Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
A study of the effect of social status on the degree of class crystallization in an urban community
(USC Thesis Other)
A study of the effect of social status on the degree of class crystallization in an urban community
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
A STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL STATUS ON THE DEGREE OF CLASS CRYSTALLIZATION IN AN URBAN COMMUNITY by Gerald Gale Eaton A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Sociology) January 19 76 DM! Number: OP31764 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Diss&irtaifofi UMl DP31764 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90007 ' 7 \ ■r S o ■ 7 6 E I ( This dissertation, written by Gerald Gale Eaton under the direction of h.X.^... Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements of the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y D ate . . Dean ION COMMITTEE Chairman TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES...................................... V Chapter 1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . 1 CONCEPTUAL PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . 1 THEORETICAL PROBLEM .................... 5 Social Mobility................... . 6 Social Origin ..... ............. 7 METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEM . . . 7 Selection of Rank Systems ........... 7 CRYSTALLIZATION SCORE PROCEDURE .... 9 Landecker's Method .................... 9 Discussion of Landecker's Method . . . 12 PURPOSE OF THIS S T U D Y .................. 17 DEFINITION OF CONCEPTS .................. 18 SCOPE OF GENERALITY ......... 19 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY .................... 20 2. SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE.................. 21 THEORY................................... 21 DEFINITION OF SOCIAL CLASS ............. 25 Marx's Theory of Social Class .... 26 Weber's Theory of Social Class .... 27 ii Chapter Page Functional Theory ...................... 34 Conflict Theory ........................ 35 Synthesis of Integration and Conflict . 37 Eisenstadt's Role Theory............... 38 DEFINITION OF SOCIAL STATUS.............. 4 0 EMPIRICAL FINDINGS ...................... 41 DEFINITION OF STATUS CONSISTENCY .... 42 Early Related Conceptualizations . . . 42 Conceptual Clarification of Status Consistency...................... 44 Choice of Status Dimensions in Status Consistency .................. 45 CLASS CRYSTALLIZATION................ 4 6 Characteristics of Social Classes . . . 48 EDUCATION AND STATUS ATTAINMENT THEORY AND FINDINGS...................... 56 SOCIAL MOBILITY THEORY .................. 59 SOCIAL MOBILITY EMPIRICAL FINDINGS . . . 62 SOCIAL ORIGIN ........................... 65 SUMMARY............................... 69 3. RESEARCH PROCEDURES ...................... 71 LANDECKER'S HYPOTHESIS .................. 71 Selection of Rank Systems......... 72 Control Variables ...................... 74 DIAGRAM MODEL ............................. 76 OPERATIONAL SYSTEM ...................... 78 I 111 Chapter Page Operational Measures .................. 7 8 Social Status ........................ 8 3 Social Mobility ...................... 87 RESEARCH DESIGN........................... 87 SUMMARY................................... 88 4. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION . . . 90 UNIVARIATE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS . . . 90 Description of Composite Frequency I Distribution Tables .................. 97 ! BIVARIATE CONTINGENCY DISTRIBUTIONS . . . 101 ! Data Interpretation..................... 105 ( Alternative Theories to Explain the j Findings.............................. 115 j j FIRST ORDER RELATIONS ..................... 121 I I INTERPRETATION OF SOCIAL MOBILITY .... 129 ; INTERPRETATION OF SOCIAL ORIGIN .......... 136 ' SUMMARY OF DATA ANALYSES................ 138 CHAPTER SUMMARY .................. 142 5. SUI4MARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................... 144 SUMMARY............. 144 Purpose................................. 144 I Rationale................................ 144 j D e s i g n .................................. 145 I General Discussion .................... 145 I CONCLUSIONS ............................. 147 ! REFERENCES................. 151 I I - • 1 I I V i LIST OF TABLES j Table Page j i 1, Approximate Equivalent Rank Levels in j Four Rank Systems......................... 11 I 2. Adjusted Crystallization Means and I Class Crystallization Index for [ Every Tenth Status Percentile ............. 13 t I 3. Frequency Distribution of Husband's I Education in 1961........................ 92 4 . Frequency Distribution of Husband's Occupation in 1961 93 5 . Frequency Distribution of Husband's Income in 1 9 6 1 .......................................... 94 6. Frequency Distribution of Husband's Father's Education in 1961 95 7. Frequency Distribution of Husband's Father's Occupation in 1 9 6 1 ................................ 96 8. Frequency Distribution of Class Crystallization .......................... 98 9 . Frequency Distribution of Husband's Intergenerational Educational Mobility ..... ...................... 99 1 0 . Frequency Distribution of Husband's Intergenerational Occupational Mobility................................. 100 1 1 . Percentage of Distribution of White Husbands Classified by Degree of Status Crystallization and Occupational Category .................... 102 1 2 . Mean Educational and Income Levels for Various Occupational Categories ......... 104 V Table Page 13. Standard Scores of Husband's Education, Occupation, and Income .................. 106 14. Percentage Distribution of High Status Crystallization of White Husbands Classified by Type of Husband's Intergenerational Educational Mobility and Husband's Occupational Category.......................... 123 15. Percentage Distribution of High Status Crystallization of White Husbands Classified by Type of Husband's Intergenerational Occupational Mobility and Husband's Occupational Category.............. .................. 126 16. Percentage Distribution of High Status Crystallization of White Husbands Classified by Type of Husband's Father's Education and Husband's Occupational Category . . . ; ......... 133 17. Percentage Distribution of High Status Crystallization of White Husbands Classified by Type of Husband's Father's Occupation and Husband's Occupational Category .................. 135 VI Chapter 1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM CONCEPTUAL PROBLEM Certain aspects of social class have been treated quantitatively, for example, class consciousness (Blalock, | i 1959). Yet, the degree of "classness" of given social j I strata is problematic; this implies the need for a quanti- | tative analysis of these strata. Accordingly, Landecker ! (19 60, p. 308) asked, "To what extent is a given system of stratification a class system?" and "How do different ! segments of that system compare in the degree to which I they are classes?" He then proposed a conceptual i definition and operational measurement for the degree of I"classness." j Landecker (19 60, p. 308) pointed out that the quantitative conceptualization of class stratification may 1 be especially useful in the analysis of American class systems. Several studies have suggested that only to a * ilimited extent have social classes been formed in American society. It has been observed that some opinions on socioeconomic issues are related to the social statuses of respondents, but it has been impossible to determine the locations of class boundaries by aggregations or discon tinuities along the gradient of measured statuses (Kornhauser, 1939, 1957; Anderson, 1954). Lenski (1952), Lasswell (1954), and Manis and Meltzer (1954) concluded in three unrelated studies that local populations were not in i agreement as to the number of social classes in their own I communities. Gross (1953), in a study concerned with I respondents' awareness of their own class statuses, con cluded that the social class with which persons identified I depended to a large extent on the way in which they were I jquestioned. These findings do not necessarily imply the I absence of class stratification, but they do help to j explain the vagueness or arbitrariness of class boundaries jthat seem inherent in studies that define social classes 1 as strata in a hierarchy of statuses. j In "Class Crystallization and Its Urban Pattern," jLandecker (1960) attempted to develop a concept of class- i ness based on Weber's analysis of social class. Landecker observed that Weber developed his concept of class "within the framework of a more general pattern of definitions 'couched in terms of 'probability,'" and that "since I probability is a matter of degree, objects defined in this I manner are readily conceived as existing to a greater or ! lesser extent" (p. 309). In a condensation of Weber's 'more elaborate formulations, Landecker (p. 310) maintained that the quantitative nature of classness is supported I ____ ______________________ ____________________ : __________________i when "Weber defines 'class' as a 'typical probability' that a given level of opportunities in life or 'life chances' will accompany a given position in the economic order." Thus, Landecker (p. 310) concluded that "class stratification exists to a higher or lower degree" as a consequence of the differential probability that persons j in particular social classes would indeed have the oppor tunity level hypothesized as appropriate for their classes. Landecker (1960) noted that Weber's discussion of class implied two types of social inequality. One type is specific "as among property levels or among occupational levels; the other is an inequality in life chances or opportunities" (p. 310). "Specific inequality" is basic but not identical to class stratification. Whenever specific inequalities result in generalized inequalities, class stratification can be said to exist. Weber's abstract framework provides the basis for ! developing an operational definition of "classness." : Landecker (1960, p. 310) stated that "inequality in ; 'specific' respects may be represented by any status I hierarchy in which a population is distributed in terms of la single characteristic." Occupation and education are examples of such characteristics. Status hierarchies can also be referred to as "rank systems." Landecker (1960, pp. 310, 311) explained: In order to ascertain the extent to which class stratification has taken place in a social system, one may determine the degree to which the status differences specific to par ticular rank systems have given rise to general ized inequalities. Inequalities are generalized insofar as the specific inequalities of one rank system are consistent with those of other rank systems. Thus if it is common for persons who face one another as superior and subordinate in one rank system to be so related in other rank systems as well, a generalized pattern of inequality is present. Under such conditions, where class stratification is highly developed, strata located on approximately the same levels of different rank systems tend to coincide in their memberships. In reverse, a merely rudi mentary class system, characterized by inequal ities that are situationally specific rather than generalized will manifest itself in rank systems that are relatively independent of one another in their population distributions. Patterns which relate rank systems are "opposite ! poles" on a scale that Landecker (1960, p. 311) designated I j as "the class crystallization continuum. It measures the I extent to which equivalent strata of different rank systems jconverge in their composition, and thus form one class." j Weber's definition of specific inequality is ' limited to "a given position in the economic order." I I Landecker changed the definition of "specific inequality" I from difference in position in a hierarchy within the economic order to include differences in position in other status hierarchies, specifically education and ethnic- racial hierarchies. In principle, Landecker apparently jextended Weber's concept of class inequality to include inequalities in any rank system. THEORETICAL PROBLEM The first problem to which Landecker (1960) addressed himself was the conceptualization of a quanti tative definition of social class. With the definition of degree of classness in hand, Landecker (p. 315) argued that it would be unlikely for a class system to be equally crystallized from top to bottom. This situation might exist only in the Hindu caste system in earlier centuries. A crystallization pattern is postulated, characterized by the strongest crystallization at the two extremes of the class system. At the elite level of any major rank system, persons would tend to have the necessary power to achieve a similarly high status in other rank systems. At the I intermediate rank level, the persons who hold this ,position not only have less power to achieve similar I istatuses in other rank systems, but also there is less i j interest in maintaining similar statuses because of the j I prevalent goal of upward mobility. Those who populate the bottom end of a rank system tend to have similarly low I status in each of the other major rank systems because I I they lack sufficient power to enable them to rise above i * their present status. The postulated crystallization pattern is the principal prepositional statement made by Landecker. It is a theoretical statement which identifies status as the independent variable and class crystallization, i.e., status consistency, as the dependent variable. It is specified as a curvilinear relationship, that is, high degree of crystallization for the low and high statuses and a low degree of crystallization for the middle statuses. The rationale is based mainly on power or the lack of it for the high and low classes, respectively. The rationale for the middle classes is based partly on ambition for upward mobility and also on having sufficient power to change rank position within various social categories. Social Mobility An additional theoretical issue is that of the : effect of social mobility on class crystallization. ! , Bloombaum (1964, pp. 340-347) hypothesized that the mean- I ing of status consistency is related to the direction of i social mobility. There are two conflicting theories about I the effect of social mobility on class crystallization, i The first is that of Landecker (1960, p. 316) who stated I that social mobility is inversely related to class crystallization and that mobility is low in the low and high strata and high in the middle strata. An alternative theory was offered by Matras (1975, p. 318) who stated that social mobility is directly related to class crystal lization based on the rationale that the degree of social mobility represents time in which to stabilize the statuses of the rank dimensions at the same level. In addition to testing the class crystallization hypothesis, the effect of intergenerational educational and occupational mobility are to be determined. Social Origin A number of studies have shown that the degree to which "life chances" have been realized is the direct result of persons* social origins (Blau & Duncan, 1967, pp. 1-24; Girod, 1965, pp. 94-109; Turner, 1960, pp. 855- 867). In general, these studies have shown that there is a direct relation between the status level of the parents and that of their offspring. METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEM Selection of Rank Systems If it is assumed that social class is multi dimensional, then a major issue in conceptualizing class crystallization is the determination of those dimensions. Landecker (1960, pp. 312, 313) considered this problem and discussed several criteria for identifying those dimensions. The first criterion he specified was that every person in the population must have the possibility of being placed in the rank system under consideration. The four rank systems which Landecker ultimately selected were education, occupation, income, and ethnic-racial, and they conform to this criterion. The second criterion that Landecker stated was that all members of any given family must be able to hold the same status so that the family can be used as the unit of inquiry. Education, occupation, and income do not j conform to this requirement because junior members of the | I family may not be able to work, earn income, or be old | enough to have completed their education. Yet, in spite I of this, Landecker used all three of those rank systems. It is felt that the first part of the criterion which states that each member of the population must be able to hold the same status is a necessary requirement so that ! I perfect class crystallization could occur. At the same I time it means that the families which have children could j not be included in the sample. I The third criterion mentioned by Landecker is I that any major rank system must be conceptually and i I logically independent of the other rank systems. It is i I assumed that the four rank systems conform to this I criterion. I The four rank systems selected by Landecker have j not been universally accepted by all researchers, for ! example, I. W. Goffman (1957) and Kenkel (1956) who both deleted the ethnic-racial rank. As an additional criterionl it would seem that all members of the population must not 8 be restricted in their movement from one status position to another. This criterion would eliminate the ethnic- racial rank system. The ability to advance or decline within the occupation and income systems seems to be relatively unlimited, but in the educational system upward mobility is possible whereas a decline is not over a short time period. Therefore, although the educational rank system is to be included in the measurement of class crystallization, it does not completely conform to this requirement. I The revision of Landecker's criteria for the I selection of rank systems is considered to be an I I j improvement in stipulating the kind of rank systems which I would allow for perfect class crystallization. Also, the I elimination of the ethnic-racial system based on the j revised criteria allows for measurement which more nearly I approaches complete class crystallization. I CRYSTALLIZATION SCORE PROCEDURE i Another methodological issue is that of the j determination of the degree of class crystallization. The method of Landecker and Lenski will be described and then contrasted with the method used in this study. Landecker * s Method Landecker used a procedure developed by Lenski (1954) for the determination of status consistency. 9 The first step in the procedure was to establish a standard measure of status so that the various rank systems could be compared. Landecker (I960, pp. 313-315) developed the status measure by computing the cumulative percentage distribution of the total sample for each rank system I I separately. Then, consecutive ranges of status percen- Itiles were assigned to the ranks found in a given rank I system (see Table 1). For example, occupational rank B corresponds to the status percentile ranges of 71-80 and 81-90. Next, the degree of equivalence among the ranks for each person in each of the four rank systems was jrepresented by the mid point of its percentile range, ji.e., a status score. For example, the status score of I occupational rank A is the mid point of the status percen- ! tile range 91-100, that is, 95. The crystallization score i I for each person was accomplished by "taking the square I I root of the sum of the squared deviations from the mean of I I the four hierarchy scores of the individual and subtracting the resulting figure from one" (Lenski, 1954, p. 409). For ! example, if a person held a D occupational rank, $4,000- I I $4,999 income, ninth grade education, and his ethnic-racial I I rank were German, then the corresponding status (hierarchy) scores would be 25, 60, 35, and 65. The mean of the four status scores is .46.2, and the crystallization score would I be the square root of the sum of the squared differences 10 I m E H Q ) -P C O >1 œ c s , u P o C •H C O I —I > Q ) PI .X C m 6 •H (Ü Ü -P f C J C O 01 >, I CO Ü 1 « x i f d -P 0 1 H C O c u %--s fd fd p fd 01 C D (ü g c o >4 nd > 0 u 1 — 1 (Ü o 1 — 1 0) fd A P I C •H (Ü nd •iH +J O ' rH C Q o •H a fd 1 — 1 '— ' '— ' 4 J g g 1 fd (ü 0 in ro C N C N Ü ■p u 1 — 1 1 — 1 1 — 1 1 — 1 P C O > , W C O U CO < (ü H 1 —1 fd > •H 1 —1 H fd g C G ) C ü 0 -P -P •H C O fd -P > , g fd co -H A X P X o ü C P ü fd A O 01 a, < > P >1 fd PI fd rH Pi P to Pi c •P P p iH c o • r H ■ H C O c fd P i P fd P •H •H nd ü +J ■ H fd PI X •P C O fd •p 0 ü P 3 1 —1 P P -P P g C O (ü 1 —1 •p tn c o P •P 1 —1 tn fd (ü O c P -p Q ) fd 1 —1 P c o tji X 1—1 P ü P ü -H Q ) p P -P o - P P Q ) Q ) ■P H co fP C O fp L D H O H Oi f f i01 i z : < T > 00 m o o o Q o o O o o O o o O O rH m no LO lO ro fM 1 —1 1 pp 1 —1 1 rH 1 —1 1 Pp 1 —1 1 Pp 1 —1 O 00 Vû in ro CM 1 —1 C O C O Q ) PI % f d VO > cr, c r > <T > <T> c r > <T> rn C 3 0 c u O <T > < T> <T > o c r > <T> <T > as PI <T > c r > c r > c r > c r > <T > as as n d % . * . • » » . n d P in ro ro ro C N J P fd </y </y </y <o- co co co CO fd o o o o o co co co CO as o o o o o o O o o as o o o o o o o o o as 00 VD I f O ro ro ro CM 1 —1 <o- <o- <o- <o- <o- co- co co- co co- H o rH I 11 between the status scores and the mean status scores subtracted from one. In order to determine the degree of class crystal lization at various status levels, an arithmetic mean of the individual crystallization scores was calculated for each ranked category in each rank system (see Table 2). For example, for occupational rank B the arithmetic mean of the crystallization scores was 55.7 and corresponded to the mid points of the status ranges, that is, 75 and 85. The means were adjusted for the "differences in the lowest crystallization scores theoretically possible on different rank levels" (Landecker, 19 60, p. 316, see footnote for adjustment procedure). The class crystallization index is I the mean of the adjusted crystallization means for a given I [status mid point and represents the degree of class I jcrystallization which is compared to the corresponding 'status percentile. I Discussion of Landecker*s Method I The first problem that arises in Landecker's method I . [is the matching of the categories within the rank systems Ito the status deciles. It is implied, for example, in the I [case of occupational rank B that it corresponds exactly jwith the 71-90 range and that all other categories are iSimilarly matched. But if the categories are fitted to jthe nearest decile, for example, in the case of ! 12 c o •H -p fd N ■H P e u -P rH e n •H > i-P P P U e u ü e n p e n e u P P 4 1 — 1 U e n P n d -P P P P -P CM e n en G ) P X 1 — 1 P -p X i e u p P S e u EH P Eh O >1 •H P -P e u P > N w •H 1—1 p 1 — 1 o P 4H -P e n X >1 e u p n d u P H t < ü -P C O p •m X I 0) •H nj rH p ü } I —I œ f d P P O -p w CJ >i-H P -P U P N •SI ü -P fd w Pi >i I en ü P P x i P -P Pi w rH g fd < ü p) œ >1 -P en fd ü X P P nd P W Pi § p) < ü w g >1 o en ü s S i o -p •H en -P >4 P e n ü P ü fd O Pi w G ) I 1 W "H P -P -P P fd G ) -P ü e n p < u P4 LO ro LO LO 00 LO rH LO 00 ro LO C \ o 00 C \ LO LO LO LO LO lO LO LO LO LO LO " < r ro a s LO " < r 00 " < r 1 —1 CM CM LO 00 1 —1 CM LO o LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO lO o o CM LO " < r 1 —1 o o 1 —1 o as LO o 00 o as CM LO LO lO LO lO LO lO LO lO LO 00 CM O " < r " < r ro ro ro ro 1 —1 O 00 O as as o o o o LO LO LO LO LO lO LO LO LO LO lO 00 i> TT " < r 1 —1 1 —1 rH o LO LO LO LO LO as as as 00 lO lO lO LO lO lO lO lO LO LO LO 00 LO LO LO LO LO lO " < r LO ro LO CM LO LO 13 occupational rank B, the percentiles could range from 74 to 94 which would result in a mid point of 84 instead of the implied mid point of 80. Similarly, for all of the Other categories in all of the rank systems, this error could be made. The method used in this study to establish a level for a category within a rank system is to equate status level with the standard score of the category. The standard score is an expression of the relative position of the category in the rank system in terms of percentile. Therefore, the status level is correct to the nearest percentile as compared to the method of Landecker which is correct to the nearest decile. I The procedure for determining the standard score ; of a category within a rank system involves first the j calculation of the standard deviation of the distribution : and then the calculation of the standard (Z) score (see I Anderson and Zelditch, 1968, pp. 76-89) . I I Another problem involved in Landecker*s procedure j I is the adjustment of the crystallization means which cor- I I responds to the status percentiles. The procedure states that the adjusted mean x=100 (u-B)/100-B, where a equals the unadjusted mean and h the lowest crystallization score theoretically possible. It appears that two errors have been made in establishing this procedure. The first error is that only the lowest score has been incorporated 14 into the procedure. In order to define the range over which the crystallization scores could occur, it would be necessary to include the upper limit also. The effect of including only the lower limit is to make the denominator larger than it should be; therefore, the resulting proportion does not accurately reflect its position within j I its range of scores. If the upper limit is included in j ; the procedure, then the range of crystallization scores is | accurately defined and the denominator should appear as | 100- (B+c) where equals 100 minus the upper limit. The effect of including the upper limit would be to increase the value of the crystallization mean in proportion to the value of o. The second error in the adjustment calculation is the inclusion of the term h in the numerator. This term i reduces the value of a, the unadjusted mean, with no japparent rationale for that function. It would appear that ! I this term is unnecessary because the adjustment of the mean ; is made on the basis of the actual range of the scores ; which does not require that h be subtracted from a. The I : net effect of the adjustment equation is to lower the I j value of the unadjusted mean because the effect of h in i j the numerator is greater than the effect of h in the I I denominator. This means that the adjusted mean has assumed a value which is opposite in direction, that is, lower, than that which it should have. 15 With regard to the need for an adjustment of the crystallization means, it would appear that if the assumption of homoscedasticity is met that an adjustment is not needed. It is only in the case where the distri butions of crystallization means vary that the denominator I would vary and result in adjusted means which were not I proportionate to one another. That is, when the distri- i butions are constant, then h+o equals a constant which means that relative to one another the adjusted means are the same. The method used in this study assumes homo- scedasticity and, therefore, does not require an adjustment procedure. Consequently, the findings of this study may differ from those of Landecker because of the two errors discussed in the adjustment procedure. Another problem in Landecker's procedure is that j of the averaging of the adjusted crystallization means of I I the four rank systems to arrive at the class crystalli- I zation index. The error is that the adjusted means have 1 ; been weighted in terms of their relative frequency and I I the degree of weighting has not been acknowledged or I indicated. The weighting probably occurs to varying degrees from one category to another. The source of the problem is the fact that the crystallization scores are grouped into the categories of the rank systems which might be useful for purposes of 16 analysis but is not necessary in order to calculate the crystallization index. It is sufficient to average the individual crystallization scores in order to arrive at a class crystallization index which avoids the problem of weighting. The method of averaging the individual scores has been used in this study. The purpose of the discussion of Landecker's methods for the selection of rank systems and the calcu lation of crystallization scores has been to point out I some of the problems involved, to indicate the manner in which the problems have been resolved with the implication that the findings of this study would be different than those of Landecker. i PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY I j The purpose of this study is to test empirically I ! the class crystallization hypothesis of Landecker. In ; addition, the relationship between social status and class I I crystallization is to be determined under various con- j ditions of social mobility and social origin. Some of the methodological procedures of Landecker are revised in order to more nearly approximate the kind of measurement required by the theoretical relations. The emphasis of the study is not upon methodology but rather upon the concept of class crystallization and the 17 variables which are related to it that contribute to its meaning. DEFINITION OF CONCEPTS The main concepts used in this study are social class, class crystallization, social status, and social mobility. The manner in which the concepts are to be used i is based on the following definitions: Class ovystalli’Zati’on. This concept, which "ascertain(s) the extent to which class stratification has taken place in a social system," is defined as when "inequalities are generalized," i.e., when "the specific inequalities of one rank system are consistent with those I of other rank systems" (Landecker, I960, pp. 310, 311). i ^ This definition implies that the degree to which a social ! i system has evidence of class stratification may be deter- | i I ; mined by a measure of the status consistency of the members of that system, i.e., class crystallization is the ' ' t i societal analogue of individual consistency. This défini- j ition is greater in scope than Weber’s definition of social ! class which, as condensed by Landecker (I960, p. 310), I ! states that "class is a typical probability that a given I level of opportunities in life or ’life chances’ will jaccompany a given position in the economic order." I Sootal status. Social status, as used in this t 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ H study, is defined as a position along a rank system. The rank system has a number of ordered categories which are characterized by different degrees of the variable being measured. For example, in terms of the rank system of occupational prestige, the category of unskilled workers has a lower degree of prestige than that of upper white- collar workers. Social mobility, Social mobility is defined as the movement of individuals from one social position to 'another. The type of social mobility dealt with in this I j study is that of vertical intergenerational educational I land occupational movement based on the differential status I positions of the father and son. The degree of mobility is based on objective measurements, and the two rank I ; systems are not combined into one measure of mobility I I because it is believed that this would only obscure the I independent effects of the separate systems. I I I SCOPE OF GENERALITY i The extent to which the findings can be gener alized theoretically is limited to the nature of the data. i The limitations are related to the population sample which was drawn from Detroit in 1961. Since Detroit is a large urban community, it would be inappropriate to generalize to smaller, rural communities. Also, in 19 61, economic 19 and other social conditions existed in Detroit which might not exist to the same degree in other communities. The sample is composed of white, married men to control for race, marital status, and sex. The findings should not be generalized beyond these specific conditions. