheim, according to Wirth, traces the connection between interest
groups in society and the ideas and modes of thought which they hold.
He (Mannheim) has shown that ideologies, i.e., "those complexes of
ideas which direct activity toward the maintenance of the existing
order, and utopias--or those complexes of ideas which tend to generate
activities toward changes of the prevailing order--do not merely de­
flect attention from the object of observation, but also serve to fix
attention upon aspects of the situation which otherwise would be ob­
scured or pass unnoticed. "3^
He points out that Mannheim, instead of positing a pure intellect,
is concerned with the actual social conditions in which intelligence
and thought

emerge.

33

with this statement, Wirth shows that Mannheim

has taken thought, ideas, and values out of the psychological into the
sociological because "we must consider the fact that social life . . .
is to an overwhelming extent concerned with beliefs about the ends
of action."3^

Wirth concludes his discussion of the sociology of

knowledge and of Mannheim's contribution as seeking "to throw light on
the question of how the interests and purposes of certain groups come
to find expression in certain theories, doctrines, and intellectual

^2

Ibid.,

p. xxi.

33xbid. , p. x x ii.
3^lbid.

k2

movements."35

He further concludes that the sociology of knowledge

needs to have "an adequate understanding of such phenomena (indoctrina­
tion) as these will contribute to a more precise conception of the role
of ideas in political and social movements and of the value of knowl­
edge as an instrument in controlling social reality."3^

The Study of Ideology as a Function of the Sociology of Knowledge
Of the contemporary scholars, Merton is undoubtedly the foremost
in the area of the sociology of knowledge.

Following from, but critical

of, Mannheim, Merton views the study of ideology not as a subject

ana­

lytically discrete but rather as one of the elements within the general
framework of the sociology of knowledge.

This point of view, con­

sistent with Mannheim, demands a cumbersome but vital theoretical frame
of reference in the study of ideology.

If one pays attention only to

the contemporary collective behavior literature, he could easily be
misled into the false complacency that the study of ideology consists
only of the social psychological concern for attitudes and opinions and
that these can stand theoretically alone.

With this in mind, it be­

comes imperative that ideology be placed within the sociology of knowl­
edge context.

To accomplish this, it is necessary to reconstitute

Merton's formulation into what we will call the "old sociology of
knowledge" and the "new sociology of knowledge."

35Ibid., p. xxviii.
3^Ibid., p. xxix.

43

Merton's Paradigm for the Sociology of Knowledge-"The Relations between Knowledge and
Other Existential Factors in the Society"37
I.

The Old Sociology of Knowledge
A.

The development of a distinct universe of discourse
challenges the validity and legitimacy of others.
(Hence) reciprocal distrust leads to reciprocal
ideological analyses.

B.

Array of interpretations of man and culture
1.
2.
34.
5.
6.
7.

C.

Verbalization and ideas (deceptive of self and other)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

D.

Rationalizations
Emotive expressions
Distortions
Folklore
Derivations
Ideologies

___

Previously conceived substrata
1.
2.
34.
5.
6.
7.

E.

Ideological analysis
Wissenssoziologie
Psychoanalysis
Marxism
Semanticism
Propaganda analysis
Parentanism

Relations of production
Social position
Basic impulses
Psychological conflict
Interests and sentiments
Interpersonal relations
Residues

The unwitting determinations of ideas by the substrata
1.
2.

Distinction between real and illusionary
Distinction between reality and appearance

^Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure. (New York: The
Free Press of Glencoe, 1957)> PP. 457-459*

kb

F.

Schemes of analysis which tend to discount the face
value of statements, beliefs, and idea-systems by re­
examining them within a new context which supplies the
"real meaning."
1.

2.
G.

Indict, secularize, ironicize, satirize,
alienate, devalue
Nfyths, illusions, derivations, folklore

Not only error or illusion or unauthenticated belief,
but also the discovery that truth is socially (his­
torically) conditioned.

II. The New Sociology of Knowledge--"As long as attention was focused
on the social determinants of ideology (illusion, myth, and moral
norms), the sociology of knowledge could not emerge."
A.

Where is the existential basis of mental productions
located?
1.
2.

B.

Social bases
Cultural bases

What mental productions are being sociologically analyzed?
1.
2.

C.

Spheres
Which aspects are being analyzed?

How are mental productions related to the existential basis?
1.
2.
3.

Causal or functional relations
Symbolic or organismic or meaningful relations
Ambiguous terms to designate relations

D.

Why (are) manifest and latent functions imputed to
these existentially conditioned mental productions?

E.

When do the imputed relations of the existential base
and knowledge obtain?
' 1.
2.

Historicist theories
General analytical theories

Merton, according to his paradigm as outlined above, views the
unit of analysis of the sociology of knowledge to be "mental produc­
tions."

While Wirth gives Mannheim credit for taking thought, ideas,

and values out of the psychological into the sociological, it appears
that Merton is returning them to the psychological.

In any event, he

views his paradigm as a means to organize the distinctive approaches
to the sociology of knowledge; extreme on the one hand in that thought
has no relation to its validity, to the relativist position on the
other hand which says that truth is a function of a social basis, that
it depends upon consensus and that any culturally accepted theory of
truth is as valid as any other theory.
Merton uses Marx, Scheler, Mannheim (in great detail), Durkheim,
and Sorokin to illustrate the utility of his paradigm.

The presentation

of Merton's analysis will be limited to those sections wh:i ch directly
reflect insight into the concept and formulation of ideology.
ideas with Parsons',

His

Smelser's, and King's will be used to build the

theoretical links among the concepts of social movements,

ideology,

and values, and will provide a framework within which the empirical
investigation of Michigan Farmers' Cooperatives and cooperative and
business ideologies may be studied.
When attempting to utilize this paradigm, Merton admits the wide
diversity of formulations " . . .

from the social determination of

categorical systems to that of class-bound political ideologies . . ."39
prevents an all-embracing presentation.

He compromises and uses

selected writings.
The part of his paradigm of special interest and application to

3^lbjd., p.

k6l.

39jbid., p.

b6o.

46

this thesis is what mental productions are being sociologically
analyzed?

(The use of this formulation does not constitute acceptance

on the part of the author that the "unit of analysis" is "mental pro­
ductions.")

In this connection, Merton discusses the spheres and as-

%
pects of mental productions.

The spheres are moral beliefs, ideologies,

ideas, the categories of thought, philosophy, religious beliefs, social
norms, positive science,

technology, and the aspects are their selection,

level of abstractions, presuppositions, conceptual contents, models of
verification, and objectives of intellectual activity.

4o

Merton points

out that there is a formal consensus which gives rise to a variety of
theories that thought has an existential b a s i s . ^

Within this frame­

work, he discusses the strengths and weaknesses of Marxism, which contends that ideologies are socially (class) located,

Il 'P

that Scheler

places cultural data as "ideal" in the realm of ideas and values while
"real factors" are oriented toward effecting changes in the reality of
nature or society.^

Scheler's position is that these naturalistic

theories are in error when they maintain that real factors determine
meaningful ideas as well as assuming that the independent variable is
one and the same throughout history.

Merton feels that Mannheim has

extended from Marx the conception of existential bases; Mannheim finds

^°Ibid., p. 46l.
^ I b i d . , p. 462.
J+2Ibid., p. 463.
^Ibid.,

p. 464.

"that an organically integrated group conceives of history as a con­
tinuous movement toward the realizations of its goals, whereas socially
uprooted and loosely integrated groups espouse an historical intuition
" lit

which stresses the fortuitous and imponderable;

that is, given the

case of multiple group membership we must determine which of these
affiliations are crucial in fixing ideas, values, and ideologies.
Merton contends that Durkheim shares this position.

In sharp dis­

tinction, Merton points out that Sorokin's is an "idealistic and
emanationist theory which seeks to derive every aspect of knowledge,
not from an existential social basis but from varying culture men­
talities.
When Merton speaks of the spheres of mental products, he is in
fact referring to the various types of knowledge.

As he points out,

the term knowledge has referred to every type of idea from folk belief
to positive science.'

In order to analyze the significance of these

types of knowledge, iie points out that late in his writings Engels came
to realize that the concept of ideological superstructure included a
variety of "ideological forms" which differ significantly and that it
is not possible to derive the content and development of belief and
knowledge merely from an analysis of the historical situation.^ Thus
Engels grants natural science and political economy a status distinct
from that of ideology .

^

^ Ibid., p. 465.

^5lbid.f p . hb6.
^°Ibid., p p . A67 -^-6 8 .
^ i'lbid., p. A69.

That is, there is a tendency in Marxism

to

1*8

consider natural science as different in relation to the economic base
from other spheres of knowledge and beliefs.

lift'

Mannheim, according

to Merton, places science in no different sphere than ideology because
"social position determines the perspective; i.e., the manner in
which one views an object, what one perceives in it, and how one con­
strues it in his t h i n k i n g . S c h e l e r goes to the other extreme and
distinguishes a variety of forms of knowledge, ordered in seven classes:
(l) myth and legend,
language,

(2) knowledge implicit in the natural folk-

(3 ) religious knowledge,

(4) mystical knowledge,

philosophical-metaphysical knowledge,

(5 )

(6) positive knowledge of

mathematics, the natural and cultural sciences, and (7 ) technological
r*,-\

knowledge .^

We may feel inclined to quarrel with Scheler's classifi­

cation, but he postulates that:
The sociological character of all knowledge, of all forms
of thought, intuition and cognition is unquestionable . . .
(and that) the forms of the mental processes by means of
which knowledge is acquired are always and necessarily co­
determined sociologically, i.e., by the social structure
51
"
« • «'
In fact, is the generation of ideas, a "mental production," and
if so do these productions ap>pear out of nothing or do they arise as a
response to and because of the social system in which the actor finds
himself?

Merton's preoccupation with "scientific" or existentially

^ Ibid., p. ^69 .
if9ibld., p. 470.
^^ibid., pp. i*7G-V 71.
51ibid., p. V 71.

k9

based knowledge seems more of an overreaction to Durkheim's relativism
and Sorokin's "ideational-sensate" approach to intuition as a source
of scientific

d i s c o v e r y ^

than an attempt to answer the question "Does

man live by one universal truth alone?"

He ignores the logical possi­

bilities that existentially based truth (scientific thought) may., with
logic,

itself be of a relativistic sociological origin.

Scientific

ethnocentrism is no less misleading than any other kind.
The theoretical approach (frame) up to this point has been an at­
tempt to link the rural sociological approach to the study of coopera­
tives with other theoretical formulations.

Rural sociologists (see

Wakeley, Chapter II, page 19) have intimated that the study of farmer
cooperatives has been rather pragmatic and devoid of a sound theoretical
basis.

He suggests, however, that cooperatives be studied within the

theory of social movements.

Accepting this cue, the theory of social

movements was investigated.

The longitudinal requirements for the ■

study of a social movement(s) were beyond the scope of' the present
study.

A potentially fruitful approach, however, was to study coopera­

tives from an ideological point of view.

This was indicated by the

reiteration of numerous theoreticians that an essential characteristic
of a social movement is a well-defined and well-articulated ideology.
This point being theoretically sound, an investigation of ideologi­
cal theory was made.

It was found that ideology is theoretically handled

from many points of view.

From one point of view it is regarded as a

philosophical-anthropological phenomenon bent on the discussion of the
psychic and perceptual nature of man; from another point of view it is

5 ^ I b i d . , p. 471.

thought to be a study of the social origins of knowledge, existentially
derived from the ultimate truth; and finally it is viewed as the social
psychological functions of personally and collectively held opinions,
feelings, inclinations, attitudes, values, and commitments.

Through­

out, theoreticians speculate and formulate on the basis of all social
scientific dilemmas, e.g., what is the origin of the motivation of man
in collective action?

Does the movement of man to motivated social and

collective action spring from within individuals or does motivated
social action originate from social action,
itself?

i.e., social interaction

Also, is it a combination of both?

If man lives by his beliefs and values, if man is, as Becker con­
tends, a valuing animal, the proper study of man, therefore, is to
locate the seat of his values and beliefs, hence, his motivated
collective behavior.

The answer to this global question is hardly the

purpose of this thesis.

The purpose is, however, a modest attempt to

gain some insight into the place of ideology in the study of social
movements.

To do this, it now becomes necessary to theoretically com­

bine the notion of values with the notion of the sociology of knowledge,
within the framework of cooperatives as a social movement and within
the context of the sociology of knowledge and the theory of ideology,
i.e., to derive value-belief hypotheses.

If this is the case, co­

operatives can be studied in terms of the commitment of members to the
values and beliefs of a hypothesized cooperative movement.

51
The Relation of Belief Systems and/or Value
Orientations to the Theory of Ideology
As pointed out above, King views an ideology as an essential
element of a social movement.

He defines ideology as:

1.

Written or unwritten justification for the move­
ment's existence.

2.

The values and ideals it cherishes.

3-

The rules by which participants abide, and the
sanctions behind these rules.

k. A negative doctrine stating what the movement
is against.
5*

The source from which a movement derives its
rationale, its doctrine, its course, and its
disciplinary principles.

6 . Dedication to common aims and values,'benefits
incidental to the major objectives, negative
sanctions, and inspirational l e a d e r s h i p . 53
When discussing the internal factors in the growth of a social move­
ment King states that:
Since goals are incorporated in ideology, an ideology stands
or falls with the goals it encompasses and from which it is
largely derived. Values, attitudes, and norms justify and
interpret goals; they also reinforce belief in goals and
the need for action in their achievement. At the same time,
the ideology defines (through norms) and justifies (through
values) the kind of action and machinery necessary for the
attainment of goals . . . The minimum function of an
ideology in a successful movement is to provide a rationale
not only for the objectives, but for the tactical and or­
ganizational means to those objectives
. . Ideology . . .
(is) often codified as a body of tenets closely woven
around the central ideas and ideals of the movement . . .
ideology is the dogma deduced from goals . . . (and) is a
statement of justification for seeking them . . . Ideology
relates(more or less logically) the various elements of
the movement into a pattern and also relates the movement
to its social setting.^ •

53xing, Passim, pp. 32-33*
^King,

op. cit., pp. 69-70*

52

Parsons deals with the concept of ideology within the framework of
non-empirical beliefs and/or (shared) evaluative beliefs within and
toward a collectivity.

Like King, he defines ideology directly in

terms of beliefs and values.

It is from this point of view, with

others, that we will operationalize ideology for empirical testing.
According to Parsons:
In the context of interaction there is (the) aspect (of) the
sharing of beliefs.
Beliefs like other elements of culture
are internalized as part of the personality of the actor
who holds them. That there should be a common belief
system shared by ego and alter is in certain respects as
important as that the beliefs should be adequate to
reality outside the particular interaction system. Be­
cause of this duality of functional reference it is not
uncommon for cognitive distortions to have positive
functions in an interaction system and thus for them to
be resistant to correction in terms of pressures of
reality.
The primary "pure type" of cognitive orientation, then,
is what we may call the system of existential beliefs.
It is necessary then to subdivide this category into
empirical and non-empirical beliefs. The distinction
is simply that ideas or beliefs will be called empirical
when, in terms of the major orientations of the cultural
tradition of which they are a part, they concern processes
which are defined as subject to understanding and manipula­
tion in a pattern of "practical rationality" . . . nonempirical beliefs (are beliefs) concerning subjects
which are defined as beyond the reach of the methodology
of empirical science or its equivalent in the culture in
question.55
Parsons deals with collective values and' views existential beliefs
as parallel to evaluative beliefs.

This could be connected with

Merton's existential basis of mental products.

55Talcott Parsons, The Social System.
Glencoe, 1951), PP- 327-329-

Parsons ignores the

(New York: The Pree Press of

53

mental-productions point of view and deals with the double classifica­
tion of belief systems.

He deals with the need to distinguish between

the empirical and non-empirical references as well as existential and
evaluative references to the system of action.
In his discussion of the relevance of the evaluative category in
social action, he deals with the issue of the relationship of how does
man come to know (sociology of knowledge) and how does man come to
evaluate (theory of ideology and the value-belief system)?

In his ex­

planation of the evaluative process, he shows the operational relation­
ship among beliefs, values, and ideology.

Parsons points out that:

When we turn to the evaluative category we may make a
parallel distinction. Where the primary reference is
empirical we may speak of ideology. The only diffi­
culty with this term is that it refers primarily to
the belief system shared by the members of a collectiv­
ity, and for some purposes it may in the theory of
action be important to speak of this aspect of the
belief system of an individual actor. When the in­
dividual actor is the point of reference we shall try
to avoid this difficulty by speaking of a "personal
ideology." Finally, when the primary reference is
non-empirical we may when the problems of meaning are
of paramount significance speak of religious ideas, as
distinguished from philosophical.
According to this view, then, there is a fundamental
symmetry in the relations, on the one hand, of science
and ideology, on the other of philosophy and religious
ideas. In both cases the transition to the evaluative
category means a change in the "stake" the actor has
in the belief system, it means the transition from
acceptance to commitment.
The primary question is no
longer that of interest in whether a proposition is
"true," but, in addition to that, in a commitment to
its implications for the orientation of action as such .-5
Parson's next point emphasizes the evaluative primacy in ideology.

56Ibid.,

pp.

331-332.

54

He thus establishes the case for the operationalization of ideology as
a belief system.
When we move to the consideration of ideologies we are no
longer dealing with cognitive primacy, but with evaluative
primacy.
It may be noted that it is impossible for there
to be a type of belief system where expressive interests
have clear primacy, for there the cognitive interest would
be subordinated to the expressive and we would have a system
of expressive symbols, not of beliefs
An ideology, then, is a system of beliefs, held in common
by the members of a collectivity, i.e., a society, or a
subcollectivity of one--including a movement deviant from
the main culture of the society--a system of ideas which
is oriented to the evaluative integration of the collectivity
and of the situation in which it is placed, the processes by
which it has developed to its given state, the goals to
which its members are collectively oriented, and their rela­
tion to the future oourse of events .^
Next, Parsons establishes beliefs as a basis of action:
To constitute an ideology there must exist the additional
feature that there is some level of evaluative commitment
to the belief as an aspect of membership in the collectivity,
subscription to the belief system is institutionalized as
part of the role of collectivity membership . ™
But as distinguished from a primarily cognitive interest in
ideas in the case of an ideology, there must be an obliga­
tion to accept its tenets as the basis of action. As dis­
tinguished from a purely instrumental belief there must be
involvement of an idea that the welfare of the collectivity
and not merely attainment of a particular goal hinges on the
implementation of the belief system.0^
His discussion of the relationship between systems of beliefs and
value-orientations as a means to action-dilemmas follows:

5?Ibid., p. 349.
58lbid.
59xbid.

