|
|
|
Social
Structure |
|
|
Sociologyindex |
Books on Social Structure |
Sociology
Books 2008 |
|
|
The patterned and relatively stable arrangement of roles and statuses
found within societies and social institutions. The idea of social structure points out
the way in which societies, and institutions within them, exhibit predictable patterns of
organization, activity and social interaction.
Stability of organization
and behaviour provides the quality of predictability that
people rely on in every day social interaction. Social structures are inseparable from
cultural norms and values that also shape status and social interaction.
One of society's major functions is to facilitate the
assimilation of its constituents. Successful assimilation serves two goals: it encourages
the maintenance and growth of the social system, and it gives each person a sense of his
or her location within the social structure. In consequence, it is to the advantage of
both society and the individual that the latter comes to adopt an understanding of the
social system and one's place in it that is shared by all its members; this understanding
not only includes a sense of personal identity, but also an appreciation of the roles one
will take as a participating member of society. - Professor Gregory Elliott
Social Institutions, Social Norms, Social Roles, Social Statuses
and Social Values are intrinsic to social structure:
Social Institutions
A pattern of social interaction, having a relatively stable structure, that
persists over time. Institutions have structural properties - they are organized - and
they are shaped by cultural values. Thus, for example, the institution of
marriage, in western societies, is structurally located in a cohabiting couple and
regulated by norms about sexual exclusiveness, love, sharing, etc. There is not full
agreement about the number or designation of social institutions in a society but the
following would typically be included: family, economy, politics, education, health care,
media.
Social Norms
A culturally established rule prescribing appropriate social behaviour. Norms are
relatively specific and precise and elaborate the detailed behavioural requirements that
flow from more general and overarching social values . For example, it is a value in
Western society that one should respect the dead, it is a norm that one should dress in
dark colours for a funeral.
Social Roles
A position, or status, within a social structure that is shaped by relatively
precise behavioural expectations (norms). A role has been described as the active
component of status. The individual, placed within a status in a social structure,
performs their role in a way shaped by normative expectations. Individuals have varying
ideas about normative standards and their own unique values, so role behaviour is not
standardized, however radical departure from expected role behaviour will usually result
in social sanctions.
Social Statuses
A position in a social structure regulated by norms and usually ranked according
to power and prestige. Status differs from class in that it is a measure of a person's
social standing or social honour in a community. Individuals who share the same social
class may have very divergent status. For example, people's status is affected by ethnic
origin, gender and age as well as their level of recognition in the community. While
status is statistically related to class it is common for individuals to have inconsistent
class and status locations. Most sociologists use both the concepts of class and status to
describe the systems of social stratification (the way individuals are ranked in various
hierarchies of income, wealth, authority and power) found in societies.
Social Values
Relatively general cultural prescriptions of what is right, moral and desirable.
Values provide the broad foundations for specific normative regulation of social
interaction. |
|
|
|
|
Social Structure -
Journals
The Journal of Social Structure (JoSS) is an electronic journal of the International
Network for Social Network Analysis (INSNA). It is designed to facilitate timely
dissemination of state-of-the-art results in the interdisciplinary research area of social
structure. It publishes empirical, theoretical and methodological articles. Articles are
accepted only after peer review. Comments, rejoinders and extensions on already published
articles will be peer-reviewed and if accepted will be attached via a hyperlink to the
previously published piece. All published articles and comments (including embedded data,
graphics, algorithms and simulations) are permanently archived by the library at Carnegie
Mellon University. - cmu.edu/joss
Social
Structure - Abstracts and Full Texts
Social structure and ethnicity
Sociologie Romāneasca, 2001, 1-4, 97-123.
Abstract - The paper attempts a theoretical and empirical analysis of the relationship
between ethnic affiliation, social stratification and ethnic attitudes in Central and
Eastern Europe, and in Romania in particular. In the first part of the paper I examine the
main theoretical constructs involved in explaining the relationship between stratification
and ethnic affiliation, ethnic stratification and class stratification, and the role of
market mechanisms in the dynamics of social and ethnic stratification. In order to
validate the proposed hypotheses I use data regarding former communist countries in
Central and Eastern Europe. For the Romanian case I employ a multilevel analysis by using
regional, community and individual level data.
The analysis of empirical data at the national level suggests that a homogenous ethnic
composition of a country determines a global orientation of the population towards a less
tolerant ethnic attitude. A homogenous ethnic composition at the level of historical
regions in the case of Romania is also a favorable environment for ethnic intolerance.
Ethnic intolerance tends to be higher in the lower social strata. The relationship between
one's social position in the stratification space and one's attitude of ethic intolerance
is not a linear one. Regions, types of local and residential communities, and also human
and material capital variables emerge as being relevant predictors of ethnic intolerance.
