The Dynamics of Modern Society

William Goode

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781412818513
• eBook ISBN: 9781351483339
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

Social research efforts are often more concerned with basic social processes or patterns than with the dynamic relationship between social processes and social institutions. In this classic collection, contributors posit generalizations drawn from contemporary sociology. Their analyses go beyond elementary principles - they interpret them, qualify them, or state them more precisely. Each of the contributors focuses on the modern American social structure, and they are either explicitly comparative or have made observations that clearly are meant to apply to many countries.This volume both embodies and draws attention to newer developments in sociology. Like most steps forward in an advancing science, this orientation does not reject the older knowledge accumulated during earlier generations, but incorporates and expands upon it. The differences are in emphasis rather than any denial of the main body of accepted theory. On the other hand, the collection may be said to represent a response to the many criticisms, by humanists and sociologists alike, of the mainstream of contemporary sociology as it existed at the time of original publication in the late 1960s.Inquiries into social changes, like sociological studies of historical phenomena, may be viewed as modes of a comparative sociology: They permit us to test more fully sociological generalizations. The emphasis in this volume on historical and comparative studies and on social change parallels the growing attention of sociology to these problems. During the 1960s, social science turned from a nearly exclusive preoccupation with middle-class populations to a concern with social relations in other societies, past as well as present. In addition to enriching our knowledge, this broader view has increased both the precision and generalizing power of sociological principles.

PART 1
The Dynamics of Interpersonal Relations

INTRODUCTION

EVERYTHING THAT IS done by any organization, whether it is a corner candy store, a corporation, a church, or a nation, is ultimately done by people. It might be asserted that interpersonal relations, the social transactions between individuals, must be the whole of sociology. To understand society, do we need to understand only the elementary regularities in the face-to-face interaction between human beings?

Modern inquiry (much of it labeled "small groups research") into the fundamental and apparently most simple interactions of individuals has begun to specify and describe some patterns which at least seem to be observable in all societies and to form at least one set of bases for social life. For example, paying back favors, ceasing to obtain advice or help from others when the “costs” become too high, or driving a hard bargain when the social structure permits it, can easily be observed in our own daily lives, and more precise descriptions can be tested later in controlled studies or experiments. Are these, then, the “elementary forms of social life,” so fundamental that they must be considered the building blocks or nuclei from which all social structure is formed?

Without accepting so bold a claim for this kind of inquiry, we can ask, in order to understand society better, at what level of complexity or scale is it more fruitful to begin—with societies as whole units, or with the elementary interactions between individuals? The more cautious answer would be that reality appears to be an interwoven net, so integrated an organic unity, that if we begin at either extreme of scale or complexity and pursue reality far enough, we shall reach the other extreme. The more we try to understand societies as units, the more it is necessary to locate smaller elements and processes for more refined examination; and if we begin with the regularities of interpersonal dynamics, we soon see that these are building blocks which constitute still larger social units and systems.

In the development of a science, however, it is the larger scale phenomena that are usually first described and charted. The micropatterns, though sometimes apparently before our eyes, resist the orderly thought of the scientist much longer.

Why are the face-to-face regularities of social behavior called here “elementary”? In part, of course, they seem fundamental because the interactions between two or more individuals are the basic unit of observation, the smallest social units, for our study of social behavior. They seem fundamental in another sense: By and large, the observer delimits the area of his study and explanation to what is in the immediate situation of interaction; he does not undertake to explain (often, even to take note of) the larger institutional or organizational matrix in which the behavior occurs.

Thus, if we consider the family as a set of elementary social relations, we may ignore all the specifically family rules imposed by the larger society, and ask simply how the actions of each member cause the others to give way, or arouse resistance or counterdomination; or how the various coalitions of mother-daughter, father-daughter, mother-father, and so on form and re-form; or how the various group tasks such as planning or emotional leadership are divided. That is, assuming that each member knows the rules of the society about family behavior, what actions of each create what counteractions from others—help, hostility, cooperation, gratitude, seeking the other’s company?