6o Ibld., p. 350.

55

Since there must be relative consistency in the valueorientation patterns of a collectivity--though perfect
consistency is not possible--this consistency must ex­
tend to the system of beliefs which give cognitive mean­
ing to these value-orientations, again imperfectly to be
sure.
If ideological beliefs and value-patterns are, as
assumed, interdependent, relative stability and con­
sistency of the belief system has the same order of
functional significance as do stability and consistency
of the value-orientation patterns.
Hence, there must be
a set of beliefs, subscription to which is in some sense
an obligation of collectivity membership roles, where
the cognitive conviction,of truth and "moral" conviction
of rightness are merged.
Ideology thus serves as one of the primary bases of the
cognitive legitimation of patterns of value-orientation.
Value-orientation patterns, it will be remembered, al­
ways constitute definitions of the situation in terms
of directions of solution of action-dilemmas.
It is not
possible in a given situation to give primacy both to
technical competence independent of particularistic
solidarities, and to the particularistic solidarity,
and so on through the list of dilemmas.
So far as this
is possible in empirically cognitive terms, an ideology
"rationalizes" these value-selections, it gives reasons
why one direction of choice rather than its alternative
should be selected, why it is right and proper that this
should be so.°^
And finally Parsons makes the point that if a value-system exists
in a collectivity, an ideology exists.
But within the deviant collectivity there is very
definitely a value-system and hence an ideology.
This ideology will always include a diagnosis of the
basis for the break with the main society and its
value system.^3
In summary, Parsons demonstrates, as do others, that the essential

6l

Ibid., p. 351.

62 Ibid.
6 3 Ibid., p. 355 .

prerequisite to defining social action (such as deviant collectivities)
as evaluative behavior is that a well-defined belief system must be
present,

internalized, and accepted as the basis of action.

As such,

within the framework of value-belief theory as derived through the
theory of knowledge, ideology, and social movements, the general
hypotheses to be tested deal with the commitment to or agreement with
differential cooperative-business beliefs on the part of cooperative
leaders.

This leads to a formulation of the general hypotheses of con­

cern in this thesis.
General Hypotheses
I.

Michigan Farmers' Purchasing Cooperatives can be
viewed as a part of the cooperative social movement;
this can be ascertained by the presence of a welldefined cooperative ideology and the concomitant
commitment to that ideology on the part of a sig­
nificant proportion of selected leaders and members.

II.

Under certain circumstances, certain selected co­
operative leaders and members will be more highly
committed to a business ideology than to a co­
operative ideology.

III.

If a high commitment to cooperative ideology is
found, cooperatives can be analyzed as a social
movement.

57

IV.

If a high commitment to business ideology is found,
cooperatives can be analyzed as business organiza­
tions.

CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY, PERTINENT VARIABLES, ANALYSIS OF DATA,
TESTS OF HYPOTHESES AND FINDINGS

In 1961-62 , 7 ;110,240 members belonged to 9*039 farmer cooperatives
in the United States.

Of this number, 3/206, or 35-5 percent of the

total, were classified as farm supply cooperatives.

Farm supply co­

operatives accounted for 3*634,690, or 53*1 percent, of the national
membership for that period .1

The number of marketing cooperatives de­

creased from 6,519 in 1950-51 bo 5*626 in 1961-62 , a decline from 64.8
to 62.2 percent of all cooperatives in eleven years.

Farm supply coop­

eratives showed a smaller decrease, from 3*283 to 3*206 , for the same
period, or a percent of all cooperatives’ increase from 32.6 to 35*5
percent between 1950-51 and 1961-62 .

While in actual numbers supply

cooperatives nationally represent only a little over one-third of the
cooperatives they accounted for over half the nation's membership.

In

general, over the twelve-year period, 1950-1962, it can be concluded
that:
1.
2.

Cooperatives decreased in numbers.
Membership in marketing cooperatives declined slightly,
from 4.1 million in 1950-51 to 3-4 million in 1961-62 .

3 . Farm supply cooperative units of operation decreased
in numbers but increased in percent of all coopera­
tives from 32.6 to 35 •5 •

^A. L. Gessner, Farmer Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, General Report, (April, 1964), pp. 2-8.

58

59

k.

In terms of membership, farm supply cooperatives
increased from 2.9 million in 1950-51 to 3*6
million in 1960-61 .

5.

The most dramatic change, in the face of drastic
reductions in the number and proportion of people
engaged in farming, is the real and the percent
increase in farm supply membership.

Farm supply

cooperatives accounted for ^-0.6 percent of the
nation's membership in 195O -51 tut this had in­
creased to 51*1 percent in 1961-62 .
In the period 1950-51* 10,06h farmer cooperatives did a gross
business valued at 10.5 billion dollars with a net value (exclud­
ing

inter-cooperative business) of 8.1 billion.

In the 1961-62

period the number of farmer cooperatives decreased to 9*039 but in­
creased their gross business volume to 17.2 billion and the net to
13.0 billion dollars.

Farm supply cooperatives accounted for 20.7 per­

cent, or 1.7 billion, of the net volume in 1950-51 * a slight decline to

19.7 percent, but increased in real income to 2.6 billion dollars by
1961-62.2

Michigan Cooperatives
Data collected by the Farmer Cooperative Service show

that for

the years 1961-62 , a total of 225 cooperatives of all kinds did business
in the state of Michigan.

Of this number, 201 were principally located

in Michigan and ninety-nine were exclusively farm supply cooperatives .3

2 Ibid., p. 8 .
3Ibid., p. 25 .

6o

The total number of members in the 201 cooperatives doing business in
the state of Michigan was 165,475*

Of that number, 83,195 members were

members of the ninety-nine exclusively farm supply cooperatives.

In

the year 1961-62 , all cooperatives in Michigan did a gross business of
$481,57^,000 and a net business of $397*020,000.

Those cooperatives

dealing in farm supplies did a total gross business in farm supplies
of 90.7 million dollars and a net of 64.5 million dollars. This does
not necessarily mean that this volume of business is represented in the
activities of the ninety-nine cooperatives classified as farm supply be­
cause cooperative business activities tend to be rather diversified;
that is, the 90.7 million dollars of gross volume is represented in the
business activity of all cooperatives dealing in farm supplies doing
business in the state.
tive enterprises.^

In 1961-62 , in Michigan this was 164 coopera­

The ninety-nine of concern in this thesis would be

slightly less, but no data for this group alone are available.
Farmers' Purchasing Cooperatives are intrinsically bound up in the
elevator business; that is, the function of purchasing cooperatives is
to collectively purchase for and resell to its members grain, feed, seed,
supplies, and fertilizer in order to minimize the cost of these materials
which are needed to run the farm enterprise.

The sum of the amount ex­

pended by farmers for these items Sorenson calls the Elevator Factors
Total.

The EFT is that amount of potential business which is and could

be transacted by conventional grain elevators.5

Since the major busi­

ness activities of Farmers' Purchasing Cooperatives is done in grain,

11Ibid., p. 2 5 .
^V. L. Sorenson, Elevator Outlook Committee Progress Report. Agri­
cultural Economics Department. (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State
University), 1961.

feed, seed, supplies, and fertil izer, they, by necessity, must operate
for the most part as a grain elevator, and are in competition with grain
elevators, and traditionally are organized much like elevators in
Michigan.

6

.
This indicates that the ninety-nine local cooperatives of

interest in this study constitute only about 19 percent of the total
elevator population in Michigan.

Sorenson publishes no data on the

total or individual business volume.

He does allude to the fact that

small, local elevators are on the decline and are being replaced by
larger units necessary for profitable operations as a result of the
cost-price squeeze experienced by farm enterprises in the early 1960 's.
In summary, the situation of Farmers' Purchasing Cooperatives in
Michigan in 1961-62 was as follows:
1.

Ninety-nine cooperatives operated in Michigan ex­
clusively as farm supply cooperatives.

2.

These ninety-nine cooperatives had 83,195 members.

3.

All cooperatives did a total gross business in
farm supplies of 90.7 million dollars and a net
64.5 millions.

4.

In 1956 (no data are available for 1961-62 ) there
were 534 active licensed elevators in Michigan.
Over 80 percent of all elevators are non-cooperative
elevators.

While cooperatives do, in whole or in part, touch the lives of a
large number of farm people in Michigan, if it can be inferred that

6 Ibid., p. 59 .

62
the business volume of cooperatives is proportional to their in­
cidence in the elevator population, they do not command as large a
segment of the farm supply economy as may be believed.
Therefore, the universe of cooperatives of concern in this study
is the ninety-nine farmers' Supply Cooperatives in Michigan.

The Sample
When the sampling decision for this study was made, certain com­
promises had to be considered to satisfy various requirements of the
study, as well as to circumvent some subject enumeration problems.
First, it was not possible to obtain a complete listing of cooperative
members because of the confidential nature of membership lists; second,
up-to-date lists of newly elected officers and board members were
-

sketchy and not reliable; and third, while a list of the ninety-nine
Purchasing

cooperatives

was available, turnover among managers made

such a list unreliable; therefore, it was decided that the sampling
unit must be the cooperative itself.

Of the ninety-nine operating

Farmers' Purchasing Cooperatives in 1961 a simple random sample of
thirty was drawn.

The precision of this sample of cooperatives applies

also to the sample of managers,

i.e., the manager of each of the co­

operatives drawn in the sample was interviewed.
It was felt that it would be most likely that cooperative leader­
ship would be most committed to whatever values were prevalent in the
cooperative; that is, it was felt that the major "ideology carrier"
would be the professional managers and the farmers who were on the

63

cooperative boards.

Due to time and financial limitations it was de­

cided that a large sample of board members could .not be .taken.

It was

decided that in addition to the cooperative manager one member of the
board would be interviewed.

The sampling technique used is as follows:

each of the cooperatives in the random sample was contacted by telephone
to establish its identity and to arrange for an interview with the
manager.

While these arrangements were being made, the identity of all

board members was ascertained, as well as their telephone numbers and
the location of their farms.

After the interview appointment with the

managers was made, one board member for each cooperative was randomly
drawn to be contacted by telephone to arrange an interview appointment.
A random substitution procedure was devised to replace the board member
chosen if he were not available.
To get some indication of the ideological position of farmer
members, one farmer member was interviewed from each cooperative sampled.
This member was chosen with the aid of the cooperative manager during
the telephone conversation.

Imaginary concentric circles were drawn

around the cooperative location at one-half mile intervals out to ten
miles (the average sphere of geographical influence held by a coopera­
tive).

These circles were divided into north-east, east-south, south­

west, and west-north sectors.

The sector north, east, south, west was

drawn at random as was the concentric circle distance from the center
point.

The cooperative manager was then asked the name of the farmer

nearest that point who was a member of the cooperative.

A random and

systematic technique for substitution was used if the sampling point were

64

confounded by geographical characteristics or if the farmer could not be
located by telephone and could not be available for interview on the
day the interviewer was in the area.
This sampling technique produced the following results :

TABLE I
PERCENT OF POPULATION REPRESENTED BY THE SAMPLE

Sample Universe:
Michigan Farmers 1
Purchasing Cooperative

Number in
Population

Managers

Number in
Sample

Percent of
Population

99

30

30.3

495*

30

6.1

(99)

(8 )

(25 .0 )

Other Officers

(198)

(2 )

(4.0)

Directors

(198)

(20 )

(71 .0 )

Board Members
Presidents

Farmer Members
Total

unknown

30

-

90

unknown
-

*Based on an average of five Board members per Cooperative Board.

Table I shows the relative representativeness of the sample.

The

cooperative managers' sample is most representative (30 .3 %), the board
members considerably less

(6.1%), and the fanner members' sample

representativeness unknown.
For each of the thirty cooperatives in the sample, the manager,
one member of the cooperative board, and one farmer member were per­
sonally interviewed.

These interviews were conducted by trained inter­

viewers who traveled to the cooperative office for the manager interview.

65
The board and farmer members were interviewed at their farms.

It took

an average of one and a half hours to complete the manager interview and
approximately one hour for the board member and three-quarters of an
hour for the farm member.

Of the ninety persons approached all

cooperated and submitted to interview.

The manager schedule was most

extensive because of the need to gather information about the business
operations of the cooperative.

Likewise, considerable information was

asked of both board and farmer members.

Pertinent Variables ana Hypotheses
As discussed in the theory chapters, it is assumed that there will
exist on the part of cooperative leaders a differential degree of com­
mitment to cooperative and/ox- business ideology anu that these commit­
ments will vary according to or be dependent upon demographic, attitudinal, and social characteristics of individuals and/or the structure,
size, and configuration of the social system (organization) in which
they operate.

In this regard then, the independent variable will be some

measurement or measurements of cooperative and business ideology.

The

problems of developing reliable and valid indexes of ideology will be
discussed in the Construction of Indexes
follow.

section of this chapter to

A discussion of the significant dependent variables follows.

Age:

Table II shows the ages of managers, board members, and

farmer members.

Managers' ages range from 30 to 69 , with 62 percent in the

dO -59 age group; board members range in ages from

hO to over 70, with 5$ p e r ­

cent in the hO-59 bracket; while farmer members show a greater age range

than managers and board members.

Their age range is from 20 to over 70 years

66

with only 48 percent in the 40-59 age bracket.

This shows, in gen­

eral, that board members are the oldest group, followed by managers,
and that the farmer member group is slightly younger but from a greater
age range.
The difference in age between board members and farmer members is
quite significant.

Table III shows this difference.

Farmer members

are significantly younger than board members.
TABLE II
PERCENT OF MANAGERS, BOARD MEMBERS, AND FARMER MEMBERS
BY AGE IN THE SAMPLE

Age Grouping

Managers

20-29
30-39
L0 -L-9
50-59

Board Members

-

7
21
38
10
21
3

-

21
31
31
17
-

60-69
70 or over

Fanner Members

-

3A
24
28
14

TABLE III
DIFFERENCE IN AGE BETWEEN BOARD MEMBER s
AND FARMER MEMBERS IN THE SAMPLE

Age

Board Members

Farmer Members

-t-9 years and less

3b<?o

66%

50 years and more

66%

3b%

Education:

Table IV shows the years of formal education attained

by the people in the sample.

The modal educational level for managers

is high school graduation; for board members, completion of the eighth
grade; and for farmer members there is an equal split between completion

67

of the eighth and twelfth grades.

This indicates that in the case of

the managers who are in this sample a younger group than board members
but older than the farmer members high school graduation appears to be
a selective factor.

The board members who are. the oldest group with the

least range in age have a modal educational level of the eighth grade.
The split in educational level among farmer members between eighth grade
and high school graduation is a reflection of the wider range of age
among that group.

Younger farmers have more education than do older ones.

(This may be because the younger people have had more opportunity to go
co school.) Taken together of those young people in the sample, 36 per­
cent fid not go to school.beyond the eighth grade and 1+5 percent did not
go beyond the twelfth grade.
TABLE IV
YEARS OF FORMAL EDUCATION OF MANAGERS, BOARD MEMBERS, AND
FARMER MEMBERS IN THE SAMPLE BY PERCENT

Years of Schooling

Managers

Board Members

Farmer Members

7

3

0

Eighth Grade

17

1+1*

38*

Less than High
School Graduation

17

21

21

High School Gradua­
tion

1+1*

2k

38*

Less than College
Graduation

10

10

3

7

0

0

Less than 8th Grade

College Graduation
*The modal group

68

Managers' Experience:

Fifty-five percent of the managers in the

sample were managers nine years or less, 21 percent were managers from

2k percent were managers twenty years or

ten to nineteen years, and
more.

Table V shows the number of years various managers have held

that position in relation to the size of their cooperatives.
Thirty-four percent of all managers in the sample were managers of
small cooperatives nine years or less, 14 percent
large cooperatives for twenty years or more.

were managers of

This shows that as the

size of the operation increases the more likely it is that the managers
will have longer tenure.
TABLE V
YEARS OF MANAGERIAL EXPERIENCE OF MANAGERS BY SIZE
OF OPERATION OF COOPERATIVES IN THE SAMPLE BY PERCENT

Years as. Manager

Small

3k

0 - 9
10 - 19
20 or more

0
7

Table VI shows that

Size of Operation
Medium

Large

10
7

10
1^
5

lk

k2.~ percent (twelve) of the cooperatives in

the sample gross less than one-half million dollars per year with two
of that group as low as $60,000.
small cooperatives.

These can be referred to as relatively

Twenty-five percent (eight) gross between five

hundred thousand and one million dollars per year.
cooperatives represent a fourth of the sample.

These medium-sized

The small operators

seem to be in areas of high competition or low farm potentials.

Thirty-

two percent (nine) of the cooperatives in the sample gross one million to
six million, $6 ,250 ,000 .00 , and of that group 7 percent (two) are in the

69
three to six million dollar bracket.

These large cooperatives are the

financially powerful organizations and represent a large share of the
business volume shown in the sample.
TABLE VI
SIZE AND NUMBER OF LOCAL COOPERATIVES BASED ON GROSS
ANNUAL SALES FOR i960, AS REPRESENTED IN SAMPLE

i960 Gross Annual Sales
Small Cooperatives
$ 000,000 - $ 249,000
250,000 4-99,999

Mid-point

Percent of
Cooperatives
in Sample

124,999
374,999

5
7

17.9
24.9

Medium Cooperatives
$ 500,000 - $ 749,999
750,000 999,999

624,999
874,999

4
3

14.3

Large Cooperatives
$1,000,000 - $1,249,999
1,250,000 - 1,499,999
1,500,000 - 1,749,999
1,750,000 - 1,999,999
2 ,000,000 - 2,249,999
2,250,000 - 2,449,999

$1,124,999
1,374,999
1,624,999
1,874,999
2,124,999
2,374,999

1
1
1
1
1
2

3.6
3.6
3.6
3*6
3.6
7.1

$3,250,000 - $6,249,999

$4,749,999

2

7.1

$1,098,213

28*

Mean

$

Number of
Cooperatives
in Sample

10.7

100.0

*Two managers did not report Gross Annual Sales for their cooperatives.