- sociologieromaneasca.ro/eng/2001/abstracts/sr2001.a05.htm
Kin Groups and Social Structure - by Roger M., Keesing
Abstract - This text examines the evolution of kinship and social structure. Keesing
considers the importance of patrilineal descent and the permutations of descent systems,
matrilineal and double descent, alliance systems, cognate descent and bilateral kinship as
organizing principles. Relevant analogies and examples are used throughout. -
amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0030128463/002-9971113-3616862
Cross-national Research on Social Structure and Personality -
soc.jhu.edu/people/Kohn/410crossnatlres.pdf
History,
social structure and individualism: a cross-cultural perspective on Japan. International
Journal of Comparative Sociology; 2/1/1998; Schooler, Carmi
Social
structure, political institutions, and mobilization potential.
Social Forces; 12/1/1995; McVeigh, Rory
Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of
embeddedness. Uzzi, Brian - Introduction Extract -Administrative
Science Quarterly; 3/1/1997.
Twenty-three entrepreneurial firms were analyzed to determine the components of
embeddedness that affect the organizational and economic outcomes. Results suggest that
embeddedness is a logic which provides positive effects on integrative agreements, complex
adaptation, economies of time, and Pareto improvements in allocative efficiency. A
framework that clarifies variations of such properties is also presented.
The purpose of this work is to develop a systematic understanding of embeddedness and
organization networks. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork conducted at 23 entrepreneurial
firms, I identify the components of embedded relationships and explicate the devices by
which embeddedness shapes organizational and economic outcomes. The findings suggest that
embeddedness is a logic of exchange that promotes economies of time, integrative
agreements, Pareto improvements in allocative efficiency, and complex adaptation. These
positive effects rise up to a threshold, however, after which embeddedness can derail
economic performance by making firms vulnerable to exogenous shocks or insulating them
from information that exists beyond their network. A framework is proposed that explains
how these properties vary with the quality of social ties, the structure of the
organization network, and an organization's structural position in the network.
Research on embeddedness is an exciting area in sociology and economics because it
advances our understanding of how social structure affects economic life. Polanyi (1957)
used the concept of embeddedness to describe the social structure of modern markets, while
Schumpeter (1950) and Granovetter (1985) revealed its robust effect on economic action,
particularly in the context of interfirm networks, stimulating research on industrial
districts (Leung, 1993; Lazerson, 1995), marketing channels (Moorman, Zaltman, and
Deshponde, 1992), immigrant enterprise (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993), entrepreneurship
(Larson, 1992), lending relationships (Podolny, 1994; Sterns and Mizruchi, 1993; Abolafia,
1996), location decisions (Romo and Schwartz, 1995), acquisitions (Palmer et al., 1995),
and organizational adaptation (Baum and Oliver, 1992; Uzzi, 1996).
The notion that economic action is embedded in social structure has revived debates about
the positive and negative effects of social relations on economic behavior. While most
organization theorists hold that social structure plays a significant role in economic
behavior, many economic theorists maintain that social relations minimally affect economic
transacting or create inefficiencies by shielding the transaction from the market
(Peterson and Rajan, 1994). These conflicting views indicate a need for more research on
how social structure facilitates or derails economic action. In this regard, Granovetter's
(1985) embeddedness argument has emerged as a potential theory for joining economic and
sociological approaches to organization theory. As presently developed, however,
Granovetter's argument usefully explicates the differences between economic and
sociological schemes of economic behavior but lacks its own concrete account of how social
relations affect economic exchange. The fundamental statement that economic action is
embedded in ongoing social ties that at times facilitate and at times derail exchange
suffers from a theoretical indefiniteness. Thus, although embeddedness purports to explain
some forms of economic action better than do pure economic accounts, its implications are
indeterminate because of the imbalance between the relatively specific propositions of
economic theories and the broad statements about how social ties shape economic and
collective action.
This work aims to develop one of perhaps multiple specifications of embeddedness, a
concept that has been used to refer broadly to the contingent nature of economic action
with respect to cognition, social structure, institutions, and culture. Zukin and DiMaggio
(1990) classified embeddedness into four forms: structural, cognitive, political, and
cultural. The last three domains of embeddedness primarily reflect social constructionist
perspectives on embeddedness, whereas structural embeddedness is principally concerned
with how the quality and network architecture of material exchange relationships influence
economic activity. In this paper, I limit my analysis to the concept of structural
embeddedness.
THE PROBLEM OF EMBEDDEDNESS AND ECONOMIC ACTION
Powell's (1990) analysis of the sociological and economic literatures on exchange suggests
that transactions can take place through loose collections of individuals who maintain
impersonal and constantly shifting exchange lies, as in markets, or through stable
networks of exchange partners who maintain close social relationships. The key distinction
between these systems is the structure and quality of exchange ties, because these factors
shape expectations and opportunities.