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY The following chapter is concerned with a search for the literature relevant to class crystallization. The theoretical discussions related to the concepts of social class, class crystallization, status, social mobility, and I stratification theory are described. Also, the important ] research findings are presented. | Chapter three, which describes the procedures used ; jin the study, defines the theoretical model upon which the I prepositional system is based. The way in which the jtheoretical concepts are made operational is explained. I I Finally, the sample and research design are presented. ! Chapter four consists of the findings of the I present study. The data are presented in the form of I I contingency tables with percentage distributions. The jfindings are interpreted on the basis of their corre- 1 jspondence with the predicted values from the hypothesized class crystallization patterns. The final chapter summarizes the study and presents the major conclusions. 20 Chapter 2 SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE This chapter presents the results of a survey of the sociological literature related to class crystalliza tion. The two main areas investigated were theory which includes definition of concepts and theories of stratifi cation and empirical findings related to the theory. THEORY A brief description of social stratification including Svalastoga's hierarchy of models provides a basis for contextualizing this study. North (1926) I ! distinguished four major forms of social differentiation, I viz., (1) functional differentiation based on the divisions ■of labor; (2) rank differentiation, i.e., possession of ! differentially distributed scarce items; (3) custom i I differentiation, i.e., differential application of rules I I I for proper behavior ; and (4) competitive differentiation I based upon success and failure. Rank differentiation is jthe form investigated in this study. j Three major theoretical perspectives which attempt to explain rank differentiation are : (1) biological; (2) 21 sociological, stressing cooperation, which is the basis of Landecker's hypothesis; and (3) sociological, stressing conflict, which is the basis for the alternative theoretical explanation of the findings of this study. Svalastoga (1964) suggested a hierarchy of I I stratification models listed in the order of increasing jpermeability (potential for vertical mobility), viz., (1) j caste model— zero permeability; (2) estate model— low I permeability; (3) class model— about 4 0 percent perme- I ability; (4) continuous model— about 80 percent perme- I ability; (5) egalitarian model--100 percent permeability. I The caste, estate, and class models are charac- j terized by a discrete distribution of the stratification ! variables. The continuous model, which does not assume I discreteness, has a permeability of about 80 percent of : maximum. This model represents the stratification and I mobility characteristics of the industrialized part of I ithe world, and, therefore, this is the model which fits ! the data of this study. Kenkel's (Cuber & Kenkel, 1954) 'study of Columbus, Ohio, showed that based on the North- IHatt prestige scale or based on rental value of dwelling, I I I there were no distinct gaps in the distribution. In I modern societies, the stratification variables have a I I ! skewed distribution, e.g., economic status, operational- ;ized by income of total wealth; education, when measured 22 by years of formal education; power; and social status. Schermerhorn (1961, p. 11) suggested a skewed distribution of power in which charismatic leadership occurs rarely, power exercised through authority is most common, and power by means of coercion is less common. It has been determined that the average intercorrelation of major stratification variables in the United States is about a mean value of .5 with a range of .6 or .7 for occupational prestige and education to a minimum of .3 or .4 for the intercorrelation between education and income (Svalastoga, 1964, p. 549). One of the considerations regarding the inter- I relation between stratification variables is the matter I ; of status consistency, i.e., whether or not a person ranks I ! about the same in each of the major stratification vari- Iables. Homans (1953) observed that when status incon- j sistency of a member of a group is observed by other group jmembers that a strain toward status consistency tends to develop which is based upon norms of fairness or justice that define status discrepancies as being unjust. Hughes i (1945) stated that the formal definition of rights and j duties of an occupational role is frequently associated I with an informal set of expectations, e.g., a physician should be a white, male person. Therefore, if the occupant of the occupational role is not able to comply with the informal expectation, then strain develops. Lenski (1954) 23 ranked respondents along the four dimensions of occupa tional prestige (North-Hatt scale, 195 3), income, education, and ethnicity. For each person he computed a status crystallization score which reflected the extent to which the person was similarly ranked along the four I dimensions. He concluded that the less crystallized group I held a more liberal or radical stand on political issues. I Two technological factors which may have an impact ^upon modern stratification systems are: (1) the increas- }ing cost of energy and equipment, and (2) the increasing I rapidity of change. Both of these factors are associated with an increase in the scale of operation, i.e., a shift from the small merchant and small-scale farming to the activity of nation states and large corporate organiza- I tions. This shift in scale implies that the economic i factor in stratification may become less important and j power may become of greater significance and be more ! j unequally distributed. Likewise, information would seem j to be of increasing importance in future stratification ; systems. The uneven distribution of power and information I I may constitute a threat to a society's integration and its j efficiency (Svalastoga, 1964, p. 551). The increasing i I emphasis of power and information control also implies j that in an urban community, such as Detroit where the ! sample was taken, that "normal" class crystallization 24 might be characterized by different status levels rather than the same level in all rank systems. In summary, this study is concerned with rank differentiation which can be described by Svalastoga's I continuous model. Also, the economic factor may be of ! lesser importance than power and information control. I I ' DEFINITION OF SOCIAL CLASS ! ; Lasswell (1965, p. 12) pointed out that the term I i "social class" has often been used synonymously with i"social stratum" and that this has resulted in confusion. I I This implies a need for a conceptual clarification of the I term. I Weber's definition of social class did not include I I communities, but rather categories of population and corresponded closely to what Barber (1957, chap. 9) referred to as a category within an economic continuum. Lasswell (1965, p. 13) observed that by some definitions "social class in contemporary empirical works . . . tends to assume a population--as opposed to an abstract category — with common cultural characteristics." Also included in the definition is prestige and power and the "potential I for close association and intermarriage." In addition, I social class in recent studies has been used "as one Î referent for which criteria may be developed for the I jdifferentiation of unequal strata." The social classes i are not identified as logical or statistical categories, rather "they are historical, moral, or functional categories incorporated in the organization of society." The social class stratification pattern is a function of the perspective from which it is viewed; therefore, each segment of the community may have a different conceptual ization of the social class pattern. Marx's Theory of Social Class i An important statement regarding the definition of [ I social class was made by Karl Marx. He considered economic! self-interest to be the most important feature of social class, i.e., history was concerned with the struggle for I subsistence and material goods. The two classes, the i I owners of the means of production and those who operated I I the machines and worked for wages, produced an inevitable I conflict between the capitalists and the workers, which I was to be resolved when the workers would obtain political ! control in order to confiscate the means of production and I ; divide the profits among themselves equally. Political i I power was considered to be a means to eliminate economic I jexploitation. The criteria for the Marxian two-class model are: (1) the person is an owner of the means of produc tion, or (2) the person is a worker who may be hired and paid for his efforts (Zeitlin, 1968; Lasswell, 1965, pp. 39-40). 26 j Weber's Theory of I Social Class j It appears, in general, that when Weber is com- I pared to Marx, the worth of Weber's theoretical contri- I j butions depends on whether the evaluator is from the United I States or Europe. Lopreato and Hazelrigg (1972, p. 76) ^ suggested that there were ideological differences between ' American and European scholars that account for their I respective ratings of Marx and Weber. Relevant to this ; discussion is the fact that sociologists in the United i I States tend to focus on descriptive aspects and to empha size prestige and social distance; therefore, Weber is t I evaluated positively because he has dealt with such 1 phenomena. i Social stratification theory, Weber applied the 'historical method to develop his general sociology, but I his theory of social stratification was restricted to an I elaboration of Marxian economic theory. Weber's main argument was that social stratification reflects the unequal distribution of power, i.e., a person's standing ,in a rank system is determined by his power (Lopreato and Hazelrigg, 1972, p. 77). Power was defined as "the chance I of a man or of a number of men to realize their own will i i in social action even against the resistance of others who iare participating in the action" (Weber, 1968, vol. 2, p. 926). Although Marx recognized the multidimensional I : i ' . 271 [nature of strata, he focused on economic variables as the I ■ ' ■ ■ I single cause of stratification, whereas Weber made the I multidimensional approach the basis for his theoretical ! construction. Weber maintained that a person has a I I position in three different orders of stratification at I one time and that these positions are usually positively I interdependent. The three orders are the (1) economic i iorder, which is defined as "the way in which economic ^ goods and services are distributed, and is characterized I by 'classes' which hold economic power"; (2) social order, 1 which is defined by "the way in which social honor is distributed in a community between typical groups par ticipating in this distribution," which is characterized ; by "status groups"; (3) legal order, which is defined as ! the distribution of "political power" and the means by ; which the goals of economic power and social honor may be reached, which is characterized by "parties" (Weber, 1968, Ivol. 2,.pp. 926-927). The more detailed discussion of Weber's theory of stratification, which is contained in the following sections on class, status, and party, is ; based on the interpretation made by Lopreato and Hazelrigg ; (1972, pp. 78-86). , The basic criterion of class is that of property, ,and historically there have been different classes based ,on the kind of property, i.e., "property that is usable for returns . . . services that can be offered in the 28 j market" (Weber, 1968, vol. 2, p. 928). As a result of I I these class criteria, Weber developed a taxonomy of class ! of which the major types are: (1) property classes, (2) I acquisition classes, and (3) social classes, j Weber (1968, vol. 1, pp. 302-304) defined a 1 property class as the case when the "class situation" of I ! its members is determined primarily by property differ- Iences. The logical subcategories are those of "positively jprivileged," i.e., owners, or "negatively privileged," {i.e., nonowners. The most significant consequence of I having property is the ability it affords these persons to I"monopolize" opportunities such as executive positions and I higher education. The "middle classes" are those which , "neither monopolize privileges nor completely lack 'property" (Lopreato and Hazelrigg, 1972, pp. 79-80). ! The acquisition class was defined by Weber (1968, ! I I vol. 1, p. 304) as the opportunity for rendering services, j I A "positively privileged" acquisition class was defined in I i terms of supply and demand, i.e., when the skill is in ; I short supply and the demand is high. These classes were I . characterized by various kinds of entrepreneurs, viz., | ' "merchants, shipowners, industrial and agricultural, . . . j j bankers and financiers." Also, certain members of | I _ I i professionals are included who, as a result of their i I I training or ability, have developed monopolistic skills. j On the other hand, the negatively privileged acquisition j ; . i I class was defined as consisting of persons whose skills are in overabundant supply which includes "laborers," classified by Weber as "skilled, semiskilled, unskilled." I In addition, there are "middle" acquisition classes which I include "self-employed farmers and craftsmen," private and jpublic officials, "workers 'with exceptional qualifica- !tions,'" and lesser skilled members of the "liberal I professions." I The social class, the third major type, was I defined as "the totality of those class situations within I which individual and generational mobility" is easily I attained (Weber, 1968, vol. 1, p. 305). I Lopreato and Hazelrigg (1972, pp. 81-82) pointed | ^out that in order to interpret Weber's taxonomy adequately,j I it is necessary to "bear in mind that Weber's foil is the j ! Marxian analysis of class structure and the development of I t ; capitalist society." Both Weber and Marx, they maintained,I I I 'used the same model. Weber employed the property classes | ; ^ j for the feudal society and the acquisition classes for * capitalistic society. Both maintained that the variable of property exists empirically on a continuum, therefore I allowing for middle classes; but in order to increase the I power of their theoretical analysis, the middle classes were ignored. The "historical dimension" of the model I focuses not on possession of property, but rather on how , the property is used in the market, i.e., "class situation i 30l . . . is ultimately market situation." Therefore, class was determined by the amount of property and how it is used; specifically, for Weber's property classes they are i characterized by appropriated right (s) which are used for I "rent income," and for the acquisition classes the appro- !priated right(s) are used for "profit making." The class I taxonomy is employed as a static descriptive analysis of I the feudal and capitalist societies. [ Weber \s theory of status groups, Lopreato and i jHazelrigg (1972, pp. 82-85) maintained that Weber's major I 1 correction of the Marxian definition of class existed in I the discussion of "status." In the treatment of this I second order of stratification, Weber discussed the psychological dimension which Marx neglected. The main I difference between classes and "status groups" is that jmembers of a class are concerned with "control over I commodities on the market," whereas members of a status : group share a "style of life" and are concerned with '"prestige" or "social honor" which "may be connected with 1 any quality shared by a plurality . . . a model of living, j a formal process of education, the prestige of birth, an occupation" (Weber, 1968, vol. 2, p. 9 32; vol. 1, pp. 305- : 306). In order to understand the action of groups, Weber I ,felt it was necessary to know the social and psychological [characteristics of the groups in addition to the economic, j .31.: i.e., its style of life (Bendix, 1960, pp. 104-105). Lopreato and Hazelrigg (19 72, p. 8 3) stated that Weber realized that the actual behavior of persons was deter mined not in the economically simplistic way that Marx supposed, but was determined by "less tangible factors ! (such as 'culture,' 'taste,' family lineage, the type of I j'clpthes worn on the job)." Weber maintained that persons who "search for status and honor [have a] need for social j Isuperiority, [and] the desire to be distinct— all are [very powerful human qualities." On the one hand members of the same status group tend to associate with another jand, yet, they also vie for recognition from members of {higher status groups while rejecting interaction with members of lower groups. Weber's theory of "status consciousness" serves as a major correction to the con- Isciousness of kind of Marx which he viewed as a class ! tendency and Weber showed more definitively that it is !an association of "socially exclusive groups." Status groups usually are found as communities where intimate relationships are held, whereas classes are not communi ties but may provide the basis for them. They tend to control life opportunities and the symbols of honor, thus, they "tend toward exclusiveness and closure," i.e., tend to become a caste. An important point to consider is the relation between Weber's definition of classes and status groups. 32 Weber maintained that in some cases property is related to status level, but there is no necessary relation between the two, and usually status honor "stands in sharp ; opposition to the pretensions of sheer property" (Weber, ■1968, vol. 2, p. 392). The relation that probably exists, ' if one exists at all, is that of interdependence between I all three orders of stratification, i.e., "every definite appropriation of political powers and the corresponding economic opportunities tends to result in the rise of status groups, and vice versa" (Weber, 1968, vol. 1, p. 306). An example of the influence of status membership on class is the case where the member of the status group 'seeks a certain class level in order to engage in a I certain life style (Weber, 1968, vol. 1, p. 39). Weher's theory of parties, Weber stated that man ■ is a "power seeking being" because the acquisition of ."legal" power facilitates the maintenance or acquisition : of status and class privileges. Persons "oriented toward the acquisition of power constitute 'parties'." A party ; might not represent classes or status groups at all but ^other collectivities or "interest groups," and the goal of the party need not be restricted to group interests but may stem from the desire for personal material gain and recognition. Weber (1968, vol. 2, p. 9 38) stated that parties strive toward goals and, therefore, must have an 331 "associational character" in the form of "rational order and a staff of persons." Consequently, the higher the position in the legal order, the greater the ability to determine administrative policy and the greater the possibility of achieving higher class and status positions. Weber's elaboration of Marx's theory of class gave rise to three orders of stratification which many times are interdependent but at times independent of one another. The most dominant order, according to Marx, was the economic, whereas Weber did not provide a comparative analysis in terms of dominance. Weber emphasized the j multiple and not necessarily congruent nature of the three orders of stratification which allowed for the possibility of a person holding inconsistent statuses. i Functional Theory I Functional and conflict theory and the attempt to I synthesize them has been of considerable concern among j I social stratificationists. This section attempts to fbriefly describe these efforts. Functional theory is a I more precise description of the relationship between social I inequality and the division of labor. Davis and Moore (1945) , arguing that rank differ entiation is universal because no society could exist without it, described the main tenet of the functionalist approach to stratification theory: societal tasks are of 34 different difficulty and desirability; therefore, there is created a differentially rewarded system of task assignment to insure that the tasks which are necessary i for the existence of the society are performed. The I j reward consists of an economic component, property or jincome, and an honorific component, esteem or prestige. I One of the problems of the functionalist approach I is the definition of functional importance. In answer to i this question, Davis and Moore (19 45) defined functional 1 I importance as; (1) the degree to which a position is I functionally unique, and (2) the degree to which other I I positions are dependent upon the position in question. i I Conflict Theory Î The conflict theories described in the writings of I i Mills and Dahrendorf viewed social inequality as the result I of a struggle for goods, privileges, and rewards which are I in short supply. Emphasis was placed by them upon power and coercion as the means used to obtain that which is 'desired. Dahrendorf (1959, pp. 182-189) constructed a I ; conflict model based on the concept of authority as defined 'by Weber, i.e., authority is legitimated power. He main- j tained that regardless of the degree of authority within a I group conflict develops. Those who hold authority rights ! within a group are said to have "positive dominance roles"; I _ 35 those who only have general basic rights have "negative dominance roles." This results in the following model: 1. The carriers of positive and negative dominance roles determine two quasi-groups with opposite I latent interests. The quasi-group with positive dominance ; roles has a natural interest in preservation of the status ! j quo, while interest in the change in the status quo is t I associated with the negative roles. 1 I I 2. Members of opposing quasi-groups organize jthemselves into groups with manifest interests, e.g., jparties, trade union. "Interest groups"--in contrast to "quasi-groups"— are organized entities, and manifest : interests are formulated programs and ideologies. ! 3. Such interest groups, which are in constant jconflict, are concerned with preservation or change in the 1 status quo. ; 4. The conflict among interest groups leads to changes in the structure of social relations in question ! through changes in the dominance relations. The principal criticism of conflict theory is the I emphasis placed on the predominance of power and authority. I IVan den Berghe (1963) stated that Dahrendorf's emphasis on I authority needs to be questioned in view of the fact that I ! he reversed the Marxian causal relation between economic , factors and authority and did not demonstrate why 1 authority should occur first. 3e Synthesis of Integration and Conflict Lenski'3 distributive systems. Lenski (1966), in Power and Privilege, presented his analysis of distribu- Itive systems which was an attempt to synthesize the I elements of functional and conflict theories. I j Based on the assumptions that "(1) men are social I beings; (2) when obliged to choose, men choose their own interests over those of others ; and (3) the object of men's strivings are in short supply," Lenski developed the following laws of distribution in societies (Matras, 1975, p. 76) : 1. Men share the products of their labors to the extent required to insure the survival and continued productivity of those others whose actions are necessary or beneficial to themselves. 2. Power— physical force or institution alized authority over positions or property— determines the distribution of nearly all the surplus possessed by a society. 3. Privilege--the possession or control of surplus— is a function mainly of power. 4. Prestige is largely a function of power and privilege. Thus, Lenski viewed the distribution of rewards as a result of the distribution of power. This perspective is in agreement with the conflict theorists. Lenski agreed with the functionalist position when he stated that in highly differentiated societies characterized by constitu tionalism, institutionalized forms of power replace coercion. 37 Dahrendorf's theory of social norms. Dahrendorf (1970) formulated a theory of social norms which attempted to unify functional and conflict theories. His analysis indicated that reward and punishment are used to enforce social norms and that social inequality results from the application of these sanctions. The rank order of the distribution of wealth, prestige, or both, is determined ; by the social structure of power. Matras (1975, p. 77) I summarizes : ! Thus, for Dahrendorf, social differentiation alone does not suffice to explain inequality. It is what he terms evaluative differentiation that orders social positions and their attendant prestige, income, or rewards, and this evalua tive differentiation is effected by the sanc tioning of social behavior in terms of normative expectations. But if society means (1) that norms regulate behavior, and (2) that it is incentives or threats of sanction which permit such regulation, then (3) it is the power to impose sanctions which is fundamental and pre cedes the other analytical categories. Dahrendorf (1970, p. 25) stated that "The system of inequality that we call social stratification is only a secondary consequence of the social structure of power." ! IFisenstadt's Role Theory I Matras (1975, p. 78) indicated that one of the problems of "the American tradition of quantitative social scientific analysis" has been the failure of the more general theories to present "sequences of testable hypotheses upon which a stock of knowledge could be built. 38 He noted, however, that Eisenstadt (19 71) had developed a conceptual framework from which it would be possible to derive testable hypotheses. The framework of Eisenstadt follows in the "role analytical" tradition of Linton (1936), Merton (1957), ,Nadel (1957), and Parsons (1951). This approach identifiesj I social structure as the set of social roles and positions j I and their institutionalized relationships. However, | Eisenstadt added "the flow and exchange of social rewards j and resources" to role analysis. The main idea in I I Eisenstadt's (1971, p. 26) analysis is that the economic rewards (commodities and services), power (obedience from others), and prestige (esteem and difference) can be used in three different ways: 1. They can be consumed directly. 