Similarly, in a bureaucracy the employees know who should consult whom for technical advice, and who has the greater authority, but it is in the give and take of interpersonal dynamics that who likes whom is determined, or who is in fact consulted more, or who seeks out whom for solace, or who is esteemed. This is why, as George C. Homans puts it, “. . . elementary social behavior is one aspect of all social behavior.”* It is not a kind of behavior which people engage in only when they are alone, or being informal. It is rather one selection out of the total behavior pattern of human beings. It is, so to speak, one “slice” of the total social reality. Typically, interpersonal analyses ignore or pay little attention to the formal role demands, the duties imposed by the formal organization, and coercion is usually omitted as well.

On the other hand, the social analyst who omits the role demands of the social organization or institution may thereby attain generalizations that do not depend for their accuracy on the peculiarities of the culture in which the observations are being made. That is, if the larger social structure and its rules are merely the background or matrix for the study of interpersonal relations, then perhaps the conclusions will not depend so much on that background. For example, according to the Norm of Reciprocity, as Alvin W. Gouldner names one such rule, we would expect a stranger on a train in Novosibirsk to offer a food gift in return for ours, just as would a stranger on a train from Tokyo to Osaka. That is, many of the conclusions about small groups’ behavior or interpersonal relations are thought to be applicable to human action in almost any setting.

Some of the propositions in this research should seem obvious to the student, for they apply to real life and they should be correct. Since everyone has some ability to predict what others will do, these findings should correspond in part with one’s direct experience. If we did not have some such ability, we would be perpetually surprised by every turn of the day’s events.

On the other hand, some findings will not seem obvious (of course, some may later be proved incorrect, or only partly right) because the social researcher’s formulation is more precise, and his experimentation is more rigorous than that of the layman. Indeed, research in this area is somewhat more precise and rigorous than in most fields of sociology. Whether the inquiries were made in the “artificial" setting of a small groups laboratory, or in an office or factory, they have been more consistently experimental and more exact in experimental design. The result is a body of propositions that is better integrated and empirically based than in most other fields of sociology.

It should be kept in mind, however, that the small groups theorist does not eliminate cultural differences merely by ignoring them. He does not clarify reality by asserting that he is considering exchanges between individuals, only insofar as they can be called “voluntary" (in order to leave out exchanges at the point of a gun, for example)—for threats and involuntary actions may be part of the reality just the same. Nor will the most careful research design necessarily create reality within the laboratory (for example, people will carry out ridiculous acts if they are “for the experiment," but might not do so if asked by a stranger outside the laboratory).

Aside from these problems, what is the relation of interpersonal relations to other aspects and structures in society? The first article in this section asserts that this elementary theory is linked with a theory about larger social institutions of the society, such as religion and the family, because the key unit in both is the role interaction, the exchanges between two or more individuals. In these transactions, both individuals have some knowledge about what to expect from the other, and some evaluations about what each ought to do. Their interaction is guided both by what each offers and demands, and by the people surrounding them in daily interaction (“third parties").

The larger social structures are made up of such role transactions, but they have qualities of their own as well. The attempts to reduce the analysis of society to small groups theory merely show that a couple or a small group is not a society. Indeed, the many valid conclusions about small groups that we now have, rest in part on the fact that outside the small group is a whole society. A small group is not, to state the obvious, a religious system. Although a group in fact tells a newcomer what the standards for behavior are, there is no tradition in it that the members feel duty bound to maintain (as they do in both the family and the larger society).

The study of interpersonal relations does, then, give us many correct predictions about human behavior, but is not a substitute for inquiry into other types of social patterns. Even granting the correctness of these conclusions, however, are they of any practical utility? It is likely that the findings in this area of research are put to the practical test more than those of any other area in sociology. A large part of what is called industrial sociology is constituted by such findings. They have been used in planning the structure of combat units, the choice of bombing crews, and the organization of communication channels in an office. In a somewhat more popular form, they are found in “how to do it” books which deal with achieving success in management or in persuading others to carry out our wishes. These findings have also been applied in introducing innovations to a community or a work group. The reason, very likely, is that if theory becomes relatively precise, it is also more likely to be useful.

In the first article in this section, William J. Goode sketches a broad general theory of interpersonal relations, and shows how it links with a theory of still larger segments of society. As he indicates, the kinds of problems the individual faces (the allocation of his scarce resources to the various ends he desires) are mirrored in the problems of the larger society (its own allocation tasks, especially the need to move individuals from one role assignment to another). The report by Peter M. Blau describes a particular bureaucratic setting in which individuals give or withhold esteem or liking, and shows us the regularities in this kind of behavior.