The neoclassical formulation is often taken as the baseline theory for the study of
interfirm relationships because it embodies the core principles of most economic
approaches (Wilson, 1989). In the ideal-type atomistic market, exchange partners are
linked by arm's-length ties. Self-interest motivates action, and actors regularly switch
to, new buyers and sellers to take advantage of new entrants or avoid dependence. The
exchange itself is limited to price data, which supposedly distill all the information
needed to make efficient decisions, especially when there are many buyers and sellers or
transactions are nonspecific. Personal relationships are cool and atomistic; if ongoing
ties or implicit contracts exist between parties, it is believed to be more a matter of
self-interested, profit-seeking behavior than willful commitment or altruistic attachment
(Macneil, 1978). Accordingly, arm's-length ties facilitate performance because firms
disperse their business among many competitors, widely sampling prices and avoiding
small-numbers bargaining situations that can entrap them in inefficient relationships
(Hirschman, 1970). Although some economists have recognized that the conclusion that
markets are efficient becomes suspect when the idealization of theoretical cases is
abandoned, they nonetheless have tended to regard the idealized model as giving a
basically correct view and have paid scant attention to instances that diverge from the
ideal (Krugman, 1986).
At the other end of the exchange continuum are embedded relationships, and here a
well-defined theory of embeddedness and interfirm networks has yet to emerge. Instead,
findings from numerous empirical studies suggest that embedded exchanges have several
distinctive features. Research has shown that network relationships in the Japanese auto
and Italian knitwear industries are characterized by trust and personal ties, rather than
explicit contracts, and that these features make expectations more predictable and reduce
monitoring costs (Dore, 1983; Asanuma, 1985; Smitka, 1991; Gerlach, 1992). Helper (1990)
found that close supplier-manufacturer relationships in the auto industry are distinctive
for their "thick" information exchange of tacit and proprietary know-how, while
Larson (1992) and Lazerson (1995) found that successful entrepreneurial business networks
are typified by coordination devices that promote knowledge transfer and learning. Romo
and Schwartz's (1995) and Dore's (1983) findings concerning the embeddedness of firms in
regional production networks suggest that embedded actors satisfice rather than maximize
on price and shift their focus from the narrow economically rational goal of winning
immediate gain and exploiting dependency to cultivating long-term, cooperative ties. The
basic conjecture of this literature is that embeddedness creates economic opportunities
that are difficult to replicate via markets, contracts, or vertical integration.
To a limited degree, revisionist economic frameworks have attempted to explain the above
outcomes by redefining embeddedness in terms of transaction cost, agency, or game theory
concepts. Like their neoclassical parent, however, these schemes do not explicitly
recognize or model social structure but, rather, apply conventional economic constructs to
organizational behavior, bypassing the issues central to organization theorists.(1)
Transaction cost economics, for example, has usefully revised our understanding of when
nonmarket transactions will arise, yet because its focus is on dyadic relations, network
dynamics "are given short shrift" (Williamson, 1994: 85). Transaction cost
economics also displays a bias toward describing opportunistic rather than cooperative
relations in its assumption that, irrespective of the social relationship between a buyer
and seller, if the transaction degenerates into a small-numbers bargaining situation, then
the buyer or seller will opportunistically squeeze above-market rents or shirk, whichever
is in his or her self-interest (Ghoshal and Moran, 1996).
Agency theory also focuses mainly on self-interested human nature, dyadic principal-agent
ties, and the use of formal controls to explain exchange, rather than on an account of
embeddedness. For example, Larson's (1992) study of interfirm exchange relationships
revealed agency theory's limited ability to explain network forms of organization when she
showed that there is a lack of control and monitoring devices between firms, that the
roles of principal and agent blur and shift, and that incentives are jointly set.
Similarly, team theory is pressed to explain interfirm exchange relations because of its
assumption that group members have identical interests, an unrealistic assumption when
formal rule structures (a hierarchy) do not exist or group members both cooperate and
compete for resources, as in the case of manufacturer-supplier networks (Cyert and March,
1992).
Game theory can accommodate N-person, network-like structures, yet the core argument --
that selfish players will defect from cooperation when the endgame ensues even if they
have had on-going social ties and like each other well (Jackson and Wolinsky, 1996) --
fits poorly with the empirical regularities of networks. Padgett and Ansell (1993: 1308)
found in their network analysis of fifteenth-century Medici trading companies that
"clear goals of self-interest ... are not really features of people; they are ...
varying structures of games." In cases in which game theory concedes outcomes to
social structure, it tends to do so after the fact, to align predictions and empirical
results, but continues to ignore sociological questions on the origin of expectations, why
people interpret rules similarly, or why actors cooperate when it contradicts
self-interest (Kreps, 1990).
Thus, while revisionist economic schemes advance our understanding of the economic details
of transacting, they faintly recognize the influence of social structure on economic life.
