American sociology has been dominated by an individualist, psychologistic perspective. This dominance has been so pervasive that American sociologists are generally unfamiliar with a sociological apprehension of social phenomena. That is, American sociologists are largely unfamiliar with the structuralist (sociological) view of social phenomena. The two approaches are so far apart and employ such different terminologies and definitions that they would be more accurately conceived as two entirely different fields of study. This essay attempts to draw out some of the differences between the structuralist and the individualist perspectives and to offer a criticism of the individualist position. The critical aspects of the essay are intended to clarify for individualist sociologists just why structuralists regard individualism not only as a dead end, but, indeed, not even as sociology.

Structuralism Versus Individualism: Part 1, Shadowboxing in the Dark

Natural resource-based communities are often theoretically assumed to be vulnerable to the negative effects of environmental and social change. Such communities are also seen as being especially vulnerable to risks and disasters. Disaster research perspectives echo this in their emphasis on environmental and social vulnerability. Also, theories of risk largely fail to illuminate community level experiences. To address this gap, a community-based approach is advanced that incorporates vulnerability, risk perception, and the capacity for local action in a framework for understanding community response to risk. The intersection of an interactional theory of community and perspectives from risk and disaster research is explored in the context of natural resource-based communities.

Natural Resource-Based Communities, Risk, and Disaster: An Intersection of Theories

The need to more accurately conceptualize the field of community development has increased during recent decades. This is largely the result of a growing field marked by its multidisciplinary nature, but also because of the multifaceted ways in which communities around the world participate in the development process. In this article, we approach the task of conceptualizing community development by providing a conceptual definition that serves both academics and practitioners. More importantly, based on such conceptualization, we offer a typology that accounts for the different forms in which community development is practiced providing strengths and weaknesses of each form.

Conceptualizing community development in the twenty-first century

This paper examines the influence of community attachment on voluntary citizen participation in rural community improvement projects. We do so by modifying the original systemic model of community attachment (Kasarda and Janowitz 1974) and combining it with tenets of rational choice and social embeddedness theories. The modified model is then extended to consider voluntary participation in community projects by accounting for the influence of community attachment through both a solidarity of interests and a solidarity of sentiments (Bell 1998). Based on survey results of almost 9,000 citizens across 99 small (500-10,000) Iowa communities, findings provide overall support for the expected positive influence of local social ties (weak informal, strong informal, and formal) on the two forms of community attachment which, in turn, positively affect voluntary participation. Attachment in the form of community interests shows a strong direct and indirect effect on voluntary participation, while sentiment's influence is largely indirect. We conclude by considering the relevance of our findings to ongoing discussions of social capital.

Making Sense of Voluntary Participation: A Theoretical Synthesis*

The elementary conditions of human interaction generate Michels's (1910) "iron law of oligarchy" and Mosca's (1896) major proposition on system size and ruling elites, the latter holding without regard to the definitional restrictions recently examined by Mayhew (1973). Specifically, the structure of focused face-to-face interaction constrains chance expectations for power relations. Power is constrained to equalize (by change alone) as interaction sequences increase in length. Power is constrained to polarize (by chance alone) as group size increases. Since interaction sequences falling within the operative range of human perception as specified by Miller (1956) and Simon (1974) are relatively short, power will be increasingly concentrated as a function of group size in most situations, yielding Michels's law and Mosca's proposition. As these regularities hold at much smaller sizes than originally specified by Michels (1911), their implications for macro-level control structures are examined in light of ...

On the Emergence of Oligarchy in Human Interaction

Some assumptions common to traditional theories of the community are examined: (1) that social system boundaries are geographically determinable; (2) that the units comprising communities are either humans or families; (3) that cooperation based on common goals underlies community organization. Suggested here is a conflict model of community structure and behavior that focuses upon interstitial groups linking elemental groups and complex organizations to form the community system. Within interstitial groups social exchange and coordination occurs between groups and organizations whose orientations are in potential conflict. This social exchange between elemental groups, a consequence of the division of labor, is accomplished within interstices containing conjunctive relationships, and it is here that conflict is managed, enabling the operation of complex social systems. Community as a concept is employed by virtually all students of complex social systems. Nevertheless, sociologists are aware how illdefined and imprecise is the concept of community. Hillery (1955) measured the depths of confusion about this concept by inventorying a wide variety of definitions. An examination of these reveals that definitions of community are almost as varied as the number of sociologists attempting to deal with the concept. In the interim since Hillery's article, the amount of agreement over definitions of community has not increased significantly. This paper attempts a more logically consistent and empirically usable definition of community. It is hoped this attempt will reduce the confusion and ambiguity surrounding community as a concept and its behavioral referents (Simpson,

Lloyd Bacon

Papers

The Community as a Social System