Still other complexities enter interpersonal relations when we examine the family (as does Jesse R. Pitts in his comparison of family and peer group relations in France and the United States). The demands of the larger society on the family unit alter the terms of the “role bargain,” just as the demands of the school alter the relations within a peer group.

Still different are the interpersonal relations between individuals from different ethnic backgrounds, for they may not treat each other as members of a common group. Their interaction is shaped by their preconceptions about each other’s group. They react to one another as representatives of ethnic groups, rather than individuals, although even in this type of situation the regularities of interpersonal relations should be observable. It is an irony, and sometimes a tragedy, that such stereotypes often determine their personal relations even when neither feels he is a member of any ethnic group, and has no sense of sharing a common destiny with its members.

This section, containing a report by E. Digby Baltzell on anti-Semitism in the corporation and one by Nathan Glazer on Negro-Jewish relations in Harlem, is relevant not merely to other ethnic relations in the United States but to such phenomena in other countries as well. The United States is, in some ways, the prototype of industrialization in other countries, but very likely its experience in ethnic relations is applicable to other nations as well. Americans generally suppose that this country is unique in being composed of highly diverse populations, and in its success as a “melting pot,” since it is rapidly assimilating all these peoples into a common type. Both of these suppositions are partly wrong.

First, the United States is typical of all modern nations in that every one of them has an ethnic problem. This country is different only in that it has for generations actually been highly conscious of the problem, and has even tried to do something about it. By contrast, only recently have the governments of other nations begun to face that difficulty. This conscious effort does, in turn, affect interpersonal relations, by complicating the individual reaction to the ethnic stereotype.

Perhaps most interesting to the sociologist, the “melting pot” can and does assimilate some individuals in one generation, but ethnic group social patterns show a fascinating vitality. In all industrial nations, in both occupation and school, we are told to evaluate others by their personal qualities and achievements, but not by their religious or ethnic backgrounds. Nevertheless, from the earliest years all of us are also socialized to believe in many ethnic stereotypes. To be a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant is not to escape being stereotyped. Consequently, if we are to understand the modern epoch, we must comprehend the far-reaching influence and durability of seemingly ancient tribal ways within the industrialized nation. In the present section, we are concerned with how the elementary patterns of social relations are shaped in the context of ethnic relations, and how interpersonal relations themselves affect the reactions to the stereotypes.

^* George C. Homans, “Small Groups,” in Sentiments and Activities, New York: The Free Press, 1962, p. 296.

1. Elementary Forms

A THEORY OF ROLE STRAIN

William J. Goode

When we assert that “economics shapes religious activities” or “the university has altered military life in modern America”—that is, whenever we claim that any broad social or cultural pattern affects another—we should remember that whatever a corporation, university, or society “does” must in fact be done by people. When we complain that “urbanization and industrialization” have come to dominate our lives, we should not forget that such “social forces” are ultimately made up of individual decisions and acts.

It is for this reason that the social analyst must analyze why persons engage in all the various acts and social interactions that are observable in their daily lives. Not only must people be motivated, or moved, to carry out certain acts and tasks, but also they must be pressed to stop doing them, and to move on to others. We are all taught not only that we face specific obligations—such as voting, working, or attending religious services—but also that we must work out some kind of “budget ” some acceptable allocation of our energies among the many demands made upon us.

Consequently, we want to understand both how individuals decide to meet one or another of their obligations and how they weigh all these demands to arrive at some kind of “budget ”

Such an inquiry helps us to understand the larger social structure. Because social institutions—such as religion, education, or the family—are made up of individua...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• General Introduction
• PART 1 THE DYNAMICS OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS
• PART 2 STRUCTURAL PATTERNS WITHIN SOCIETY
• PART 3 SOCIAL PROCESSES
• PART 4 VALUES, IDEOLOGIES, AND SYMBOL SYSTEMS
• PART 5 SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS
• PART 6 INTERACTION AMONG SUBSYSTEMS OF SOCIETY
• PART 7 SOCIAL CHANGE AND REVOLUTION
• Index