Similarly, theory about the properties and process by which embeddedness affects economic
action remains nascent in the organizations literature.
History,
social structure and individualism: a cross-cultural perspective on Japan.
International Journal of Comparative Sociology; 2/1/1998; Schooler, Carmi
This paper explores how history and social structure affect individualism in Japan. It
integrates a variety of cross-cultural studies comparing Japan with the West whose
methodological approaches vary considerably. Its historical comparisons point to many
parallels between Japan and the West and reveal similar links between economic development
and individualism. Sociological surveys demonstrate that similar environmental conditions,
particularly environmental complexity, have similar effects in the two settings and
provide evidence of a growth in individualism in Japan resulting from an increase in such
complexity. Anthropological and developmental psychological studies demonstrate how
maternal behaviors reproduce cultural norms about appropriate levels of group
interdependence and suggest that maternal behavior is becoming more individualistic in
Japan, most probably as a result of changing socio-environmental conditions. Reported
findings on how the institutionalization of values such as individualism or
interdependence lead to such values' continued acceptance provide an indication of why the
values embodied in cultures and social structures often seem to change more slowly than do
values of individuals.
This paper explores how history and social structure affect individualism in Japan. In
doing so, it reports on a variety of cross-cultural studies comparing Japan with the West.
Although I have been involved in most of these studies, their approaches vary markedly.
They span the range from broad historical comparisons covering centuries to analyses of
variance of fine-grained time samples of parent and child behavior. The disciplines
involved include not only sociology, but also psychology, anthropology and history. In the
course of the paper, I will use all of these different cross-cultural comparative
approaches to try to gain an understanding of the differences and similarities between
Japan and the West in how the place of the individual in society is viewed.
There is a school of thought that takes a quite different approach - one which maintains
that the Japanese are essentially different from other people - one of the most basic
differences being their fundamental rejection of individualism in favor of psychological
interdependency.(1) Known as Nihonjinron, those in this school tend to see Japan as
essentially incomparable to other nations except in terms of the ways it is better than
they are (for a critical review see Befu, 1993). This paper, on the other hand, focuses on
the many historical and modem day similarities between Japan and the West. Where it finds
differences it tries to explain them according to generally applicable sociological and
psychological principles rather than postulating that the Japanese are somehow inherently
different.
Social
structure, political institutions, and mobilization potential.
Social Forces; 12/1/1995; McVeigh, Rory
Social movement theorists in the U.S. have focused considerable attention on the question
of how a collectivity, given a common interest, organizes in pursuit of a collective good.
Meanwhile, their European counterparts have primarily focused on group grievances and on
the way in which structural change generates new mobilization potentials, that is, on
groups of individuals sharing common interests that could be potentially activated by
social movement organizers (see Cohen 1985; Klandermans 1984).
Renewed interest in group grievances and interest formation can be attributed to the
increasingly diverse set of issues that form the basis of both traditional and
nontraditional political activity. Many contemporary movements, such as those promoting
women's rights, the environment, gay rights, and pro-life and pro-choice concerns, are not
strictly engaged in distributive battles, but instead are promoting values or a collective
identity. The proliferation in recent decades of social movement organizations that are
not engaged in distributive battles, and that therefore do not fit nearly onto a
one-dimensional left-right continuum, forces social movement theorists to once again
consider the origins of group grievances and interests.
In this article I explore the role of social structure in the promotion of interest
distributions, which refer to how political preferences on various issues are distributed
within a given community. I argue that some forms of structural differentiation within a
community promote interest distributions where nonmaterial interests cannot be effectively
channeled into established political institutions. The argument is tested through an
analysis of party voting and voting on ballot initiatives concerning social or cultural
issues in Colorado from 1980 through 1990.
Social
Structure - Syllabus
SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND
PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT - Brown University
Theories of Social Structure - North Carolina State University
- Fall Semester 2002 -
sasw.chass.ncsu.edu/s&a/courses/syllabi/fall_2002/SOC400wuF02.htm
Course Objectives: The main objective of this course is to acquaint students with the
macro level sociological theorists. Sociology developed in response to the rapid social
change accompanying the democratic and industrial revolution that have shaped our modern
way of life. We will study the fundamental ideas of social solidarity, class structure,
bureaucratization, social institutions, ideology, and etc. We will discuss course
materials that are relevant to the contemporary social issues of our time. The course will
also introduce you to some micro level sociological theories.
One of the purposes of this course is to provide an introduction to the theoretical
perspectives on which scientific researches are based. We will examine the relationship
between theory and empirical research. The exposure to course materials will challenge
students to develop their own perspective on society and social issues as the guidance for
empirical research.
Required Text:
George Ritzer. Sociological Theory, 5th Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 2000.