Totally, the twenty-eight cooperatives accounted for in the sample had
gross sales in i960 of $28,877,000.

Nine of the largest (32.2 percent) ac­

count for 73*0 percent of the total sales volume.

Assuming that this can be

expanded to the ninety-nine local cooperatives in the state, 32.0 percent of
them will do 73>0 percent of the total business annually.*
*See Verl R. W. Franz and A. 0. Haller, Big and Little Co-ops: Attitudes of
People in Locally Owned Cooperatives Toward Mergers with Large Cooperatives,
Final Report of Project of Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Michigan
State Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, Michigan, February, 1962,
for a more complete treatment of these significant dependent variables and
the-.r association with "willingness to merge" with larger cooperatives.

70

Independent Variables
The independent variables of concern as deduced from theory can be
viewed as dimensions of the general case of ideology.

Operationally,

according to Parsons, ideology can be characterized as:
1.

A system of beliefs held in commoh by the members of
a collectivity.

2.

Beliefs held by members which are deviant from the
main culture of the society.

5.

A system of ideas (beliefs) oriented to the evalua­
tive integration of the collectivity to the collectively
oriented goals and related to future events.
Some level of evaluative belief as an aspect of member­
ship.

5.

Subscription to a belief system on the part of members
as an essential part of the institutionalized role.

6.

An obligation on the part of the member to accept
the beliefs (tenets) of the collectivity as the
basis of action.

7.

The members (actors) must accept involvement in the
idea that the welfare of the collectivity hinges on
the implementation of the belief system.

8.

The actors (members) must feel that the welfare of
the group is bound up with maintenance of the belief
system and its implementations into action.

Therefore, the following general and specific hypotheses derived from
propositions are formulated and tested:

71

Proposition I;
Michigan Farmers' Purchasing Cooperatives can be viewed as a
part of the cooperative social movement; that this can be ascertained
by -Ihe presence of a well-defined cooperative ideology and that the
concomitant commitment to that ideology on the part of a significant
proportion of selected leaders and members is present.

General Hypothesis A :
A series of items can be constructed to represent a system of
beliefs about cooperatives and that these items, when endorsed by
members, are indicators of the latent variable of beliefs about co­
operatives; that each of these items is consistently related to the
latent variable (i.e., these items will scale or trace) and that
values on the latent continuum can be assigned to individuals or
groups on the basis of the endorsement of particular items; i.e.,
individuals or groups can be given a score from low to high dependent
upon their relative endorsement (commitment) to the beliefs repre­
sented by the items in the scale so endorsed.

Operational Hypotheses B :
It is hypothesized that within the overall cooperative ideology
there exists the following subsets of variables or indexes:
1.

The Competitive Yardstick Index:

This is an index of the

belief that cooperatives are a means to maximize profits and prices and
minimize expenses and costs for the farm operator.

72

QX
Item
No.

Matrix
No.

C-5

23

2k

C-7

26

C-13

C -^2

36

2.

Item

Endorsed
Response

f
Endorsed

$
Endorsed

If farmers didn't belong
to a cooperative, they
would not get a fair
price for the things they
produce.

agree

53

58.8

Cooperatives help to keep
down the number of middle­
men who make profits off
farmers.

agree

69

76.6

Cooperatives help keep
down the price of things
which the farmer must buy
to run his farm.

agree

78

86.6

Farmer cooperative members'
first consideration should
be in cutting out the
middleman's profits on the
things they must use.

agree

^5

50.0

The Anti-Big Business Index;

This is an index of the belief

that the goals of capitalism as represented by modern large business or­
ganizations are not compatible with the goals of cooperatives.

The co­

operative member consequently views his cooperative as a means to
counteract the dominance over and the control of farmers by big business,
QX
Item
No.
C-3

C-31

Matrix
Endorsed
No._______________ Item______________ Response
22

32

f
Endorsed

$
Endorsed

Without cooperatives a
few big businesses would
have too much control over
farmers.

agree

8l

90.0

In the long run coopera­
tives should become strong
enough to have dominant
control over business and
agriculture.

agree

23

25.6

73

QX
Item
No.

Matrix
No.

c-54

33

3.

Item
Most farmers think private
business can do the job
better than cooperatives.

The Pro-Business Index:

Endorsed
Response

f
Endorsed

Endorsed

disagree

45

84.4

This index measures the belief that a

business-like operation is most consistent with cooperative goals and
that cooperatives are effective only if they are run as a business.
Consequently, as farmer-owned businesses cooperatives1 can best fit the
needs of their1 owners.
QX
Item
No.

c-10

C-53

Matrix
No.
25

39

4.

Item
It is only through co­
operatives that farmers
can buy and sell in a
business-like manner.

Endorsed
Response

f
Endorsed

Endorsed

disagree

26

28.8

' 88

97-8

The only successful
farmer cooperative is
the one that is run
primarily in a business­
like way.

agree

1o

Index of Cooperatives as a Source of Political Power:

This

index tends to measure the belief that cooperatives' economic position
is dependent upon a solidified political power position and that the
goals of cooperatives can be met and farmers' interests protected byusing them to promote their political views.
QX
Item
Matrix
Endorsed
________ Response
No.______ No_.______________ Item______;
C-lo

27

Cooperatives help the
farmer to get the best
deal he can out of federal
government regulations.

agree

f
Endorsed

%
Endorsed

63

70-0

lb

QX
Item
No.

Matrix
No.

c-23

29

c-62

b3

5-

Item
The Farm Bureau would
be more effective if it
stayed out of politics.
People in cooperatives
should use them to pro­
mote their political
views.

Endorsed
Response

f
Endorsed

Endorsed

disagree

21

25-3

11

12.2

agree

Index of Cooperative Idealism: This index tends to measure the

the traditional beliefs about cooperatives.

These items encompass be­

liefs about mutual help, cooperative idealism, open membership, the im­
portance of belonging, democratic participation and altruism.

It

measures the traditional mutual aid and mutual help values as expressed
in the Rochdale principles.
'QX
Item
No.
C-20

C-26

C-27

C-35

Matrix
No.
28

30

31

3^

Item

Endorsed
Response

i
Endorsed

Endorsed

A cooperative is the
united action of a group
of people engaged in a
similar enterprise to
promote their mutual
interests.

agree

86

95-6

Cooperatives do more for
large farmers than for
small farmers.

disagree

79

87.7

It is the successful
farmer who patronizes
the cooperative more
than the farmer who is
having a hard time.

disagree

57

63 o

agree

kj

52.2

If a farmer really b e ­
lieves in individualism
he would not belong to a
cooperative.

75

QX
Item
No.

Matrix
No.

C-37

35

C-^5

37

C-kd

38

C -56

c-59

C-bO

1+1

k2

Item
The trouble with coopera­
tives today is that there
are not enough idealists
and liberals in the move­
ment.

Endorsed
Response

f
$
Endorsed Endorsed

agree

31

3i+.4

Membership in coopera­
tives should be open to
all farmers.

agree

87

96.6

Being a member of a co­
operative is more im­
portant than buying
products from the coopera­
tive for most farmers.

agree

2k

26.6

There is more democratic
participation in coopera­
tives now than there has
been in the past.

agree

59

65.5

To be a true cooperative
land should be owned co­
operatively.

agree

.10

11.1

79

87.7

For most farm members,
the cooperative is just
a matter of dollars and
cents.

disagree

Proposition II:
Under certain circumstances a significant proportion of selected Michigan
Farmers' Purchasing Cooperative leaders and members will be more highly com­
mitted to the American Business Ideology than to the Cooperative Ideology.
General Hypothesis A :
If a high commitment to the American Business Ideology is found it
would be theoretically and empirically more appropriate to analyze coopera­
tives within the framework of some theory of the firm.
Operational Hypotheses B:
It is hypothesized that within the general American Business Ideology
there exists the following subsets of latent variables or indexes;

76

1.

The Traditional Individualism Index:

This is an index which

measures the traditional values and beliefs that work and the job are in­
trinsically good, that the whole benefits if individuals are motivated
by self interest and the will to do one's best.
QX
Item
No.

Matrix
No.

1

B-l

2

B-b

k

B-l1*-

lk

B-41

2.

Item

Endorsed
Response

f
Endorsed

Endorsed

Everyone wants to do a
good job.

agree

69

76.7

Every worker should do
his best no matter whom
he may hurt in the process.

agree

59

65.5

The good of all will best
be served if each indi­
vidual pursues his selfinterest with little
interference.

agree

^7

52.2

17

18.8

The team is more im­
portant than the in­
dividual*

disagree

The Index of the Centrality of the Free Enterprise System to

the American Society:

This index measures the beliefs that American

business is the personification of the free: enterprise system.

It is

the central influence in economic social rewards and opportunity, and
that American business and the free enterprise economy are responsible
for America's greatness and success.
QX
Item
No.
B-ll

E-28

Matrix
No.
3

8

Item
Business creates equality
of opportunity and rewards.
A heavy tax on business
is bad for the country.

f
Endorsed

Endorsed

agree

83

90.0

agree

72

80.0

Endorsed
Response

77

QX
Item
No.

Matrix
No.

B-44

15

16

B -46

3.

Endorsed
Response

Item

f
Endorsed

Endorsed

1°

American business is
singly responsible for
our high standard of
living.

agree

46

51.1

The reason America is
great is because of its
unique economic system.

agree

85

d0.2

The Index of Individual Opportunity, Desire for Achievement,

Success, and Upward Mobility:

This index measures the belief that op-

portunity to get ahead is present if one accepts the moral duty to want
to get ahead, to work hard, and to succeed.

If one ;
accepts these tenets.

is competent, and works hard, he will be rewarded with success and upward mobility •
QX
Item
No.
B-17

B-21

B-30

B-36

B -38

B-50

Matrix
No.
5

6

9

11

12

17

Item

Endorsed
Response

f
Endorsed

Endorsed

1o

Everyone has equal oppor­
tunity to get ahead.

agree

72

80.0

Everyone has the moral
duty to try to make the
most of himself.

agree

87

96.7

The incompetent do not
succeed very often in
business.

agree

83

90.2

Those who work and have
ability will be rewarded
with success.

agree

79

85-5

The test of reward should
be one's ability to con­
tribute to the productive
purposes of the company.

agree

86

95-6

If a man fails it is his
own fault, and he should
be ashamed of himself.

agree

24

26.6

78

4.

The Index of the Definition of the Rigors and Demands of

Managerial Leadership:

This index measures the belief in the moral re­

quirement necessary to be a business leader.

It specifies that tension

is normal, contentment is elusive, that a manager must be sober, punctual,
and cheerful and that he must sacrifice his personal life for success,
for there is no legitimate excuse for failure.
QX
Item
No.
B-24

B-40

B-52

B-55

B-6 l

Item
7

13

18

19

21

Endorsed
Response

r'

f
Endorsed

Endorsed

A manager in business
should have no excuse
for failure.

agree

35

38.8

The tensions of business
are normal and should be
accepted.

agree

84

93-3

If workers are contented
the supervisor is not
doing his job.

agree

7

2.2

A manager in business
should have the virtues
of sobriety, punctuality,
discipline, avoidance of
waste, and cheerfulness.

agree

88

97.8

In business a manager
should be willing to
sacrifice all leisure
and private life.

agree

7

9.8

Proposition III:
Under certain circumstances a significant proportion of selected
Michigan Farmers' Purchasing Cooperative leaders and members will ex­
hibit a general belief that cooperatives are alienated by choice and
necessity from the main stream of the general economy and society.and

79
that these beliefs exhibit a feeling of powerlessness, normlessness, and
social isolation from the society and economy.
General Hypothesis A:
If a high incidence of alienation

is found it would be theoretical­

ly and empirically more appropriate to analyze cooperative members
within the framework of alienation theory.
Operational Hypotheses B:

«

It is hypothesized that within the general framework of coopera­
tive members' alienation there exist

the following subsets of latent

variables or indexes:
1.

Index of Cooperative, Economic, and Occupational Normlessness:

This index measures a lack of normative prescription in interpersonal
relations between the role sets of manager, board member, and farmer
member; that the job of cooperative leader as well as cooperation in
general is not clarified, defined, or stable to the role incumbant or
external actors with whom they must interact.

QX
Item
No.
N-2

Matrix
Endorsed
No._______________ Item______________ Response

f
Endorsed

$>
Endorsed

Sometimes I feel that the
Board tries to block
everything I try to do. *
Sometimes I feel that the
manager tries to block
everything we try to do.**
Sometimes I feel that the
board and manager try to
block everything the mem­
bers want to do.***

agree

5

5-6

QX
Item
No.

Matrix
No.

N-29

^5

Item

Endorsed
Response

°jo

f
Endorsed

Endorsed

agree

53

58-9

agree

14

15-6

When a number of sup­
pliers all present dif­
ferent technical
specifications for
their products I some­
times don't know what
to buy. *
When a number of sup­
pliers all present dif­
ferent
technical
specifications for
their products, the
board sometimes doesn't
know what to buy.**
When a number of sup­
pliers all present dif­
ferent
technical
specifications for
their products farmers
sometimes don't know
what to buy.***

N-39

^-6 $ Sometimes in this job,
it gets so you can't
trust anyone. *
Sometimes in this job,
as board member, it gets
so you can't trust any­
one .**
Sometimes in farming,
it gets so you can't
trust anyone.***

^1-^+3

^7

Sometimes I feel that
this is a "dead end"
job without a future. *
Sometimes I feel that
cooperatives are a "dead
end" operation without
a future.**

8i

QX
Item
Matrix
Endorsed
No.______ No.______________ Item______________ Response
Sometimes I feel that
farming is a "dead end"
operation without a
future.***
N-^7

N-5^

^8

^9

Sometimes I really
don't know what co­
operatives are trying
to accomplish.

f
Endorsed

$
Endorsed

agree

12

13*3

agree

23

25.6

agree

37

4l.l

Many times this job gets
so confusing and demand­
ing that I wonder where
I'm at. *
Many times this job on
the board gets so con­
fusing and demanding
that I wonder where I'm
a t .**
Many times farming gets
so confusing and demand­
ing that I wonder where
I'm at.***

*Asked of Managers only.
**Asked of Board Members only.
***Asked of Farmer Members only.
2.

Index of Powerlessness Over Economic Transactions;

This index

measures the general feeling of powerlessness over the largeness of
economic organizations,

the complexity of the economy, the unpredict-

aoility of fluctuations in supply, demand, and prices, and the helpless­
ness of cooperatives when they must do business with city people, large
suppliers, and producers.

82
QX
Item
No.
P -8

P-12

P-15

Matrix
No.
50

51

52

Item

P-49

53

54

Endorsed

Endorsed

I get the impression that
big city people with whom
we do business try to take
unfair advantage of us* **
I get the impression that
big city people with whom
the cooperative does busi­
ness try to take advantage
of it.***

agree

31

54.4

The present-day economy
is so big and complex
that local businesses
like this cooperative
don't have a place any
more.

agree

85

94.4

disagree

4l

45.6

When you deal with sup­
pliers would you say that
you usually are in a
position to deal on your
terms. *
When your cooperative
deals with suppliers
would you say that it
usually is in a position
to deal on its own terms.
** ***

P-32

Endorsed
Response

The bigger a supplier
gets the more we are at
his mercy.* **
The bigger a supplier
gets the more the
farmer is at his mercy.
***

agree

49

54.4

Sometimes it gets almost
impossible to follow the
fluctuations in supply,
demand, and prices.

agree

66

75.3

83

QX
Item
No.

Matrix
No.
55

P-51

P-58

56

3-

Item
In the long run a co­
operative manager doesn't
have much to say about
his operation.
The big producers can
pretty well control the
supply and distribution
of products.

Endorsed
Response

f
Endorsed

<f>
Endorsed

agree

9

10.0

agree

58

64.4

Index of Isolation from Social Interaction in the Community:

This index measures the feeling of social deviance on the part of cooperative leaders.

Items deal with the feeling of being rejected by

the community, by friends, and by outsiders.

One item is addressed to

the feeling of isolation from non-cooperative job opportunities on the
part of managers.

QX
Item
No.

Matrix
No.

s-4

57

S-9

S-l8

58

59

Item
I participate in many
community activities.
I have very few really
close friends in this
community.

Endorsed
Response

f
Endorsed

$
Endorsed

disagree

27

30.0

agree.

14

15.6

agree

58

64.4

The job which would be
the best promotion for
me would be to become a
branch manager for some
larger company. *
The job which would be
the best promotion for a
cooperative manager would
be to become a branch
manager for some larger
company.** ***

8b

QX
Item
No.

Matrix
No.

S-19

60

Endorsed
Response

Item
Most of the time the
supplier representa­
tives who call on me
d o n 't give a darn about
me as a person; all they
are after is a sale. *
Most of the time the
supplier representa­
tives who call on our
cooperative don't give
a darn about us as
people; all they are
after is a sale.** ***

S-22

3-25

6l

62

f
<f>
Endorsed Endorsed

agree

22

2b.b

I am not very well
accepted in this com­
munity.** ***

agree

7

7.8

I would like to live
in most any other com­
munity than this one.

agree

5

5.6

When my family and I
moved to this community
it took a long time b e ­
fore people accepted
us. *

Test of Hypotheses
The test of the operational hypotheses (outlined above) can be
accomplished by establishing some measure of internal consistency within
the items which were thought to make up a series of subsets of variables
within the general case of an ideology.

That is, the hypothesis will

ootain if after utilizing some technique of item analysis it can be es­
tablished that the items so hypothesized are reliable indicators of the
latent variable of beliefs about specific aspects of cooperatives,

85

business, and society.