2. They can be used for symbolic consumption (e.g., ritually, or as conspicuous consumption). 3. They can be used for getting something else, that is, as resources or as a media of exchange. Matras (1975, p. 79) stated that an important type of social change is "the change in the flow of social I rewards . . . (which) is tantamount to changes in the I relationships between roles and subsystems of roles." I I Thus, "social inequality consists of a patterning or institutionalization of differential rewards, flows of rewards and resources, or exchanges of resources." Ditch diggers exchange uncomplicated toil for low wages and little prestige. Physicians, 39 bankers, and professors monopolize access to their positions, create and maintain scarci ties of incumbents, and are able to obtain both material benefits and deference. Politicians trade favors for power. In summary, the attempts to synthesize the functional and conflict theories by Lenski and Dahrendorf resulted in formulations which emphasize power and imply conflict. Eisenstadt*s role theory, on the other hand, appears to synthesize functional and conflict theory because it incorporates both normative and power determin ations of social differentiation. DEFINITION OF SOCIAL STATUS An approach to social status has been made which i recognizes it as essentially a cognitive phenomenon, i.e., I statuses are assigned by comparing images. The sensitizing I definition implied by this is that "social status . . . I refer(s) to the perceived relationship of a person, a t I social group, or a category of persons to others" ^ (Lasswell, 1965, p. 43). I Linton (1936) made a distinction between A status I and THE status. A status was defined as a position in a I I pattern characterized by a collection of rights and duties. i TEE status was defined as the total of all the separate statuses. Lundberg (19 39) held a situational concept of status which was defined as the group's appraisal or the 40 appraisal of any person within the group of the function of an individual's behavior according to the standards of the group. Lundberg's concept of status recognizes, in opposition to Linton's concept of THE status, the multi plicity of statuses. Kingsley Davis (1942) based his definition of social status on the concept of position, which was con sidered to be subjective in that it exists in the minds of societal members, objective in that it is common to many persons, reciprocal in the sense of mutual rights and obligations, and is functional to the rest of the structure. Two types of positions were defined: (1) status ÿ a position in an institutional system that develops naturally, and (2) office, a position in a purposively created organization. The concept of status is similar to that of Linton's "the status" and Lundberg's "general I status." I I Social status, as used in this study, refers to the ordered categories within a rank system and their relative I ,position based on the dimension used to rank the cate- jgories. The definition does not include general or I multiple statuses. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS The concepts of status consistency, social mobility, social origin, and characteristics of social 41 classes are to be discussed in this section. Although definitions and theoretical relations are discussed, the emphasis is on empirical research. DEFINITION OF STATUS CONSISTENCY I Early Related Conceptual- I izations I I Before 194 0, most sociologists conceptualized the I jsocial stratification system as being undimensional. I Although Weber (1947) and Sorokin (1927) suggested a I multidimensional system, it did not become a problem of jconcern until after 1945. The acceptance of the possi bility of a multidimensional system resulted in two areas I of theoretical development. The first area was concerned ■ with determining which dimensions or which combination of I I dimension weights provided the best indicator of an I individual's social class (Sampson, 1963, p. 147). Those 1 who were active in this effort were Warner, Meeker, and ■Eells (1959), Richard Centers (1949), and Kahl and Davis : (1955) . i The second line of endeavor was comprised of those I who were attempting to "discover the consequences of I differential placement along the various ranking dimensions ! by utilizing an index of differential ranking as a major ! I independent variable" (Sampson, 1963, p. 147). This area i consisted of those individuals who have been working with t [_______________________________________________________________ 42 ithe concepts of "status consistency," "status crystalliza- ! |tion," "status congruence," "status integration," status I {discrepancies," and numerous others. I As reported by Berg (1968) the literature, dating {from Benoit-Smullyan*s article of 1944 to the present, ' i : indicates a wide range of behavior which seems to be ; I I [associated with the effects of various types of status | I I I discrepancies. Some major examples are those efforts which! I have been concerned with mobility striving (Jackson, 1962; ! {Homans, 1953; Fenchel, Monderer, & Hartley, 1951), politi- ical liberalism (Lenski, 1954), right-wing extremism and : conservatism (Seeman, 1966; Ringer & Sills, 1953; Rush, ! 11967), social isolation (Lenski, 1956; Exline & Ziller, ! : I 1959), preference for social change (Lenski, 1954; Goffman,, 1957), motivation to action (Adams, 1953), psychosomatic I _ I symptoms of stress (Jackson, 1962; Dunham, Phillips, & ! Srinivason, 1966). j The emerging interest in the multidimensional | stratification system can be viewed as Nisbet (1966, 1 p. 182) considered it, that Tocqueville represents the | perspective of "mobile, status groups" and Marx the "solid, 1 'substantive social class" while Weber emerges as the result I of these two forces. Weber directed some of his attention I I to exploring the interrelations of the status rank systems jof class, status, and party as exemplified by "Strati- I ficatory status may be based on class status directly or 43 related to it in complex ways. It is not, however, determined by this alone" (Parsons & Henderson, 1947, p. 4 28). Benoit-Smullyan (1944) was the first to examine the multidimensional stratification system. He arrived ! at the hypothesis that persons would tend to obtain a condition of "status equilibrium." I Conceptual Clarification ! of Status Consistency i Several persons have attempted to clarify the I conceptualizations of "status discrepancies," viz., I Martin (1965), Sampson (1963), Kimberly (1967), and jLachenmeyer (1968). The study of a multiple dimensional ■ stratification system has generated the concepts of "status I consistency," "status crystallization," "status con gruency," "status equilibrium," "status differentiation," ;"status discrepancies," "status heterogeneity," distribu tive justice," and "relative deprivation." The first concept to emerge out of the multi dimensional investigation was that of "status equilibrium," which was defined by Benoit-Smullyan (1944, p. 160) as the tendency for a person to "reach a common level" in each rank system. Gerd H. Fenchel et al. (1951, p. 476) was the first to utilize this concept in empirical research, Iand he concluded that "an individual will exhibit greater I status strivings in those reference groups where he tends !to possess low status." Status equilibration, as I I 4 4 j contrasted with "status consistency" and "status crystal lization," can be defined as a process, whereas the latter two refer to a social structure. Rush (19 67, p. 86) defined status consistency and status crystallization in the same terms, viz., "the extent to which an individual's rank position on given status hierarchies are at compar able levels." This corresponds with the definition of Jackson (1962, p. 469) who defined status consistency as "the degree to which an individual's rank positions on important societal status hierarchies are at a comparable level." Berg (1968, p. 12) maintained that status congruence which had been used at the group level in research should be differentiated from status consistency ; or status crystallization which has been used at the Choice of Status Dimen sions in Status Consistency Berg (1968, p. 16) stated that "It has been found that hardly a single piece of research duplicates any other" in the matter of the selection of identical status dimensions. Often when the same variables have been selected, the operational definitions have differed, e.g., Jackson (1962) and Bell (1968). It was noted by Berg (1968, p. 16) that research conducted on the societal level has employed the status dimensions of occupation, income, education, and ethnicity. 45 The definitions of status consistency, previously quoted by Rush (1967, p. 86), viz., "the extent to which an individual's rank position on given status hierarchies are at comparable levels," will be used in this paper. Also, following the suggested meaning of Berg, it will be assumed to have the societal level connotation. It is felt that to restrict the meaning of status consistency to only a structural variable would not be in keeping with the full range of meaning that is inherent within the concept. Therefore, status consistency will be used also as a proccessual variable as suggested within the meaning of status equilibration as used by Benoit-Smullyan. CLASS CRYSTALLIZATION j Class crystallization has been defined as when I"inequalities are generalized," i.e., when "the specific I inequalities of one rank system are consistent with those i ; of other rank systems" (Landecker, 1960, pp. 310, 311). 'It is not possible to cite many studies which are related I to class crystallization as a dependent variable because i I there has been virtually no research done in this area. In an attempt to describe the empirical studies related to the relation of social class and class crystallization, it I would seem that two approaches might be used; first, a j survey of studies which have used class crystallization as I a dependent variable, and secondly, a look at the i_. 46 characteristics of social class and their relation to class crystallization. Class ovystatllzatlon and related f-indtngs. The most relevant research is that of Landecker (1960) in which I he only partially supported his hypothesized urban class i ‘crystallization pattern. The findings of this research j indicated that the highest status category corresponded to I the greatest degree of class crystallization, and at the I next lowest status category the degree of class crystalli- !zation dropped off markedly. The degree of class crystal lization for the lower status categories appeared to be randomly distributed. Thus, in general, the results tend to confirm the hypothesized pattern at the highest status category but fail to support the pattern at the lower end. An important factor with regard to class crystallization is the size and complexity of the social I i I unit being investigated. Landecker (19 70) postulated that | ! status inconsistency might be divisive in small groups, j I ! while class crystallization, the social analogue, might | ! promote cross-strata interaction. The hypothesis was j I j I supported in a study which compared the sharpness of I political differences under the conditions of high and low j status and weak and strong class crystallization. I Landecker (1960, p. 316) indicated that several I diverse empirical findings tend to support the hypothesis. I I I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 7 I^Hollingshead (1949, p. 37) found that raters, when judging ! family prestige in a community, had greater agreement on i I those families in the upper and lower classes, which I implied similar rankings in various systems. Stone and ! ! Form (1953, p. 154) determined that the highest degree of I consensus for rating occupational prestige was at the 'externes of the scale. Hochbaum, Darley, Monochesi, and ! ' I Bird (1955, pp. 31-38) found that income and education are ; I most highly correlated at the ends of the occupational ! I ■ j I ranking system, and educational and occupational status | ; are most highly correlated at the extreme of the income ‘ ; distribution. Also, Duncan and Duncan (1955, pp. 49 3-503) ! ' I ^indicated that residential segregation is the greatest in I i I either the higher or lowest occupational levels. I It would appear that the direct empirical support j I of Landecker*s hypothesis is at best skimpy and tangential. Characteristics of Social Classes The urban hypothesis of class crystallization is related to the characteristics of the various social I ! classes as defined by status level. This section is con- Icerned with identifying these characteristics and ; indicating the empirical research relevant to them. ! Upper class. This section attempts to define the ,upper class and show how this definition contributes to 48 the rationale which explains why the upper class has a high degree of class crystallization. Baltzell (1966), in his study of American upper class before 194 0, found that ; the most characteristic feature was that wealth, social position, power, and authority are inherited. The under lying commonality of the upper class was that it shared a certain style of life. The elites were defined as the final decision-makers and leaders in the important social areas. On the other hand, Domhoff (1970) defined the I upper class and its relation to the elite in a different I ; manner. The upper class is seen as a governing group and 1 the power elite operates as its administrative tool. The ! pluralist perspective of the national power structure is ; rejected in favor of control of the elites by the insti- I itutionalized relations of the upper class (Matras, 1975, I Ip. 27 0). I The indicators of upper class are so exclusive j ; that it suggests that upward mobility from lower strata may only be accomplished by birth or marriage. The power ! 'elite is considered to be much larger than the upper class i I and draws' its members from a greater breadth of social strata. Keller (1963), as discussed by Matras (1975, pp. 270-273), noted the relation between access to the position of strategic elites, i.e., those who have a "sustained social impact," and father's occupation. It was concluded that "there has been a decline of the L 49 hereditary transmission of social positions and status in all leadership groups except that of" the upper class. Yet, because of the relation of income and education, access to the upper class is unequally distributed among the lower strata. Most of the members of the several I strategic elites come from middle-class families in which : the father was in the business or professional category. I Regarding the upper class, it is important to designate for education, occupation, and income the extent I to which a person must hold a certain level in order to 'qualify for upper class status. A necessary condition for j admission to the upper class is to be a member of the ;"leisure class" which has been defined by Matras (1975, Ip. 137) as : ' . . . those whose wealth— and interest, dividends, or rent derived from it--suffices Î to assure them high incomes and accompanying ' high levels of consumption without having to : devote much time, attention, or energy to work or to operating or managing businesses. 1 This definition provides the economic limits for members of the upper class and relates this to amount of : work required. The upper class has been considered to be ! comprised of the "leisure class" and members of the Social I Register who are typified by their prominent social and I economic background (cf., Lynd & Lynd, 1929; Warner & I ILunt, 1941; Hollingshead, 1949 ; Hunter, 1953 ; Dahl, 1961; IBaltzell, 1958, 1964 ; Domhoff, 1967, 1970). The definition 50 also implies that the kind of work is essentially of the investment of wealth which should not require much time or attention. With regard to education, it is the type and inot necessarily the amount which is important, i.e., ! socialization into the upper class life style. ! Matras (1975, pp. 138-139) commented on the con- I Itroversy of the extent of power that the upper class ; wields. Generally, researchers agree that the "upper j class" constitutes "a distinct and cohesive social class I in most urban communities." Also, the study of Baltzell I (1966), which concluded that a national upper class is I formed from the "Social Register" groups, has generally I been accepted. Yet, there is considerable disagreement as 1 to the amount of power and control exerted by the upper iclass over the rest of society. The "radical perspective i maintains that the upper class constitutes a governing ! body which operates institutions and employees and controls I the economic, political, and social affairs at the local and national levels (cf., Domhoff, 1967, 1970; Anderson, 197 3). The other perspective held on the local level by i ! Dahl (1961) and Polsby (1963) and on the national level by I Riesman (1950) and Rose (1967) maintains that "power, I influence, and control are shared and balanced . . . among I a plurality of elements." The implication of the argument for class crystallization is that for the "radical" I j ! perspective, those who crash the upper class barrier as a I : i ! 5.1 i result of advancement in status will be characterized by greater status crystallization than if the nonradical view holds, i.e., those who enter the upper class may come from the upper echelons of the plurality of elements which control society. It also follows from the definition of upper class, especially the requirement that a person must have a history of economic and social prominence, that the category of those who enter the upper class as a result of mobility strivings will tend to be null. Mlddle class. Matras (1975, p. 181) pointed out that the middle class is typified by stable occupations and income. The major areas of differentiation within the middle class are: 1. type of employment: wage or salary workers as distinct from the self-employed; 2. type of occupation : "white-collar" as distinct from "blue-collar" occupations ; 3. educational background : university graduates and degree-hoTders as distinct from those having completed only high school or high school plus some additional college or other post-secondary training. More specifically, this amounts to the following occupational groupings for the middle class : 1. White-Collar Entrepreneurs, the "Old Middle Class" a. small and medium-sized business proprietors b. fee professionals 52 Class" workers workers 2. Salaried White-Collar Workers, the "New Middle a. salaried professional and managerial b. noncollege-graduate office and sales 3. Blue-Collar Entrepreneurs a. tradesmen and shop proprietors b. farm owners 4. Organized Blue-Collar Employees a. craftsmen and skilled workers b. organized blue-collar service workers Matras (1975, p. 183) stated that although "the three major strata may be said to be quite discrete and distinct," there are many substrata in the middle class. A much recognized basis for distinguishing the subgroups i is the distinction of white-collar and blue-collar which i j results in subgroups which "tend to be continuous rather than discrete : their boundaries are not clear-cut, and ,there tends to be much overlapping, interaction, and I mobility among them." It was also indicated that there I I are certain data which are relevant to the degree of class jcrystallization among the blue-collar workers, viz., some Imanual-workers, especially skilled craftsmen, have a higher : income than the lowest income nonmanual categories. In 1 addition, there are data which indicate that there have ! I ! 53 been increases in the level of educational attainment among the blue-collar workers, and in some cases there has been a convergence with the lowest levels of the non- manual categories. The inference to be drawn from these i I data is that if it is the case that the occupational I prestige of the nonmanual categories is higher than that I of the manual jobs, then this will result in a lessening 1 i of class crystallization because of the increased dis parity between education and income on the one hand and occupational prestige. The embourgeoisement of the "new" middle class is in part explained by C. Wright Mills (1951) who noted that j the prestige of the white-collar worker has decreased with I respect to the blue-collar worker because of: (1) the I factory-like work settings of the white-collar worker, i (2) "the erosion of ascriptive exclusiveness," and (3) the , white-collar category increasingly includes a greater Iproportion of workers with working class origins. The Marxian analysis of the white-collar and blue-collar convergence is that this constitutes a decreased polari zation into the capitalists and the proletariat. On the other hand, a number of researchers maintained that there I lare basic differences between the white-collar and blue- ■collar groups (cf., Handel & Rainwater, 1964; Goldthorpe, |l968) . i I Another characteristic of the middle class is the 1 i 54 development of the value for learning among the upper middle classes as a result of the value of higher education filtering down from the upper class. Education is valued for its own enjoyment and also for its instrumental function. The lower middle class, on the other hand, is concerned more with the function of education as a means of qualifying a person for certain vocational positions. Although the educational requirements for both white-collar and blue-collar positions has increased, the lower class is characterized by persons who drop out of high school. The implication of this discussion of education in terms of class crystallization is that the upper class 1 should be characterized by an educational level which is i I not as high as the occupational or income levels. The ! ; upper middle class, especially the fee professionals who I require a doctorate, should have a higher educational level j than the occupational and income levels. The white-collar I nonprofessionals should have education at a higher level ■than the occupation and income levels. The "new" middle ; class will have education at about the same level as I 'occupational prestige, but income will be higher. i ! Lower class. The U.S. Bureau of the Census p {estimated in 1969, that there were 1.4 million illiterates. In addition to the illiterates, there are others who are inadequately educated so that their income level falls 55 below the poverty level as defined by the Bureau of the Census. About ten million adult whites were in this group, and their education was about 48 percent elementary school or no school and 18 percent had not finished high school. Additional categories which comprise the lower class are the sick, disabled, and aged. But surprisingly enough, 22 percent had finished high school and 12 percent had one year or more of college. The lower class occupations consist of low-paying menial jobs, part-time work, and farm labor. It would appear that both income and occupa tional prestige would be at a similarly low level, but there are 34 percent who have at least completed high school so that with regard to class crystallization, I education might be the one variable that would be higher I than the others. I I In summary, the description of the social classes I indicates characteristics of power and social mobility ! I I which specify the conditions under which Landecker*s 'hypothesis would hold. EDUCATION AND STATUS ATTAINMENT THEORY AND FINDINGS This section is concerned with education as an ascriptive basis for occupational attainment and has implications for the degree of class crystallization at various levels of social class. Collins (1971, p. 1004), 56 in his statement of the technical-function theory, i.e., increase in formal education is a result of an increase of job skill requirements, concluded that the empirical data ! do not support the theory. The data indicate that the jlevel of education of the U.S. labor force has gone beyond I I that which is required by the skill requirements. Conflict jtheory is seen to be a better explanation of overeducation 1 in that it views education as a status culture which functions to "curtail recruitment and foster control within work organizations" (Matras, 1975, p. 287). Davis (1948) acknowledged the fact that societies have institutionalized the achievement of social statuses. Among the types of positions and statuses which are likely to be attained through achievement is the type which requires a great deal of education, e.g., doctors. Subse- i quently. Parsons (1953) stated that mobility has increas- Iingly become a product of the educational system, and it I I is not the actual number of occupational positions avail- i able which determine whether a person will avail himself or use the educational system, but rather the degree to I iwhich he is motivated. i 1 Blau and Duncan (1967) viewed the process of j stratification as a sequential process of status attain ment, and the degree to which ascriptive and achievement jfactors contribute can be determined empirically. The i ipath diagram of Duncan (1968) indicated that father's education affected son's occupation (.12), son's education (.16), and son's income (.03). Father's occupation affected son's education (.20), son's occupation (.12). Son's education affected his occupation (.50) and income 1 (.09). Son's occupation affected his income (.26). There- I I fore, the son's education was affected a little more by ■father's occupation than father's education. The son's i education was affected considerably more by early intelli- igence (.40). The son's occupation was affected most by his education, more than twice the combined effect of the father's education and occupation. The greatest effect on i Îson's income was that of his occupation which is consider- ! ably greater than the effect of his education. ! The results of studies using the Duncan SES rating ; scale for occupations has not shown that social status ; attainment is greatly affected by the attitudinal variables I of aspiration and motivation (Duncan, Featherman, & Duncan, ! *1972). Although the studies of Sewell, Haller, and Portes { (1969) and Sewell, Haller, and Ohlendorf (1970) have shown 'a relation between aspiration and educational and occupa- Itional attainment, it appears that aspiration transmits the ! value of prior variables such as father's education and j occupation. Matras (1975, p. 295) stated that: j The factor with the greatest measurable effect upon an individual's attainment of occupational ; status is number of years of schooling. This is a finding repeated in one form or another in vir- j tually all studies of occupational attainment. ; 58 Even in the face of the evidence which indicates a fairly high relationship between education and occupation, Jencks (197 2) argued about the interpretation of these ! data. The first point he made is whether education pro- I vides persons with access to occupations of high prestige I I or is it the case that occupations require high prestige I I because they are selected by highly educated persons. I Secondly, there is a wide range of occupational differences I among persons with the same level of education. Finally, j he maintained that neither family background, educational I attainment, nor occupational attainment account for much of the variance in income so that "luck" or any other junspecified variables may influence income. ; SOCIAL MOBILITY THEORY ! ! Goldhamer (1968, p. 429) has defined social I I mobility as the "movement of individuals, families, and : groups from one social position to another." The theory of social mobility attempts to explain such movements. Lasswell (1965, p. 99) stated that, "Changes in nominal {status may be considered horizontal mobility. . . . i I Changes in ordered or metric statuses are called vertical I mobility." Another common distinction made is that of j intergenerational mobility defined as the comparison of the ! jsocial positions of parent and offspring, as contrasted I with career mobility which is the comparison of the same j i I 59 person at different times. Individual social mobility has been contrasted with group mobility which has been defined as a concern "with changes in the social position of groups possessing a relatively homogeneous status (for i I example, castes, intellectuals, artisans)" (Goldhamer, I 1968, p. 429) . Lasswell (1965, p. 99) commented that I"Virtually all studies of social mobility that have been I published in the United States are studies of upward jmobility." Also, Lasswell (1965, p. 100) noted that I upward mobility may be considered from the perspective of I either objective or subjective criteria. Also, he pointed I I out the difficulty in specifying the degree of social I mobility, i.e., the degree of general social mobility is - I ! dependent upon a clear-cut definition of social class, and I there is no general agreement as to what constitutes social * class or general status. Lasswell (1965, p. 101) stated that many i researchers have operated on the basis that "occupational status so overwhelmingly determines or dominates general status" that their studies of social mobility have : reflected only changes in occupational status. Lenski ! (1954) assumed the importance of other variables, and IBloombaum (1964) suggested there is a relationship between j status crystallization and social mobility. The diffi- ;culty of using general status in a determination of social : mobility has been commented on by Tumin (1957, p. 32): i 60 Mobility is too broad a term to allow for more than vague generalizations unless we further specify the kinds of mobility, the rates of occurrence, the conditions under which it transpires, and the segments of the population affected. This statement is compatible with another comment made. "Most existing stratification, we insist, enjoys little or no consensus" (Tumin, 1962, p. 25). The well-criticized Davis and Moore (1945) structural-functional theory of stratification stated that in order for a society to be functional and stable, the greatest rewards are provided to those who occupy the most important positions. The inference to be drawn from this theory, as it applies to social mobility, is that occupa tional mobility is a good indicator of general social I mobility. I It is possible to place the issue of social I ! mobility within the theoretical context of Parson's pattern variables, viz., ascription vs. achievement j (Parsons & Shils, 1951). A society which has a pattern of ; ascription bases access to various social strata on I inherited qualities. Assuming that achievement is related I to the degree of social mobility and social mobility is to I ; be related to class crystallization, then class crystalli zation may be related to the pattern variable ascription vs. achievement, i.e., the lower degree of achievement of a society, the greater the degree of class crystallization. 