Peter Kivisto. Illuminating Social Life, Second Edition. Pine Forge, 2001.
Lewis Coser and Bernard Rosenberg: Sociological Theory: A book of Reading.
University of California: A Guide to Writing Sociology Paper, 3rd Edition.
There are other sociological theory books in the D.H. Hill Library Reserve Room listed
under Soc 400, including theoretical works by Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and others early
sociologists. These resources may be useful for the paper assignment.
Course Requirements:
Exams: There will be two major exams in this class: mid-term and final. Each exam
comprises 30% of the final grade. The exams will include multiple choice, short-answer
questions, and essay questions. The exams will include materials from the lectures and
readings. They will be aimed more at testing your comprehension and understanding of the
material than at rote memorization of detail. To do well on exams you must attend class,
take good notes, and do the assigned readings.
There will be no make-up exams except emergencies. To be excused from taking an exam, the
student must give prior notice of the emergency and the absence must be approved. You may
contact me during the office hour, or contact the secretary and leave your name and phone
number where you may be reached.
Schedules and Reading Assignments:
Week 1 (8/19-23)
Course Introduction Sociological theory and social research
Week 2-4 (8/26-9/13)
Chapter 1. A Historical Sketch of Sociological Theory: The Early Years; Chapter 2, Karl
Marx (Kivisto: Article 1. Working Longer, Living Less)
(September 2 - Labor Day holiday)
Week 5-7 (9/16-10/4)
Chapter 3. Emile Durkheim (Kivisto: Article 3. Surfing the Net for Community); Chapter 4.
Max Weber (Kivisto: Article 2. The Weberian Theory of Rationalization)
Week 8-9 (10/7-18)
Chapter 5. Georg Simmel (Kivisto: Article 4. Alcoholi-Related Windows on Simmels
Social World)
(October 11th and 14th - Fall Break)
Week 10-11 (10/21-11/1)
Chapter 7. Structural Functionalism, Neofunctionalism, and Conflic Theory (Kivisto:
Article 5. Criminalizing Transgressing Youth)
October 21 (Monday).
The topic of paper is due
October 23 (Wednesday) Mid-Term Exam
Week 12 (11/4-8)
Chapter 10. Symbolic Interactionism (Kivisto: Article 10. Goffmans Dramaturgical
Sociology)
Week 13 (11/11-15)
Chapter 12. Exchange, Network, and Rational Choice Theories (Kivisto: Article 6. Why do
African Americans Pay More for New Cars?)
Week 14-15 (11/18-27)
Chapter 16. Contemporary Theories of Modernity (Kivisto: Article 11. The New
Meaning of Consumption) (Kivisto: Article 12. Globalization and Religious Fundamentalism)
SOCIAL
STRUCTURE AND PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT - Professor Gregory Elliott Semester II,
2001-2002
This is a course which investigates the relationship between one's place
in the social structure and one's own, individual personal growth. We will seek to gain
some understanding of the impact of society on the individual. Recognizing that the
development of the self is an ongoing dynamic process that does not stop with the onset of
adulthood, we will be investigating the social aspects of individual growth and change
throughout the life cycle.The basic premise of this course is that people must learn how
to be members of society. In that vein, one of society's major functions is to facilitate
the assimilation of its constituents. Successful assimilation serves two goals: it
encourages the maintenance and growth of the social system, and it gives each person a
sense of his or her location within the social structure. In consequence, it is to the
advantage of both society and the individual that the latter comes to adopt an
understanding of the social system and one's place in it that is shared by all its
members; this understanding not only includes asense of personal identity, but also an
appreciation of the roles one will take as a participating member of society. Part of our
analysis will focus on this socialization process. Beneath this grand design, however is a
gnawing awareness that is disquieting: something is basically wrong. As people experience
the life course, they realize (even if they do not admit to others) that they have neither
a strong sense of personal identity nor a feeling of involvement in their social roles.
Although society seems to be progressing in its development, it appears to do so only at
the expense of the well-being of many of its members. The remainder of our analysis will
examine the proposition that there is something inherent in the structure of our society
that causes pain and alienation in people's everyday lives.We will begin by examining some
of the theories of personal growth developed by sociologists, including those pertaining
to early socialization in childhood. Next, we will examine the development of the
individual from infancy through adulthood, concentrating on the impact of family, school,
occupation, and social class on personal growth and social opportunities for advancement.
Finally, we will study the social antecedents to alienation.
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT
John P. Hewitt. 1999. Self and Society, Chapters 1-4. (for students who
have not taken SO 002)
Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of
Reality, entire book.
Robert K. Merton. 1957. "The role set: Problems in sociological
theory," British Journal of Sociology, 8, 106-120.
William J. Goode. 1960. "A theory of role strain," American
Sociological Review, 25, 485-496.WEEKS 2-3:
SOCIALIZATION
Frederick Elkin and Gerald Handel. 1989. The Child and Society: The
Process of Socialization (fifth edition), entire book.