To test this hypothesis the item analysis tech­

nique of Trace Line Analysis was used.
Copp presents Trace Line Analysis as an extension of Lazarsfeld's con­
cept of latent structure. A trace line is a curve resulting when the per­
centages of subjects endorsing an item at different points on the latent
variable continuum are plotted.

In Trace Line Analysis the presumption

is that the proportion of subjects endorsing an item will monotonically
increase as the strength of the latent variable increases if the item is a
consistent indicator of the latent variable.

Thus, when items monotonically

related to the latent continuum are combined in a scale,the number of
items endorsed is taken as an indication of the subject's position on the
latent variable continuum.

This scheme of measurement is based on prob­

ability rather than on the summation of standard units of measurement.
As the number of items in a scale increases,

the precision with which a

subject can be located on the latent continuum increases.
scale is ordinal in nature.^

The resulting

This method was used because it represents

the most rigorous criterion for item analysis.

Twenty-two items were

anticipated to measure five subsets or underlying continuum of cooperative
ideology.

Cooperative Ideology
Proposition I:
Michigan Farmers ' Purchasing Cooperatives can be viewed as a part
if' the cooperative social movement; that this can be ascertained by the

7
'James H. Copp, Trace Line Analysis, An Improved Method of Item
Analysis (unpublished. Department of Rural Sociology, Pennsylvanis State
University, February 9, 1959), PP» 19,

86
presence of a well defined cooperative ideology and that the concomitant
commitment to that ideology on the part of a significant proportion of
selected leaders and members is present.
General Hypothesis A :
A series of items can be constructed to represent a system of
beliefs about cooperatives and that these items, when endorsed by members,
are indicators of the latent variable of beliefs arout cooperatives; that
each of these items is consistently related to the latent variable (i.e.,
these items will scale or trace) and that values on the latent continuum
can be assigned to individuals or groups on the basis of the endorse­
ment uf particular items; that is, individuals or groups can be given a
score from low to high dependent upon their relative endorsement
(commitment) to the beliefs represented by the items in the scale so
endorsed.
Operational Hypotheses B ;
It is hypothesized that within the overall cooperative ideology
there exists the following subsets of variables or indexes:
1.

The Competitive Yardstick Index consisting of items C-5, C-T?

C-15, and C-42.
2.
C-3^.

(See Appendix B)

The Anti-Big Business Index consisting of items C-3> C-31, and
(See Appendix C)

3.

The Pro-Business Index consisting of items C-10, C-35> and C-53*

(See Appendix D)
The Index of Cooperatives as a Source of Political Power con­
sisting of items C-l6 , C-23, and C-62.

(See Appendix E)

87
5.

The Index of Cooperative Idealism consisting of items C-20,

C-2o, C-27, C-35, C-37, C-*+5» C-*4-8, C-5&, C-59, and C-60 (See Appendix F)
All five subsets were subjected to Trace Line Analysis and were
found not to trace.

Therefore, Hypothesis I, B, 1-5 did not obtain.

Based on this evidence and within the frame of reference of these items,
no valid latent variables of beliefs about cooperatives were constructed.
It was felt at this point that either no valid measure of cooperative
ideology existed or that instead of the five sub-indexes the twenty-two
o
items may be measuring a general Popular Cooperative Ideology.

When

the items with low marginals (less than 10$ and more than 90$ endorsed;
were discarded, the remainder were tested for the Popular Cooperative
Ideology; they were found not to trace.

It was then felt that some of

the items may have traced in different fashions; namely, an Index of
Orientation Toward Economic Democracy and Cooperatives made up of Items
55, 37, *t-8 , 56 , 50, 2o, and 27 may exist.

(See Appendix F)

analyzed, they were also found not to trace.

After being

Likewise,'what we thought

may be an index of Favorability Toward Economic Goals of Cooperative,
including items 13 , 3*4-, 7 , and 5 , was found not to trace, with the
possible exception of item 13 .

(See Appendix G)

The.other index,

which was called the Index of.Orientation Toward Economic Democracy,
made up of items -26 , 27 , 56 , and 60 , was also found to be inadequate to
meet the Trace Line Analysis criteria.

(See Appendix H)

American Business Ideology
Nineteen items were anticipated to measure four subsets or underlying
eontinua of American Business Ideology.
Q
The author is indebted to Professor Copp of Pennsylvania State
University for his insight and encouragement in establishing this formulation.

88

Proposition II:

Under certain circumstances a significant proportion of selected
Michigan Farmers' Purchasing Cooperative leaders and members will be more
highly committed to the American Business Ideology than to the Coopera­
tive Ideology.
General Hypothesis A ;
If a high commitment to the American Business Ideology is found, it
would be theoretically and empirically more appropriate to analyze co­
operatives within the framework of some theory of the firm:
Operational Hypotheses B:
It is hypothesized that within the general American Business Ideology
there exist
1.

four subsets of latent variables or indexes:

The Traditional Individualism Index consisting of items B-l,

3-6, B-l4, and B-4l.
2.

(See Appendix I)

The Index of the Centrality of the Free Enterprise System to

the American Society consisting of items B-ll, B-28, B-^4, and B -k6.
(See Appendix j)
3.

The Index of Individual Opportunity, Desire for Achievement,

Success, and Upward Mobility consisting of items B-1T> B-21, B-30> B-3&,
B-33, and B-50.
J+.

(See Appendix K)

The Index of the Definition of the Rigors and Demands of

Leadership consisting of items B-2^, B-^0, B-52, B-55> and B-6 l.

(See

Appendix L)
Each of these subsets were item analyzed using the Trace Line
Analysis.

After the Trace Line Analysis had been completed for all of

89

the sub-indexes, it was found that none of the items traced satisfactorily.
This led to the belief that there may be within all nineteen items a gen­
eral Free Enterprise Creed latent variable. . After rejecting all items
whose marginals did not represent at least 10 percent or exceeded 90
percent endorsement there remained eight items.

These included items 1,

6 . lb, 17, 2k, 28, 36, and bb, the Free Enterprise Creed A.
Appendix M)
lb, 17,

A second trace line analysis was performed on items 1, 6 ,

2k, 38, bb, and 50 and was

(See Appendix N)
1. lb. 17,

(See

labeled Free Enterprise Creed B.

The final Trace Line Analysis was computed on items

2k, and 50*

(See Appendix 0)

At this point it was felt tnat

these items were tending to measure an Index of Individualism.

It was

found, however, that none of these items gave a true trace line and
hence did not constitute a scale.
With these findings in mind it was decided to subject all items to
a less stringent mode of analysis; therefore, the traditional item
analysis was used where one point was arbitrarily given for each item
endorsed and each item was tested for its power to discriminate the highlow dichotomy of the array of total crude scores.
of independence was employed.

The Chi squared test

From the business ideology items it was

found that four items were discriminatory--items 1 , lb, 17, and 50 .
They were all significant at the .01 level or greater. This index appeared
to be measuring the underlying variable of Moralistic Individualism.
Of the twenty-two cooperative ideology items analyzed with this
method it was found that only three items discriminated on the high-low
iichotoray of the array of crude scores and these were C-5> 0-7, and C-13*

90

It was felt that this index was measuring an underlying variable of
Economic Control Over Costs and Prices and was not associated with any
of the more idealistic elements of cooperative ideologies.

In an effort

to test this proposition further, the Index of Economic Control Over
Costs and Prices was correlated with independent characteristics of the
cooperative leaders.

No significant relationships were found.

Likewise, the business ideology index of Moralistic Individualism was
correlated with other cooperative variables.

No significant relationships

were found.
Proposition III;
Under certain circumstances a significant proportion of selected
Michigan Farmers' Purchasing Cooperative leaders and members will exhibit
a general belief that cooperatives are alienated by choice and necessity
from the main stream of the general economy and society, that these
beliefs exhibit a feeling of powerlessness, normlessness, and social
isolation from the society and economy.

Proposition III was used to

generate the General Hypothesis III A and the Operational Hypothesis III B.
General Hypothesis A ;
If a high incidence of alienation is found it would be theoretically
and empirically more appropriate to analyze cooperative members within the
framework of alienation theory.
Operational Hypotheses B:
It is hypothesized that within
members' alienation there exist
indexes.

the general framework of cooperative

three subsets of latent variables or

91
1.

Index of Cooperative, Economic, and Occupational Normlessness

consisting of items N-2, N-29, N-39>

N-^7} and N-5^*

(See Appendix

P)
2.

Index of Powerlessness Over Economic Transactions consisting of

items P-15> P-32, P-^9j and P-58 .

(items P-8 , P-12, and P -51 were not

included because of low and/or high marginals.)

3.

See Appendices Q and R)

Index of Isolation from Social Interaction in the Community

consisting of items

S-b, S-9, S-22, and S-25*

(See Appendix S)

These subsets were subjected to the Trace Line Analysis in various
combinations.

No valid latent trace lines could be ascertained.

Therefore, it was concluded, based on these items, subsets, and
instruments used, and using the Trace Line Analysis method to test the
validity of these instruments, that the hypotheses that were generated
from Propositions I, II, and III could not be upheld.

As such it can

be concluded that:
1.

Michigan Farmers' Purchasing Cooperatives cannot be viewed as a

part of the cooperative social movement because a well defined coopera­
tive ideology is not present among a significant proportion of selected
leaders and members.
2.

A significant proportion of selected Michigan Farmers' Purchasing

Cooperative leaders

and members are not committed to the American

Business Ideology and that the analysis of cooperatives, within the
framework of some rational theory of the firm, would be more theoretically
and empirically appropriate.
3-

A significant proportion of selected Michigan Farmers' Pur­

chasing Cooperative leaders and members do not exhibit a general belief

92

that cooperatives are alienated by choice and necessity from the main
stream of the general economy and society and that beliefs of powerless­
ness, normlessness, and social isolation from the society and the economy
do not exist significantly.
In short, on the face of it, it appears that the complex formulation
of hypotheses taken from the theories of social movements, ideology,
sociology of knowledge, and values cannot be tested by these data.
But scientific

inquiry is not for the faint of heart.

Assuming

that the author understood the theory, contrived a reasonably valid in­
strument, and utilized reasonable precision and diligence in all aspects
of the scientific process, the alternative question arises--what explana­
tion can be forwarded to account for results contrary to established theory?

Reformulation of Hypotheses Through Factor Analysis
Cattell pointed out that the scientific method deals with four
kinds of order:

(l) constant association of properties;

(2 ) an invariable

sequence; (3) numerical relations; and (4) relations among constructs,
i.e., order among theoretical entities abstracted (inferred) from observed
phenomena.9

He states that historically when scientists have attempted

to establish one of the four types of order the law that had been ex­
pected to be found may have been stated before the observation of events
in some cases, while in others the observations were made first and a
law was sought to fit them later.

He views the latter (i.e., the observa­

tion of orderly covariation) as an ideal compromise between the two, for
9
'Raymond B. Cattell, Factor Analysis: An Introduction and Manual for
the Psychologist and Social Scientist. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1952 ,
p.

12.

93

then the observed covariation may lead to many possible hypotheses.

11^

Cattell presents factor analysis as a technique useful to the
study of covariation as it occurs naturally.

As such, when using factor

analysis, it is not necessary, but it is sufficient to hypothesize that
some structure lies in the observations and that the technique will
demonstrate how certain variables can be viewed together because they
behave, statistically,

in the same way.

That is, factor analysis helps

to delineate new, independent, underlying factors which account for
their grouping together.^

In this sense, Cattell's factor analysis

can be regarded as "factor synthesis," or at least variable synthesis,
for although it analyzes out the distinct factors at work among the
variables, it also groups the variables together in ways which permit
one to synthesize new entities.

12

These new entities considered as

variables can be used as "hypothetical causes,

intervening constructs,

or independent influences."^
Since all of the hypotheses generated from theory about coopera­
tives, business, and cooperative alienation did not obtain, it seems
logical to follow Cattell's advice that in their absence it is sufficient
to hypothesize that some structure lies in the observations taken from
farmer members and leaders in Michigan Purchasing Cooperatives.
Formally then, a factor analysis of the sixty-two items of concern in
this thesis could yield a delineation of the pertinent factors or
variables within the item response universe.
factored.

iQpbid., p. 13-

11Ibid., pp. lh-15.
12Ibid., p. 15 .

To this end the data were

9b

The data were factored using the Michigan State University Computer
Laboratory FANOD 1 Factor Analysis Program for the CDC 36OO.

The output

of this program includes eigenvalues, the Varimax factor loadings, the
proportion of the total variable represented by each rotated factor, the
"observed communality" of each test (the proportion of variance of each
test accounted for by the factors), the means, standard deviations, and
the correlation m a t r i x . ^

(For correlation matrix, see Appendix A)

The Kiel-Wrigley criterion for number of factors to be rotated was
not used.

In view of the small N of 90, the trace line results, and

the large number of variables (6 2 ), the number of factors to be rotated
was arbitrarily fixed at t h r e e . ^

Following are the three principal

factors evident after the Varimax rotation.
If it is sufficient to hypothesize that some value structure lies
in the observations (items responded to by Michigan Farmers Purchasing
Cooperative members and leaders), the factors resulting from the
Varimax solution could help to delineate new, independent, underlying
variables.

In short, if a new underlying structure of values is dis­

covered, new concepts can be formulated as hypothetical causes, inter­
vening constructs, or independent influences.
Figure 1 shows the first factor which resulted from the Varimax
rotation.

The items in Factor 1 are reproduced showing their question­

naire and matrix identification (see Appendix A), as well as their
factor loadings.

Because of the large number of items in the matrix

and because of the small percent of variance

(6<f>) accounted for by

lb
Michigan State University Computer Laboratory, MSC, East Lansing,
Michigan, CISSR Program, Description 1, October 7> 1963* P* 1- See also
Harry H. Harman, Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, i960 .

15Ibid., p. 3 .

95

Figure 1.

Qx
Item
No.
C-27

P- 8

C-31

C-62

C- 5

B-52

3-19

P- 32

Factor I

(6/0 of Variance of 62 x 62 Matrix)

Matrix
No.________________ Item________________
31

50

32

43

23

l8

60

53

Factor
Loading

It is the successful farmer
who patronizes the coopera­
tive more than the farmer who
is having a hard time.

•55

I get the impression that big
city people with whom we do
business try to take unfair
advantage of us.

.^7

In the long run cooperatives
should become strong enough to
have dominant control over busi­
ness and agriculture.

•^5

People in cooperatives should
use them to promote their
political views.

•95

If farmers didn't belong to a
cooperative, they would not
get a fair price for the things
they produce.

•^3

If workers are contented the
supervisor is not doing his
job.

•^3

Most of the time the supplier
representatives who call on me
d o n 't give a darn about me as a
person; all they are after is a
sale.

.h2

The bigger a supplier gets the
more we are at his mercy.

.hi

96

each of the three factors only those items with a factor loading of .40
or greater were viewed as significant items in the factor.

This also

eliminated doublets except in the case of C-5 in Factors I and III and
B-4l in Factors II and III.
When the items in Factor I are examined it can be discerned that
they represent such diverse values as type of farmers who patronize co­
operatives, anti-big-city-people impressions, cooperative dominance over
business and agriculture, promotion of political views through coopera­
tives, membership to get fair prices, worker-supervisor relations, and
fear of being controlled by large suppliers.

As such it is difficult

to conceptualize or identify a unified theme which runs through these
items.

It appears to be impossible to attach an identifying name to

this cluster of

items in any meaningful way.

Therefore, Factor I does

not seem to identify an underlying structure; i.e., there seems to be
no logic as to why the subjects' responses to these items are interrelated.
The items which occur in Factor II (see Figure 2) do not reflect gen­
erally a business value structure.

They do reflect, at best, what could be

called a moralistic achievement orientation.
only

But since Factor II accounts for

6$ of the variance of the matrix it is doubtful whether this factor

represents an identifiable structure of values.
Figure 3 shows that the items which goto make up Factor III, with
the' exception of item B-4l, seem to be structuring values about the
economic necessity of farmer cooperatives.

The value expressed does not

appear to be stronger or more complex than the need to belong to a trade
association may be.

It certainly does not appear to reflect a strong

ideological base about cooperatives.

97

Figure 2.

Qk
Item
No.
B-38

B-17

B-21

Factor II

(6 $ of Variance of 62 x 62 Matrix)

Matrix
Factor
_______________ Item______________ •_______ Loading
12

5

6

The test of reward should he
one's ability to contribute
to the productive purposes of
the company.

.66

Everyone has equal opportunity
to get ahead.

.59

Everyone has the moral duty to
try to make the most of himself.

.4-5

B- 1

1

Everyone wants to do a good job.

.43

£-41

14-

The team is more important than
the individual.

.4-2

3-25

B-50

B-4-0

62

17

13

I would like to live in most any
other community than this one.

-.4-2

If a man fails, it is hi.s own
fault, and he should be ashamed
of himself.

.4-1

The tensions of business are
normal and should
beaccepted.

■

.4-0

98

Figure 3-

Factor III

(6 $ of Variance of 62 x 62 Matrix)

Qx
Item
No.

C- 7

C- 3

C-54

0-13

C-26

C- 5

B 41

Matrix
Fact o r
No. __________________ Item____________________L o ading

24

22

33

26

30

23

14

Cooperatives help to keep down
the number of middlemen who
make profits off of farmers.

.64

Without cooperatives a few big
businesses would have too much
control over farmers.

.58

Most farmers think private
business can do the job better
than cooperatives.

-.54

Cooperatives help keep down the
price of things which the farmer
must buy to run his farm.

.50

Cooperatives do more for large
farmers than for small farmers.

-.48

If farmers didn't belong to a
cooperative, they would not
get a fair price for the things
they produce.

.45

The team is more important than
the individual.

.40

Figure 4 shows the items which have communalities (h^) greater than
.31.

These are the variables with the largett amount of variances shared

with other variables.

They are, therefore, the most reliable, valid,

and discriminating items in the 62 x 62 matrix.
except one occur in Factors II and III.
primary Factor I.

All of these items

Only C-27 occurs in the

99

Figure

k.