61 Parsons (197 0) indicated that in modern societies "achievement-based inequalities" have been legitimized while, at the same time, "there has been a decline of inherited or ascriptive bases of inequality." This ! implies that modern societies would have a lower degree of : class crystallization. Blau and Duncan (1967, p. 429) ! concluded that in industrial societies, because of the jproliferation of bureaucratic authority structures, there 1 is a trend toward universalism. Parsons indicated that i I I I because of the kinship system that "intergenerational . ascriptive continuities and inequalities are retained." ; : Matras (1975, pp. 285-286) stated that Parsons as well as | j Blan and Duncan have ignored the overlapped areas "between j particularistic (i.e., kinship-based) and universalistic ! , I (i.e., free labor market) structures and mechanisms of I I occupational recruitment." Specifically, reference is | I made to "cronyism" which is assistance in occupational | recruitment to nonkinship members. | SOCIAL MOBILITY EMPIRICAL FINDINGS This section is concerned with theory and empirical studies in the area of social mobility. Duncan (1965) and I Hauser and Featherman (1973), in their cohort comparison I studies, showed in general that the later cohorts had a {greater chance to acquirë higher status occupational : positions than the earlier cohorts. Specifically, a shift A2j I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- occurred toward greater employment in the salaried profes sionals, managers, and skilled manual workers categories and away from the self-employed managers, farmers, and nonfarm laborers categories. Blau and Duncan (1967), in their analysis of the data in the Occupational Changes in a Generation (OCG) developed by the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1964), determined by means of outflow analysis that whites of low family occupational status were very likely to improve their occupational status, and whites of higher family occupational status were likely to retain their occupational status. Matras. (1975, p. 318) pointed out one of the obvious consequences of high social mobility which is the ; fact that the political, social, and economic elites are I comprised of members with more heterogeneous social 'origins. Matras also reasoned that high mobility rates I result in occupations which are characterized by hetero- I !geneous social origins and short duration of time within the occupational level. This, in turn, Matras concluded, : implies low inequality in income distribution. If as a 'result of high mobility there is a more equal distribution I of income, then income should be more highly correlated I with occupational status. If high occupational mobility I 1 occurs, it would imply that there would be less of a time lag between educational attainment and occupational I .attainment which would result in a higher correlation 63 between the two at any point in time. This, in effect, amounts to a counterargument to the suggested inverse relationship between social mobility and class crystalliza tion made by Landecker, i.e., as a result of increased fluidity of status movement, the counterargument maintains it would be easier for the statuses to catch up to one I I another and achieve a condition of status consistency. I Blau and Duncan (1967), in an analysis of inter- I I generational mobility data gathered in 1947, 1952, 1957, iand 1962, found: I 1. A decreasing proportion of men with farm iorigins have remained on farms, while increasing propor- Itions have moved from nonfarm manual occupations. ] 2. Increasing proportions of men with nonfarm i I manual origins have moved up into white-collar occupations. ! I 3. There has been no compensatory increase in I jdownward mobility from white-collar origins; quite the I I opposite, increasing proportions of those with white-collar ! I origins have themselves remained in white-collar I occupations. i I The following conclusions were made from looking at the trend from 1974 to 1962, viz.: 1. Total mobility increased. 2. Upward mobility decreased, while downward jmobility seems generally to have decreased. One of the mobility patterns is that studies of 64 occupational mobility have shown that there is "central structural constraint on mobility patterns," i.e., move ment is "among adjacent or nearly adjacent occupational I categories." Consequently, there is very little movement I in the top strata. Those who are "of middle, nonmanual I strata origins are always several times more likely to I attain elite positions than are those with manual or lower I I I strata origins." I The most important statement in this section was I made by Matras who stated that social mobility is directly I ; related to class crystallization. This hypothesis is ! contradictory to Landecker's. I SOCIAL ORIGIN I I The relationship which is of concern is that of I the effect of the parent's social status on the status consistency of the son. The relevant question is whether I sons of the same social status but of different parental ,social status backgrounds will have different degrees of : class crystallization. i Blau and Duncan (1967, pp. 1-24) concluded from I 1962 United States census data that although there is much Iintergenerational occupational mobility which is largely {mediated through education, social class origins also I I affect career chances independent of education. Girod I (1965, pp. 94-109), in a study of working class boys, i 65 found that their social career was important in determin ing their occupational level, but this was also influenced by the cultural differences that produced anticipatory socialization into the middle class reference group. Kosa (19 62, pp. 361-371) found in a study of undergraduate students in three Catholic colleges in New York State, that those families which identified themselves with the lower class showed higher mobility rates than those families which identified with the upper class. Parentis oooupati-on to son^s eduoatton. Lasswell (1965, p. 412) noted that a considerable amount of research has been done on the relationship of family status and offspring's education which indicated that occupational I status is an important variable. Kahl (1957, p. 284), I reporting a study by Stouffer, Parsons, and F. Kluckhohn jof Boston schooling, found that after the fourth grade the j father's occupation became a more significant variable i : than IQ in predicting school achievement. Sewell et al. ; (1957, pp. 67-73) also found that the values of the family I influence educational motivation. Eckland (1964, p. 39) ; found that what Rosen (195 6) referred to as the "psycho- I 'cultural" dimension of social stratification is "an I important determinant of college graduation for students I jfor the lower ranks" (Lasswell, 1965, p. 413). It was i I noted by Lasswell (1965, pp. 413-414) that the attempt to 66 implement the norm of "contest mobility" (Turner, 19 60, pp. 855-867) by means of the National Merit Scholarships resulted in a disproportionate number of awards to students from the higher occupational levels (Bond, 1957, pp. 267- 268). It was also noted that Mulligan (1951, pp. 188-196) I determined that children from low socioeconomic families do not use funds for college when they are available. In addition, Empey (1956, pp. 703-709) concluded that male high school seniors whose parents had a high occupational status had higher occupational aspirations than students I from lower occupations. I Lasswell (1969, p. 117) stated that as a result of I the studies educational achievement that "other things I jbeing equal, the lower the social class, the lower the I ; aspirations and achievements in education," e.g., Coombs ,and Davies (1965, pp. 96-100) and Caro and Pihlblad (1964, i pp. 428-429) . I Lasswell (1974, pp. 119-120) indicated that Sewell {and his associates have provided much information from I their studies of educational achievement, viz., high : socioeconomic status is positively related to educational 1 I achievement. (See footnote 66 in Lasswell [19 74] for a I list of the Sewell group's publications.) Perrucci and I Perrucci (1970, pp. 451-46 3) also found that parent's social status was directly related to educational i achievement. I i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 6 7 Pavent^ s ocaupat'lon to son* s oocupatton, Lasswell (1969> p. 114) noted that numerous studies have indicated a positive relationship between parent's occupational level and occupational aspirations of students (see footnote 60 i I for a list of relevant publications). Sewell, in his many I }" I publications, demonstrated a positive relation between ! parent's occupational level and son's occupational , aspirations. Blau and Duncan (1967) assumed the following time order with regard to the important variables which deter mine occupational status: father's education, father's occupational status; son's education, son's occupational status (cf., Laumann, Siegel, & Hodge, 1970, pp. 302-307). The father's educational status was assumed to be directly related to the son's education and occupation and indirectly related to the son's occupation through the son's education. The father's education was assumed to be directly related to the son's education and indirectly ; related to the son * s occupation through the son's educa- i tion. The empirical validation of the assumed relations based on 1962 data showed path coefficients of .31 for [father's education to son's education and .28 for father's I , I occupation to son's education. The son's occupation has a jpath coefficient of .12 to the son's occupation and I indirectly .39 from son's education to son's occupation. ! These coefficients indicate that the father's education 1 I I 68 and occupation have about the same effect on the son's education. The father's occupation direct effect on son's occupation is much less than the indirect effect through the son's education. The most important effect on the son's occupation is that of his education. I In summary, the empirical findings indicate that I the offspring are apt to have the same status levels as the parents and implies that the class crystallization of the son is dependent on the status level of the father. SUMMARY i The results of a survey of the literature have been I I presented which focused on social stratification theory, I I definition of concepts, and related empirical findings. ;Svalastoga's hierarchy of stratification models and con- i itemporary conceptions of social class were discussed. I ; The theories of Marx and Weber were presented and I related to the development of the class crystallization hypothesis of Landecker. Also, the major traditions of functional and conflict theory were discussed and con- Itrasted. Attempts to synthesize functional and conflict I theories by Lenski's distributive theory and Dahrendorf's theory of social norms were presented along with Eisen- stadt's modification of role-analytical approach to social j structure. I j The conceptual development of status consistency I I 69 and the societal analogue, class crystallization, were discussed in conjunction with research findings. Finally, the control variables' social mobility and social origin were discussed in terms of the research findings which j related social class and class crystallization. 70 Chapter 3 RESEARCH PROCEDURES LANDECKER'S HYPOTHESIS After Landecker developed an operational definition of class crystallization, he reasoned that it would be unlikely for a class system to be equally crystallized from top to bottom. He hypothesized a crystallization jpattern characterized by the highest degree of crystalli- Ization at the extremes of the class system. The rationale I to support this relationship is based on the belief that ; at the elite level of any major rank system, persons are jlikely to have the necessary power to achieve high statuses I in all rank systems. At the intermediate rank level, the I I persons who hold this position not only have less power to achieve congruous statuses in rank systems, but also they may have less interest in maintaining congruous statuses. ' I They may aspire to upward mobility in some hierarchies (such as income) while accepting the normalcy or inevit- ! I ability of their ranking in others (such as ethnicity). I Those who postulate the bottom end of any rank system are ! I likely to have similarly low status in other rank systems I I as a direct effect of the low rank in that system, as I 7 1 described in the "Vicious Circle" hypothesis, i.e., low income leads to low education, low education leads to low occupation, low occupation leads to low income. The crystallization pattern identifies social status as an independent variable and class crystalliza- I tion as a dependent variable. Taking class crystalliza- !tion as a dependent variable eliminates some of the I j problems which have been associated with using status I crystallization as an independent variable. As Hodge and jSiegel (1970, p. 515) have indicated, there is no logical I way to separate the effects of status crystallization from i I the effects of the individual variables which comprise jthat concept, e.g., education and income. Landecker j (1970, p. 353) suggested that low class crystallization I may produce greater interaction between persons of similar I rank but in different strata in large societies, where I one *s specific statuses may be more visible than one's j general or global status. i Selection of Rank Systems j The conceptualization of class crystallization I requires the selection of the rank systems relevant to j }class assignment in the given population. Landecker (1960, I pp. 312-313) discussed this problem and considered several I criteria. The first criterion that he selected for choos- I I ing which status hierarchies to use was that every person 72 in the population could be assigned a rank in the system under consideration. Second, he required that all members of any given family must be able to be assigned the same status in the chosen hierarchy so that the family might be used as the unit of inquiry. His third criterion was that 1 the chosen rank system must be conceptually and logically I independent of the other rank systems being used. This last-named criterion does not rule out the possibility of high correlation between the systems. Using these criteria he chose the rank systems of occupation, income, education, and ethnic-racial origin to study class crystallization in Detroit. These four rank systems have I not been universally accepted by all researchers. I. W. I ; Goffman (1957) and Kenkel (1956) had both rejected ethnic- ,racial rank. I It can be argued that in addition to Landecker's I stipulation that all members of the population must be I I able to be placed in all of the rank systems used, that they should also have the possibility of being assigned I more than one status in any of the systems. Members of an ; ethnic-racial system do not have that possibility. One's ability to advance or decline within the occupation and income systems seems to be relatively unlimited, but in the educational rank system, only upward mobility is possible through time for an individual. Since educa tional rank is defined as the number of years of school 73 completed, an absolute decline in education is not pos sible for a person. The rank systems of occupation, income, and education were selected as variables for the model of class crystallization used in this study. 1 Control Variables I------------------- ! I Sqctal moh'tt'lty, It was necessary to establish a theoretical relation between social mobility, occupation, and class crystallization in order to predict the degree of class crystallization for various occupational cate gories under different conditions of social mobility. The first theoretical relation between these variables to be tested in this study is that suggested by Bloombaum (1964, pp. 340-347) who hypothesized that the meaning of status consistency is related to the direction of social mobility. There are two conflicting theories about the effect of social mobility on class crystallization. The first is that of Landecker (1960) who stated that social mobility is inversely related to class crystallization and that mobility is low in the low and high strata and high in the middle strata. If the assumption is made that the mobility strivings of the parents are transmitted to the offspring, then the theory of Landecker can be tested with the findings of this study. 74 An alternative theory was offered by Matras (1975, p. 318) who reasoned that if as a result of high mobility there is a more equal distribution of income, then income should be more highly correlated with the occupational status. If high occupational mobility occurs, it implies j that there has been less of a time lag between educational I I attainment and occupational attainment than when there is low occupational mobility. As the rate of occupational mobility (upward) increases, a higher correlation between the two at any point in time would result. Therefore, Matras concludes that social mobility is directly related to class crystallization based on the rationale that the degree of social mobility represents time in which to stabilize the statuses of the rank dimensions at the same I I level. This, in effect, amounts to a counterargument to I the suggested inverse relationship made by Landecker. I Social mobility has been made operational in this I study by comparing the educational and occupational statuses of father and son. Each rank system was con sidered separately to avoid confounding individual effects. I i Sootat ov'Lg'Ln. A number of studies have shown j that the degree to which "life chances" have been realized is the direct result of persons' social origins (Blau and Duncan, 1967, pp. 1-24; Girod, 1965, pp. 94-109; Turner, 1960, pp. 855-867). 75 The concept of social origin has been made opera tional by the rank dimensions of father's education and occupation. The rank systems are to be analyzed individually. In the case of both social mobility and social ! origin, the main focus is not upon their direct effect i I upon class crystallization, but rather the relationship 'which holds between social status and class crystalliza- j ition under various conditions of the control variables. DIAGRAM OF MODEL The following diagram indicates the terms, time order, and relations among the terms for the model. Social Mobility Parent's Social Class Class Crystallization Social Status I DATA SOURCE ' The source of the data is the Detroit Family jGrowth Study which was conducted as a part of the Detroit I Area Study. These data were selected because of their ! I correspondence with the theoretical problem and because of I i the large sample size of 1,304 which allows for a greater 76 degree of statistical significance. The design of the study and its implementation was under the direction of the Detroit Area Study which is an interdepartmental research and training facility of the University of Michigan. David Goldberg and Ronald Freedman were the principal investigators during the initial phase. The j entire study consisted of three sets of interviews during I the period of January 1962, until October 1963. 1 The data used for this paper are from the first j jinterview conducted during January-March 1962. The sample I consisted of a stratified probability sample of married jwomen who had a first, second, or fourth birth in July I 1961. The social and economic data were obtained in long I I personal interviews in their homes. Both University of I Michigan students, male and female, and professional inter- iviewers, female, from the University of Michigan Survey i : Research Center did the interviewing (Coombs, 1974). The I response rate for the interview was 9 2 percent. The sample consisted of white, married women living with their husbands. Extremes of age were excluded so that the age I range was that of 15 to 39 years (Freedman, Coombs, & IBumpass, 1965, pp. 264-265). I The data from the Detroit Family Growth Study were I I taken from the Detroit Area Study tape which is available j I at the Sociology Department of the University of Southern i ! California. The relevant variables were transferred from 77 I the tape onto data processing cards. Subsequent analysis i of the data was obtained by the use of the computer facil ities at the University of Southern California, University of California at San Diego, and San Diego State University. OPERATIONAL SYSTEM Operational Measures Class orystallizat'ion. The variables of educa tion, income, and occupation were selected to test class crystallization in this study. Ethnic-racial status was disregarded. Education was made operational on the basis of the number of completed years of schooling. Specifically, it j is the answer to the question "How many grades of school I did your husband finish?" provided by the wife. The I I response to the question was recorded by the interviewer jinto one of the following categories (Family Growth in 'Detroit Questionnaire, 1962, p. 44): ' (1) 0- 4 Grades 1 (2) 5- 8 Grade School ; (3) 9-11 Some High School j (4) 12 High School Graduate (5) 13-15 Some College I (6) 16 or More College Graduate ; Occupation was made operational according to prestige ranking. The husband's occupation was obtained jas the response to the question, "What is your husband's 'main occupation?" (IF UNEMPLOYED: What is his usual I I 78 occupation?) (IF STUDENT: What kind of job will he probably take when he finishes school?) The coding of occupations was based on the U.S. Census Occupation Codes — Directory of Occupational Titles, and the occupations were placed in the following categories: 0. Professional, technical, and kindred workers 1. Farmers— owners and managers or tenants I 2. Managers, officials, and proprietors I 3. Clerical and kindred workers I 4. Sales workers I i 5. Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers I 6. Operatives and kindred workers I 7. Private household and service workers i I 8. Farm laborers I 9. Nonfarm laborers j I The categories correspond to the Edwards occupa- t Itional scale (1933, pp. 377-387). Although Anderson and f jDavidson (1940, p. 42) stated that the Edwards classifica- 'tion is not "a completely reliable vertical occupational ! Îscale," Lasswell (1965, p. 437) indicated that the scale ! has the good characteristics of simplicity and univer sality, and because of its extensive use, it will probably serve as a standard for "many decades to come." Matras (1975, p. 97) stated that "occupational status has increasingly come to be used both to assign individuals to social classes . . . and to impute socioeconomic status 79 more generally." Kahl (1957) noted that Edwards was able to establish the correspondence between his classification and education and income. Subsequently, Hodge, Siegel, and Rossi (1966), Hodge, Treiman, and Rossi (1966), and Reiss, Duncan, Hatt, and North (1961) were able to estab lish the correspondence between the Edwards classification and occupational prestige. These categories were subse quently collapsed on the following basis : Uncollapsed Category Collapsed Category _____ Number________ ____ Name 0,2 Upper white-collar 3,4 Lower white-collar 5 Craftsmen 6 Operatives 7 Service workers 8,9 Unskilled workers (inc. farm) I 1 Farm owner, manager, i tenant For example, upper white-collar is comprised of the two uncollapsed categories of (0) professionals, etc., i and (2) managers, and so on. I The category of farm owners, managers, and tenants : is null for the son because the sample was taken from an I urban community. This category had a frequency of 76 for I the father. I Income was made operational by the amount of money I ,____________ ^0 earned by the husband during the previous year, viz., 1961. The wife was shown a card on which income categories corresponded to letters of the alphabet. The question was asked, "How much of the total family income was earned by your husband?" The response was made by the selection of the appropriate letter. The original categories in the questionnaire were by one thousand dollar increments from ! zero to ten thousand and two additional categories, viz., ten to fifteen thousand and fifteen and higher. The responses were subsequently put into the following collapsed categories; Under $3,00 0 I $3,000 - $4,999 I $5,000 - $6,999 j I $7,000 - $8,999 I $9,000 or More i j Jackson and Curtis (1969, pp. 136-138) discussed j some of the general approaches which have been made to the ,measurement of status inconsistency. It is pointed out ■ that often the "assumptions underlying the choice of a ! 