GENDER AND THE SELF
Judith Lorber. 1994. Paradoxes of Gender, entire book.
Susan Faludi. 1999. Stiffed,Ch. 1: "The son, the moon, and
thestars: The promise of postwar manhood," 3-47.
Gregory C. Elliott. 1988. "Gender differences in self-consistency:
Evidence from an investigation of self-conceptstructure," Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 17,41-57.
Lawrence A. Kurdek and J. Patrick Schmitt. 1986. "Interaction ofsex
role self-concept with relationship quality andrelationship beliefs in married,
heterosexual cohabiting,
Nancy Rule Goldberger, Blythe McVicker Clinchy, Mary FieldBelenky, and
Jill Mattuck Tarule. 1987. "Women's ways of knowing: On gaining a voice." Pp.
201-228 in P. Shaver and C. Hendrick (eds.),
Sex and Gender. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
FAMILY AND THE SELF
Jerome Kagan. 1988. "The powers and limitations of parents."
Pp.393-405, in N.D. Glenn and M. T. Coleman (eds.),
FamilyRelations: A Reader.Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press.
William Damon. 1995. Greater Expectations, entire book.
*Sandra Pipp, Phillip Shaver, Sybillyn Jennings, Susie Lamborn,and Kurt
W. Fischer. 1985. "Adolescents' theories about the development of their relationships
with parents." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,991-1001.
RACE AND THE SELF
Michael Omi and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in theUnited
States, Chs. 1-4.
Margaret Beale Spencer and Carol Markstrom-Adams. 1990."Identity
processes among racial and ethnic minoritychildren in America." Child Development,
61, 290-310.
Ronald K. Takaki. 1993. "A different mirror." Pp. 52-65 in M.
L.Andersen and P. H. Collins (eds.),
Race, Class and Gender: An Anthology (fourth edition). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.Elizabeth Martinez. 1994. "Seeing more than Black and
White:Latinos, racism, and the cultural divides." Pp. 108-114 in M. L. Andersen and
P. H. Collins (eds.),
Race, Class andGender: An Anthology (fourth edition). Belmont,
CA:Wadsworth.
SOCIAL CLASS AND THE SELF
R. D. Hess and Virginia C. Shipman. 1965. "Early experience and the
socialization of cognitive modes in children," Child Development, 36, 869-886.
Melvin L. Kohn and Carmi Schooler. 1969. "Class, occupation,
andorientation," American Sociological Review, 34, 659-678.
Richard Sennett and Jonathan Cobb. 1972. The Hidden Injuries of Class,
entire book.
Morris Rosenberg and Leonard I. Pearlin. 1978. "Social class andself-esteem among
children and adults," American Journal ofSociology, 84, 53-77.
SCHOOL AND THE SELF
Ron Suskind. 1998. A Hope in the Unseen, entire book.
Roslyn Arlin Mickelson and Stephen Samuel Smith. 1998.
"Caneducation eliminate race, class, and gender inequality?"Pp. 376-388 in L.
Andersen and P. H. Collins (eds.),
Race,Class and Gender: An Anthology (fourth edition). Belmont,CA:
Wadsworth.*Burton Clark. 1956. "The 'cooling out' function in highereducation,"
American Journal of Sociology, 65, 569-576.
OCCUPATION AND THE SELF
Studs Terkel. 1974. Working,passim.
Gideon Sjoberg, Richard A. Brymer, and Buford Farris.
1966."Bureaucracy and the lower class," Sociology and Social Research, 50,
325-337.
Richard Sennett. 1998. The Corrosion of Character: The
PersonalConsequences of Work in the New Capitalism,entire book.
ALIENATION
Robert K. Merton. 1938. "Social structure and anomie,"
AmericanSociological Review, 3, 672-682.
Melvin Seeman. 1959. "On the meaning of alienation," American
Sociological Review, 24, 783-791.
Kai Erikson. 1986. "On work and alienation," American
Sociological Review, 51, 1-8.
Melvin Seeman. 1983. "Alienation motifs in contemporary theorizing:
the hidden continuity of classic themes,"Social Psychology Quarterly, 46,
171-184.Philip Slater. 1976. The Pursuit of Loneliness, entire book.
REQUIRED BOOKS
Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of
Reality.Doubleday Anchor.
William Damon. 1995. Greater Expectations: Overcoming the Cultureof
Indulgence in America's Homes and Schools.Free Press.
Frederick Elkin and Gerald Handel. 1989. The Child and SocietyThe
Process of Socialization, (fifth edition). McGraw-Hill.
Judith Lorber. 1994. Paradoxes of Gender. Yale University Press.
Richard Sennett. 1998. The Corrosion of Character: The Personal
Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism.