Qx
Item
No.

Matrix
No._________________ Item___________________

B-17

B-38

B-^l

B-50

C-3

C-5

C-7

C-13

C-26

C -27

Variables With Communalities (h^) Greater Than .30

5

12

Ik

17

22

23

2k

26

30

31

Everyone has equal opportunity to
get ahead.
The test of reward should be one's
ability to contribute to the pro­
ductive purposes of the company.
The team is more important than
the individual
If a nian fails, it is his own
fault and he should be ashamed of
himself.

Factor
II

II

III

II

Without cooperatives, a few big
businesses would have too much
control over fanners.

III

If farmers didn't belong to a co­
operative, they would not get a
fair price for the things they
produce.

III

Cooperatives help to keep down
the number of middlemen who make
profits off of farmers.

III

Cooperatives help keep down the
prices of things which the farmer
must buy to run his farm.

III

Cooperatives do more for large
farmers than for small farmers.

III

It is the successful farmer who
patronizes the cooperative more
than the farmer who is having a
hard time.

I

100

In summary, therefore,

the factor analysis of these data does not

clearly demonstrate or delineate new, independent, underlying relation­
ships.

As such, the factor structure does not permit one to assume

that there is a factor snythesis which groups the variables together
in ways which permit the postulation of new entities.

In short, there

are no new entities which can be considered as hypothetical causes,
intervening constructs, or independent influences.
In summary, it can be concluded that:
1.

Traditional theory has not in this case provided adequate

hypotheses to establish contemporary Michigan Purchasing Cooperatives
as a defineable social movement because no discernible and/or significant
cooperative ideology exists.
2.

No discernible and/or significant business ideology can be

found; consequently,

it would be difficult to conclude that Michigan

Purchasing Cooperatives are typically business-like.
3.

Finally, as the factorial study shows, there ip no evidence to

indicate than, based on sixty-two value items, there exists an un­
anticipated underlying value structure held by members and leaders of
contemporary Michigan Purchasing Cooperatives.
In conclusion, therefore,
pretations are possible.

it can be stated that the following inter­

Using contemporary Michigan Purchasing Coopera­

tives as a case in point:
1.

It is likely that American Farmers' Cooperatives are not in fact

true cooperatives because a discernible, significant ideology does not
exist.

101

3.

Cooperatives need not be studied any differently than any other

social-economic social system.

k.

It would probably be more fruitful to study farmer organiza­

tions apart and separate from farmer cooperatives.
5.

Historically, sociologists, psychologists, economists, and

historians have written about and interpreted Farmers' Cooperatives
within the framework of social movement theory.

One characteristic that

identifies a social phenomenon as a social movement is its well-defined
cooperative ideology.

The results of this study indicate that it is

difficult, if not impossible, to establish the fact that a well-defined
cooperative ideology exists among selected leaders of the Michigan
Farmers Purchasing Cooperative.

Therefore, using the social movement

model to study Farmers' Cooperatives is at best tentative and specula­
tive.
(Note:

A score was computed for each respondent in terms of each

of the three factors involved (see Factor I, page 95; Factor'll, page 97;
and Factor III, page 98)-

The scores were cross tabulated with a sequence

of variables such as age, father's occupation, education, length of time
with present cooperative, size, sales, profit of cooperative, attitude
toward manager's job, choice of type of supplier, composition of the
board, attitude toward merger, size and type of farm, brand of products
used, and favorable attitude toward own cooperative.

The three factors

constituted the independent variables for the purpose of this study (see
page 65 ).
ships.

The Chi squared test of association was used to test relation­

In all cases, the

values did not approach a reasonable degree

of significance to warrant a non-chance interpretation.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Historically, cooperatives have been regarded as a grass-roots
movement to rectify the wrongs suffered by consumers and/or industrial
workers by an "evil" capitalistic system.

As such the cooperative

movement in its early stages was a response to the results of indus­
trialization and urbanization.

Cooperatives which developed in the

rural sector of western culture were a response to the serf-like status
of the agrarian, in relation to the emerging industrial worker.

In any

event cooperatives had their origin in Europe, especially in England,
as a response to the abuses of capitalism and its factory system.

These

abuses included sweatshop working conditions, uprooting, dismal under­
payment for labor and child-labor practices.
The fundamental ideology, if one existed, was built around the
value system which said that man need not be the victim of the economic
system which abused employees as a material aspect of the means of
production.

The hope was that man could, through cooperative, peace­

ful, and evolutionary processes, become part owner in the mode of
production, and develop an economic system which guaranteed managerial
democracy, broad-based equalitarian ownership, and utopian distribution
of the fruits of his labor.

This last element of the ideology,

"utopia

now," seems to have had the greatest appeal for the followers of "co­
operative movements."

Utopianism was indeed the underpinning of the

historical approach to the cooperatives and the "Cooperative Movement."
As the migration of industrial workers followed East-to*-V/est,

102

and as European and British people began to migrate to Canada and the
United States

the cooperative idea naturally migrated with them, and

diffused.

an example, the

As

Robert Owen Utopian Communities of 1799

in England and the Charles Fourier Community of 18A 3 became the Rappite
Community in New Harmony, Indiana, the Northern American Phalanx in
Red Bank, New

Jersey, and the

Brook Farm Society in New England.

Out of the utopian community ideal there tended to develop the
fundamentally anti-capitalism and pro-Fabian socialistic school of
thought.

Except for isolated farmers cooperatives, such as the

Connecticut River Valley Farmers Marketing Cooperative in 180A and the
first associated dairy cooperative in New York in 1851, the cooperative
movement idea remained primarily one of anti-capitalism, especially in
Canada.

This fact is demonstrated in the cooperative commonwealth

school in Canada which persists even today in the Province of Saskatchewan
and remains relatively influential.
The diffusion of the cooperative idea, then, came'from Europe via
the utopian community tradition, through Canada, and ultimately diffused
to the United States.

With the exception of farmers' marketing and producer

associations, the primary interest of the cooperative idea in the United
States became rural.

Historically, the rurality of the cooperative ideal

seemed to have been powerful enough to influence most rural sociologists'
treatment of farmers' cooperatives.

One gets the impression that rural

sociologists tend to neglect the historical diffusion of the cooperative
idea and view it almost completely as a North American phenomenon.
At best, the history of thought about farmers' cooperatives in the
United States switched from an anti-capitalism point of view to one of

104

economic self-dependence for farmers caught in the price-squeeze which
exaggerated the difference between what they needed to run their farm
enterprise and the price they got for their produce.

The reality of

this situation seems to be greatly neglected by most sociologists.
Until the early twenties the farm enterprise in the United States was
very much a subsistence-type enterprise; consequently, the marketing
cooperative became an effort on the part of farmers to create a countermonopoly against the wholesaler and the retailer.

The efforts of farmers'

cooperatives were toward the: competitive yardstick ideal.

This school

of thought attempted to keep the capitalist honest and was in reality an
effort to monopolize, or at least to control, the production of food
stuff which would guarantee fair prices for their produce.

To demonstrate

the legitimacy of the farmers cooperative activities after 1952 the New
Deal made as a part of its total program the encouragement of farmers'
cooperatives of all types and in a sense legalized and legitimized the
cooperative enterprise.

At best, farmers' cooperatives then became a

New Deal type business operation.
It was not until after World War II that the Farm Bureau became ex­
tremely anti-New Deal, anti-government, and pro-capitalistic.

At

present, the sympathies and/or "ideologies" of modern farmers' coopera­
tives are more in accord with the business, capitalism, and free enter­
prise philosophies and less with the traditional anti-capitalism ideals
which generated the Rochdale principles.
In summary, based on a search of the historical and sociological
literature on farmers' cooperatives, we can conclude that it is not sur­
prising that we should be concerned about the theoretical frame-of

105

reference used in studies of modern cooperatives.

Also it is not sur­

prising that we should be concerned with the legitimacy of approaching
the study of modern cooperatives from a social movement point of view.
In the scientific community, it is not enough to say that what
scholars in the past have done does not seem reasonable.

Instead it

behooves the social scientist tc test these hypotheses in the arena of
the empirical phenonenon.

To do this, we must first be aware of what

has gone before and how our intellectual forefathers came to believe as
they did.

In the course of this study it became necessary to approach

the problem from where it had been approached by many of the giants in
the field.

This obviously leads to the study of social movement theory,

and since in this thesis we were concerned primarily with testing the
proposition that we can study farmers' purchasing cooperatives as a
social movement we needed to isolate social movements definitionally.
'.•/hen reviewing the literature it became obvious that one of the common
«

prerequisites for classifying a phenomenon as a social movement was
the presence of a well-defined ideology.
Since it is very difficult, if not impossible, to operationalize
the concept of ideology, it was necessary to look to the theory of
ideology for possible guidance to operationalization of that concept.
In reviewing the literature on ideology it soon became apparent that
much of it dealt with the notion of how man comes to know his environ­
ment.

Obviously this required that the literature on the sociology of

knowledge be perused in order to deal with the problem of knowing and
believing as a function of an ideological base.

This phase might be

called the sociology of the knowledge of ideologies, i.e., how do

106

collectivities tend to know, embrace, and believe certain things about
the relationship between themselves and the external world.

King,

Parsons, and others have helped to make this transposition from the
knowledge and ideology theoretical sphere to one of values and/or be­
liefs.
Consequently, it was felt that it was legitimate to assess the ab­
sence or presence of a cooperative ideology based on the operationaliza­
tion of empirical items which would tend to measure the values which
participants place on various aspects and ideas in relationship to
membership in the cooperative society as well as in society in general.
Data were gathered on a sample of managers, board members, and
members of Michigan Purchasing Cooperatives who were asked to respond
to a variety of statements hypothesized to measure relative commitment
to the ideologies and/or values and beliefs represented by these em­
pirical items.

As was pointed out and presented in Chapter IV, keeping

in mind the limitations of the sixty-two items, the limitations of the
sample, and the limitations of a variety of statistical techniques used
to analyze the data, the following conclusions were made.
(1)

As far as we know there does not seem to exist at this
time among the leaders and members of Michigan Pur­
chasing Cooperatives a well-defined ideology about
cooperatives as a social movement or as a discreet
belief pattern which would differentiate farmers'
purchasing cooperatives from any other k:ind of
socio-economic enterprise.

(2)

As far as we know, based on this study, we cannot

state that leaders of Michigan Farmers' Purchasing
Cooperatives hold a strong belief in what has been con­
sidered by sociologists and business researchers to be
a strong traditional business belief system.
(3)

As far as we know, based on this study, we cannot
say that the leaders of Michigan Purchasing Co­
operatives have any degree of isolation and dis­
sonance which would separate them from the general
population.

That they do not feel any more isolated

or alienated from the society as a whole than other
members of the population of comparable nature.
(4)

Based on our study, we can conclude that the theory
of social movements does not seem to be an adequate
and/or appropriate frame of reference for the study
of purchasing cooperatives, especially in Michigan,
and that we might infer that it is an inappropriate
frame of reference for the study of modern co­
operatives in the United States.

In short, it is

doubtful that cooperatives do exist generally in
the United States which resemble in any degree the
traditional anti-capitalistic, anti-industrial, proutopian tradition.
(5)

Our evidence

seems to indicate that it might be a

fallacy on the part of sociologists to pursue this
line of research, especially if they persist in
treating farmers' cooperatives theoretically in the

108

same light as they treat farmers' movements.

If

we were to assume, as do most modern sociologists,
that farmers' cooperatives and farmers' movements
are one and the same, we could then infer, based on
this research, that farmers' movements also could
not be fruitfully researched from a social move­
ment point of view.
On the whole, we can assume that farmers' cooperatives as a
social movement either did not exist throughout the historical
development, which is not demonstrable empirically, or that if
they did exist as a social movement, they have now entered a
new sphere of ideological commitment which could not be identified
in this study.

If these points are legitimate, it is possible that

if farmers' cooperatives were ever a social movement they have
passed on into an institutionalized state and have in fact, from
a value point of view, blended somewhere between the self-help
principles of traditional cooperation and the social service
values of modern business beliefs.

APPENDIXES

A p pend ix A .
Question­
n a i r e I t em

Matrix

No.

No.

B- 1
B- 6
B -11
B -14
B-17
B-21
B -24
B-28
B -30
B-33
B -36
B -38
B -40
B-41
B -44
B -46
B-50
B-52
B -55
B-57
B-fil
C- 3
C- 5
C- 7
C -18
C-13
C -!fi
0 -21 )
0-23
0-28
0 -27
C -31
0-34
0-35
0-37
0-42
0-4 5
0-48
0-53
0-58
0 -58
C-fiO
0-82
N- 2
N -20
N-30
N -43
N -47
\ -54
1>- 8

1

1

1.0000

2

.0979
.0361
.2613
.4227
.0442
.1706
-.1445
.0361
.0725
.1954
.2637
-.0420
.2706
-.0139
.1341
.1547
.0620
.0949
-.0442
.0620
.0791
-.0339
-.0558
.0040
-.0770
-.0743
.0088
-.1301
-.1950
.0706
.1427
-.0531
.0545
.1904
.0789
-.1025
.09.53
.0949
.0295
.1116
-.1474
.2060
.0189
.0197
.0920
-. 1698
-.0379
- . 1135
.0683
. 1335
.0826
. 1284
.1426
-.0787
.1264
-.1113
-.0720
. 1472
.0359
-.0361
-.0955

3
4
5
6

7
8

9
10
11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

5-10

23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
4!)
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

8-22

6 1

S -25

62

l' - 1 2

H -15
l ‘ -32

[‘-40
I‘-51
l'-5H
S- I
S- *

8

- 1

it

2

C o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x fo r th e 62 s e l e c t e d i t e m s

3

4

5

7

6

9

8

10

1.0000

.0518
.0089
.3127
.1263
.0987
-.1283
.0518
.2344
-.0563
.0704
.1815
.2477
.1799
-. 0355
.2257
.1233
.0496
.0047
.1233
.0702
.0598
.0979
.0496
-.0316
-.0663
.1839
.0683
-.0151
.1487
.2104
-.0758
.0847
.1477
.0703
-.0039
.1728
.0496
.1945
.2565
-.0686
.1276
.0734
.1073
.2466
-. 1968
-.0040
. 0516
.0827
. 1757
.0529
.0413
.1975
.0856
-.0354
. 1323
. 0320
. 1632
. 0671
. 0360
-.0488

1 .0000

-.0287
.2563
-.0540
.0617
-.0413
.2254
-.0010

.1450
.3401
.4217
.1781
.2140
-.0842
.0817
.0843
-.0433
.0540
-.0706
.0418
.0104
.1341
.0935
-.0010

.1718
-.0630
-.0361
-.2717
.0372
.0752
.0101

.1945
.0421
.2074
-.0540
-.0121

-.0433
.2178
.1026
-.0222

.1085
-. 1109
.0947
.0101

-.0077
. 0752
-.0037
.0360
- . 1109
-.06 75
- . 1823
.0129
-.1800
.1790
.2346
.0016
-.0374
-.0121

.0843
.0433

1.0000

.3229
.0705
-.0127
.0221

-.1948
.0499
-.0173
.2254
.0120

-.0637
.1771
.2203
.1745
.1116
.1574
.0538
.1947
.0517
-.0305
-.0542
.1189
.0499
.0533
-.0985
.0543
-.1186
.0048
.1524
.0423
.0242
.106 3
.2891
.1944
.0236
-.1441
-.0133
.0550
.0862
-.0507
.0376
.1051
.1037
-.0829
. 0504
-.0831
.2722
.0376
.2497
- . 0264
.1778
.0964
-.0305
- . 2515
-.1130
.1739
. 1242
-.2207
-.0071
10)

1.0000

.0554
.1336
-.1225
-.1502
.2521
.3057
.2849
.1892
.2373
.1478
.0530
.1889
.0483
.1065
-.0558
.0483
-.0818
.0105
.0364
.1497
-.1351
-.04 16
-.1118
-.1)362
-. i397
.0889
.1161
-.0031
.1678
.1568
.1907
.0554
.1273
-.0781
.0139
.0961
-.0472
.1098
.0065
.2873
.0720
-.2774
-.0713
. 0 0 14
. 2032
. 12 53
.

2000

0736
.1190
.08 15
.0105
.0963
- . 0 196
.1113
.0042
-.0533
-.1071
.

1.0000

.0213
-.0927
-.0540
.0997
-.0696
-.0396
.1978
-.0891
-.1817
.1772
.1123
.0540
-.0277
.0341
.0540
-.0612
.0961
.0442
-.0184
-. 0764
1217
.26 09
-. 0438
.06!)1
.006 3
-.0331
.0802
-.0701
.1382
.06 1 6
-. 0351
.1123
-.0277
.1208
-.1310
-.0498
.0691
.04 4.7
-.0297
.0802
- . 1091
-.033 1
- .

u"l 9

.0043
. 0445
. 1701
- . 1697
-.1119
-.1446
-. 1555
.0 0 0 0
.076 4
.1415
. 1123
.0540
.0266

1 0000

- 0568
1468
1334
2280
1720
1217

1.0000

.0624
-.2053
-.0170
-.1078
-.0220

.0427
1419 - . 1 0 0 1
0617
.0624
3952
.1132
1941
.0416
1205
.1133
0213
.0931
0238 -.0621
1139
.1111
2960
.0902
0448
.1838
0449
.1963
061 1
.1897
0746 -.0243
.0270
0492
0990 -.0525
0889
.1018
1918
.2 0 0 1
0551
.1 0 2 0
1535 -.09 18
2407
.0333
16 95 -.0346
1139
.0554
1483 -.0927
0687
.1 132
i)339 -.0750
1164 -.0229
2255 -. 1767
.0890
0610
0889
.1018
0055
.1212
.1467
0746
0 *' 1 8
1608
17 88
. 1145
2642 - . 11890
. 0340
082 !
.01 19
0984
2101

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1049

11026
1804
1205
1137
2033
1291
0036
0551
1375
0238
- 1198

1170
- 1082
0630
0891
2841
0349
0842
1755
0843
0433
0540
0843
1800

0947
1341
0010

17 18
- 0630
0620
- 0181
0372
- 0199
0101

2776
1288
04 15
- 0540
. 012!
5190
1311
1026
144 1
108 5
07o 1
01 04
124 5
1143
0752
o»o3
-

1005
. 2676
.0 126

0 158

.141.7
-. 176 5
.04 75
.0347
.1132
.0416
.07 56

1362
0645
1434
2056
- 0226
1170
1048
1193
1524
0997
1193
03 15
0222

-

-

-

-

-

0725
0529
1689
13 11
06 45
0027
1535
0265
0957
0850
1401
1072
03 18
0764
038 1

]524
02.40
1453
0592
- 0 31'4
O"o;-i
- 0222
171.7
-

02 4 5

-

o 3 2 ’’

0 2 '',:',

0 3 18

13 86

0701

-.1112

1 0000

0020

-

1 2 12

.
- .