'measure . . . have often remained implicit." The first j approach is the case where the rank systems are measured I Iordinally and inconsistency is defined as the difference I jbetween ordinal ranks on two or more rank systems. An I example of this approach is that of Lenski (1954, pp. 405- I i 413) in which each person had a percentile score along ! j 1 8l! each of four rank systems. Lenski (19 64, pp. 326-330) suggested dividing each rank system into three sections: high, medium, and low. Persons at the same level on all rank systems were considered to be consistent, and incon sistency became evident when a person fell into different levels on the various rank systems. As Jackson and Curtis (1969, p. 136) indicated, ordinal approaches "involve the assumption that similar relative ranks generate compatible expectations or are expected to go together." On the other hand, it could be assumed "that frequent or usual combinations of ranks involve little conflict and are therefore consistent," I even if they do not represent the same percentile levels. I I Two explanations for this assumption are : (1) if certain status combinations occur very frequently, then they I I become defined as normal; and (2) nonnormal combinations j may have negative sanctions associated with them so that I the members are motivated to move to the normal combina- I I tions. This approach forms the basis for what Jackson and Curtis (1969, p. 137) have termed the regression approach. i ! Gibbs and Martin (1964) and Hodge (1962, pp. 336-343) I employed the regression approach in their research. The method used in this paper for determining the degree of status inconsistency is basically an ordinal approach and is a modification of the methods used by Lenski and Landecker. This ordinal approach, when using 82 rank systems that are highly intercorrelated, incorporates some of the principles used in the regression approach, viz., that personal assignment to comparable levels in different rank systems is indicative of status consistency. Class crystallization was measured by the amount of individual status consistency of the persons assigned to each category. Social Status One of the reasons given for the decline in socio logical interest in multidimensional indices of social status is that they tend to conceal discrepancies between individual variables and thus impede the search for behavioral consequences of such variables (Gordon, 1958) . Of the many multidimensional indices developed since 1945, only two are still in common use: Warner's Index of Status Characteristics and Hollingshead's Index of Social Position. Warner's ISC formulation combines the following variables: (1) occupation, (2) source of income, (3) type of housing, and (4) area lived in. Hollingshead's (Hollingshead & Redlich, 1958) Index of Social Position consists of three components: (1) residential area, (2) occupation, and (3) education. Occupational prestige was selected as the indicator of social status. A single variable was selected so that its effect could be clearly identified. The selection of 8 31 occupational prestige was made because of the considerable amount of theoretical and empirical effort that has been directed toward this variable. An issue to be discussed is the correspondence between the operationalized version of social status, viz., ranked occupational categories and the level of social class with which it is related. Of concern is whether or not the range of occupations is congruent with the range a of social classes from lower-lower to upper-upper. The definition of the type of occupation which corresponds to I the upper class implies that the kind of work is essen- I jtially of the investment of wealth which should not I require much time or attention. Matras (1975, p. 137) I defined the middle class occupations as white-collar ! I entrepreneurs : the "Old Middle Class" includes small and I medium-sized business proprietors and salaried white-collar ; workers; the "New Middle Class" includes salaried profes- Isional and managerial workers and noncollege-graduate ! office and sales workers ; blue-collar entrepreneurs include .tradesmen and shop proprietors and farm owners ; and I organized blue-collar employees include craftsmen, skilled I workers, and service workers. j I I An attempt will be made to match the occupational categories into which the data for this study were I j classified with the occupations which Matras indicated ! comprised the middle class. The upper white-collar 1 I 84 category is comprised of professional, technical, managers, officials, and proprietors which corresponds to the "Old Middle Class" and the salaried professional and managerial workers of the "New Middle Class." The lower white-collar I workers, all comprised of clerical and sales workers, j j corresponds to the noncollege-graduate office and sales jworkers of the "New Middle Class." Craftsmen, operatives, I and service workers correspond to the organized blue- collar employees of Matras. The category of nonfarm laborers (unskilled) does not correspond with any of the middle class categories. The unskilled category does correspond with the definition of work for the lower class, i.e., low paying menial jobs and part-time work (Matras, 1975, p. 160). At this point, it can be seen I ■ ■ I that there are no occupations left which correspond to jMatras* definition of upper class occupation. Landecker, I in his statement of the hypothesized crystallization ! pattern, stated that "One would expect the potential for j I I ! crystallization to be strongest at the two extremes of a ' ' I ! class system" (Landecker, 1960, p. 315). Whether he meant I ! I the upper class or the upper end of the middle class is somewhat unclear, but at any rate, the data do not provide an occupational category which corresponds with an upper class definition. One piece of evidence which tends to I support a definition of extremes as the upper and lower I I areas of the social class continuum is the fact that the I ! s data which Landecker gathered to test his hypothesis did not consist of a stratified random sample. A purposive sample could allow an oversampling of upper class persons. The range of social classes which corresponds to the present data is from unskilled workers (for the lower class) to the upper end of the middle class. Therefore, the range of occupational status has been truncated to exclude not only the upper class, but also the unemployed. The effect of this limited range of data on the findings would be to attenuate the degree of high class crystalli- I Ization at the extremes of occupational status. Yet the I basic structure of the crystallization pattern should be I ; apparent. i The occupational categories into which the data I have been placed may also be interpreted in terms of jWeber's description of the economic order. The property I class (i.e., the positively privileged), who are the : owners of property and who make their livings from that ownership, appear to correspond to the upper class defini tion of Matras, for which there are no data available in ; this study. ! I The acquisition class is comprised of persons who earn their incomes from rendering services. This class is divided into the positively privileged and the negatively privileged. The positively privileged are defined as those whose services are in short supply and high demand. 86 They consist of various kinds of entrepreneurs and certain professionals. The incumbents correspond to the "Old Middle Class" and the salaried professional and managerial workers of the "New Middle Class." The "negatively privileged" acquisition class consists of the remainder of the middle class categories listed by Matras, including the unskilled. j Father soctat status. The father's social statusj was determined by occupational and educational statuses. | The same procedure used for the determination of the son's | occupational prestige level was used for the father. Social Mobility The degree of social mobility was measured along I two rank systems: occupational and educational. The I amount of mobility was determined by the number of cate- Igories that the son differs from the father. This approach I amounts to being an absolute-difference method for deter mining vertical mobility. I RESEARCH DESIGN I J Of the many designs that are discussed in the I literature, case study, experimental, etc., the design for this study falls under the general heading of a survey j design. The survey design is not an experimental design I and, therefore, is more limited in the degree to which it I 1 87 can satisfy the criteria for establishing causality. The specific type of survey design used is that of the correla tional study which was defined by Labovitz and Hagedorn (1971, p. 42) as a comparison of "two or more units at one point in time." Although this design is used extensively in sociological research, the findings should be cautiously interpreted because of the lack of a control group. SUMMARY The research procedures were described beginning with a statement of the theoretical model based on Landecker*s class crystallization hypothesis. The relationship between social status and class crystalliza tion was designated and the rational described. The rank systems of occupation, education, and income were selected I I to make operational the concept of class crystallization, j Social mobility and social origin were selected as control I variables and their relation to social status and class ! crystallization indicated. I I The sample was a part of the Detroit Family Growth I Study conducted by the University of Michigan in 1961. A jdescription of the questions used in the survey and the E 'categories into which the responses were placed was I described. The method for determining the degree of class \ j crystallization is a modification of the methods used by I !Lenski and Landecker and includes some of the advantages i I 88 of the regression approach. Social status was equated with the rankings of the Edwards occupational scale. The degree of social mobility was determined by the absolute- dif f erence method as applied to the father's and son's educational and occupational rankings. The research design was identified as a correla tional type of survey design which is limited in its ability to establish causality. 89 Chapter 4 RESEARCH FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION : i The data in this chapter are presented in the form I of contingency tables with cell percentages. The reduction! of data resulted in univariate frequency distribution and j bivariate cross tabulation tables. | I The findings of the zero order relation between | occupational prestige and class crystallization failed to j support Landecker's hypothesis. Consequently, an alterna- I tive set of rationales, based on a modification of i Eisenstadt's role analysis, were developed to explain the zero order relations. Although specific rationales were not developed to explain the partialed relations, i.e., the relation between occupational prestige and class crystallization with social mobility or social order held I constant, it was observed that the partialed relations I j were consistent with the role analysis theory of i jEisenstadt. I I UNIVARIATE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS The ini Liai task in handling a large amount of I data is that of data reduction, i.e., the placement of the 901 data into relatively few categories. The criteria used for collapsing the categories is: (1) to have a sufficient number of categories so that fine differences could be observed within the rank system, and (2) to limit the number of categories so that the cell frequencies remain large enough to be statistically significant. The follow ing tables indicate the categories into which the data were placed, the frequency distribution, and descriptive statistics which measure central tendency, dispersion, and skewness. The first variable examined is husband's education in 1961. Table 3 summarizes the frequency distribution of this variable. The mean of the distribution is the 12.5 grade level. Table 4 presents the frequency distribution of the husband's occupational status in 1961. The mean is ilocated midway between craftsmen and lower white-collar I workers. The category of farm owner, manager, and tenant, t I which is one of the uncollapsed categories, has zero i frequency because the sample was drawn from an urban 1 community. Table 5 contains the distribution of the {husband's income. The average income is $6,000. Table 6 has the distribution of the husband's father's education. The mean level is slightly less than the tenth grade. Table 7 presents the distribution of the husband's father's occupation. The mean level is that of the operatives i I category. I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . Table 3 Frequency Distribution of Husband's Education in 1961 Level of Education Value Frequency Percentage Less than high school graduate 1.0 362 27.8% High school graduate 2.0 481 36.9 Some college 3.0 234 17.9 College graduate 4.0 227 17.4 Total = 1,304 Note.— Statistics : Mean 2.25 standard Deviation 1.045 Skewness 0.4 04 92 Table 4 Frequency Distribution of Husband*s Occupation in 1961 Occupational Category Value Frequency Percentage Unskilled workers 1.0 46 3.5% Service workers 2.0 54 4,1 Operatives 3.0 268 20.6 Craftsmen 4.0 308 23.6 Lower white“Collar 5.0 232 17.8 Upper white“collar 6.0 395 30.3 Total = 1,304 Note.““Statistics Mean 4.39 Standard Deviation 1,39 Skewness “0.46 93 Table 5 Frequency Distribution of Husband's Income in 1961 Level of Income Value Frequency Percentage Under $3,000 $3,000 - $4,999 $5,000 - $6,999 j $7,000 - $8,999 !$9,000 or More 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Total 160 289 461 237 157 1,304 12.3% 22.2 35.4 18.2 12.0 Note. — Statistics : Mean 2.96 Standard Deviation 1.17 Skewness 0.08 94 1 1 Table 6 i Frequency Distribution of Husband' s 1 Father's Education in 1961 Level of Education Value Frequency Percentage 0 to 4 grades 1.0 105 8.1% I I5 to 8 grades 2.0 574 44.0 19 to 11 grades 3.0 189 14.5 ! High school graduate 4.0 310 23.8 j Some college 5.0 52 4.0 1 College graduate 6.0 74 5.7 Total = 1,304 i ! Note.— Statistics : Mean 2.89 i Standard Deviation 1.29 ! Skewness 0.74 1 1 95 Table 7 Frequency Distribution Father's Occupation of Husband's in 1961 Occupational Category Value Frequency Percentage i 1 Upper white-collar 1.0 289 22.2% Lower white-collar 2.0 100 7.7 j Craftsmen 3.0 334 25.6 j Operatives 4.0 357 27.4 Service workers 5.0 52 4.0 Unskilled workers 6.0 96 7.4 Farmers 7.0 76 5.8 Total = 1,304 Note.— Statistics: Mean 4.02 1 Standard Deviation 1.45 Skewness -0 .26 1 96 The means of the husband's education, 12.5 grade level, and the husband's father's education, about the tenth grade, indicate there was an increase in the average amount of education achieved by married males in Detroit in 1961 over that achieved by their fathers. Also, the mean level of occupational status rose from 4.02 to 4.39. The only distributions which seem to be somewhat skewed are those of the husband's and husband's father's education. The direction of the skewness is positive and is of a greater degree for the husband's father. Composite vaviahles. The following set of tables present frequency distributions for the variables used which are comprised of combinations of the preceding ; variables. They include class crystallization (Table 8), intergenerational educational mobility (Table 9), and intergenerational occupational mobility (Table 10). In the intergenerational tables, the values from 1.0 to 9.0 indicate the level of mobility from downward to upward. I Description of Composite I Frequency Distribution ' Tables I ^ The means of the husband's educational and occupa- Itional intergenerational mobility indicate that there was I more educational mobility than occupational mobility from jhusband's father to husband. The only distribution which 97 Table 8 Frequency Distribution of Class Crystallization Level of Class Crystallization Value Frequency Percentage High 1.0 375 28.7% Medium-high 2.0 344 26.4 Medium 3.0 228 17.5 Medium-low 4.0 194 14.9 Low 5.0 Total 163 = 1,304 12.5 Note.— Statistics : Mean 2.55 Standard Deviation 1.54 Skewness 0.47 98 Table 9 Frequency Distribution of Husband's Intergenerational Educational Mobility Level of Mobility Value Frequency Percentage Husband 4 below 1.0 1 0.1% Husband 3 below 2.0 6 0.5 Husband 2 below 3.0 25 1.9 Husband 1 below 4.0 73 5.6 Same 5.0 271 20.8 Husband 1 above 6.0 351 26.9 Husband 2 above 7.0 338 25.9 Husband 3 . above 8.0 155 11.9 Husband 4 above 9.0 84 6.4 Total = 1,304 Note.— Statistics: Mean 6.29 Standard Deviation 1.39 Skewness -0.12 99 Table 10 Frequency Distribution of Husband's Intergenerational Occupational Mobility Level of Mobility Value Frequency Percentage Husband 4 Husband 3 Husband 2 Husband 1 I I Same I I Husband 1 j 'Husband 2 I Husband 3 ! Husband 4 below below below below above above above above 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 Total 10 44 74 171 384 265 223 98 35 0.8% 3.4 5.7 13.1 29.4 20.3 17.1 7.5 2.7 1,304 Note.— Statistics Mean 5.5 0 Standard Deviation 1.59 Skewness -0.15 100 shows some skewness is that of class crystallization which is positively skewed. BIVARIATE CONTINGENCY DISTRIBUTIONS This section presents bivariate contingency tables and a description of the relation between the variables. Zero order relations are presented first and then partial tables. The first set of contingency tables report the percent of each occupational category and class crystalli zation. The partial tables indicate the relation of occupational category to class crystallization under various conditions of intergenerational educational and occupational mobility and the father's education and ! occupation. i I Class cTystallization related to hushand^s occupa- I \ tional categovy, Table 11 shows the degree of class j crystallization dichotomized into high and low categories ! by dividing the sample into approximately equal frequen- ,cies. The 52.4 percent and 47.6 percent split in frequen- <cies resulted from the constraint in the computer ! I I instructions which rounded off the categories to the I nearest whole number. Initially, the degree of class crystallization was placed in six categories. An inspec tion of these categories showed that little information I would be lost and the presentation of the data would be 101 0 \ O rH "sr C D o 1 5 fd O -P C N o « o lO o E H 1 — 1 < u Q ) 1 p o \o U p ( 1 ) fd C D ro C n ( 1 ) 4 -> M • • • (U Cli*H 1 — 1 C D C O O Q CU-C 0 T f If) ro ID ^ U > i > i r Q U o t Cn Q ) < U 1 p dP •H 4-) p ( 1 ) fd I-H 00 m (0 (D -P rH • • • •H U ^ "iH I— 1 C D C O t~ ~ c n 0 ^ 0 iri T f rH W 1 — 1 >1 iP IS U (d (d U iH G O u o C n •H Q ) tn 4 - > -P 1 (d fd C O o \o Ü C L , a -p d O O C D (d P m Q ) • • • X I o 1 — 1 fd g rH C O œ u fd p C D 00 C N P o C u m P iH Id •H •H Q ) C ■ P -P fd fd Q ) -H O, 1 o \o M Æ C P fd C O C D "sr uo X ! IS O Ü P Q ) • • • fd 'H Ü Q ) > 00 rH O E h 4H +J O CL,-P L O -s T C N O (d O -P N m C 3 *H — 0 1 — 1 •H 1 — 1 C -p fd fd Q ) tn P -p p Ü p 0 \0 X w C O •H Q ) uo Ln rH •H ^ p > ^ • • • U U X P P 00 rH -P U Q ) 0 1 — 1 00 U 1 C O ^ •H W Q P -P »p fd 0 -P p C O Q ) tn Q ) r — 1 P o\o ïT>m 1 — 1 Q ) CD CD fd 0 •H ^ • • • -P ^ P C N 00 C tn 0 C N Q ) C IS Ü D P Q ) fli 1 C tn r—1 0 1 — 1 d fd -H C fd 4J -P -P g -P fd tn fd -C Id O ■P >1 N (D |5 1 — 1 E h C O P -P •H 0 0 t j rH m P I t j facilitated if the data were collapsed into two categories. Table 11 describes the percentage distribution of husbands in each occupational category who have high and low degrees of status crystallization. The term status crystallization is used when reference is made to individual members of a category, and class crystallization refers to the properties of the category, that is, the aggregate of its members. The percentage distribution for high status crystallization falls into a curvilinear pattern which is quite opposite to that hypothesized by I jLandecker. His hypothesis specifies a high degree of I class crystallization for unskilled workers and upper ! ! white-collar persons but a low degree of class crystalli- Ization for the middle categories of operatives and crafts- I men. The data indicated that 27.6 percent of the unskilled 1 ' ! workers and 4 6.6 percent of the upper white-collar workers jhave high status crystallization but that 61.0 percent of ! the craftsmen have high status crystallization. ; Table 12 reports the mean values for the husband's | I I educational and income levels for each occupational cate- j gory. The values correspond to those indicated in the univariate distributions in Tables 3 and 5. The data indicate disparities in levels of education and income for jthe occupational categories. ^ 103 Table 12 Mean Educational and Income Levels for Various Occupational Categories Occupational Educational Annual Income Categories Grade Level in Dollars I Unskilled I i Service workers i Operatives I j Craftsmen I Lower white-collar I Upper white-collar 10.5 $4,000 11.8 5,080 10.6 5,160 11.7 5,700 12.8 5,860 14.3 6, 960 104 Data Interpretation The interpretation of the data consists of a comparison of the percentages of high class crystallization of the occupational categories of unskilled, craftsmen, and upper white-collar to the predicted values of Landecker's (hypothesis relating class crystallization and social I I status. The first step in this procedure is to look more microscopically at the level of class crystallization in terms of the relation of the levels of occupation, educa tion, and income. In the cases where the findings do not conform to thé hypothesized pattern, an alternative explanation or rationale is offered to explain the deviant results. Unskilled workers * The low percentage of high class crystallization is more precisely defined in terms of the relations of the standard scores of education, -.79; occupation, -2.44; and income, -.82 (Table 13). Landecker (19 60, p. 315) hypothesized that unskilled workers would have a higher degree of class crystallization than the degree indicated by the findings "because the power to compete for higher status is at its minimum" for workers of this status. The implication of the rationale of the powerlessness of the lower class worker is that the worker would not belong to organizations, through which he would be able to upgrade his position in any one of the rank 105^ Table 13 Standard Scores of Husband's Education, Occupation, and Income Occupational Category Occupation Standard Score Education Standard Score Income Standard Score Unskilled -2.44 -.79 -.82 Service workers -1.72 -.33 -.36 Operatives -1.00 -.74 — .32 Craftsmen - .28 -.36 — .09 Lower white-collar + .44 + .12 — .02 Upper white-collar +1.16 + .85 + .44 106 systems. Nor would he have access to other means to change his rankings such as influential friends or bribery. Landecker*s emphasis is upon an individual who deviates from perfect status crystallization. His hypothesis is based on the unstated assumption that the normal relation between the variables would result in perfect class crystallization. That is, in the case of low and high social statuses the variables are structured so that they are at the same level, and in the middle statuses they would be at the same level if the status levels of the variables were not changed by attempts of I jindividuals to gain higher status. The concept of power is considered by Landecker to be a characteristic of the individual members of the various social status and, more specifically, is defined as the power which might be used to relocate the individual along any of the rank systems. Power is not defined in terms of the efforts of members of certain social statuses to realign the structural relations I 1 of the rank systems or to relocate their position along any 'one rank system. 1 Since Landecker*s hypothesis fails to explain the ! findings for the low status unskilled workers, a different I I theoretical approach will be used. This approach attempts I to identify the institutionalized and coercive forms of I power which have been employed in role-bargaining between 107 the unskilled workers and other social categories, that is, to identify the structural relations among rank systems. In the case of education, the ranking is consider ably higher than that of occupation. Landecker*s argument is that the unskilled worker does not have the ability to achieve a higher level of education. But the level of I I education is already so high in comparison to the occupa- Itional ranking, that it contributes to the lower degree of j class crystallization. It is necessary to explain why the I I educational level is not any lower. Such an explanation jmight consist, in part, of the effect of institutionalized I norms which relate unskilled workers to other social I I groups, specifically, the governmental regulation which I j requires school attendance until age sixteen. The manda- I tory age attendance can be seen reflected in the difference I in mean educational level of the husband's father, 9.8 I grade level, and that of the husband, 12.5 grade level. ; With regard to income level, a rationale is needed I to explain why the income level is considerably higher ithan the level of occupational prestige. The proposed I I rationale suggests that the minimum wage law is responsible for an income level which is much higher than the occupa tional ranking. It should be noted that the data represent conditions in 1961, and, at that time, unskilled workers had not begun to unionize to any great extent. If they 108 had unionized greatly, then their income level would presumably be higher than that reported. In considering the rank position on the occupa tional prestige scale for any of the occupational cate- I gories, it should be noted that prestige ratings are not i ! subject to government regulation. This means that there r j are not governmental constraints in terms of minimum or I maximum ratings which must be attached to any of the I occupational categories. Therefore, it is possible for the unskilled category to have a standard score which is considerably lower than the scores for education and income which the findings indicate is the case. Craftsmen. The high percentage of high class 1 crystallization for craftsmen is more precisely defined jin terms of the standard scores of education, -.36; occu pation, -.28; income, -.09; and their total deviation from | I the average standard score of -.24. Landecker hypothe- j sized that craftsmen would have a lower degree of class I ! I I crystallization than the lower or upper occupations because] I I they have only moderate power and high mobility strivings. I The findings indicate that the degree of class crystalli- !zation for craftsmen is higher than that of either of the two extreme categories which fail to support Landecker's hypothesis. The immediate task is to provide a rationale for the levels of education, occupation, and income. 109 The level of education is slightly lower than the level of occupational prestige. Craftsmen must acquire certain job skills which are predicated on basic arithmetic and reading abilities. Therefore, the technical-function theory would explain, in part, the level of education. On the other hand, conflict theory would account for recruit ment and control of employment which has been handled by methods other than educational requirements, i.e., entrance into apprenticeship positions by means of having parents, relatives, or influential friends in the necessary admin istrative position. The level of income is slightly higher than the occupational level. Reasons which might be offered for this disparity include the effect of unionization and i j higher wages as a result of collective bargaining. Also, ! i a certain degree of control over the number of members I within the crafts has strengthened their position in terms ! jof the supply and demand of their services, i.e., they ! have attempted to maintain their "positively privileged" ,position within the acquisition class. I j The occupational prestige level corresponds with 'that which would be expected of a category which has a I jmoderate degree of expertise associated with its work. I Upper white-collar. The low percentage of high I j class crystallization is more precisely defined in terms 110 of the standard scores of education, +.85; occupation, +1.16; and income, +.44. Landecker hypothesized that the upper extreme of the occupational prestige scale would have a higher degree of class crystallization than the middle categories because upper white-collar workers would have the power to rise to an equally high status in all of the rank systems. The findings indicate that the degree of class crystallization for upper white-collar workers is lower than that of craftsmen which is contrary to the relation predicted by Landecker. Again, the problem is to identify, in structural terms, the rationale for the level of education, occupation, and income. Education is at a level higher than that of income jand lower than occupational prestige, located about midway I t between the two. With regard to the absolute level of I education as measured in terms of years of schooling, I there is an upper limit to the amount of schooling as ; exemplified by the terminal degree of Ph.D. or M.D. There I 'are many subcategories within the upper white-collar which i do not require the maximum schooling possible, especially I ; managers, officials, and proprietors. Yet, on the other hand, managers, officials, and technical workers quite often must have at least a bachelor's degree as an entrance requirement to the occupational position. With regard to the higher level of occupation as compared to income, it would seem that conflict theory, which states 111 that education exceeds job skill requirements in order to curtail recruitment and maintain control over members of the occupation, is a better explanation than the technical- function theory, which maintains that education reaches a level which is required by the job skill requirements. With regard to the level of income, it would seem that there are greater societal constraints to keep income at a lower level than the constraints imposed upon education. The following factors are to be considered in the development of a rationale which would account for the level of income. Minimum wage laws, which were considered to be an important factor in determining the income level of unskilled workers, does not explain the income level of upper white-collar workers who have a $3,00 0 higher mean annual income than the unskilled workers. Unionization, which was considered to be the predominant mode by which the middle occupational categories, especially operatives j and craftsmen, obtained a higher level of income in : relation to education, is felt to be only slightly I operative within the categories of technical and officials. I In terms of the absolute level of income, it would seem 1 1 that the answer might lie in a look at two sides of the economic coin, viz., corporate and consumer requirements. No matter how high the occupational prestige and education level, the corporate business organization, whether public or private, is concerned with the attainment of the 112 classical goal of business, i.e., the maximization of profit. Therefore, wages and salaries are determined on this basis which results in an upper limit on income level. This level of income is, in part, a reflection of the economic demands of the consumer which is seen clearly in the relation of the consumer with the professional who ! can only demand a fee which is basically in line with the ; supply and demand of the services being offered. The I issue of professionalization and the resultant increase in I j income falls outside the rationale of Landecker who con- | I sidered the movement of individual members of various ! social classes based on psychological needs and degree of individual social power. The efforts of professionaliza tion would be reflected in the relocation of the occupation within the rank systems, i.e., the establishment of a new structural relation. The level of occupational prestige can be explained! I by the argument that was used to develop a rationale to | I account for the extremely low ranking of the unskilled category. Basically, the rationale states that there are no societal constraints which set an upper limit to the level of occupational prestige. Again, it would seem that the explanation of low class crystallization for upper white-collar workers is more fully accounted for by describing the structural relations that exist between rank systems which comprise 113' the dimensions used to determine the degree of class crystallization. Comparison of data to other empirical findings. Landecker has cited several empirical results which he indicated tended to support his hypothesis. They will be reviewed in the light of the previous rationale based on the effect of structural relations on the degree of class crystallization. Hollingshead (1949, p. 37) found that raters when judging family prestige.in a community had greater agreement about those families in the upper and lower strata, which Landecker interpreted as implying similar rankings in the various systems. This is not the only implication which might be drawn from these findings, iIt might also be the case that the greater amount of 'agreement at the extremes is due to the fact that the ! definition of the lower and upper status positions along i ! the rank systems is more exactly identified and the : observable characteristics of these status levels are ; more apparent. It does not necessarily follow that the I members of tAe lower and upper strata must lie on equiva- i ^lent rank levels. Stone and Form (1953, p. 154) determined that the highest degree of consensus for rating occupational I I prestige was at the extremes of the scale. The implication j to be drawn from this finding is that occupational prestige 114 must be highly correlated to education and income, there fore, they must all lie at the same level. But correlation does not relate absolute levels, rather it indicates the extent to which variation in one variable will occur as a result of a change in another variable. j Hochbaum et al. (1955, pp. 31-38) found that income! I I I and education are most highly correlated at the ends of the] ! I occupational ranking system. Also, educational and i I occupational status are most highly correlated at the j extremes of the income distribution. The same argument jmay be used to interpret Hochbaum's findings, i.e., I I correlational findings do not establish the relation I between absolute levels. The same correlational argument I may be used for all of the recent findings which show a i ! correlation between education, occupation, and income, i viz., Duncan and Duncan (1955, pp. 493-503), Duncan 1 ; (1968), etcetera. i ! 