Norton.Richard Sennett and Jonathan Cobb. 1972. The Hidden Injuries of
Class.
Norton.Philip Slater. 1976. The Pursuit of Loneliness. Beacon Press.
Ron Suskind. 1998. A Hope in the Unseen. Broadway.Studs Terkel. 1974.
Working. New Press.
Social
Structure - Bibliography
Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality.
Doubleday Anchor.
William Damon. 1995. Greater Expectations: Overcoming the Cultureof Indulgence in
America's Homes and Schools.Free Press.
Frederick Elkin and Gerald Handel. 1989. The Child and Society The Process of
Socialization, (fifth edition). McGraw-Hill.
Judith Lorber. 1994. Paradoxes of Gender. Yale University Press.
Richard Sennett. 1998. The Corrosion of Character: The PersonalConsequences of Work in
the New Capitalism.
Norton.Richard Sennett and Jonathan Cobb. 1972. The Hidden Injuries of Class. Norton.
Philip Slater. 1976. The Pursuit of Loneliness. Beacon Press.
Ron Suskind. 1998. A Hope in the Unseen. Broadway.Studs Terkel. 1974. Working. New
Press.
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT
John P. Hewitt. 1999. Self and Society, Chapters 1-4. (for students who
have not taken SO 002)
Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of
Reality, entire book.
Robert K. Merton. 1957. "The role set: Problems in sociological
theory," British Journal of Sociology, 8, 106-120.
William J. Goode. 1960. "A theory of role strain," American
Sociological Review, 25, 485-496.WEEKS 2-3:
SOCIALIZATION
Frederick Elkin and Gerald Handel. 1989. The Child and Society: The
Process of Socialization (fifth edition), entire book.
GENDER AND THE SELF
Judith Lorber. 1994. Paradoxes of Gender, entire book.
Susan Faludi. 1999. Stiffed,Ch. 1: "The son, the moon, and
thestars: The promise of postwar manhood," 3-47.
Gregory C. Elliott. 1988. "Gender differences in self-consistency:
Evidence from an investigation of self-conceptstructure," Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 17,41-57.
Lawrence A. Kurdek and J. Patrick Schmitt. 1986. "Interaction ofsex
role self-concept with relationship quality andrelationship beliefs in married,
heterosexual cohabiting,
Nancy Rule Goldberger, Blythe McVicker Clinchy, Mary FieldBelenky, and
Jill Mattuck Tarule. 1987. "Women's ways of knowing: On gaining a voice." Pp.
201-228 in P. Shaver and C. Hendrick (eds.),
Sex and Gender. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
FAMILY AND THE SELF
Jerome Kagan. 1988. "The powers and limitations of parents."
Pp.393-405, in N.D. Glenn and M. T. Coleman (eds.),
FamilyRelations: A Reader.Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press.
William Damon. 1995. Greater Expectations, entire book.
*Sandra Pipp, Phillip Shaver, Sybillyn Jennings, Susie Lamborn,and Kurt
W. Fischer. 1985. "Adolescents' theories about the development of their relationships
with parents." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,991-1001.
RACE AND THE SELF
Michael Omi and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in theUnited
States, Chs. 1-4.
Margaret Beale Spencer and Carol Markstrom-Adams. 1990."Identity
processes among racial and ethnic minoritychildren in America." Child Development,
61, 290-310.
Ronald K. Takaki. 1993. "A different mirror." Pp. 52-65 in M.
L.Andersen and P. H. Collins (eds.),
Race, Class and Gender: An Anthology (fourth edition). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.Elizabeth Martinez. 1994. "Seeing more than Black and
White:Latinos, racism, and the cultural divides." Pp. 108-114 in M. L. Andersen and
P. H. Collins (eds.),
Race, Class andGender: An Anthology (fourth edition). Belmont,
CA:Wadsworth.
SOCIAL CLASS AND THE SELF
R. D. Hess and Virginia C. Shipman. 1965. "Early experience and the
socialization of cognitive modes in children," Child Development, 36, 869-886.
Melvin L. Kohn and Carmi Schooler. 1969. "Class, occupation,
andorientation," American Sociological Review, 34, 659-678.
Richard Sennett and Jonathan Cobb. 1972. The Hidden Injuries of Class,
entire book.
Morris Rosenberg and Leonard I. Pearlin. 1978. "Social class andself-esteem among
children and adults," American Journal ofSociology, 84, 53-77.
SCHOOL AND THE SELF
Ron Suskind. 1998. A Hope in the Unseen, entire book.
Roslyn Arlin Mickelson and Stephen Samuel Smith. 1998.
"Caneducation eliminate race, class, and gender inequality?"Pp. 376-388 in L.
Andersen and P. H. Collins (eds.),
Race,Class and Gender: An Anthology (fourth edition). Belmont,CA:
Wadsworth.*Burton Clark. 1956. "The 'cooling out' function in highereducation,"
American Journal of Sociology, 65, 569-576.
