Showing papers in "Review of Sociology in 1975"

Age Differentiation and the Life Course

Abstract: Age has long been recognized as a basic element in social structure and the life course, but we have only recently achieved some appreciation of its diverse meanings and implications. To interpret the effects or correlates of age and birth year we must specify the variables they represent. The complexity of this task is suggested by the following temporal dimensions and locational properties that are derived from age data: (a) the individual life time or life span from birth to death-chronological or developmental age as an approximate index of stage in the aging process; (b) the social timetable of the life course (e.g. entry into marriage, retirement), which is defined by age criteria in norms and social roles; and (c) historical time in the course of social change-birth year or entry into the system as an index of historical location.1 The focal point of the lifetime framework is the inevitable and irreversible process of aging; that of social time, age differentiation in the sequential patterning, and configuration of social roles; and that of historical time, cohort membership, differentiation, and succession, with their implications for life histories, aging, and social change. Each temporal focus is associated with a distinctive tradition of theory and research: lifetime, BUhler (1935), the biological cycle of life as reflected in attitudes toward life (see also BUhler & Massarik 1968); social time, theoretical analyses by Linton (1942) and Parsons (1942), and Eisenstadt's (1956) influential synthesis of ethnographic materials on age differentiation; and historical, Mannheim's (1952, orig. 1928) essay on "The Problem of Generations." Continuities within the social time perspective are illustrated by theoretical formulations of social transitions in the life course, from Cottrell's (1942) propositional inventory on adjustment to age

Sociology of Science

Abstract: Sociology of science deals with the social conditions and effects of science, and with the social structures and processes of scientific activity. Science is a cultural tradi­ tion, preserved and transmitted from generation to generation partly because it is valued in its own right, and partly because of its wide technological applications. Its most distinguishing characteristic is that the primary purpose of its cultivators, the scientists, is to change the tradition through discoveries. This bears some simi­ larity to the purpose of modern artists and writers. But innovations in art and literature are accompanied by dissension and conflict, because there are no explicit criteria and accepted procedures to determine whether an innovation is an improve­ ment or deterioration of existing tradition. Although scientific criteria and proce­ dures are neither perfectly unequivocal nor entirely stable, they are still far superior to criteria used in the evaluation of other cultural products. The relatively objective, consensual evaluation of discoveries makes science an extreme case of institutionally regulated cultural change. Sociologists of science have concentrated on this characteristic of science as a tradition and as an institution. The questions they deal with are: How did this unique tradition of modern science emerge and become institutionalized? How is it maintained and controlled? How is research organized? What determines changes in scientific organization, and how are these changes related to research? These are wide-ranging problems, difficult to delimit. Our task of setting limits to this survey has been further complicated by the fact that the sociology of science, as of other cultural fields, is the common interest of several different disciplines. In our selection we concentrate on issues in which important work has been done during the last five years, but we also include earlier work to the extent that this is necessary as background for current developments. Relevant work done by non­ sociologists is included more or less on the same basis as that of sociologists.

Voluntary Action and Voluntary Groups

Abstract: A key problem in the study of voluntary action (voluntary participation, citizen participation, discretionary participation, social participation, common interest ac­ tivity, citizen involvement-all approximate synonyms as used here) is definition. While the struggle for greater definitional clarity as an important step toward developing adequate theories of voluntary action has brought about some agreement on what the definitional issues are, there has been little agreement on how to resolve them (e.g. Pennock & Chapman 1969; Smith, Reddy & Baldwin 1972: Part One; Meister 1972). The approach used here follows the line of Smith, Reddy & Baldwin (1972). Voluntary action is the action of individuals, collectivities, or settlements insofar as it is characterized primarily by the seeking of psychic benefits (e.g. belongingness, esteem, self-actualization) and by being discretionary in nature [not determined primarily by biosocial factors (physiological compulsions in their socialized forms), coercive factors (sociopolitical compulsions backed by a threat of force), or direct remuneration (direct, high-probability payment or benefits of an economic sort)]. This definition is rooted in the motivational theory of Maslow (1954), conforms fairly well to common sociological usage, is broad but not all-inclusive of human social behavior, defines voluntary action positively as well as negatively, is applicable at all major levels of system reference (shifting from individual motivation to a concern for goals as aggregated motivational intents at collectivity and settlement levels), applies fairly well across the usual disciplinary boundaries and intradiscipli­ nary compartments, is broadly connotative and analytical rather than narrowly denotative, is a matter of degree, not a qualitative distinction, and is not rooted in a particular limiting common sense paradigm of a single kind of voluntary action (e.g. "cult," "movement"). The behavior of any actor (individual, collectivity, settlement) can be described in terms of the relative extent to which it is rooted in voluntary intentions (motiva­ tions or goals), biosocial factors, coercive factors, and direct remuneration. Nearly

Convergence and Divergence in Development

Abstract: After World War II there arose the intellectual question of whether or not the two blocs of developed societies, and the many less developed ones, would evolve in a common direction. Some argued for convergence around the requirements of the modern economy. Others argued for divergence along Jines set by political and cultural factors (for reviews, see Weinberg 1969, Meyer 1970, Kerr et al 1 97 1 , Millar 1972, Deutsch 1973, and Hollingsworth 1973). Recent work has transformed the issue. First, much systematic evidence, re­ viewed here, shows that most societies are rapidly shifting to modern institutional arrangements.2 Second, the increasing uniformity of, and exchange between, soci­ eties brought awareness that they may diverge or converge with respect to equality of development as well as in organizational modernity. Current disputes center on the rise or decline in international economic equality. Third, and most important, convergence and divergence are now seen as resulting from the evolution of world society, more than from the independent evolution of separate societies (Hopkins & Wallerstein 1967). The world market and society produce convergence by subjecting all societies to the same forces; they produce divergence by creating different roles for different societies in the world stratification system. Focusing on societal development within a (capitalist) world industrial structure creates at the global level of analysis a repetition of the original post-Marx debate about the homogenizing versus the stratifying effects of industrial society on individuals and classes. The current discussion is almost as politicized as the original