1 0000

i i

-

' i ' i 'I

13 1 8

o l 58

01. 8 5

1747
1800
■M04

0332
1 372
-

-

(12 1* 2
1 1“ 6

-

-

0374

-

-

0121

0843.
(1433

2 14

■

11440

-

0 1 1II.

ol5 3
03.34
oilI3
152 1

110

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

1.0000
2 4 ' *2

1.0000

■1997

.3748
.1718
.2205
-.0630
.1303
-. 1389
.3324
-.2600
.0625
-.0716
-.0707
-.1187
.0186
-.0889
.0944
-.0467
.1191
-.2487
-.0620
.0027
.0928
.0981
.0477
.2160
.2609
.0084
-.0331
.0656
.0759
-.2016
-.084 1
.0524
-.0707
.0928
-.0736

3401
1771!
1 470
1483
1082

1737
1104
0184
0115
3776
27 56
0882
1362
1260
0800
0456
0680
123 1
2180
1205
1531
0646

0341
0606
0716
0562
2101

0842
077 1
0356
0577
0320
06 66

1526
0143
0243
0563
0577
2050
13 54
0716
1246
1010

0060
15 32
0025
0820
0184
17 30

1.0000

.0991
.1841
.0891
.1613
-.0891
-.0406
.0491
.0772
.0591
-.0423
.06 34
-.0262
-. 1 1 0 0
.0198
-.0576
-.0628
-.3086
.0093
.0547
.1151
.0772
.1984
-.0002

.1987
-.0401
-.0406
.0808
.0942
.0179
-.0366
.0646
.1388
-.0078
-. 1573
. 1263
-.0477
.07 53
.0483
. 0427
.0064
.0524
.0646
-.0193 -.0236
.0190 -.2447
-.0080 -.1610
.071 1 -.0592
-.0707 -.0423
.0763
.0950
-.0640 -.1434
.0526
.1110
.0084 -.0401
.0625
.0772
-.3338
.0407

1.0000

-.0176
.0722
.1627
.1401
.1194
-.0691
.0341
.1232
.0008
.2035
.1199
.0441
-.0060
.0341
.1320
-.0800
.0745
.1526
-.2628
.2343
.2401
-.0284
-.0891
-.0298
.1194
.1161
.0801
-.1669
.0067
.1167
.2315
.1288
-.1442
-.0425
-.0473
-.0084
.1167
-. 1285
.1287
-.0985
-.12 32
.0008
.0203
.0368
.0139
-.1581
.1401
-.3123

1.0000

.0481
.2883
.0351
.0029
-.0664
-.0479
-.0299
.0862
.0387
.0839
-.0226
.0388
-. 1034
.0665
-.1102

.0631
.2672
.1132
.1343
.0298
.3113
.0660
.0873
.0029
.0629
.0628
.0652
-.0423
-.2484
-.1396
.0519
-.0740
.1653
.0261
.1478
.0429
.2251
-.0020

.1140
.1038
.1314
.0631
-. 1040
.0984
.0370
-.0479
-.1542

1.0000

.0817
.0843
-.0433
.0540
-.0706
.1800
.1790
.1341
.1850
.2350
-.0092
.1388
.0620
-.1447
.1179
.1703
-. 1043
.1115
.1288
.0415
-.0 540
.0817
-.0433
.1311
.1026
-. 1053
-.0181
-.1109
-.0739
.0101

-.1300
-. 1149
-.0037
.0360
.0701
.0158
.01 58
.0129
-. 1800
.0104
-.1172
.0016
.0487
-.'>121

-.2255
.0433

1.0000

.2943
.0912
.1677
.2943
.1175
.1463
.0359
.0591
-.0381
.0110

.1303
.0238
-.0716
.0094
.1652
-.0504
.1779
.1821
.3520
.1123
.1478
.0912
.0806
.0268
.0101

.1587
-.1464
.0952
.0881
-.0887
.0500
.0950
.0389
..0729
.2555
.0976
.0229
-.0334
.1463
.0534
.1099
.0627
.2046
.0126
-.0914

1.0000

.0433
.1772
-.0851
.0969
.1585
.0620
-.0933
.0013
.0092
.0625
-.0622
.1448
.2051
.2103
-.1245
.2204
.3043
.0413
-. 1772
.1065
.0433
.0426
.0294
.1051
.1448
-.0701
.0741
.2188
-.1140
.1152
.0877
.2262
.1109
.1506
.0156
.1753
-.0973
.1585
-.0587
.1170
-.1348
.1065
-.0851
-.0441

1 .0000

-.3909
.0433
-.0510
-.1257
-.0832
-.0703
-.06 18
-.0989
-.0331
.0831
.0569
-.0435
.0882
.0651
-.0066
-.0454
.1506
-.0277
.0912
-.0224
-. 1.119
.0533
.0104
.0569
.0361
.0273
.06 51
.0596
.0882
-.0235
-.0496
.0361
-.0137
.1645
.0795
.0497
.0273
- 1058
.06 18
-.0421
.0912
.04 33
-.4888

1.0000

-.0540
.0618
.0290
.1 0 2 1
-. 1 186
.0764
.12 17
.0404
-.1021

-.0696
.1138
.1755
-.0793
-.0535
.2501
.0619
.0341
.0277
■ .0288
.1379
-.0660
-.0750
.3090
-.0445
.1549
-.0793
-.0725
.0331
.0919
.1260
-.0445
.0789
-.07 89
-.0277
-.0618
.1.549
.13 13
-.0764
.1154
.1677
-.0540
.3926

1.0000

.0969
-.0104
-.0361
-.0018
-.1167
-.0813
.0625
.0358
.01 77
-.0370
-. 1704
-.1245
-.0287
-.0426
-.0417
.0540
-.0812
.0433
.0426
.1614
.0219
.1448
-.0701
-.0947
-.0101

-.1140
-.0750
.0037
.0516
.1109
.0673
-.2344
-.1064
-.0973
-. 1791
-. .1587
-.OHIO
-. 1348
.2005
-.0851
-.0441

1.0000

.3990
.3418
.2126
.3901
.0244
-.0716
.0089
-.2149
.2278
.1105
-.4698
.0963
.09 31
.1113
-.06 12
-.049!)
.2007
.0618
-.1182
-. 1633
.0112

.0804
-.0527
.0413
.0218
-.3139
-.0900
.1638
.0804
-.0668
.0670
.1339
-.1363
-.1280
.0788
.1371
-. 0540
.0338
-.0414
.0504

Ill
Appendix A . C o r r e l a t io n m a t r i x for the 62 s e l e c t e d i t e m s (contd. )

Question­
naire
Matrix
No.
Item No.
c:- 5
C- 7
C-IO
C-13
C -16
C -20
C-23
C -26
C -27
C-31
C-34
C -35
C -37
C -42
C -45
C -48
C-53
C -56
C -5!)
C'-61)
C -62
N- 2
N 29
M -66
N -43
\ -47
N 54
1'- H
P -12
P 1.5
P -32
P-46
P -51
P-58
S-4
s- u
S -1!!
S -P>
S -22
S -25

23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

1 .0000

.3933
.2834
.2989
.1923
.0388
-.0195
-.0331
.3515
.1790
-.1398
.1663
.1959
.1580
-.0297
-.0069
.1804
.1815
-.1358
.0332
-.0331
.0054
-.1475
-.0775
-.0710
-.0799
-.0630
.2729
-.0931
.0841
.1878
.0579
.1280
.0362
.2714
.1508
-.0672
.0952
-.0947
.1259

1.0000

.1780
.3715
.0976
.0088
-. 1301
-.2752
.2431
.1427
-. 1980
.1070
.2452
.2365
-.1025
.0359
.2734
.3039
-.0556
-.0421
.0456
.0189
.0730
.0193
.0620
-.2789
-.0072
.1789
-.0957
-.0229
.1284
-.0950
.0089
.0730
.2231
.1521
.1472
.0953
.0620
.’0833

1.0000

.1923
-.1175
.1376
-.0618
-.0132
.2798
.1324
-.0706
.0775
-.0124
: .2452
-.1550
.0591
.0959
-.0384
-.0692
.0066
.1365
-.0479
.0842
-.1382
-.0335
-.1487
-.1973
.2604
-.0479
.0077
.1893
.1073
.1964
-.0155
.0868
.0172
-.1287
.1699
-.0933
.0699

1.0000

.2139
-.0889
.0027
-.2325
.0966
.1682
-.3465
.0136
-.0910
.0946
.0997
.0334
.1524
.0910
.0448
.0592
.0570
-.0387
-.1507
.0024
.0684
-.1940
.03 13
.1648
-.3145
-.0683
.1320
-.0332
-.0738
.1062
.1 1 2 0
.0793
.1 160
-.0381
-.2348
.0625

1.0000

-.1409
.0175
-.1260
.0703
-.0055
-. 1199
.0439
.1319
.1697
.2839
-.1534
.0655
.1217
.0 0 0 0
.0682
.0 2 2 0
1587
-.0047
.0 8 0 6
-.0284
-.1166
.06 89
.01 56
.0526
.06 32
.0341
-.0110

-.0242
.1923
.1544
-.2136
.1460
-.0986
-.0813
.0990

1.0000

-.0084 1 . 0 0 0 0
.1150 1 . 0 0 0 0
.0805
.0429 -.0194
.1407
-.2445 -.0822 -.0628
.0.928
.2141
.1260
-.2256
.0510 -.0173
.0477
.0294 -.1355
.0003 -.0261 -.1700
-.0396
.1025 -.3090
.0084
.0832
.0051
-.0331
.0831 -.1737
-.0473 -.0839
.0648
-.0957
.1396 -.1322
-.0935
.0421
.0771
.0805 -.1256
.2751
.0524
.2058
.2104
-.1803 -.1262 -.0331
-.0564
.0535 -.0666
-.07 36
.0 155 -.0463
.0927
-. 1209
.2792
-. 1430
.2731
.0243
.0427 -.1787
.0149
.0524
.0957
.0578
-.1276 -. 0301)
.0674
.01 90
.0826
.1370
.I139
.2139 ■ .1485
.07 11
.1667
.1016
-.0707 -.0729 -. 1 0 2 1
.0763
.0557 -.0960
-.0640
.1473
.0398
.1799 -.0729
.0526
.1303
.0238
.0051
.0625 -. 1603 -.1089
.0322 -.0828 -.0569

1.0000

.2439
-. 1962
.2118
.1695
.0784
-.1142
.1255
.1030
.2540
.0334
-.0104
.2726
-.0713
-.0274
.0049
-.1406
-.0039
.1159
.2779
.1174
.0094
.1640
.1375
.2045
.0440
-.0209
-.0964
-.0883
.2233
-.1985
.1906

1.0000

-. 1 108
.2556
.0970
.0764
-.0331
.2228
.0882
.1 160
-.0452
-.0648
.0927
-.0308
-.0282
.1 0 0 0
-.1548
.0072
.0664
.1652
-.0308
.1 8 0 2
.1266
.1229
.1441
.17 90
.0362
-. 1681
.1 8 8 6
-.0076
-.1704
.0850

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

1 . (11)1)0

-.1036
-.1264
.0002
-.0006
.1574
-.1427
-.0652
•■9541
.2174
.0270
•9301
•(,77'>
••9992
•1925
.1792
•9058
"■18 18
•9301
.2231
■0233
•9185
.1636
•ll47>
.1987
-•0019
■1188
.0188
-.0101
•1440

1.0000
.1725 1.0000
.0667
.1856 1.0000
-.1941
.0085
.0616 1.0000
.0269
.0771
.1006 -.0277
.1445
.1119
.1506 -.0277
.1530
.0184
.0464 -.1379
.1571
.0329
.0000
.0660
-.0862 -.1427 -.0445 -.0498
.1184
.0064
.1694 -.3090
-.0379
.0223 -.1455
.0445
.1211
.2431
.0677 -.1555
.1419
.1296
.1227
.0802
-.1132 -.0864
.1311
.0730
.1027
.0438
.0255
.1088
.2631
.1639
.0900 -.0919
.1961
.2432
.3040 -.1263
-.0379
.0223 -.0485
.0445
.0629
.0663
.1116 -.0785
-.1078
.0736
.2453 -.0454
.0236
.1329
.0504
.0281
-.0967 -.0155 -.0372
.0618
-1211
.1959
.1129 -.1555
.0630
.1313
.1885
.0000
.1767
.0250
.0948 -.4518
-.0816
.2056
.2076
.1415
-.0233
.1821
.1509 -.0277
-.0287
.1310 -.1247 -.1772
-.1443
.0459 -.0004
.0266

1.0000
.0912
-.0244
-.0531
-.1410
.0820
-.0367
-.0579
.0881
-.0148
.1076
.0441
-.0139
.0729
.1546
.1480
.2503
.0504
-.1090
.0534
-.0330
.1148
.2046
-.0812
.0792

1.0000

-.1119
.0533
.0104
.0569
.0361
.0273
.0651
.0596
-.0844
.1290
.1088
.0361
-.0137
.1645
-.0908
.0497
-.1257
.0540
.0618
.1142
.0912
.0433
.0225

1.0000

.0410
-.0433
.2065
-. 1235
.0400
.1908
-.1183
.0628
.1181
.1477
-.1235
-.0196
-.1)736
-.0803
-.06 1 8
.0872
.0165
.1733
.0355
.1331
.1293
.1 ) 2 1

1.0000

.2597
-.1322
-.0860
-. 1358
.1409
-.0349
.1169
.0554
-.0329
.0682
-.0396
-.0.318
-.0268
.0 0 0 0
.1516
-.0501
-.04 45
-. 1225
.1067
-. 1026
-. 1)5.34

1.0000

-. 1268
-.0651
-. 1027
.1558
.0396
.0885
-. 1023
-.0720
-.0651
.0954
.0835
-.0101

.2.378
.2142
.0 0 0 0
.1310
-. 1 2 0 1
.0605
.02 19
.1412

1.0000

-.0903
.1737
-. 0666
-.1461
.01 50
.1617
.2290
-.0903
.2036
.0689
-.0048
-.1246
.2426
.04 78
.0398
.0679
.2354
-.1089
-.0569

1.0000

.0054
-.1036
-.0944
-. 1420
.0871
-.0737
.1529
-.1244
.1244
.1464
-.0808
-.0931
-.0.342
-.0996
.2181
-.1464
-.0701
-.0.371

Appendix A.

•ii•.stion1Matrix
naire
No.
Item No.
N -29
N-39
N-43
N -47
N-54
P- 8
1’- 1 2
P-15
P-32
p -49
P -91
P-58
•S- 4
S- 9
S -18
S -19
S -22
S -25

45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62

45

C o r r e l a t io n m a t r i x for the 62 s e l e c t e d i t e m s (contd. )

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

1.0000

-.0152
-.0710
.0236
.1656
.0354
.0054
.0387
.0064
-.0442
.0527
.1738
11 18
.0864
.1672
-. 1600
.1585
.1259

1.0000

.1025
.1702
.1299
-.0528
.0301
.1 0 0 1
.2079
.1 2 0 1
.1636
-.0775
-.0864
.0852
.0552
.0881
.1044
-.0640

1 .0 0 0 0

.0702
.1941
.0599
-.0944
-.0963
.0964
.0148
-.0215
-.0046
-.0691
.0253
-.0946
-.0148
.0080
-.0585

1.0000

.1695
-.2101

-.0308
.0268
.0243
.0653
.1441
.0755
-.1258
.0491
-.0756
.1652
-.0750
-.0879

1.0000

.0904
-.1095
-.0140
.0140
.0068
-.0601
.2570
-.0157
.1608
.0965
-.0577
.0037
.1762

1.0000

-.1758
.182!
.0526
.1727
.0702
-.0121

.2151
-.0316
-.0177
.1446
-.1231
-. 1094

1.0000

.1677
-.0703
.0367
-.0808
-.0931
-. 1370
-.0996
.1175
.1825
-.0701
-.0371

1.0000

.0303
-.0035
.0670
.0841
.0316
.0685
.0909
.1546
-.0993
-. 1381

1.0000

.1546
.2305
.0971
.1104
.1218
.1867
.0976
.0156
-.0141

1.0000

.2008
.0069
.0534
-. 1095
.0420
.0797
-.0126
.0913

liU

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

1.0000

-.0225
.0788
-.1372
.1305
.1341
.0410
.2003

1.0000

-.0160
-.0420
.1203
.0442
.0741
.1259

1.0000

.0895
.0978
.0 0 0 1
.0293
.1068

1 .0000

-.1158
.1099
.1170
-.0619

1.0000

-.0415
-.1348
.1977

1.0000
.0126
-.0914

1.0000

-.0441

1.0000

________________ Appendix A-l.

Questionnaire Items Included In the Correlation Matrix________________

^aestionr.nire Item Matrix
No.
No.
3- :
3-■
B-i:
?-;4

1
2
3
4
5
6

?-33-2“

7
8

)

r-;;

10
11
II-

?-3o
2--_
3--I
E—
r-Jl
3-52
3-35

13
lb
15
lo
17
18
19

3-5"

20

3-C- o
7- 3

21
22
23

7-

7
"-11

2b
25

:-l;

2

7-1;

2i

:-u-

20

3-25
7-2'
7-27

29
30
31

"-■j,

32
33

7-:‘
7-• '