'Alternative Theories to ' Explain the Findings In general, the interpretation of the findings ! led to the conclusion that the variables of individual I j power and mobility strivings result in an hypothesis which I does not correspond to the findings. In the search for an alternative theory that will replace Landecker's hypothesis, it was determined that the degree of class crystallization should be conceptualized as the result of 115! the structural relations between education, occupation, and income. The exact nature of the relationship between the variables was indicated by the findings. The problem at this point is to provide a rationale which will explain such a structure. The interpretation of the findings included the attempt to provide a set of rationales as an alternative to the functionalist-based rationale of Landecker. At least nine rationales were offered to explain the various degrees of class crystallization for the occupational categories examined. If the search for a theoretical alternative were to continue in this specialized manner, then it would not attain a sufficient level of generality I so that any one theory could explain all the findings. j It is postulated that the role-analytical I modification of Eisenstadt is the best theoretical approx- I Iimation to an explanation of the findings. This approach I 'identifies social structure, which includes social 'stratification, as the set of social roles and positions ! I and their institutionalized relationships which is charac- i Iterized by the flow and exchange of social rewards and I resources. Eisenstadt*s theory, as it stands, defines the I j general structure and relations of the components of I society in terms of role positions and the exchange of rewards, yet the theory begs the question as to the nature i 'Of the role interrelationships. I I 116 It would appear necessary to look to other theories in order to specify the nature of the role relationships. The implication for Eisenstadt's theory is that exchange theory specifies the manner in which roles are related to one another. The role relationship results from negotiations based on the rewards and costs ! involved. Yet, Eisenstadt did not indicate whether there is a predominant mode of negotiation or what the effect is I of institutionalized norms. ! With regard to the type of negotiation Dahrendorf, I in both his conflict (1959) and social norm (1970) ,theories, stated that the distribution of rewards in I society is based upon differential power which is coercive : in nature. Lenski's (1966) synthesis of the functional I and conflict theories stated that the distribution of the ! surplus within a society is based on power with the I j distinction that in highly differentiated societies I i characterized by constitutionalism, institutionalized forms! ' I ,of power replace coercion. Weber, in his discussion of ! I power, implied that power and conflict are involved in the I ' I I attempt to establish the policy which regulates the I relationships between role positions. ! Therefore, based on the power theory of Dahrendorf, Lenski, and Weber, it is hypothesized that the members of ithe categories of the various work systems interact I ! according to the predominant mode of role-bargaining 117 stemming from the differential power of the negotiators. The contribution of functional theory to the overall approach of Eisenstadt is that it explains the normative j consensus within various competing groups, rather than 1 I providing the basis for understanding the distribution of ! rewards on a societal basis. The within group consensus I ; I may provide the basis for the "just" distribution of | j rewards within the group. I I 1 It would appear that the single theorist who f jprovided the best specification of Eisenstadt's theory is I Weber. The following discussion attempts to relate the | jtheory of Landecker and Eisenstadt to Weber *s theory of I I social stratification. The occupational categories used I to classify the data in this study are all subsets of I 1 Weber's "acquisition class." The degree of being I"positively privileged" is determined by the condition of I I supply and demand in the occupational market and reflected I I in the level of income. The rationale developed earlier I in the interpretation of findings identified some societal i variables which have contributed to the establishment of j I structural relations between occupational categories and I the level of income. By becoming rigidified, these have I served to reduce the unrestricted interaction of supply I I and demand. These variables have included minimum wage I laws, unionization, professionalization, consumer economic I needs, and corporate financial goals. [ 118 It would appear that Landecker's rationale relies most heavily on Weber's theory of parties which is con cerned with the acquisition or maintenance of status and class privileges. Yet, the power to which Landecker refers is that of the individual as expressed in his attempt to reach the top of the rank systems. Weber's discussion of parties referred to political groups and the effect such groups can have in changing the degree of power and prestige of the status communities to which individuals belong. Therefore, Landecker's source of power for his rationale did not come from Weber's theory of parties, but rather the quest for power which is implicit within the discussion of the acquisition classes. The implication of this discussion for the findings is that because Landecker drew his theory of power from Weber's discussion of the acquisition class, it allowed I I him to conceptualize power on the basis of the individual | rather than the group. Consequently, this individualistic notion of power resulted in a theory.which failed to explain the findings. On the other hand, the power Weber described as being expressed through political party participation was incorporated into the alternative rationale of Eisenstadt. Party power was included in terms of the discussion of the political efforts of craftsmen in their efforts toward 119 unionization and the effort of upper white-collar workers to professionalize their occupations. The application of Eisenstadt*s theory to occupational categories can be most readily made by con- I sidering them as roles. Persons in occupational role I categories negotiate for prestige and income in competi- ! tion with other occupational groups. Education can be j used as a bargaining tool since it represents the ability ' to perform services for others. The final outcome of the bargaining process is reflected in the amount of prestige and income which are accorded to members of the occupa- I tional category. The specific nature of the role I relationships among the occupational categories is indi- Icated in the findings of this study. I More specifically, Eisenstadt's theory may be I applied to unskilled workers in the following manner. I Within the framework of the institutionalized norms of the mandatory school age and the minimum wage law, the I I unskilled worker negotiates with other occupational and I consumer groups. Services are offered which require j minimal training and in exchange low prestige and the I I minimum wage are returned. I t Craftsmen, in terms of Eisenstadt*s theory, engage in role-bargaining within the institutionalized pattern of collective bargaining with the union acting as their agent. Skilled services are offered that can be mastered 120 with a high school education and an apprenticeship for job skill training. In exchange union wages and a modicum of prestige are received. Social role analysis, as applied to the upper jwhite-collar worker, involves role-bargaining which operates within the institutionalized framework of the professionalization of the highly skilled occupations, corporate financial policy, and legislation regarding consumer demands. Upper white-collar workers have a high level of skill to offer which is based more directly on formal education than that of craftsmen. In exchange they receive occupational prestige which ranks higher than the educational level and income which ranks lower. FIRST ORDER RELATIONS The first order partial tables described the percentage distribution of high status crystallization I for white husbands under various conditions of the control ! variables. Since the high percentage is the complement of the lower percentage, all the information is implied in I 'the high percentage. This enables all of the conditions I of the control variables to be presented in one table. I This procedure allows for easy comparison of conditions. The ease of comparison is facilitated further by the presentation of the percentages of high class crystalliza tion of each occupation category. 121 Class Gvystatl'tzat'ion related to occupation with intevgenevationat educational mohility held constant, Table 14 presents a comparison of the percentages of high status crystallization with the percentages under various conditions of intergenerational educational mobility. Also, standardized percentages have been calcu lated from standardized tables (average partial table) using the method of direct standardization (Anderson and Zelditch, 1968, pp. 175-178). The standardized percent ages indicate the values when the effect of the control variable has been removed, j The percentages may be interpreted in comparison jto other row percentages, e.g., 70.3 percent for down- !wardly mobile craftsmen indicates that this occupational I category has a higher percentage of high status crystalli- I zation than any other occupational category under the i ! downward condition of educational mobility. Also, the I I percentages may be compared to other column percentages, j e.g., 70.3 percent for downward mobile craftsmen indi- I cates that craftsmen under the condition of downward I mobility have a higher percentage of high status crystal lization than craftsmen under any other condition of educational mobility. Under the condition of downward mobility, sizeable differences occur in the percentages of high class crystal- I lization for the occupational categories of craftsmen 122! e u iH Xi n J E-i ri O •H u i ri - N 'X3 •H r i f_l r i 1 X 3 M r; r i r i m r i -P r i e n m > 1 u e n ri -P ri -P Ui > 1 4J M-l -H O «H •H < u n eu O >i5: E h > 1 P & e u -p ri U ri ri o >i r i O -H ■H e u 4 - > | X | -H ri *H M H ü -P MH -H ri O œ TS e n H ri ri O I —Il—I •H O ri -P ri r i w o 0 3 rQ T3 *H — ri eu r i ü ü o -H u -p 03 ■H r i r i XI 03 r i Q m Q ) e u tn -P r i *H ü U4 U O ( D PU ■ P t ri ri p r i e u n ri 03 ( U r i t r > m p ( D 4J r i H I P P e u d) -p eu -H eu^ri _ p is u o\o r i i 0 0 r - o k O o 1 — 1 • • « • # * 1 — 1 k O r - o 0 0 r - 1 — i 0 < N r o r o k O p & e u -P ri O ri ri O ■H -p ri ü ü O 0 3 TS r i . S 0 3 ri I P e u r i -p iH •p 1 —1 § 8 I 03 -P ri M-l ( D ri P O ri 03 P ( D ( U > CU'H o -p eu 03 ü P •H OJ > ^ P P e u o U i ^ TS e u 0 3 I — I P iH e u •H M ^ P 0 3 O g® I r i 0 3 iH o r i r i "H 4-» ^ r i 0 3 r i -P N CO p -H O iH o\o c r » m 0 \ 0 o V D o\o o\o I T ) 00 o\o V D C M L O p ' ' e n 0 0 C M 0 0 Oi M O r r KO r o V D i r > m u n ro ro 00 o ro ro i T ) o in V D i T ) V D V D ro C " V D U O 00 00 00 k O C " C " i T ) i T ) i T ) V D i T ) ro i T ) * o o 1 — i i r > V D C M 1 - 4 Xi en •H m 1 1 — i p ri (D 1 — 1 ri >1 ri ri o -p Q ) ri •H •H en 0 -P 1 --1 P ■ H ri •H (D -P ü Xi -P ri ri 0 ri s M w * o 4 c M e C " 1 — i e n O V D V D V D L O O 1 — i C v l C M M e 4< M e 4< 'r i M e 'r i (D 'r i p N p r i • H ri 'r i P 1 5 eu p ri eu D ri 1 5 D 'r i ri e u X ri 1 5 g 1 5 en r i O ri O • H -P Q U i PI m U i p P (D Q ) X X X X r i ri MH M - l 0 3 'r i 'r i r i ri ri ri • X X lO 0 3 0 3 ri ri ri P! P! ri 0) d) +J > > o o 0 3 X X 0 3 ri ri Q ) 1 -- 0 3 0 3 d) Q ) > , •H ■H ü p P ri o O Q ) ri> en r i Q ) (D c r -p X (D ri ri p ü ü M - l CM 1 — 1 — p P Q ) 0 O ü 1 — 1 ro 'r i (D 'r i 'r i -P ri ri ü ri ri Q ) X X eu 0 3 0 3 X ri ri H ffi ffi 4< M e 4 ( M e M e M e 123 70.3 percent lower, white-collar 38.5 percent, and upper white-collar 27.8 percent. The findings indicate a drop in value from 70.3 percent for craftsmen to 38.5 percent for lower white-collar workers. Also, a decrease in the upper white-collar value to 2 7.8 percent. Under the condition of the same level of inter- I generational education, additional changes in percentage I I occur. There is an increase in value to 4 6.1 percent for I unskilled workers; craftsmen dropped to 5 3.4 percent; lower jwhite-collar occupational category increased to 62.7 per- I- I cent; and the upper white-collar value is still lower I (30.7 percent) than the zero order 4 6.6 percent. I The condition of low upward mobility results in I values which are similar to the zero order percentages, I except for upper white-collar which is still lower at 38.0 i j percent. I j Under the condition of high.upward educational I mobility, operatives dropped to 37.5 percent and upper ; white-collar increased to 67.6 percent. Under the condi- Itions of downward, same, and low upward educational 1 ! mobility, the percentage pattern is curvilinear and oppo- ^ site to that predicted by Landecker. Under the condition i I of high upward mobility, the percentage pattern is posi- 1 Itively linear from operatives to upper white-collar. I The standardized percentages indicate that the I j greatest difference from the zero order values is that of I 1 L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 . 2 4 upper white-collar at 41.0 percent, a decrease of 5.6 percent. Class orystallization related to occupation with. \ inter generational occupational mobility held constant. I Table 15 presents the zero order percentages of high i I status crystallization for each occupational category of i j white husbands under various conditions of intergenera- tional occupational mobility. Also, the standard percent ages are included. Under the condition of downward occupational I jmobility, the percentage of high class crystallization is I increased moderately for the categories of unskilled jworkers, service workers, operatives, and lower white- : collar workers and decreased slightly for craftsmen. The I overall pattern varies from the usual curvilinear form, I I i.e., the low-ranked categories of unskilled and service I workers have low percentages of high class crystallization I ! and the high ranked categories of operatives, craftsmen, iand lower white-collar have high percentages. The upper I white-collar is a null category because of the downward i shift in occupational mobility I Under the condition of the same intergenerational j occupational level, all of the occupational categories I j have lower percentages than under the condition of down- jward mobility. In general, the decrease is greatest for AIIj 1 u o\o Me P 03 fd LD O 'ey ro ro 03 -P rH » • • » • « CU -H I —i LD O "er o LD CUXÎ o lO "er 'ey ro O IS u 1 H oV P 03 fd OL 1 — 1 o CM 03 -P 1 —i • • « • • • 25 -H r-l lO r- TT o 1 “' ri 0 ^ 0 LD LD lO lO lO LO j o >i PI IS L) •H u 4J to o fd - Cr> N T5 03 •H ri T3 -P 1 rH (d ri fd 03 o \ o Me j I —1 42 (d u -p ri O CM CO CO o ro 1 (d CQ MH 03 » • » » » * » . 1 -p ri >1 I —1 (d g 1 — 1 CO LO lO o P P 03 m 4-> fd u LD LO LO LD LO 03 03 ^ "H ?>i ri L) X n P m IH P o X -p U O -H O •H fd fd X Cr> -P m MH 1 03 (U O (U fd 1 ri eus: -p CU 1 o\o Me 03 03 1 4J >i fd ri fd 03 LD rH lO CM O "er - 1 (d Eh 1 — 1 U Ü P 03 • • • » • • 'ri ! -p (d Ü 03 > 00 ro LO lO o iH ri ■ ^ [ Ü3 >1 ri iH o CU "H LO LD lO lO LO fd fd : ^ O (d O -p • n n 1 1 LD X -H ri 03 LO 03 03 I r —1 tr>»ri -P o — ri ri 1 •H 03 (d "H T5 ri n n 1 < D K -H cu-p ri fd MH ri fd <d 03 03 X 03 03 1 X m -H Ü cu X Ü P o\o Me Me X > > ! ^ O 03 Ü ri 03 •H 03 lO lO ro O O ro o o eh 03 o U ri > X • • • • • • 03 n X 1 ri fd Ü P P CO ro ro o O CO 03 fd fd O 1 —4 O 03 0 pH CM rH 03 ■H O fd Ü3 ^ iH 03 03 -P ri 03 03 03 ri 03 o - >i ■H ^ «ri -H T3 Ü P p •H ri 4J ri ri O o p fd fd fd 'ri 03 Cr> Cr> X X u X 03 03 ri 03 03 03 03 03 03 r —1 P o\o Me Me C3^ n -P ■H ri ri ri r-4 03 LD ro CM O O o 03 fd fd Q K 03 K •H rX • • • • • • p Ü Ü cr> X P ro 00 o O ro m 03 03 P 03 O CM ro rH rH CM tJi-P 03 ri IS rH j fd -H -P 5 rH p P i ■p ^ ri 03 o O ri IS H Ü 03 1 — 1 ro 1 U MH 'ri U 0 03 •ri 03 -p ri ri CU Me Ü fd fd Me 03 X X rH Me Me n3 CU 03 03 1 fd Me 'ri 03 X ri ri p ri >i 'ri p N w m 03 iH O -P P fd •H Me Me Me 1 ri ri fd ■H -H 'ri fd 15 'ri Me Me 03 rH O 03 ri -P 1 — 1 P 15 CU p Me ri fd "H Cn o fd "H fd CU 5 fd 4J 4-> -P P ’H cun 1$ 5 fd 03 fd 03 4J ri o ri 03 X ri •p >i N 4J fd Ü s 15 e 15 Cn fd Ü3 P -H ■H ri Ü o fd O ■H -P O rH w H o Q CO PI c/3 L... 126 the lower ranked occupations, i.e., for unskilled 33.3 percent to 18.2 percent, and the same percentage for lower white-collar. Upper white-collar shows an increase over the zero order of 4 6.6 percent to 54.4 percent. The same variation from the curvilinear pattern exists as in the case of downward mobility, i.e., low percentages for the low ranked occupations and high percentages for the high I ranked occupations. Service workers show a lower percent- ! age of 13.3 percent compared to 23.5 percent for downward I mobility. Under the condition of low upward mobility, the unskilled category is null. Service workers is of such I a low frequency that it is unreliable, which results from I ; the vacating of the lower categories because of the ;intergenerational shift in mobility. The remaining 'categories show a more pronounced curvilinear pattern I I than that of the zero order relation which is opposite to [that predicted by Landecker's hypothesis. The value for ,operatives dropped slightly from the zero order value and is at the same level as under the condition of no mobility, jCraftsmen show an increase to 65.8 percent from the value I of 55.8 percent for no mobility change. Upper white-collar jdropped from 54.4 percent for the no change condition to I 44.3 percent for low upward mobility. i I Under the condition of high upward occupational mobility, the four lowest occupational categories are 127 empty because of the shift in occupational mobility. The lower white-collar category has a lower percentage of 50.0 percent than under the low upward condition, and the upper white-collar category has a decrease to 4 0.3 percent. Table 15, which presents the standardized percent ages, provides a comparison of the overall effect of intergenerational occupational mobility with the zero order relation of class crystallization and occupation with the effect of occupational mobility removed. In every occupational category except lower white-collar, there has been a decrease in the percentage of high class crystallization from that indicated in the zero order I relation, viz., unskilled 27.6 percent to 13.0 percent; ^ service workers 18.5 percent to 9.3 percent; operatives I 5 8.6 percent to 51.4 percent; craftsmen 61.0 percent to {54.3 percent; lower white-collar 56.9 percent to 57.2 per- I cent; upper white-collar 46.6 percent to 36.7 percent. The I general trend with regard to the predicted curvilinear ^ pattern with the effect of intergenerational occupational mobility removed is that curvilinearity is accentuated in I I a direction opposite to that predicted, i.e., the percent- I ages of the lowest and highest ranked occupations are even lower when compared to the highest percentage of the middle occupational category. Also, the highest percentage category shifted from that of craftsmen to lower white- collar . 128 INTERPRETATION OF SOCIAL MOBILITY The first hypothesis to which the findings are to be compared is that of Bloombaum's which states that social mobility has an effect on class crystallization. The findings indicate that the percentages of high class crystallization under various conditions of intergenera- I Itional educational and occupational mobility differ I I greatly from the zero order percentages. Therefore, the i I j findings support the hypothesis of Bloombaum that social I mobility has an effect on class crystallization. I Landecker's hypothesis with regard to social mobility states that there is an inverse relationship I I between social mobility and class crystallization. The ! hypothesis predicts that downward and high upward degrees i of mobility result in a low degree of class crystalliza- i I tion and no or low upward mobility would have a high ,degree of class crystallization. The findings indicate I ! that under the condition of no intergenerational educa- itional mobility for unskilled workers, downward educa- Itional mobility, and no and high upward occupational {mobility for upper white-collar workers, that Landecker's jhypothesis was supported. j The alternative hypothesis proposed by Matras I I states that social mobility is directly related to class I crystallization which would predict high class 129. crystallization for downward and high upward mobility and low class crystallization for no mobility or low upward mobility. The findings for educational mobility for craftsmen partially support the hypothesis, i.e., the I jcomparison between downward and same or low upward 'mobility. Also, the findings for occupational mobility for unskilled workers partially support the hypothesis, i.e., the comparison between downward and same or low upward mobility. The findings indicate another pattern which was not predicted. In the case of educational mobility for white-collar workers, the degree of class crystallization increased as social mobility changed from downward to high upward. Also, in the case of occupational mobility j for white-collar workers, the degree of class crystalli- I I zation decreased as social mobility changed from downward I to high upward which was the opposite effect than that I which occurred under the condition of educational mobility. : The discussion of the partial support which the ^ findings offer for the hypothesis of Landecker and Matras, f in effect, specify the conditions under which the hypotheses hold. All three patterns of class crystalliza- t I tion which result from various conditions of educational j and occupational mobility might be explained on a basis [ I other than the rationale based on time offered by i : Landecker or Matras. The various conditions of mobility, i____________________________________________________________________________ I B F'.----------------------------------------------------------------- i.e., downward, etc., in effect identify subgroups of the occupational category. It is reasonable to suggest that the differences in percentages of class crystallization which correspond to the various conditions of mobility are a result of the unique set of occupations which belong to I each subgroup. The occupations of the subgroup have their I iown unique set of structural relations with the variables I jof education and income. An example which illustrates i j this hypothesis is the case of upper white-collar workers I under the condition of educational mobility. Under the [ icondition of downward mobility, the grade level is 12.3 and income $7,000. Under the condition of high upward mobility, the grade level is 15.3 and the income level has only increased $300. It would appear that this could be Î explained on the basis that the occupational group which I comprises the downward category requires a lower amount I of education, and its reward consists mainly of income I rather than prestige. The occupational group for the high ‘upward mobility condition requires a greater amount of I education and receives prestige in greater proportion than I income as a reward. 1 Therefore, although the hypotheses of Landecker I and Matras have received some support, the rationale t I which supports the hypotheses might be held in question. I I First order relation with husband's father's 131 education held constant. Table 16 presents the percentage distribution of high class crystallization of husbands under various conditions of husband's father's education. In general, the percentage patterns for the various grade levels of the father are curvilinear and opposite to the I predicted pattern. The standardized percentages which indicate the effect of occupation on class crystallization with the effect of the husband's father's education removed show virtually no change in percentage from the zero order values, i.e., the husband's father's education has contributed very little to the zero order relation. The occupations of unskilled, craftsmen, and upper white-collar will be analyzed at different levels of father's education in order to describe the effect of father's education on crystallization. The degree of high class crystallization for the unskilled worker is 60.0 I I percent at the 0-4 father's grade level, an increase over I the zero order value of 27.6 percent. Generally, as the : education level increases, the percentages decrease, i.e., 5-8 grades, 39.6 percent; 9-11 grades, 37.5 percent; high ! I school graduate, 11.1 percent; some college and college I graduate, 0.0 percent (the frequencies are significant I ; for only the 5-8 grades and high school graduate I categories). ! Craftsmen also show an increased percentage of I j high class crystallization under the 0-4 grade level I [______________________________________ 1.32J LD Q ) I — I X ri E h C O ■ r H -P ri N ■ i H I — I I — I ri X m >1 5 h U i n r i X ri X 03 - i H m o ri o ■ H X r i X • i H 5 h X i n ■ r H Q i n r i r i X i n r i W œ m T3 0 r i r i c u X 01 i n >1 r i E h Î T1 X ri ri T3 ( U ■ r H M H ■ r H i n i n ri 1 —I O >i 5 h O tn ( U -P ri U r i r i o ■ r H -P ri a r i u Ü o < U ( U tr» -P r i ’ H r i U Q ) O M H P O ( U Ph >1 P & ( Ü -P ri u s 0 ■p H - l 1 Ü Ü o 0 3 § X 0 3 r i t r i 1 P 0 \0 P ( U ri L D r - o ro ( T \ I — 1 ( T \ o (U ■ P rH • • • • « « « « C L jtH rH L D L O ro < T \ L D 00 L D pLj^r i o ro L O n 1 2 u 1 p d P ■K P ( U ri < y \ 00 < y \ 1 — 1 L D 1 — 1 O c u -P rH • • • • • • • • rH L O ro ro 00 ro L O L D 0 ^ 0 L D L O L O lO L D « e j * L O PI 1 2 u 1 0 3 o \ o M e M e P ri O r - < y \ r - L D O O 00 M H c u • • • • « • • « r i g Ip C M ro Ip O O 1 — 1 P L D r - L D L O lO lO o L D U Ip 1 ri 0 3 o \ o M < M e P C U L D C M o L D r - O O L D < u > • • « • • • « « C U j t H 00 00 o ro L D o O cr, o p L O ro L D L D L D L D L O • L O ri ri ( U 0 3 ;ri Ü P 0 \0 M c • a • a M e P ■p C U L O r - C M o 1 — 1 ro O L O > rX • » * » » » » » 0 3 p P C O L D C M o C T i ro O r - 0 3 c u O 1 — 1 Ip C M C M ro Ip ri 03 1 2 rH u ri 'd c u c u 0 3 ri Ip P o \ o M c M c M e M e t r Ip C U L D O L D L O 1 — 1 o O ro ri ■p • • • • • • • • p P r - O 03 r - 1 — 1 o O o p 0 3 o C N L D ro ro Ip ro ri 1 2 1 — 1 D 1 — 1 ri u d c u p 0 3 o 0 3 0 3 C U ri C U C U d c u d ■d d ri 1 — 1 tr> c u X ri ri p o c u c u ri N H 0 3 ri p p O O P 1 — 1 P ■ H M e 1 ri - 0 3 0 O O X ri Ip ri d c / 3 Ip o T3 — •iH 1 — 1 Ü ri o ri ri p ri ri ■p ri P p 00 Ip in d u d id ri P P p ri C U ri ri ri ri d ri 0 3 ri X X X Ü o o o X P ri r P P ri P >1 N 0 3 X ri p p p o g rH O ri 03 P ■ P ■p ri ri 'd ■ P o 0 P U i P W . k o L O < y \ in U in 133 condition, i.e., 72.7 percent compared to the zero order 61.0 percent. As the grade level increases, the percent age decreases, viz., 5-8 grades, 63.9 percent; 9-11 grades, 54.7 percent; high school graduate, 51.6 percent ; some I jcollege, 50.0 percent ; college graduate (some college and I I college graduate categories are not significant). j The upper white-collar category shows a different I pattern beginning with a low percentage at the low grade jlevel, increasing as education increases then leveling off jat a lower percentage. The pattern is 35.7 percent for ! 