Sex Roles in Transition: A Ten-Year Perspective

Abstract: Popular treatments of the changing role of women continue to belabor the myth that the status of women has enjoyed uninterrupted progress in modern history. To the contrary, closer scrutiny suggests that women in the seventh decade of the twentieth century still are striving to regain the relatively independent economic and in­ dividual status they enjoyed before the disruption caused by the Industrial Revolu­ tion (Myrdal & Klein 1956, Smelser 1959, Goode 1963, Knudsen 1 969, Blake 1974).1 Sparked largely by the Women's Movement, the social sciences have witnessed a recent rekindling of interest in sex roles. With some notable exceptions, the spate of recent studies regrettably focuses almost exclusively upon the female role and neglects the masculine side of the sex role equation. Within the field of sociology, at least one critical review (Hochschild 1 973), several research bibliographies (Al­ dous & Hill 1967, Cisler 197 1 , Jacobs 1971 , Astin, Suniewick & Dweck 197 1 , Astin, Parelman & Fisher 1974), and research agendas (Epstein 1973a; A. Daniels, forth­ coming) have signaled the renewed concern with sex roles.

Major Developments in the Sociological Study of Deviance

Abstract: During the past decade there have been four major developments in the sociology of deviance. First, interest in reknowned theories has gradually declined. Second, the predominant research concern is no longer with rates of deviance or deviants but rather with reactions to deviance. Third, far more attention is now devoted to criminal law, with a special emphasis on political considerations. Fourth, a new conception of deviance has emerged. This survey concentrates on the new conception, because it now occupies center stage and is closely intertwined with other major developments.

The comparative study of health care delivery systems.

Abstract: PIP: This review of the comparative study of health care delivery systems is limited by the idiosyncratic data base available. As with comparative research in other areas, the definition and measurement of comparable units within varying sociocultural and historical circumstances are difficult. Samples of complex entities, such as delivery systems, are only obtained with much effort and cost. In this review attention is directed to the following: theoretical considerations; the international knowledge, technology, and manpower marketplace; patterns of mortality and morbidity and national development; health care delivery systems in modern countries; the social functions of health care; population selection and health care; the comparative effects of health care delivery systems; comparative study of prepayment and capitation systems; professionalism in medicine and the organization of roles; and convergence of health care delivery systems in postindustrial society. From a sociological perspective, the locus of control of medical decision making is a critical variable in examining the implications of medical care for social life more generally. Mostly, sociologists have failed to carefully examine varying approaches to regulation in different countries, the extent to which physicians in different countries have extramedical responsibilities, and the resulting implications for society. With the growing bureaucratization of medicine and increased regulation, sociologists will increasingly direct their efforts to such issues. A major problem in the sociological investigation of comparative medical organization is the inadequacy of traditional concepts describing emerging structural arrangements and ongoing organizational processes. The conceptual approaches that fit centralized, bureaucratized organizations are poorly adapted for studying intraorganizational networks. Almost all of the research effort among sociologists has focused on the organization of the health professions and occupations and with access to and distribution of medical care. The issue of why people seek help and where they choose to bring their problems is an area where sociologists can make a distinctive contribution.

Competing Paradigms in Macrosociology

Abstract: During the past decade there has been a remarkable proliferation of new approaches and paradigms in sociology; to such an extent indeed that some writers have referred to a "crisis" affecting the whole discipline, which they may judge either favorably, as a condition of intellectual ferment and renewal, or unfavorably, as a state of affairs in which sociological thought seems to have lost any rational coherence; and many others are uneasy about the exuberant growth of new sociological "schools" and "sects." But it would be wrong to exaggerate the significance of these recent trends. Sociology (and this applies also to other social and human sciences) has always been what one writer has called a multi-paradigm science, that is to say, a science in which there are "too many paradigms" (Masterman 1970). And it was not un­ known, at earlier times, for discussions about a "crisis" in sociological thought to occur. One such occasion was in the last decade of the 19th century when the "revisionist" controversy developed within Marxism, and in the wider field of social thought there was a general assault upon positivism (Hughes 1958); and another was in the late 1920s and early 1930s, when a writer in the journal of the Austro­ Marxists, Der Kampf, for example, expressed his satisfaction at finding a coherent exposition of sociological theory in the book he was reviewing, at a time when confusion and a sense of crisis seemed to prevail everywhere (Lauterbach 1933). Very often, in fact, a crisis in sociology seems to be associated with, and perhaps reflect, a sense of intellectual crisis in the wider sphere of cultural and politica1 1ife; and this may well have been the case during the 1960s. It is clear, at all events, that sociological thought has developed quite new orienta­ tions in the course of the past decade. Some indication of the extent of these changes can be found by looking at a collection of articles from the learned journals of the 1950s (Lipset & Smelser 1961), which was intended to portray the main trends in sociology at that time. The section devoted to theory was somewhat limited in outlook, and more or less confined to a consideration of functionalism; it contained no reference to such theoretical approaches as Marxism, phenomenology, ethnome­ thodology, and structuralism, which are well known, and in varying degrees influen-