34

35

7-13

3'J

7-~5

3 i’
38

C-5j>

39

3-3

w0

7-59
3- 5
7-o2
N- 2
N-1’9

41
42

N-;'
N-;*3
N-h

4

43

44
35
5
4-7
40

Item
Everyone wants to do a good Job.
Every worker should do his best no matter whom he may hurt in the process.
Business creates equality of opportunity and rewards.
The good of all will best be served if each individual pursues his self-interest
with little interference.
Everyone has equal opportunity to get ahead.
Everyone has the moral duty to try to make the most of himself.
A manager in business should have no excuse for failure.
A heavy tax on business is bad for the country.
The incompetent do not succeed very often in business.
The "law of supply and demand" is real and works in business transactions.
Those who work and have ability will be rewarded with success.
The test of reword should be one's ability to contribute to the productive pur­
poses of the company.
The tensions of business are normal and should be accepted.
The team is more important than the individual.
American business is singly responsible for our high standard of living.
The reason America is great is because of its unique economic system.
If a man fails it is his own fault, and he should be ashamed of himself.
If workers are contented the supervisor is not doing his job.
A manager in business should have the virtues of sobriety, punctuality, dis­
cipline, avoidance of waste, and cheerfulness.
A manager in business should work "day and night" so lesser men will show them­
selves worthy by copying him.
In business a manager should be willing to sacrifice all leisure and private life.
Without cooperatives a few big businesses would have too much control over farmers.
If farmers didn't belong to a cooperative, they would not get a fairprice for
the things they produce.
Cooperatives help to keep down the number of middlemen who make profits off farmers.
It is only through cooperatives that farmers can buy and sell in a business-like
manner.
Cooperatives help keep down the price of things which the farmer must buy to run
his fnrm.
Cooperatives help the farmer to get the best deal he can out of federal government
regulations.
A cooperative is the united action of a group of people engaged in a similar enter­
prise to promote their mutual interests.
The Farm Bureau would be more effective if it stayed out of politics.
Cooperatives do more for large farmers than for small farmers.
It is the successful farmer who patronizes the cooperative more than the farmer
who is having a hard time.
In the long run cooperatives should become strong enough to have dominant control
over easiness and agriculture.
Most farmers think private business can do the job better than cooperatives.
If a farmer really believes in individualism he would not belong to acooperative.
The trouble with cooperatives today is that there are not enough idealists and
liberals in the movement.
Farmer cooperative members' first consideration should be in cutting out
the middleman's profits on the things they must use.
Membership in cooperatives should be open to all farmers.
Being a member of a cooperative is more important than buying products
from the cooperative for most farmers.
The only successful farmer cooperative is the one that is run primarily
in a business-like way.
There is more democratic participation in cooperatives now than there has
been in the past.
To be a true cooperative land should be owned cooperatively.
For most farm members, the cooperative is Just a matter of dollars and cents.
People in cooperatives should use them to promote their political views.
Sometimes I feel that the board tries to block everything I try to do.
When a number of suppliers all present different technical specifications for
their products I sometimes don't know what to buy.
Sometimes in this Joo it gets so you can't trust anyone.
Sometimes I feel that this is a "dead end" job without a future.
Sometimes I really don't know what cooperatives are trying to accomplish.
115

116

^ ues t i on-

naire Item Matrix
No.
No.
i*9
?- -

50

P- 13

51

■- i :

52

?-S2
P- •'*?

53
51*

P -^l
r-50
33- )
3 -:o

55
55
57
58
59

60

^“wC

61
62

Item
Many times this Job gets so confusing and demanding that I wonder where I'm
at.
I get the impression that big city people with whom we (the cooperative) do (does)
business try to take advantage of us (it).
The present-day economy is so big and complex that local businesses like this co­
operative don't have a place any more.
When you (your cooperative) deal (deals) with suppliers would you say thatyou (it)
usually are (is) in a position to deal on your (its) terms.
The bigger a supplier gets the more we are (the farmer is) at his mercy.
Sometimes it gets almost impossible to follow the fluctuations in supply, demand,
and prices.
In the long run a cooperative manager doesn't have much to say about his operation.
The big producers can pretty well control the supply and distribution of products.
I participate in many community activities.
I have very few really close friends in this community.
The Job which would be the best promotion for me (a cooperative manager) would be
to become a branch manager for same larger company.
Most of the time the supplier representatives who call on me (our cooperative)
don't give a darn about me as a person (us as people); all they are after is a sale.
When ray family and I moved to this community it took a long time before people
accepted us.
I am not very well accepted in this community.
I would like to live in most any other community than this one.

Appendix B, A Trace Line Plot of the Competitive Yardstick Index
composed of Items C-5, C -7, C-13, and C-42.

Proportion of total

sample endorsing items (N=90)

100

Item (C-7)
Item (C-13)

»•

80

Item (C-5)
60

Item (C-42)

40

20

0
1

2

Adjusted item sco res on latent continuum of 4 item s.

117

Appendix C, A Trace Line Plot of the Anti-Big Business Index composed of
Items C-3, C-31, and C-34.
Item (C-3)
100

Proportion of total sample endorsing items (N=90)

Item (C-34)

80

60

40

• Item (C-31)
20

0
1

2

Adjusted item sco res on latent continuum of 3 item s.

118

3

Appendix D, A Trace Line Plot of the P ro-B u siness Index consisting of
Items C-10 and C -53.
Item (C-53)

Proportion of total sample endorsing items (N=90)

100

80

60

40

20

0

2

1

Adjusted item sco res on latent continuum of 2 item s.

119

3

Appendix E, A Trace Line Plot of the Index of Cooperatives As a Source
of P olitical Power consisting of Items C-16, C-23, and C-62 .

Proportion of total sample endorsing items (N=90)

100

Item (C-23)
Item (C-16)

80

60

40

20
em (C-62)

0

2

1

Adjusted item scores on latent continuum of 3 item s.

120

3

Appendix F, A Trace Line Plot of the Index of Cooperative Idealism
consisting of Items C-20, C-26, C-27, C-35, C-37, C-45, C-48, C-56,
C-59, and C-60. (Items 20, 45, and 59 had m arginals below 10% or above
90%)

Proportion of total sample endorsing items (N=90)

100

Item (C-26)
80

—-i Item (C-60)

60

Item (C-27)

40

Item (C-35)
Item (Cr37)

/<»,

Item (C-48)
20

0
1

3

2

4

Adjusted item sco res on latent continuum of 7 item s.

121

5

Appendix G, A Trace Line Plot of the Index of Favorability Toward Econom­
ic Goals of Cooperation consisting of Items C-13, C-34, C -7, and C-5.

Proportion of total sample endorsing items (N=90)

100

Item (C-13)
Item (C-7)
Item (C-34)
80
Item (C-5)
60

40

20

0

1

2

Adjusted item sco res on latent continuum of 4 item s.

122

3

Appendix H, A Trace Line Plot of the Index of Orientation Toward Econom­
ic Democracy consisting of Items C-26, C-27, C-56, and C-60.

Item (C-26)

Proportion of total sample endorsing items (N=90)

100

Item (C-27)
Item (C-56)
Item (C-60)

2

1

Adjusted item scores on latent continuum of 4 item s.

123

3

Appendix I, A Trace Line Plot of the Traditional Individualism Index con­
sisting of Item s B - l, B -6, B-14, and B-41-

Item (B-14)

Proportion of total sample endorsing items (N=90)

100

v

Item (B -l)

80

Item (B-6)

60

40

20

Item (B-41)

0

2

1

Adjusted item scores on latent continuum of 4 item s.

12k

3

Appendix J, A Trace Line Plot of the Index of the Centrality of the Free
Enterprise System to the American Society consisting of Items B - l l , B-28,
B-44, and B-46.
Item ( B - ll)

100
Proportion of total sample endorsing items (N=90)

Item (B-46)

Item (B-28)

80

60

Item (B-44)

40

20

0

2

1

Adjusted item sco res on latent continuum of 4 item s.

12-5

3

Appendix K, A Trace Line Plot of the Index of Individual Opportunity,
Desire for Achievement, Success and Upward Mobility consisting of Items
B-17, B-21, B-30, B-36, B-38, and B-50.
Item (B-38)

Proportion of total sample endorsing items (N=90)

100

Item (B-21)
Item (B-36)

80

60

40

Item (B-50)

20

0
1

2

3

4

Adjusted item scores on latent continuum of 6 item s.

126

5

Appendix L, A Trace Line Plot of the Index of the Rigors and Demands of
Leadership consisting of Items B -24, B-40, B-52, B-55, and B -61.

Proportion of total sample endorsing items (N=90)

100

80

Item (B-52)
60

40

20

Item
Item
Item
Item

0

2

1

3

Adjusted item scores on latent continuum of 5 item s.

127

4

(B-55)
(B-40)
(B-24)
(B-61)

Appendix M, A Trace Line Plot of the Free Enterprise C reed- A, con sist­
ing of Items B - l, B-6, B-14, B-17, B-24, B-28, B-36, and B-44.

Proportion of total sample endorsing items (N=90)

100

1

2

4

3

5

6

7

Adjusted item scores on latent continuum of 8 item s.

128

8

Appendix N, A Trace Line Plot of the Free Enterprise Creed - B, consisting
of Items B - l, B-6, B-14, B-17, B-24, B-44, and B-50.
Item (B-17)
Item (B-36)

Proportion of total sample endorsing items (N=90)

100

Item (B-6)
80

Item (B-24)
Item (B-50)

60

(B-141

40

20

0
1

2

3

4

5

6

Adjusted item scores on latent continuum of 8 item s.

129

7

Appendix O, A Trace Line Plot of the Index of Individualism consisting of
Items B - l, B-14, B-17, B-24, and B-50.

Item (B-17)

Proportion of total sample endorsing items (N=90)

100

r

.......

80

•Item
•
•
•
•
••
•
•
•• I
•
•
• ,Item
•
•••
iItem
t
M
M
M

60

•

/

40

•y /
/ /

*1

f

/

^ >
/

i

20

>
/

\

1

2

3

Adjusted item scores on latent continuum of 5 item s.

130

/

'

M
M
M

(B-14)

(B-24)
(B-50)

Appendix P, Index of Cooperative Economic and Occupational N orm lessness
consisting of Items N-2, N-29, N-39, N-43, N-47, and N-54.

Proportion of total sample endorsing

items (N=90)

100

80

60

40
cn

20

■

0
1

3

2

4

.

5

Adjusted item sco res on latent continuum of 6 item s.

131

6

Appendix Q, A Trace Line Plot of the Index of Economic P ow erlessness-A , consisting of Items P -8, P-15, P-32, P -49, P -58, and N-29.

Proportion of total sample endorsing items (N=90)

100

Item ( I *1-29
Item (P -49)
Item (P-58)
Item (P-32)

80
+»•
+7

Item (P-8)

60

40
••
••

••

20

0
1

3

2

4

Adjusted item scores on latent continuum of 6 item s.

152

5

Item (P-15)

Appendix R, A Trace Line Plot of the Index of Economic P ow erlessness B, consisting of Items P-15, P -32, P -49, and P-58.

Proportion of total sample endorsing items

(N=90)

100

80

Item (P-49)

60

Item (P-32)
40

Item (P-15)

20

0

2

1

Adjusted item scores on latent continuum of 4 item s.

133

3

Appendix S, Index of Isolation from Social Interaction in the Community
consisting of Items S-4, S-9, S-22, and S-25.

A Trace Line Plot was not drawn because of the low
marginals. Ex:

% Endorsed

Item
S-4

3 0 .0

S-9

15.6

S-22

7.8

S-25

5 .6

13^

A p p e n d ix T , The I n t e r v i e w S c h e d u le U sed *

M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
D e p a r tm e n t o f S o c i o l o g y and A n th r o p o l o g y
M ic h ig a n C o o p e r a t i v e S tu d y
M anager, Board Member,

Farm er Member S c h e d u l e s

For interviewer use only:

Respondent: (M, B, F)

Interviewer's name:
Date of interview:
Interview started:
"
terminated:

Cooperative name:
Town:
Respondent's name:
Check one:
Manager
Board Member
Office
Farmer Member

Sample Number:
Book Number:
Schedule Number:

(Present

PERSONAL INFORMATION
In t h i s s e c t i o n we would l i k e t o g e t some i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t you a s a p e r s o n and a b o u t
y o u r a c t i v i t y w i t h t h e C o-op.
1.
2.

What
What
2 .0 .
2 .1 .
2 .2 .
2 .3 .
2 b . Sex:

3.

i s y o u r a g e ( t o n e a r e s t b i r t h d a y ) ? ________________
is your m a rita l s ta tu s :
Widower ____ , and h ave b e e n f o r _________ y e a r s .
D iv o rc e d o r l e g a l l y s e p a r a t e d f o r _______ y e a r s .
S i n g l e ______
M a r r ie d and have b e e n f o r _______ y e a r s .
Male ______ Fem ale _______

What was y o u r f a t h e r ' s o c c u p a t i o n ( o r t h a t o f t h e p e r s o n who r e a r e d an d s u p p o r t e d
you f o r most o f y o u r p r e - w o r k i n g l i f e ) ?
I n t e r v i e w e r : G et a c o m p l e te d e s c r i p t i o n su c h a s ''owned and o p e r a t e d a 2 5 0 - a c r e
f a r m w h i l e he worked a s a m e c h a n ic i n a stam p p l a n t 3 m i l e s aw ay, w hich employed
200 p e o p l e who l i v e d i n a s m a l l town o f 2 , 0 0 0 l o c a t e d i n t h e r o c k y fa r m
land a re a
o f s o u th e rn , n o r th e r n M ich ig an ").

A.

E s t i m a t e t h e l a r g e s t am ount o f t o t a l income w hich y o u r f a t h e r r e c e i v e d d u r i n g any
one c a l e n d a r y e a r .
L e s s t h a n $2000
$2000 t o $2999
$3000 t o $3999
$4000 t o $4999
$5 000 t o $5999

5.

$6000 t o $6999

$7000 t o $7999
$8000 t o $8999
$9000 t o $9999
$ 1 0 ,0 0 0 t o $ 1 1 ,9 9 9
$ 1 2 ,0 0 0 o r more

What was y o u r g r a n d f a t h e r ' s o c c u p a t i o n ?

* T h ree s e p a r a t e i n t e r v i e w
asked of m anagers, b o ard
s c h e d u l e s w ere c o l l a p s e d
5 -B o a rd Member, F - F a r m e r

s c h e d u l e s were u s e d .
D i f f e r e n t an d v a r i a t i o n s o f q u e s t i o n s were
members, and f a r m e r mem bers. F o r economy o f s p a c e , t h e t h r e e
i n t o one s c h e d u l e .
I t e m s w h ich d i f f e r e d a r e co d e d : M-M anager,
Member.
I f n o t co d ed , t h e i t e m was t h e same f o r a l l t h r e e s a m p l e s .

135

136
t
6m . What was the last year of school that you completed?
1

2

3

k

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

oBF. How many acres do you farm? ______
Do you own all of this acreage? Yes

15

No

(Circle one)

l6

Don't know

If no, how many acres do you own: ____
Acres rented or leased ______
Other ______
Don 11 know ______
What are the major types of farming you do?

7M.

Of the courses you took in school, which ones do you feelgave you the kind
knowledge which serves you best in your present job?
1.

7B.
8m

7F.
:8m .
20B.

High school ____________________

What kind
him for a

2.

of training do you think a man should
job as Co-op manager?

of

College_______________________
have before you would recommend

Can you tell me something abcut the type and size of the farms in this area?
iype of farming (dairy, fruit, wheat beans)

Proportion of farmers of this type.

0BF. Would you encourage a young man to seek employment witha local cooperative en7M. gaged in the same type of business as this cooperative?
Yes _____ No
If yes, why?____________________________________________________
If no, why? ________________________________________________________________________
9 V. Of the major products and supplies which are handled by your Co-op, would you tell
19M. me what products you use most often?
(Probe for feed,
seed, and farm supplies.)
20B.
List product:
Brand Name:

Others:
OCCUPATIONAL INFORMATION:

JOB HISTORY

We would like to know about the kinds of jobs you have had in the past and how you got
into management.
Let's start with your present job. How long have you been with this co­
operative? Years ______ Months
.
(interviewer: code the years worked on each job by marking a 1 for each year on that Job;
start with and include present Job. Code a 2 for each year on the job before the present
one, a 3 for the one before that, etc.)

DM.
Year

11M.
Past Employer (by
type of business).
Start with present
job and work back.
How long have you
been a Co-op mana­
ger here?

12M.
Code
Job
Se­
quence

15M.
What was
your job
title;i.e.,
what kind
of work did
you do?

llM.
15M.
How did you feel
about your past
jobs? Do you
think they were
necessary ex­
perience in pre­
paring for your
present job?
Yes
No
Why

16m.
What types of training
and experience do you
think would have been
better background for
your present job (if
any)?

l>Jl

iJx)

Comments:
17M.

Now I would like to get more information about your operation, especially in
relation to competition.
What do you consider to be the trading area; i.e., how far around your store do
you consider the best area to be in terms of service and location of your patrons?
Here is a map of your area, would you draw a line around your location which
shows where your customers are located?

2-M.

Of the products listed in 19M, could you estimate the percent of mark-up which
you get? _________

21M.

'Which of these do you feel are best received by your patrons?
(Check best re­
ceived) Read list back to respondent one at a time and record mark-up.
Mark-up

Dollar Value

Best Received

22M.

What is the total dollar value of all these items which you purchased in the
last fiscal year?

2jM.

What is the total dollar volume of all products purchased for the last fiscal year 1
$_____________

2lM.

H o w much of this are products which you buy from farmers and resell?

$_____________
25M.
22B.

Generally, how would you say this cooperative stands in relation to the competition in this area?
Size;
~~ ~ ~

It's larger than the competition.
It's about the same as the competition.
It's smaller than the competition.
Don't know.

Gross Sales:
Its gross sales are much higher.
Its gross sales are about the same.
Its gross sales are much lower.
Don't know
. Net Profit:
Its net profit is much higher.
Its net profit is about the same.
Its net profit is much lower.
Don't know.
2oM.