OCCUPATION AND THE SELF
Studs Terkel. 1974. Working,passim.
Gideon Sjoberg, Richard A. Brymer, and Buford Farris.
1966."Bureaucracy and the lower class," Sociology and Social Research, 50,
325-337.
Richard Sennett. 1998. The Corrosion of Character: The
PersonalConsequences of Work in the New Capitalism,entire book.
ALIENATION
Robert K. Merton. 1938. "Social structure and anomie,"
AmericanSociological Review, 3, 672-682.
Melvin Seeman. 1959. "On the meaning of alienation," American
Sociological Review, 24, 783-791.
Kai Erikson. 1986. "On work and alienation," American
Sociological Review, 51, 1-8.
Melvin Seeman. 1983. "Alienation motifs in contemporary theorizing:
the hidden continuity of classic themes,"Social Psychology Quarterly, 46,
171-184.Philip Slater. 1976. The Pursuit of Loneliness, entire book.
Social Mobility and Social Structure. (Book Review)
Will, Jeffry A.
Ronald Breiger's collection of papers
Research on social and economic mobility has been one of several main pillars within
U.S. sociology for over three decades. Within the past 20 years we have seen growing
recognition that a more "structural" understanding and improved methodological
approaches are essential. Ronald Breiger's collection of papers presented in Social
Mobility and Social Structure represents an important contribution to the efforts to
improve this understanding.
In his introduction, Breiger traces the history of stratification research, from the early
work of Blau and Duncan -- the "Status Attainment" origins -- through the rise
of "the new structuralism," which constitutes the foundation of the papers
presented in this volume by an impressive array of authors. In Part 1, John Padgett
examines the intricacies of the congressional committee assignments. Peter Marsden and
Karen Campbell provide a discussion of the impact of social networks on employment. Andrew
Abbott ties in historical data to provide an understanding of the structural constraints
and the "vacancy" metaphor as a means of understanding these research problems.
Christopher Jencks offers a provocative examination of the theoretical and empirical
problems encountered when examining social mobility and equal opportunity.
In part 2, Breiger takes us "beyond occupations," presenting us with research on
a variety of areas including organizational careers (Gaertner), labor market practices
(Brittain and Wholey), and issues of social class and mobility (Breiger). Most interesting
in this section is Jerry Jacobs's discussion of sex segregation, and the extent to which
occupational sex types inhibit mobility.
The impressive array of essays and authors not withstanding, there are some problems with
Breiger's production. While the authors present us with important contributions --
predominately in the form of methodological applications to areas of concentration seen
frequently in these authors' repertoires -- the dated nature of these projects is somewhat
disappointing. Several of the articles are mirror modifications of previously presented
materials, a point acknowledged by Breiger in his introduction -- most notably, Karen
Gaertner's essay was originally published 10 years prior to this book. While Gaertner's
chapter is important to the focus of the book, an update as to more recent contributions
or attempts at replicating her methodology would have been useful.
Similarly, a number of the articles in parts 1 and 2 could have benefited from a review of
more recent efforts at improving the examination of mobility and social structure.
Chapters 2 through 9 show only a handful of references to works after 1984, save for
references to the recent work of the chapters' authors. In addition, some attention to the
timeliness of the data could have been included. For example, John Padgett's discussion of
the committee seat selection processes in Congress during the 1960s would have benefited
greatly from some discussion of how this process might be affected by structural changes.
Specifically, how might the change from the powerful position of the Democrats during the
1960s to the period of Republican Presidencies through the 1980s play out in this
selection process. Granted, data may not be available to test these changes (although I
believe such may indeed be at hand), but some theoretical discussion along these lines
would have been helpful for graduate students and newcomers to the study of social
mobility.
The most promising chapters in the text are those in part 3. Lin, Rosenbaum, and Althauser
and Kalleberg not only bring the individual back in, but bring the reader back in as well.
Nan Lin offers a solid application of how, where, and why social mobility research can be
of value within the discipline. Although one may not enjoy his agenda, Lin's presentation
of three directions for the future analysis provides a solid platform from which an
emerging body of research can proceed. Rosenbaum shows us how this analysis can be
integrated into the timely discussion of affirmative action and other issues of social
policy. Althauser and Kalleberg lay bare the prevailing models for examining internal
labor markers allowing us a better understanding of the constraints and problems inherent
in our approach to these processes.
In all, Breiger has presented us with an important contribution to the study of social
mobility and social structure. Though the reader should be aware of the shortcomings of
the first two sections of the book, the utility of this book for the student of social
mobility is unquestionable.
Reviewer: JEFFRY A. WILL, University of North Florida
COPYRIGHT 1994 University of North Carolina Press
|