0-4 grades compared to 4 6.6 percent for the zero order ; 5-8 grades, 43.0 percent; 9-11 grades, 59.3 percent; high school graduate, 4 4.9 percent; some college, 4 6.1 percent ; ! college graduate, 48.9 percent. ; First order relation with husband's father's 'occupation held constant. Table 17 presents the percentage i I \ of high status crystallization for white husbands under I i the condition of husband's father's occupation for each of ' the husband's occupational categories. In general, the I percentage patterns for each condition are curvilinear and j opposite to the predicted pattern. The standard percent- I ages, which indicate the zero order relations with the j effect of husband's father's occupation removed, show very I little change in percentage, i.e., operatives slightly j higher and craftsmen, lower and upper white-collar slightly ! lower. I I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 1 p o \ o p ( U fd V O (ü 4 - J iH • CL'H iH vo O .X Î 0 H* !D !2 U 1 P o 'P P C ü fd C P (U -P iH • ^ :H r-j vo c 0 x ; 0 Lfî o >1 XI !2 C J •H P -p m O 1 fd - tP 1 N Td C ü •H C -P 1 o \ o 1 M fd fd tn O ! M XI C J -P C • fd tn M 4 C ü 1 — 1 -P :d 1 — 1 fd G vo tn m tn fd p c C J p m T3 o U o C •H fd -P W Q ) XJ fd ^ 3 o , m >1 C L 1 -P >1 C J P fd tn o \ o fd E 4 m o U P C ü V O -P tr> U C ü > • W > i TJ < d O C L "H 00 X3 C -P O -P L O r~- ^ fd fd m iH C P ^ C J - •H Q ) ü M d ' Q ) œ -H 0 iH c ! 1 — 1 m t H fd fd e u tn X! m -H -P C ü p o \ o fd o M fd o td •H e u L O I E * f t/î C L "H > X • C fd 0 4J m p p co 0 tH ü fd C ü 0 rH •H C J ü C L in -P O 0 to ü X) nd c o U •H S d " O p fd p t ^ d - P A O ) C ü tn (d td X: iH p o \ o •H C ! -p 1 — 1 (ü k O Q m fd -H M • k X P r~ Q ) Q ) to 0 (N tP 4J ü !2 fd "H D -p x ; c îs Q ) ü M -l p o C ü fL 1 C to iH O e s fd -H 4 - 1 +J 41 fd to fd X 4 - 1 >1 N C p C A P -H •H C J I— 1 M ü tn O — t / î ’ H - - 4 - J C ^ f d (d d) C L XI Æ c J w -P ü d fd ü m k O V D o o C N r-" o ro C O ir» C N C D 1 — 1 Ht C N in Ht C D C N Ht * O t^ 1 — 1 C P o o o 00 O H* r - C D o Ul o m V O ir» ir» ir» r-" ir» ir» L O o 00 c x > t^ L t d Ht 1 — 1 00 00 L O iH D 1 — 1 O 00 L O lO L O C D D D D * O 00 c x > C N o o Ht O C N 1 — 1 C D o o O L O D t^ D L O L O D D • L O Ü fd X * • a ■ a * X O O o ro D o o C N » • • • t • • • to O O o Ht 00 lO o 00 to C N C N H C N C N 1 — 1 e u 1 — 1 >1 ü ü e u e s * * 4 < * * * C r * o O O lO C N O t^ Ht C ü • • • • • • • • p L O O O lO iH O KO 00 X C N lO Ht 1 — 1 C N 1 — 1 1 — 1 C ü ü to nd p e u C ü to X p u P e u e u O : 1 T) C L 12 p e u e u C ü X o to 4 - 1 4 - 1 N H M d !2 C ü C •H •H •H * e u > C ü X . p X p Td 1 — 1 e u •H g !2 fd fd P P rH ü 4 - 1 to iH H fd e u •H •H fd 4 - 1 P iH P iH T] g > P M -l e u o e u o C p to P e u fd ^ a PucJ fd fd C e u C L P o O. X Î D C/î O U X D m 135 The pattern of high class crystallization for unskilled workers for the various occupational categories of the father, i.e., for the husband's father's occupa tional categories of farmer, 25.0 percent; operatives, 55.5 percent; craftsmen, 41.2 percent; upper white-collar, 16.7 percent. Craftsmen show a varied pattern beginning with an I exceptionally high 81.5 percent for the husband's father's category of farmer, than unskilled, 58.0 percent; lower white-collar, 66.7 percent; upper white-collar, 61.5 j percent. I Upper white-collar have a low 28.6 percent under jthe condition of the husband's father's category of farmer, [then a slight decrease after a 54.4 percent for unskilled [ I to a 44.0 percent for craftsmen, then an abrupt rise to ! f 66.7 percent for lower white-collar and a drop to 21.0 i I percent for upper white-collar. I INTERPRETATION OF SOCIAL ORIGIN I ; The interpretation of the findings is based upon ! the rationale of Landecker which states that power is j directly related to class crystallization. It is hypothe- I sized that the power of the husband is directly related to I I the level of the father's education and occupation. ! Therefore, the degree of class crystallization is directly 136 related to the father's level of power and the extent to which the son has utilized it. In the case of the father's education, the find ings support the hypothesis that the degree of class I crystallization would increase as the father's status I level increased, that is, for upper white-collar workers junder the condition of 0-4 grade level, 35.7 percent; 5-8 I grade level, 43.0 percent; 9-11 grade level, 59.3 percent I jThe percentages decreased for the higher grade levels. I This is the only condition which supports the hypothesis. I I The alternative hypothesis, which predicts I decreased class crystallization with increased father's ilevel of education, received greater support. The find- ' ings indicate for unskilled workers and craftsmen that as I i the father's level of education increased the degree of 1 'class crystallization decreased, viz., unskilled workers : I father's grade level, 0-4, 60.0 percent; high school i graduate, 11.1 percent; and craftsmen: father's 0-4 I grade level, 72.7 percent; high school graduate, 51.6 I percent. Î The findings based on the father's occupation do not show definite patterns, but rather indicate isolated departures from the zero order percentages. One of the findings of interest is the percentages of high class crystallization for husbands whose fathers were farmers. Craftsmen from a farm background had an 81.5 percent of 137 high class crystallization. Pihlbald and Gregory (1954, pp. 314-324) found in Missouri that rural-urban migration was positively related to intelligence test scores which might help to explain the findings. For the category of craftsmen, the educational level is lower than the level i of occupational prestige or income. The subset of crafts- j men with a farm background might have attained greater I education than the average craftsman, in part explained ! by the positive relation between intelligence and educa tion. A higher degree of education would result in higher class crystallization. SUMMARY OF DATA ANALYSES The following summarizes the contingency table i ianalysis from the perspective of Landecker*s hypothesized i ! curvilinear relation between social status as operational- I Iized by occupational ranking and class crystallization. ' Class ovystalllzatlon velated to ooowpat'ton, I 1. The percentage distribution for high class j crystallization falls into a curvilinear pattern which is I jopposite to that hypothesized by Landecker. The percent- ; ages for the occupational categories analyzed were 27.6 I percent for the low status category of unskilled workers, I 61.0 percent for the middle status category of craftsmen, i 46.6 percent for the high status category of upper white- ! collar workers. I__________________________________ 138 Class ovystalllzatlon velated to oooupatlon with Intevgenevatlonal educational mobility held constant, 1. The conditions of downward, no, and low upward mobility have a curvilinear pattern opposite to that predicted. I 2. The condition of high upward mobility has a ; curvilinear pattern from the middle to high occupational ) 1 rankings which conforms to the predicted pattern. t 3. As the degree of educational mobility increased, the degree of high class crystallization I I increased for upper white-collar workers, i 4. Downward educational mobility results in a I higher percentage of class crystallization for craftsmen. I t 5. The same educational level results in a I I higher percentage of class crystallization for unskilled I I workers. I . Class cvystalllzatlon velated to occupation with ^Intevgenevatlonal occupational mobility held constant. ! 1. The condition of the same occupational level I has a percentage pattern of high class crystallization I which is low for unskilled workers, viz., 18.2 percent, [and high for the middle and high occupational rankings, I i.e., craftsmen, 55.8 percent, and upper white-collar, I I 54.4 percent. I 2. Under the condition of downward occupational 139 mobility, unskilled workers have a low value of 33.3 per cent, and craftsmen a high value of 58.2 percent, which is opposite to the predicted pattern. 3. Under the conditions of low and high upward occupational mobility, upper white-collar workers have a Îlower percentage of high class crystallization than the I middle ranked occupations which is opposite to the ! predicted pattern. j 4. As the degree of occupational mobility } j increased, the degree of high class crystallization ; decreased for upper white-collar workers which is opposite to the relation for educational mobility, 5. As the degree of occupational mobility increased from downward to the same level, the degree of high class crystallization decreased for unskilled workers. I 6. The overall effect of occupational mobility is ; to lower the percentage of high class crystallization for j each occupational category except lower white-collar which stayed at the same level. i Class ovystalllzatlon velated to occupation with ]^hushand' s fathev's education held constant. j 1. All the categories of husband's father's education resulted in a curvilinear pattern opposite to the one predicted. I 2. As the level of husband's father's education i 1 I 14D increased, the percentage of high class crystallization decreased for unskilled workers. 3. As the level of husband's father's education increased, the percentage of high class crystallization j decreased for craftsmen. j 4. As the level of husband's father's education j increased from 0-4 grades to 9-11 grades, the percentage I of high class crystallization increased correspondingly I with 35.7 percent and 59.3 percent. [ Class Qvystalllzatlon velated to ooeupatlon with \husband^s fathev^s oooupatlon held constant. 1. All the categories of husband's father's I occupation resulted in a curvilinear pattern opposite to ! the one predicted. ! I 2. Under the condition of husband's father's I occupation of farmer, the percentage of high class I crystallization increased to 81.5 percent for craftsmen. ' 3. Under the condition of husband's father's : occupation of farmer, the percent of high class crystal- I Ilization decreased to 28.6 percent for upper white-collar ! workers. I 4. Under the condition of husband's father's I occupation of lower white-collar, the percentage of high jclass crystallization increased to 66.7 percent for upper I white-collar workers. 14,1. 5, Under the condition of husband's father's occupation of upper white-collar, the percentage of high class crystallization decreased to 21.0 percent for upper jwhite-collar workers. i 1 - ■ ; CHAPTER SUMMARY I j I The findings were presented in. the form of con tingency tables with cell percentages. The univariate ; frequency distribution indicated the distribution of the i I sample among the variable categories and described the I distribution in terms of the mean, standard deviation, I and skewness. The bivariate contingency tables indicated j the relation between occupational status and class crystal- ilization directly and under various conditions of inter- I : generational educational and occupational mobility and I father's educational and occupational level. I The interpretation of the findings indicated that the data failed to support the class crystallization pattern of Landecker. Consequently, an alternative model ; was developed based on the structural relations among the variables, rather than the functionalist based theory of I Landecker which defined class crystallization in terms of i individual deviation from perfectly correlated variables. I ( The alternative model was based on the rol e analysis j I perspective of Eisenstadt which defines social structure I as the flow of rewards and resources between role I ! . 142 positions. The model, with its emphasis on exchange theory, was modified to include the power dimension of Dahrendorf, the notion of institutionalized power of jLenski, and the integration of power and class status {groupings of Weber. The modification of the Eisenstadt Imodel is considered to have a better approximation to the I findings than the hypothesis of Landecker which received i iminimal support. ! j Bloombaum*s hypothesis that social mobility is I related to class crystallization was supported by the ! I findings. Both the Landecker and Matras hypotheses received partial support from the findings as to the specific relation of mobility to class crystallization. I The effect of social origin on class crystalliza- Ition was hypothesized to be directly related to the degree I i to which the power of the father was acquired by the son. I The relationship was based on the rationale of Landecker. j The findings supported the hypothesis under only one ' condition. The opposite hypothesis was supported in two 1 I instances. 14 3 Chapter 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS SUMMARY I Pu3:pose I The purpose of this study was to test empirically ILandecker's class crystallization hypothesis which states I I that a greater degree of class crystallization is to be ! I expected at the extremes of a rank system than at the I middle levels. In addition, the effects of intergenera- ;tional educational and occupational mobility and father's i I educational achievement and occupational status on class ! I crystallization were observed. i ; Rationale I Although certain stratification variables have ! been treated quantitatively, the "class" character of j such social strata is questionable. The Weberian concept I of status communities, for example, suggests the need for j some index of the congruity of stratification variables in status communities as well as for a measure of the discreteness of these strata. Class crystallization is defined by Landecker as the degree to which members of a 14 4 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ given status hierarchy have comparable statuses in other hierarchies. He maintains that the congruency of statuses of class members provides appropriate measurement of "classness," or class crystallization. Although individual status consistency has been explored to some extent, the societal analogue, class crystallization, has been almost totally ignored. Design The research design was that of a correlational study using data gathered by the Detroit Family Growth Study in 1961. The sample consisted of a stratified probability sample of married women who were interviewed in their homes during January-March 1961. The data used I in this study consisted of information gathered about the }husband and the husband's father. A contingency table analysis was made of the data to determine the effect of ! occupational status on class crystallization under various I ! conditions of the control variables, iGeneral Discussion j Landecker's class crystallization hypothesis does jnot explain the findings of this study. His hypothesis is japparently derived from "functionalist" stratification I theory which assumes that class crystallization exists at I all class levels unless, as a result of power or mobility 'strivings, individual members deviate from this condition. I ! ' J 145 An alternative rationale based on role theory was developed to explain the findings. The degree of class crystallization is considered to be accounted for most fully as the result of the structural relations between the rank systems and not as the result of individual deviations. "Structure" here refers to the societal effects of particular combinations of variables such as conditions of supply and demand in the economic market place , governmental constraints on education and income, unionization and professionalization within occupational categories. An alternative theory was developed based on the role analysis perspective of Eisenstadt which defines ; social structure as the flow of rewards and resources I between role positions. The model with its emphasis on j exchange theory was modified to include the power dimen- Ision of Dahrendorf, the notion of institutionalized power ; of Lenski, and the integration of power and class status groupings of Weber. Bloombaum's hypothesis that social mobility is * related to class crystallization was supported by the I findings. Both the Landecker and Matras hypotheses I received partial support from the findings as to the I specific relation of mobility to class crystallization. The effect of social origin on class crystalliza- :tion was hypothesized to be directly related to the extent 1 ! 146 to which the power of the father was acquired by the son. This hypothesis was based on the rationale of Landecker. The findings supported the hypothesis under only one condition. The hypothesis of a negative relation between i power and class crystallization was supported in two I : instances. I I I CONCLUSIONS I I Landeo'kev^s otass ovy sta'l'l'lzati-on hypothes'ls . ! 1. The findings failed to support Landecker's i I class crystallization hypothesis which states that class I crystallization will be greater at the extremes of the I status system. I The findings indicate the following pattern iof high class crystallization: unskilled workers, 27.6 j I percent; craftsmen, 61.0 percent; upper white-collar, 46.6 j I percent. I The most crystallized strata in Detroit was 'neither the lower strata (unskilled and service workers) ,nor the high strata (upper white-collar workers), but I rather the middle strata of craftsmen and operatives. i Persons at either extreme were more likely to have incon- j j sistent statuses. I The general significance of this study to i I social theory is first, that social class can be concep- i !tualized and measured in terms of the degree of class i . ________________________________________1 4 7 crystallization which results in a quantitative measure of social class. Secondly, the findings of this study specified the patterns of the class variables in terms of relative statuses. The patterns were characterized by I I educational and income levels which differed and were at j different status levels than the corresponding occupational I category. This implies that social class is defined j differently at different status levels and that perfect class crystallization is not the statistically normal relation between the class variables. This also implies i j that social class is real and can be empirically observed, j 2. Bloombaum's hypothesis that social mobility j is related to class crystallization was supported by the i I findings under the conditions of intergenerational educa tional and occupational mobility. 3. Landecker's hypothesis which states that social I Jmobility is inversely related to class crystallization was partially supported by the findings. The findings for intergenerational educational tmobility for unskilled workers and intergenerational and I ; occupational mobility for upper white-collar (downward I ; category not included) supported Landecker's hypothesis. I 4. Matras' hypothesis which states that social I mobility is directly related to class crystallization was : partially supported by the findings. I ; The findings for intergenerational educational ! I ! 148 mobility for craftsmen support the hypothesis, i.e., the comparison between downward and same or low upward mobility. Also, the findings for intergenerational I occupational mobility for unskilled workers support the jhypothesis, i.e., the comparison between downward and ! same or low upward mobility. i 5. Landecker's hypothesis which states that I : power is directly related to class crystallization was ; tested based on the assumption that the degree of power i I the son has is directly related to the educational and i I occupational level of the father. I The findings support the hypothesis under only jone condition, viz., as the father's level of education ‘increased, the degree of class crystallization increased. The findings were: 0-4 grade level, 35.7 percent; 5-8 1 igrade level, 43.0 percent; 9-11 grade level, 59.3 percent. ! This relation held for upper white-collar workers only, I i 6. The findings are the basis for a set of empirically derived hypotheses which correspond to the relative levels of the variables for various occupational categories. Under the conditions of white, married men, it is hypothesized that: a. The occupational category of unskilled workers is characterized by a low degree of class I crystallization. I b. For the category of unskilled workers, I I _ _ • 149 education and income are at the same level and occupa tional prestige is at a lower level than either. c. The occupational category craftsmen is characterized by a high degree of class crystallization. d. For craftsmen, the relative status ranking is education, lowest; occupational prestige, middle ; and income, highest. e. The occupational category of upper white- collar workers is characterized by a low degree of class I crystallization. I I j f., For upper-white collar workers, the rela tive status ranking of income is lowest; education, middle; I and occupational prestige, highest. 7. The modification of Eisenstadt*s model provides ; a general rationale which explains the relative ranking of I the variables. The rationale states that given the I institutionalized norms which represent the results of I previous intergroup power conflicts, that occupational groups by means of coercive power negotiate for prestige and income with other occupational and ethnic groups. Education is used as a bargaining tool since it represents I the ability to perform services. I The final outcome of the role-bargaining process I is reflected in the amount of rewards of prestige and income which are accorded to the occupational category. 150 REFERENCES 151 REFERENCES Adams, S. N. Status congruency as a variable in small group performance. flnan.a.1 Fotgp.r , 1953, 32 r 16-22, I Adams, S. N. Origins of American occupational elites, 1900-1955. AmeT'ioan Jouvnat of SoQ'vo'logy, January I 1957, pp. 360-368. I j Alker, H. R., Jr. Measuring inequality. In E. R. Tufte j (Ed.), The quant'ltat'iv e anatys'ls of soo'iaZ pvobtems. I Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970. I I Allard, E. Theories about social stratification. In J. Î A. Jackson (Ed.), SooZaZ stvatZfZoat'ion. New York : Cambridge University Press, 1968. 1 Allen, P. J. Childhood background of success in a I profession. Ameip'loan SooZoZogZoaZ Rev'iew, April 1955, I pp. 186-190. I Anderson, B., & Zelditch, M., Jr. Rank equilibration and politics. European Journat of SooZotogy, 1964, 5, 112-115. I Anderson, C. A. The need for a functional theory of social class. Rural SooZotogy, June 1954, pp. 152-160. 'Anderson, C. A. A skeptical note on the relation of I vertical mobility to education. AmerZoan Journat of Soo'totogy, May 1961, pp. 560-570. 'Anderson, C. H. The pottttoat eoonomy of sootat otass. ■ Engelwood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973. I Anderson, H. D. , & Davidson, P. E. Oooupat'tonat trends I in the United States. Stanford: Stanford University ' Press, 1940. I Anderson, T. R., & Zelditch, M., Jr. A basic course in statistics. New York : Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968. Armer, J. M. Intersociety and intrasociety correlations I of occupational prestige. American Journat of Sociology, July 1968, pp. 28-36. ( 152 Aron, R. Main currents in sociotogicat ^^thought (Vol. 1). London: Weidenfeid & Nicholson, 19 65. Aron, R. Social class, political class, ruling class. In R. Bendix & S. M. Lipset (Eds.), Class, status and power (2nd ed.). Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1966. 1 IBaltzell, E. D. Philadelphia gentlemen. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1958. IBaltzell, E. D. The Protestant establishment. New York : Random House, 19 64. IBaltzell, E. D. Who's who in America and the social ! register : Elite and upper class indexes in metro- j politan America. In R. Bendix & S. M. Lipset (Eds.), I ClasSy status and power (2nd ed.). Glencoe, 111.: ! Free Press, 1966. I ;Baratz, M. Corporate giants and the power structure. I Western Political Quarterly, June 1956, pp. 406-415. jBarber, B. Social stratification: A comparative analysis I of structure and process. New York : Harcourt, Brace, ! 1957. I Bauer, R. A., & Gergen, J, J. (Eds.). The study of policy formation. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1968. Bell, C. Middle class families. London : Routledge & I Kegan Paul, 1968. : Bell, D. The power elite--Reconsidered. American Journal I of Sociology, November 1958, pp. 238-250. Bell, I. P. Status discrepancy and the radical rejection of nonviolence. Sociological Inquiry, Winter 1968, pp. 51-64. IBendix, R. Max Weber: An intellectual portrait. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1960. i f IBendix, R., & Lipset, S. M. (Eds.). Class y status and I power. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1953. IBenoit-Smullyan, E. Status, status types and status I interrelations. American Sociological Review, April I 1944, pp. 151-161. ! Berg, D. Conceptual clarification of status consistency. 153 Unpublished seminar paper. University of Southern California, 196 8. Bierstedt, R. An analysis of social power. AmeTican Soeiolog-ical Review, December 1950, pp. 730-738. Bierstedt, R. The problem of authority. In M. Berger, T. Abel, & C. H, Page (Eds.), Freedom and control in modern society. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1954. iBlalock, H. M., Jr. Status consciousness: A dimensional I analysis. Social Forces, 1959, 38, 243-248. I iBlalock, H. M., Jr. Social statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 19 60. Blalock, H. M., Jr. Correlated independent variables : I The problem of multicollinearity. Social Forces, I 1963, 42, 233-237. I Blalock, H. M., Jr. Causal inference in nonexperimental research. Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina I Press, 1964. I ; Blalock, H. M., Jr. Theory building and the statistical I concept of interaction. American Sociological Review, June 1965, pp. 374-380. I Blalock, H. M., Jr. Comment: Status inconsistency and the identification problems. Public Opinion Quarterly, j Spring 1966, pp. 130-132. (a) I Blalock, H. M., Jr. The identification problem and theory building: The case of status inconsistency. American Sociological Review, February 1966, pp. 52-61. (b) ; Blalock, H. M., Jr. Status inconsistency and interaction : Some alternative models. American Journal of Sociology, November 1967, pp. 305-315. (a) 1 Blalock, H. M., Jr. Status inconsistency, social mobility, status integration and structural effects. American Sociological Review, October 1967, pp. 790-801. (b) j Blalock, H. M., Jr . Tests of status inconsistency I theories : A note of caution. Pacific Sociological Review, Fall 1967, pp. 69-74. (c) IBlau, P. M. Critical remarks on Weber's theory of authority. American Political Science Review, June ; 1963, pp. 305-316. ; 154 Blau, P. M. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley, 1964. Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. The American occupational structure. New York : Wiley, 1967. Blauner, R. Alienation and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Bloombaum, M. The mobi]ity dimension in status consis- I tency. Sociology and Social Research, April 1964, i pp. 340-347. I 'Blumberg, P. (Ed.). The impact of social class. New York : Thomas Y. Crowell, 197 2. jBond, H. M. The productivity of national merit scholars I by occupational class. School and Society, 1957, 85, I 267-268. I Bottomore, T. B. Elites and society. London:' C. A. I Watts, 1964. I Bottomore, T. B. Classes in modern society. New York : j Random House, 196 6. ;Bottomore, T. B. Marxist sociology. In D. C. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences j (Vol. 10). New York : Macmillan, 1968. :Bottomore, T. B. Class structure in western Europe. In M. S. Archer & S. Giner (Eds.), Contemporary Europe y i clasSy status and power. London : Weidenfeid & Nicolson, 1971. ! Brandon, A. C. The relevance of expectation as an under- lying factor in status congruence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, 1965. (a) ! Brandon, A. C. Status congruence and expectation. I Sociometry, September 1965, pp. 272-288. (b) : Burnham, W. D. The changing shape of the American 1 political universe. American Political Science ! Review, March 1965, pp. 7-28. I Caro, F. G., & Pihlblad, C. T. Social class, formal : education, and social mobility. Sociology and Social I Research, July 1964, p. 435. 155 Cartwright, D. S. (Ed.). Studies in social power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1959. Cartwright, D. S. Ecological variables. In E. F. Borgatta (Ed.), Sociological methodology. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, 1969. I Centers, R. The psychology of social classes. Princeton, j N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1949. I ; Centers, R. Social class, occupation, and imputed belief. : American Journal of Sociology, May 1953, pp. 54 3-555. I Chambliss, W., Jr., & Steele, M. F. Status integration , and suicide: An assessment. American Sociological I Review, February 1966, pp. 524-532. j I Cohen, A. K., & Hodges, H. M., Jr. Characteristics of the 1 lower-blue-collar class. Social Problems, 1963, 10 1 303-333. I ; Cole, G. D. H. The conception of the middle classes. i British Journal of Sociology, December 1950, I pp. 275-290. I I Collins, R. Functional and conflict theories of educa- I tional stratification. American Sociological Review, December 1971, pp. 1002-1019. i I Coombs, C. Personal correspondence from the University I of Michigan, October 17, 1974. Coombs, R. H., & Davies, V. Social class, scholastic I aspiration, and academic achievement. Pacific ; Sociological Review, Fall 1965, pp. 96-100. Coser, L. A. The functions of social conflict. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1956. ICoser, L. A. Social conflict and the theory of social change. British Journal of Sociology, September 1957, pp. 197-207. i I Cuber, J. F., & Kenkel, W. F. Social stratification in I the United States. New York: Appleton, 1954. I Curtis, R. F. Conceptual problems in social mobility 1 research. Sociology and Social Research, July 1961, pp. 387-395. 156 Dahl, R. A. The concept of power. Behavioral Soienee , July 1957, pp. 201-215. Dahl, R. A. A critique of the ruling elite model. American Political Science Review, June 1958, pp. 463-469. I I Dahl, R. A. Who governs? New Haven: Yale University I Press, 1961. I ! Dahl, R. A. Power. International encyclopedia of the ! social sciences (Vol. 10). New York: Macmillan, 1968. ; DahlStrom, E. Exchange, influence and power. Acta Sociologica, 1965, 9, 237-284. Dahrendorf/ R. Out of utopia : Toward a reorientation of sociological analysis. American Journal of Sociology, September 1958, pp. 115-127. !Dahrendorf, R. Class and class conflict in industrial ! society. Stanford : Stanford University Press, 1959, I IDahrendorf, R. Conflict after class. New York : I Humanities Press, 1967. 1 Dahrendorf, R. Essays in the theory of society. Stanford : Stanford University Press, 1968. Dahrendorf, R. On the origin of inequality among men. , In E. Laumann, P. Siegel, & R. M. Hodge (Eds.), The logic of social hierarchies. Chicago: Markham, 1970. f Davis, K. A conceptual analysis of stratification. i American Sociological Review, June 1942, p. 309. Davis, K. Human society. New York : Macmillan, 1948. Davis, K. Theory of change and response in modern demo graphic history. Population Index 29, October 1963. Davis, K., & Moore, W. E. Some principles of stratifica tion. American Sociological Review, October 1945, pp. 242-249. Dawson, R., & Prewitt, K. Political socialization. I Boston : Little, Brown, 19 69 . iDean, D. G. Alienation and political apathy. Social I Forces, 1960, 39, 185-189. 157 DeKadt, E, J. Conflict and power in society. Inter- national Social Science Journal, 1965, 17, 454-471. Domhoff, G. W. Who rules America? -Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967. Domhoff, G. W. The higher circles: The governing class in America, New York: Random House, 197 0. Dubin, R. Power, function, and organization. Pacific I Sociological Review, Spring 1963, pp. 16-24. I Duncan, B. Education and social background. American I Journal of Sociology, January 1967, pp. 363-372. i I Duncan, O. D. A socioeconomic index for all occupations. I In A. J. Reiss (Ed.), Occupations and social status. I Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1961. I Duncan, O. D. The trend of occupational mobility in the United States. American Sociological Review, February j 1965, pp. 491-498. 'Duncan, O. D. Methodological issues in the analysis of j social mobility. In N. Smelser & S. M. Lipset (Eds.), I Social structure and mobility in economic development. ; Chicago : Aldine, 196 6. j « 'Duncan, O. D. Ability and achievement. Eugenics i Quarterly, 1968, 15, 1-11. Duncan, O. D., & Duncan, B. Residential distribution and I occupational stratification. American Journal of Sociology, February 1955, pp. 493-503. Duncan, O. D., Featherman, D, L., & Duncan, B. Socio economic background and achievement. New York: Seminar Press, 1972. Duncan, O. D., & Hodge, R. W. Education and occupational I mobility. American Journal of Sociology, March 1963, I pp. 629-644. 1 Dunham, H. W., Phillips, P., & Srinivason, B. A research I note on diagnosed mental illness and social class. I American Sociological Review, April 1966, pp. 22 3-227. I 1Eckland, B. K. Social class and college graduation : Some I misconceptions corrected. American Journal of ! Sociology, January 1964, p. 39. 158 Eckland, B. K. Academic ability, higher education and occupational mobility. AmeTioan Sociotogicat Review, October 1965, pp. 735-746. Edinger, L. J., & Searing, D. D. Social background in elite analysis: A methodological inquiry. Amevioan Political Science Review, June 1967, pp. 428-445. Edwards, A. M. A social economic grouping of the gainful workers in the United States. Journal of the American Statistical Association, December 1933, pp. 377-387. ! Edwards, A. M. U.S. census of population^ 1940: Compara- j tive occupation statistics^ 1870-1940. Washington, , D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1943. i IEisenstadt, S. N. The political systems of empires. I Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1963. I j Eisenstadt, S. N. Modernization: Protest and change. ; Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966. I Eisenstadt, S. N. Prestige, participation and strata 1 information. In J. A. Jackson (Ed.), Social stratifi- j cation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1968. IEisenstadt, S. N. Social differentiation and stratifica- i tion. Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman, 1971. Ellis, R. A., & Lane, W. C. Social mobility and social I isolation : A test of Sorokin's dissociative I hypothesis. American Sociological Review, April 1967, j pp. 2 37-253. I Emerson, R. M. Power dependence relations. American Sociological Review, February 1962, pp. 31-41. Empey, L. T. . Social class and occupational aspiration : A comparison of absolute and relative measurement. ; American Sociological Review, December 1956, pp. 703- ; 709. I I Exline, R. V., & Ziller, R. C. Status congruence and interpersonal conflict in decision-making groups. I Human Relations, May 1959, pp. 147-162. I Family Growth in Detroit Questionnaire. Detroit area I study. University of Michigan (Project No. 882), January 1962. IFeatherman, D. L. A research note : A social structural 159 model for the socioeconomic career. American Journal of Sociology, January 1971, pp. 293-304. Fenchel, G. H., Monderer, J. H., & Hartley, E. L. Subjective status and the equilibration hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, October 1951, pp. 476-479. iFeuer, L. S. The conflict of generations. New York: ! Basic Books # 1969. Freedman, R., Coombs, L. C., and Bumpass, L. Stability : and change in expectations about family size. ; Demography, 1965, 2, 250-275. I , 1Furstenberg, F. Structural changes in the working class, i In J. A. Jackson (Ed.), Social stratification, \ New York : Cambridge University Press, 1968. Galbraith, J. K. The affluent society (2nd ed.). New York : Penguin Books, 1969. (a) Galbraith, J. K. The new industrial state, London: Hamish Hamilton, 1969. (b) 'Gerlach, L., & Hine, V. People^ power y and change: Movements of social transformation, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970. ! Germani, G. Social and political consequences of mobility. In N. Smelser & S. M. Lipset (Eds.), Social structure and mobility in economic development, Chicago : Aldine, 19 66. IGerth, H. H., & Mills, C. W. From Max Weber: Essays in \ sociology, New York : Oxford University Press, 1946. 'Gibbs, J. P., & Martin, W. T. Status integration and suicide. Eugene : University of Oregon Press, 1964. 1Girod, R. Family background and income : School career I and social mobility of young males of working-class I origin— A Geneva survey. Acta Sociologica, 1965, 9, I 94-109. ! Goffman, I. W. Status consistency and preference for ; change in power distribution. American Sociological ! Review, January 1957, pp. 275-281. !Goldhamer, H. Social mobility. In D. C. Sills (Ed.), 1601 International enoyolopedia of the social sciences (Vol. 10). New York: Macmillan, 1968. Goldhamer, H., & Shils, E. A. Types of power and status. American Journal of Sociology, September 1939, pp. 171-182. Goldthorpe, J. H. The affluent worker: Industrial attitudes and behavior. New York : Cambridge University Press, 1968. Goldthorpe, J. H., Lockwood, D., Bechhofer, F., & Platt, J The affluent worker in the class structure. New York : Cambridge University Press, 1969. Gordon, M. M. Social class in American sociology. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1958. Gross, N. Social class identification in the urban community. American Sociological Review, August 1953, I pp. 398-404. iGusfield, J. R., & Schwartz, M. The meanings of occupa- I tional prestige: Reconsideration of the NORC scale. I American Sociological Review, April 1963, pp. 265-271, i ! Hacker, A. Power to do what? In K. L. Horowitz (Ed.), ; The new sociology, New York : Oxford University I Press, 1964. j Hall, R. H. Occupations and the social structure, I Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969. Handel, G., & Rainwater, L. Persistence and change in working class life style. Sociology and Social Research, January 1964, pp. 281-288. Hauser, R. M. White-nonwhite differential in occupation mobility among men in the United States, 1962-1972. Demography, 1973, 32, 324-330. j Hauser, R. M., & Featherman, D. L. Socioeconomic achieve- i ments of U.S, men^ 1962-1972. Paper presented at the I annual meeting of American Sociological Association, j August 1973. I Heller, C. W. (Ed.). Structured social inequality. New I York : Macmillan, 19 69. i Hochbaum, G., Darley, J., Monochesi, E., & Bird, C. 161 Socioeconomic variables in a large city. Amevioan Journat of Sociology, July 1955, pp. 31-38. Hodge, R. W. The status consistency of occupational groups. American Sociological Review, February 1962, pp. 336-343. j 'Hodge, R. W. Population movements in occupational I structures. American Sociological Review, in press. I I Hodge, R. W., & Rossi, P. H. A comparative study of ) occupational prestige. In R. Bendix & S. M. Lipset j (Eds.), ClasSy status and power (2nd ed.). Glencoe, I 111.: Free Press, 1966. ! Hodge, R, W., Siegel, P. M. Nonvertical dimensions of social stratification. In E. O. Laumann, P. M. Siegel, & R. W. Hodge (Eds.), The logic of social hierarchies. I Chicago : Markham, 1970. iHodge, R. W., Siegel, P. M., & Rossi, P. H. Occupational prestige in the United States, 1925-1963. In R. I Bendix & S. M. Lipset (Eds.), ClasSy status and power ! (2nd ed.). Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1966. j Hodge, R. W., & Treiman, D. J. Class identification in : the United States. American Journal of Sociology, October 1968, pp. 535-542. iHodge, R. W., Treiman, D. J., & Rossi, P. H. A compara- I tive study of occupational prestige. In R. Bendix i S e S. M. Lipset (Eds.), ClasSy status and power ' (2nd ed.). Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1966. ; Hodges, D. L. The self and cognitive balance : Improve ments in balance theory's predictive power. Pacific Sociological Review, Spring 1966, pp. 22-34. Hollingshead, A. B. Elmtowns 's youth. New York: Wiley, ; 1949. Hollingshead, A. B., & Redlitch, F. C. Social class and mental illness. New York : Wiley, 1958. Homans, G. C. The human group. New York : Harcourt, 1950. Homans, G. C. Status among clerical workers. Human Organization, 1953, 12, 5-10. 162 Homans, G. C. Sentiments and activities. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1962. Horowitz, K. L. (Ed.). PoweVy potiticsy and people: The collected essays of C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965. Hughes, E. C. Dilemmas and contradictions of status. American Journal of Sociology, February 1945, pp. 353-359. Hughes, E. C. The ordeal of power. New York: Atheneum, 1963. Hunter, F. Community power structure. Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press, 1953. Hyman, H. H. The value systems of different classes : A social psychological contribution to the analysis of stratification. In R. Bendix & S. M. Lipset (Eds.), Classy status and power. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1953. I Hyman, H. H. Political socialization. Glencoe, 111.: i Free Press, 1959. 'Hyman, M. D. Determining the effects of status incon- i sistency. Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring 1966, I pp. 121—129. I Hyman, M. D. The unpleasant consequences of rank incon- I sistency: Suggestions for reorientation of theory I and research. Sociological Quarterly, Summer 1967, I pp. 245-252. Jackson, E. F. Status consistency and symptoms of stress. American Sociological Review, February 1962, pp. 469- 480. 'Jackson, E. F., & Burke, P. J. Status and symptoms of stress : Additive and interaction effects. American Sociological Review, March 1965, pp. 556-564. Jackson, E. F., & Crockett, H. J., Jr. Occupational mobility in the United States : A point estimate and trend comparison. American Sociological Review, January 1964, pp. 5-15. Jackson, E. F., & Curtis, R. F. Conceptualization and measurement in the study of social stratification. 163 In E. F. Borgatta (Ed.), SooiotogioaZ methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969. Jackson, E. F., & Curtis, R. F. Effects of vertical mobility and status inconsistency: A body of negative evidence. American Sociological Review, September 1972, pp. 701-713. Jackson, J. A. (Ed.). Social stratification. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Jencks, W. Inequality : A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York : Basic Books, 1972. Jones, F. L. Social mobility and industrial society : A thesis re-examined. Sociological Quarterly, Summer 1969, pp. 292-305. IKahan, M., Butler, D., & Stokes, D. On the analytical I division of social class. British Journal of ! Sociology, June 1966, pp. 122-132. !Kahl, J. A. The American class structure. New York : i Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1957. iKahl, J. A., & Davis, J. A. A comparison of indexes of I socioeconomic status. American Sociological Review, ! January 1955, pp. 317-325. I I Keller, S. Beyond the ruling class: Strategic elites in ' modern society. New York : Random House, 1963. IKenkel, W. F. The relationship between status consistency I and politico-economic attitudes. American Sociological Review, June 1956, pp. 365-368. Kerckhoff, A. C. Socialization and social class. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972. IKessin, K. Social and psychological consequences of I intergenerational occupational mobility. American I Journal of Sociology, January 1971, pp. 1-18. I Kimberly, J. C., & Crosbie, P. V. An experimental test of I a reward-cost formulation of status inconsistency. j Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, April 1967, ; pp. 399-415. (a) I Kimberly, J. C., & Crosbie, P. V. Status inconsistency : _______________________ _____________________________________________ A reformulation of a theoretical problem. Human Relations, 1967, 20, 171-181. (b) Kornhauser, A. W. (Ed.). Industrial conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill, 19 39. iKornhauser, A. W. (Ed.). Problems of power in American I society. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1957. ! IKosa, J. Patterns of social mobility among American I Catholics. Social Compass, 1962, 9, 361-371. ILabovitz, S., & Hagedorn, R. Introduction to social ! research. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. ILachenmeyer, C. W. Status inconsistency as a subset of behavioral conflict. Pacific Sociological Review, Fall 1968, pp. 81-94. jLandecker, W. S. Class crystallization and its urban j pattern. Social Research, Autumn 1960, pp. 308-320. ILandecker, W. S. Class crystallization and class consciousness. American Sociological Review, April j 1963, pp. 219-220. •Landecker, W. S. Status congruence, class crystallization, ! and social cleavage. Sociology and Social Research, ' February 1970, pp. 343-355. Lasswell, H. D., & Kaplan, A. Power and society. New ' Haven : Yale University Press, 1950. i Lasswell, T. E. A study of social stratification using an ‘ area sample of raters. American Sociological Review, June 1954, pp. 310-313. , Lasswell, T. E. Class and stratum. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1965. I Lasswell, T. E. Social stratification: 1964-1968. The I Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social I Science, July 1969, pp. 104-134. j Lasswell, T. E., & Benbrook, S. L. Social stratification: I 1963-1973. The Annals of the American Academcy of \ Political and Social Science, March 1974, pp. 105-137. I Laumann, E. O., Siegel, P. M., & Hodge, R. W. (Eds.). The logic of social hierarchies. Chicago : Markham, 1970. 165 Lenski, G. American social classes: Statistical strata or social groups? American Journat of Sociology, September 1952, pp. 139-144. Lenski, G. Status crystallization: A nonvertical dimen sion of social status. American Sociological Review, August 1954, pp. 405-413. !Lenski, G. Social participation and status crystalliza- I tion. American Sociological Review, April 1956, I pp. 458-464. ILenski, G. Comment: Methodological notes on a theory of ! status crystallization. Public Opinion Quarterly, I Summer 1964, pp. 32 6-330. I Lenski, G. Power and privilege: A theory of stratifica- I tion. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. I Linton, R. The study of man. New York : Appleton, 1936. ;Lipset, S. M. Trade unions and social structure. I Industrial Relations, October 1961, pp. 75-89. ILipset, S. M. Revolution and counterrevolution: Change I and persistence in social structures. New York : I Basic Books, 1968. Lopreato, J., & Hazelrigg, L. E. ClasSy conflicty and mobility. San Francisco: Chandler, 1972. ! 'Lundberg, G. A. Foundations of sociology. New York : I Macmillan, 1939. ;Lynd, R. S., & Lynd, H. M. Middletown. New York : Harcourt, Brace, 1929. ■Manis, J. G., & Meltzer, B. N. Attitudes of textile workers to class structure. American Journal of ; Sociology, July 1954, pp. 30-35. jMartin, W. T. Socially induced stress : Some converging I theories. Pacific Sociological Review, Fall 1965, : pp. 63-69. •Marx, K. A contribution to the critique of political economy. Chicago : Charles Kerr, 1904 . Matras, J. Social mobility and social structure : Some i insights from the linear model. American Sociological ' Review, March 1967, pp. 608-614. i i 166 Matras, J. Populations and societies. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973. Matras, J. Social inequality y stratificationy and mohility. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975. Merton, R. K. Social theory and social structure (2nd I ed.). Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1957. I iMiller, S. M. The working-class subculture: A new view. I In A. Shostak & W. Gomberg (Eds.), Blue-collar world: I Studies of the American worker. Englewood Cliffs, j N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964. I Mills, C. W. White collar. New York: Oxford University I Press, 1951. I I Mills, C. W. The power elite. New York : Oxford ; University Press, 1956. 1 jMoore, B., Jr. Political power and social theory. New ! York : Harper & Row, 19 65. j Mulligan, R. A. Socioeconomic background and college ; enrollment. American Sociological Review, April 1951, ! pp. 188-196. Nadel, S. F. The theory of social structure. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1957. i ■ Nisbet, R. A. The sociological tradition. New York : i Basic Books, 1966. JNorth, C. C. Social differentiation. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1926. North, C. C., & Hatt, P. K. National opinion research ' center: Jobs and occupations. In R. Bendix & S. M. ; Lipset (Eds.), ClasSy status and power. Glencoe, ; 111.: Free Press, 1953. j Parsons, T. The social system. Glencoe, 111.: Free I Press, 1951. I Parsons, T. Equality and inequality in modern society, ; or social stratification revisited. Sociological I Inquiry, Spring 197U, pp. 341-350. ! I Parsons, T., & Henderson, A. M. Max Weber: The theory j ! : 1!] of social and eeonomdG ovgandzatdon. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1947. Parsons, T., & Henderson, A. M. A revised analytical approach to the theory of social stratification. In R. Bendix & S. M. Lipset (Eds.), Class, status and power. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1953. Parsons, T., & Shils, E. Towards a general theory of action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, I 1951. iPerrucci, C. C., & Perrucci, R. Social origins, educa- ; tional context, and career mobility. American I Sociological Review, June 1970, pp. 451-463. I Pihlblad, C. T., & Gregory, C. L. Selective aspects of ; migration among Missouri high school graduates. I American Sociological Review, June 1954, pp. 314-324. 1 Polsby, N. W. Community power and political theory. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963. Reiss, A. J., Jr., Duncan, O. D., Hatt, P. K., & North, C. C. Occupations and social status. Glencoe, 111.: I Free Press, 1961. I Riesman, D. The Lonely Crowd. New Haven: Yale Univer sity Press, 1950. Ringer, B., & Sills, D. Political extremists in Iran: A secondary analysis of communications data. Ruhlic Opinion Quarterly, Fall 1953, pp. 668-701. I Rose, A. M. The power structure: Political process in ' American society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967. Rosen, B. C. The achievement syndrome : A psychocultural dimension of social stratification. American Socio logical Review, April 1956, pp. 203-211. Rush, G. B. Status consistency and right-wing extremism. American Sociological Review, February 1967, pp. 86- j 92. I Sampson, E. E. Status congruence and cognitive consis- : tency. Sociometry, January 1963, pp. 146-162. I Schermerhorn, R. A. Society and power. New York: Random I House, 19 61. ! 168 Seeman, M. Social status and leadership : The case of school executives. Monograph No. 35, Bureau of Educational Research and Service, Ohio State University, 1966. Sewell, W. H., Haller, A. O., & Ohlendorf, G. W. The educational and early occupational attainment process : j Replication and revision. American Sociological I Review, December 1970, pp. 1014-1027. Sewell, W. H., Haller, A. O., & Portes, A. The educational and early occupational attainment process. American Sociological Review, January 1969, pp. 82-92. Sewell, W. H., Haller, A. O., & Straus, M. A. Social status and educational and occupational aspiration. American Sociological Review, January 1957, pp. 67-7 3. Sorokin, P. Social mobility, New York: Harper, 1927. Stone, G. P., & Form, W. H. Instabilities in status : The problem of hierarchy in the community study of status arrangements. American Sociological Review, April 1953, pp. 149-162. Svalastoga, K. Social differentiation. In R. Faris (Ed.), Handbook of modern society. Chicago : Rand McNally, 1964. Svalastoga, K. Social differentiation. New York : David McKay, 1965. Tumin, M. M. Some unapplauded consequences of social mobility in a mass society. Social Forces, 1957, 36, 32-37. Tumin, M. M. On inequality. American Sociological Review, January 1962, pp. 19-26. Turner, R. H. Sponsored and contest mobility and the school system. American Sociological Review, December 1960, pp. 855-867. United States Bureau of the Census. Trends in the income of families and persons in the United States: 1947 to 1960. Technical paper No. 8. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963. United States Bureau of the Census. Current population reports. Series P-23, No. 11. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964. 169 United States Bureau of the Census. Current population reports. Series P-20, No. 217. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. United States Bureau of the Census. Current population reports. Series P-60, Nos. 59, 85, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. United States Bureau of the Census. Statistical abstract of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 197 3. ! van den Berghe, P. L. Dialectic and functionalism: Toward a theoretic synthesis. American Sociological I Review, April 1963, pp. 695-705. jWarner, W. L., & Lunt, P. S. The social life of a modern community. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941. ! I Warner, W. L., Meeker, M., & Eells, K. Social class in I America. Chicago : Science Research Associates, 1959. iWeber, M. [The theory of social and economic organiza- I tion.] (T. Parsons, Ed. and trans.). London: : Hodge, 1947. Weber, M. [Economy and society : 1921-1922] (Vols. 1 & I 2). (G. Rother & C. Wittich, Eds. and trans.). New York : Bedminster Press, 196 8. Zeitlin, I. M. Marxism: A re-examination. Princeton, ! N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1967. Zeitlin, I. M. Ideology and the development of socio- I logical theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- I Hall, 1968. 170
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Certain aspects of social class have been treated quantitatively, for example, class consciousness. Yet, the degree of "classness" of given social strata is problematic; this implies the need for quantitative analysis of these strata. Accordingly, Landecker asked, "To what extent is a given system of stratification a class system"" and "How do different segments of that system compare in the degree to which they are classes?" he then proposed a conceptual definition and operational measurement for the degree of "classness."
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Psychological well-being and location in the social structure
PDF
The impact of developmental events upon the perception of intergenerational family solidarity
PDF
Mental disorders in the metropolitan area: an ecological analysis
PDF
An experimental study of the effect of "human interest" factors on listenability
PDF
Adjustment of large downtown and boulevard churches in Los Angeles to socio-cultural factors in the community
PDF
An analysis of nonresponse in a sample of Americans 70 years of age and older in the longitudinal study on aging 1984-1990
PDF
Personality factors in reading disability: a psychodynamic approach
PDF
A morphological study of the relationship of certain hormone imbalances to the pineal gland
PDF
Structural effects of unemployment on juvenile delinquency and crime rates: a synchronic cross-sectional analysis
PDF
The Effects Of Social Security Programs On Fertility Levels
PDF
In church with my ancestors: The changing shape of religious memory in the Republic of Armenia and the North American diaspora
PDF
An intergenerational comparison of attitudes toward the support of aged parents: a study of Mexican-Americans in two south Texas communities
PDF
The Selfish Self: A Social Psychological Study Of Social Character
PDF
Clothing as a factor in the social status rating of men
PDF
Realism in the fiction of Frances Burney
PDF
Social environment, self-concept, and social conduct: sense of self as mediator of the relationship between life-change and marital interaction
PDF
The ecology of eight species of intertidal crabs of the family xanthidae in the Marshall Islands
PDF
Artward bound: the lived experience of creativity
PDF
Social factors involved in the success or failure of consumer cooperatives in the United States
PDF
Evaluation of participation by workers and managers in workers' councils under the Yugoslavian self management system
Asset Metadata
Creator
Eaton, Gerald Gale
(author)
Core Title
A study of the effect of social status on the degree of class crystallization in an urban community
School
Graduate School
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Sociology
Degree Conferral Date
1976-01
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest
Advisor
Lasswell, T.E. (
committee chair
), Dembo, Myron H. (
committee member
), Miller, Jon (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC11256346
Unique identifier
UC11256346
Legacy Identifier
DP31764
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Eaton, Gerald Gale
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Repository Email
cis@lib.usc.edu