I n r e g a r d t o t h e g r o s s m a r k e t i n y o u r a r e a f o r t h i n g s w h ich you p r o c e s s and s e l l ,
c o u l d you e s t i m a t e t h e t o t a l am ount s p e n t b y f a r m s a n n u a l l y i n t h i s a r e a f o r :
( i f r e s p o n d e n t d o e s n ' t know, code b l a n k s DK ( d o n ' t know).

Product
Total Amount Spent Annually What Proportion of That Market Do You Get
Feed
_______________
_____________
Seed______________ _______________
_____________
G
r
a
i
n
_____________________________________________
Fertilizer
_______________
_____________
Farm Supplies
_______________
_____________
O th er
27M.
23B.

Considering the facilities of your Co-op, do you feel you are (it is) getting your
(its) share of the market?
Yes

_____ No

If no, what share do you think you (it) should have? _____ $
If no, do you have any sale or market programs planned which you (it) hope will
get the share of the market you (it) desire(s)? Yes ____ No_____
What type of program(s) have you (they) planned? __________________________ _

How l o n g w i l l i t t a k e y o u (th e m ) t o a c c o m p l i s h t h e s e p ro g r a m s ? _______________ _ _ _
We would l i k e t o know how you f e e l a b o u t y o u r ( t h e Co-op m a n a g e r ’s ) j o b : Here a r e some
s ta te m e n ts a b o u t th e m a n a g e r's jo b .
Some p e o p l e a g r e e w i t h th e m , w h i l e o t h e r s d i s a g r e e .
As I r e a d them t o y o u , p l e a s e t e l l me i f yo u a g r e e o r d i s a g r e e w i t h e a c h s t a t e m e n t .

28 m .
10BF.
29M.
:OBF.
30M.
10BF.
31M.
10BF.
32M.
10BF.
53M.
10BF.
3AM.
10BF.

Agree
A good c o o p e r a t i v e m anag e r i s o n e who g e t s o f f e r s f o r
______
b e t t e r jo b s.
A good c o o p e r a t i v e m an age r i s one who d e v o t e s h i s l i f e t o
o ne c o o p e r a t i v e . _____________________________________________________________
B e in g a Co-op manager i s more I m p o r t a n t t h a n j u s t h a v i n g
a jo b .
______
A Co-op m an ager i s d i s l o y a l i f he a c c e p t s a jo b w i t h a
b i g company.
______
A good Co-op m an age r s h o u l d t a k e ti m e on t h e jo b t o r e a d one
o r two C o o p e r a t i v e t r a d e j o u r n a l s
______
A good Co-op m an ager s h o u l d go t o s t a t e and r e g i o n a l m e e t i n g s f o r Co-op m an ag e rs r e g u l a r l y .
______
A l l t h i n g s c o n s i d e r e d , a good Co-op m anage r g e t s b e t t e r
i n f o r m a t i o n b y taL k i n g t o o t h e r m a n a g e rs t h a n by t a l k i n g
______
t o h i s Co-op members.

D isagree
______
______
______
______
______
______
______

139
55M. From whom do you expect the best quality for the fairest price
H B F . w h e n you deal with them:
Which Ones
Large Cooperatives
_____
Large privately owned suppliers
_____
Local suppliers
_____
D o n 't know
3bM. A Co-op manager (A Cooperative) should purchase all of his (its)
12BF.supplies from large cooperatives because:
He (They) believe(s) in the cooperative idea.
Cooperatives must support each other to survive.
He (They) get(s) the best price in the long run.
He (They) get(s) the best service in the long run.
(if) None of the above (why or why not)? _______________________
D o n ’t know.
Other.
3 7M. A Co-op manager (A cooperative) should buy the same type of product from more
BF13*than one supplier because:
He (it) can play one against the other and get the best deal.
His (its) customers benefit from a variety of brands.
This is the way a good manager should act (BF: This is the
way a good business should operate.)
Don't know.
Other.
36m . As the manager of this cooperative, how would you say you are considered by
the community?
ILBF.How do you think the manager of your cooperative is considered by the community?
A very important part of the community.
An important part of the community.
Not a very important part.
Not important at all.
Don't know.
Other.
39M. How active would you say your board members are in the affairs of the Co-op?
?5BF.How active would you say most members are in the affairs of the Co-op?
Very active
Fairly active
Not very active
Not active at all
AOM. Would you say that all of the interests of various sections of the membership
ioBF.are equally represented by your board?
Yes
No
D o n 't know
'Which interest groups are over represented? _________________________________ __
Which are u n d e r - r e p r e s e n t e d ? ________________________________________________________ _

llM.
I s there a harmonious atmosphere among the board members or is there consider17BP. able bickering and strife?
Harmonious
Strife
D o n 't know
^2M.
If you were picking the board would you pick these men or different ones?
i8b f .
Same
Different
Don't know
If different,

43M.

what type of men would you pick? __________________________________

Are there one or two men on the board whom you use to "sound out" before you
present a new idea or program to the board?
Yes
No
Don't know
If yes, do these men usually help you to see the idea to the other board members
Yes
No
D o n 't know
If yes,

can you think of some examples? ____________________________________________

-»4M. Would you say that one or two m e n on the board tend to influence the rest on
19BF. most issues?
Yes
No
Don't know
M.

If yes, are they usually the ones you "sound out?"
Yes
No
Don't know

B.

If yes,

would you say that you are one of those who influences others?

Yes
No
Don't know
If no, what type of person usually influences others? ___________________________
20F.

Do you think the board and the manager don't pay enough attention to the wishes
of the membership?
Yes
No
Don't know

Ikl
Some people believe that today's competition makes It hard for a local Cooperative to sur­
vive by itself. These people think that big organizations of Co-ops may be the answer.
••1.

We would like to know how you feel about this. As things stand now, are you for or
against this Co-op becoming part of a larger Cooperative?
For
a.

_____ Against

_____

Don't know

If for, (l) why are you for it? ___________________________________________________
(2) is there any particular large Co-op you'd favor joining up with?
Yes

_____ No

If y e s , which one? ____________________________________________________
b.

If don't know (l) please explain: ________________________________________________
(2) is there any particular Co-op your local Co-op should consider
joining up with? _______________________________________________

c.

If against (l) why are you against it? ___________________________________________
(2)

under what conditions would you consider changing your mind?

(3)

is there any large Co-op you'd consider joining up with?

(A sk t h e f o l l o w i n g f o r c e d - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d l e s s
o r u n fav o rab le r e s p o n s e .)

of h is fa v o ra b le

(A ) H e r e a r e a s e t o f c o n d i t i o n s c o - o p p e o p l e m i g h t t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t
i f t h e y had t o c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h i s C o -o p s h o u l d j o i n u p w i t h a
la r g e r one.
W hic h o f t h e s e make y o u t h i n k more f a v o r a b l y a b o u t i t ?
M anagers:
Yes
I f t h e s a l a r y w o u ld b e h i g h e r .
______
I f t h e r e w o u ld b e a b e t t e r c h a n c e o f g e t t i n g a h e a d .
______
I f t h e r e w o u ld b e go od f r i n g e b e n e f i t s ( s u c h a s
r e t i r e m e n t p l a n e t c . ) . _______________________________________ ______
I f I co u ld be s u r e o f k e e p in g t h i s j o b .
______
I f I c o u l d k e e p c o n t r o l o v e r t h e o p e r a t i o n . ____________ ______
I f I w e re t o b e r e l i e v e d o f some o f t h e p r e s s u r e s
o f t h i s Job.
I f t h e f a r m e r m em bers w o u ld b e f o r i t .
______
O t h e r _______________________________________________________

No
______
______
______
______
______
,______
______

B oard M em bers:
I f th e b o a rd co u ld keep a sa y in th e d e c i s i o n s
a f f e c t i n g t h e l o c a l C o-op.
I f t h e s e r v i c e w o u ld b e b e t t e r .
I f t h e p a t r o n a g e w o uld b e h i g h e r .
I f p r i c e s w o u ld b e l o w e r .
I f t h e f a r m e r member w o u ld b e f o r i t .
I f t h e m a n a g e r w o u ld b e f o r i t .
O th er

______
______
______
______
______
______

______
______
______
______
______
______

142

Farmer Members:
Yes
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____

No
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____

_____

_____

_____
_____

_____
_____

If the rest (or most) of the board would be
against it.
_____
If the farmer members would be against it.__________ _____
If the manager would be against it.
_____

_____
_____
_____

If the service would be better.
If the patronage would be higher.
If the prices would be lower.
If the manager would be for it.
If the board would be for it.
If the farmer members could retain some control
over the question.
Other ______________________________________________
(5)M

Which of the following would make you think more
unfavorably about it?
If the board would be against it.
If the farmer members would be against it.
Other _____________________________________________

B

Other _________________________________________ _
F

If the board would be against it.____________________ _____
If the manager would be against it.
_____
If the other farmer members would be against it.
_____
Other
___________________________________________

4oM. You undoubtedly have many salesmen calling on you to solicit business.
different salesmen call on you in an average week?

4'i'm .

How many

Do you feel that there are too many salesmen calling on you?
Yes

~8m .

_____
_____
_____

_____ No

_____ D o n ’t know

Would you say that salesmen are your major source of information on the technical
aspects of products?
Yes

_____ No

_____ D o n 11 know

If no, where do you get the technical information necessary to make a decision
to b u y ? ________________________________________________________________________ _
49M.

Would you say that most salesmen spend too much time with "small talk?"
Yes

_____ No

_____ D o n ’t know

If yes, would you rather have a salesman tell you about his product and leave
in a hurry?
Yes
50M.

_____ No

_____ Don ’t know

Do you think there is such a thing as "sales personality?"
Yes

No

D o n ’t know

1^3

51M.

Do y o u t h i n k a s a l e s m a n s h o u l d b e a g g r e s s i v e
a sale?
Y es
I f no,

______ No

i n t h e way h e a p p r o a c h e s y o u t o make

D o n ' t know

s h o u l d h e b e lo w p r e s s u r e ?

________________________ •

52M.

What a r e t h e s a l e s t e c h n i q u e s u s e d b y s a l e s m e n w h i c h a r e m o s t l i k e l y
to buy h is p ro d u c t?

53M.

Do y o u e v e r a c c e p t s p e c i a l f a v o r s f r o m s a l e s m e n
e t c . )?
Y es

______ No

(lik e

le ttin g

to g e t you

h im b u y y o u m e a l s ,

______ D o n ' t know

I f y e s , d o e s t h i s i n f l u e n c e y o u t o b u y f r o m h im ? _______________________________________
I f n o , why n o t ? ________

5^M.

Do y o u t h i n k a s a l e s m a n ' s j o b
Yes

______ No

i s a n e a s y one?

______ D o n ' t

know

I f y e s , why? _____________________________________________________________________________________
I f n o , why? _____________________________________________________________________________________
55M.

Do

y o u f e e l t h a t y o u r j o b a s m a n a g e r i s m ore d i f f i c u l t t h a n t h a t o f a s a l e s m a n ?
Y es

______ No

______ D o n ' t know

I f y e s , why? ____________________________________________________________________________________ _
I f n o , why? _____________________________________________________________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abel, Theodore. "The Pattern of a Successful Political Movement," American
Sociological Review, II (April, 1937).
Abshier, George. "The Management Team," American Cooperation. Washington,
D.C.: American Institute of Cooperation, 1961.
American Cooperation, 1939, A Collection of Papers. American Institute of
Cooperation, 1959, PP- 151-17*+ + 201-21?.
Beal, George.
"The Job Ahead for Our Co-ops,"
1 (July, 195*0, 16-18.

Iowa Farm Science, IX, No.

Beal, George.
"Are Farmers Satisfied with Their Co-ops?"
Science, IX, No. 10 (April, 1955), 7-10.

Iowa Farm

Bell, Daniel.
The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas
in the Fifties, Rev.
New York: The Free Press, 196l.
Birnbaum, Norman. "The Sociological Study of Ideology (l9*+0-6o): A Trend
Report and Bibliography," Current Sociology, IX, No. 2 (i960), 91*
Broom, L., and Selznick, P. Sociology: A Text with Adapted Readings.
Evanston, 111.:
Row, Peterson &
Co., 1955Brown, E. J., and Bealer, R. C. "Value Orientations and Behavioral
Correlates," Rural Sociology, XXII, No. 1 (March, 1957), 51-5*+•
Buck, Solon J.
The Granger Movement; A Study of Agricultural Organization
and Its Political, Economic, and Social Manifestations, l870-l88o~l
Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Press, 1913Casselman, Paul H. The Cooperative Movement and Some of Its Problems.
New York: The Philosophical Libraiy, 1951Cattell, Raymond B. Factor Analysis: An Introduction, and Manual for the
Psychologist and Social Scientist. New York: Harper 80 Brothers, 1952.
Chambers, C. A. "The Cooperative League of the United States of America,
1916-1961: A Study of Social Theory and Social Action," Agricultural
History, XXVI, No. 2 (April, 1962), 59-8l.
Copp, James H. Trace Line Analysis: An Improved Method of Item Analysis.
State University, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University, February 9,
1959* (Preliminary draft)
Copp, James H. "Perceptual Influences on Loyalty in a Farmer Cooperative,"
Rural Sociology, XXIX, No. 2 (June, 196*+), 168-180.
Copp, J. H., and Rust, I. W. Exploring Communication Processes in a Farmer
Cooperative: A Case Study. Farmer Cooperative Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, General Report 97. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, August, 196l.
Daniels, John.

Cooperation: An American Way. New York:

Ikk

Covici-Friede, 1938.

145
Ellsworth, R. H. The Study of Farmers' Cooperatives. Washington, D.C.:
Farmer Cooperative Service, 1954.
Erdman, H. E. "Trends in Cooperative Expansion," Journal of Farm Economics,
XXXII (November, 1950), 1019-1030.
Folkman, William S. "Board Members as Decision Makers in Farmers' Coopera­
tives," Rural Sociology, XXIII, No. 3 (September, 1958).
Franz, V. R. W., and Haller, A. 0. Big and Little Co-ops: Attitudes of
People in Locally Owned Cooperatives Toward Mergers with Large Co­
operatives. Final Report of Project of Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, Michigan State Agricultural Experiment Station, East
Lansing, Michigan, February, 1962.
Fruchter, B. Introduction to Factor Analysis.
Nostrand Co., 1954•

Princeton, N. J.: D. Van

Gerth, Hans, and Mills, C. Wright. Character and Social Structure. New
York; Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1953*
Gessner, A. L. Farmer Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
General Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
April, 1964.
Harman, Harry H. Modem Factor Analysis.
Chicago Press, I960.

Chicago, 111.: The University of

Heberle, Rudolf. Social Movements: An Introduction to Political Sociology.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1951Hicks, John D. The Populist Revolt: A History of the Farmers' Alliance
and the People's Party. Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Press,

Hoffer, C. R., and Gibson, D. L. "The Community Situation as it Affects
Agricultural Extension Work," Special Bulletin 312, Michigan Agricul­
tural Experimental Station, East Lansing, Michigan, October, 194-1.
Infield, Henrik F. "The Sociological Approach in Research on Cooperation,"
Rural Sociology, XIV, No. 2 (June, 1949), 157-158.
Kercher, L. C.; Kebker, V. W.; and Leland, W. C. Consumers' Cooperatives
in the North Central States. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of
Minnesota Press, 1941.
Kile, Orville M.
1948.

The Farm Bureau Through Decades.

Maryland:

Waverly Press,

King, C. Wendell. Social Movements in the United States. New York:
House, Inc., 19567
Knapp, Joseph. "Are Cooperatives Good Business?"
XXXXV (January-February, 1957), 57-64.

Random

Harvard Business Review,

Kress, A. J. (ed.) Introduction to the Cooperative Movement. New York:
Harper & Brother^ 1941.

1U6

Lipset, S. Agrarian Socialism. Berkeley, Calif;: University of California
Press. 1950.
Loomis, Charles P., and Beegle, Allan J.
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1950.

Rural Social Systems.

New York:

Mannheim, Karl. Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of
Knowledge. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1936.
Manuel, Milton. "The Case for Merging Co-ops," Agricultural Experiment
Station Circular 375- Kansas: Kansas State University, i960.
Merton, Robert K.
Press 1957.

Social Theory and Social Structure. New York:

The Free

Miller, Raymond W. A Conservative Looks at Cooperatives. Athens, Ohio:
Ohio University Press, 196A.
Miller, R. W., and Jensen, A. L. "Failures of Farmers' Cooperatives," Harvard
Business Review, XXV (Winter, 19^7), 213-226.
Parsons, Talcott.

The Social System. New York:

The Free Press, 1951-

Salantos, Theodore. Farmer Movements in the South, 1869-1933- Lincoln, Neb.:
University of Nebraska Press, 19&0.
Schaars, J. "New Frontiers for Wisconsin Dairy Coope," American Cooperation.
Washington, D.C.: American Institute of Cooperation" 1961.
•

Smelser, Neil J. Theory of Collective Behavior. New York:
Press, 1963*

The Free

Sorenson, V. L. Elevator Outlook Committee Progress Report. Agricultural
Economic Department. East Iansing, Mich.: Michigan State University,
1961.
Taylor, Carl C.

Rural Sociology. New York:

Harper & Brothers, 1933*

Turner, Ralph H., and Killian, Lewis H. Collective Behavior.
Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957-

Englewood

Ulrey, 0., and Howland, Arthur. Cooperative and Non-Profit Dairy Associations
in Michigan. East Iansing, Mich.: State University Agricultural Experi­
ment Station, February, 1956.
Voorhis, Jerry.

American Cooperatives. New York:

Harper & Brothers, 1961.

Wakeley, Ray E., and Harp, John. "An Overview of Sociological Research on
Farmer Cooperatives in the United States," International Archives of
Sociology of Cooperation. Paris, France. (Summer, 1966).
Wakeley, Ray E
"Sociological Research on Farmers' Organizations and Agri­
cultural Cooperatives," Rural Sociology, XXII, No. 3 (September, 1957).