The Role-Set: Problems in Sociological Theory
Author(s): Robert K. Merton
Source: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Jun., 1957), pp. 106-120
Published by: Wiley on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/587363 .
Accessed: 19/09/2014 20:07
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Wiley and The London School of Economics and Political Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:07:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ROLE-SET: PROBLEMSIN
SOCIOLOGICALTHEORY
RobertK. Merton
N THE FIRST VOLUME of tlle firstAmericanjournaldevoted
entirelyto the subjectof sociology,the roleproperto the sociologist
zwas describedin these forthrightterms:'Social theoristsneed be
meek men, and shouldstand with head uncoveredbeforethe special
gifts and serncesof the men of geniuswho are workingthe latter-day
miraclesof industryand commerce.'lThis was announcedin I895. A
few yearslater, ltmile Durkheim,who by all accountsssas not apt to
takeup thisdiffidentand admiringpositionbeforeanyone,least of all
businessmen,was remindinghis readersthat sociologywas 'bornonly
yesterday',indeed,that 'in the fifteenyearsbeforeI900, it was possible
to mentiononly ten nameswhichweretrulyand properlythe namesof
r
soaologists'.2
Sincesociologistshaveplainlynot inlleritedtlle earth,etecan suppose
that thosewho came afterDurkheimhave also been unableto remain
men.In anyevent,it is plainthatthe conditionofscanty
meek-mannered
numbersof sociologistshasgreatlychanged,in the shortspaceof a halfcentury.Sociologistsarenow numberedby hundredsin Europeand by
thousandsin the United States.(I understand,incidentally,that some
Englishmen,both withinand withouttlle professionof sociology,have
been heard to say, 'too manythousands,by far'.) Althoughit may at
firstseem that these numbershave been growingin geometricalratio,
continuesto urgeMalthusian
Supplentent
and althoughthe TimesLiterary
populationof sociologists,the fact is
checksupon this overly-abundant
that there are clearly far too few to do the numerousjobs lshich
sociology,partly by theoreiiccommitmentand partly by default of
other disciplines,now includesutithinits province.There have been
advancesof sociologicalknowledge,of course,butthesehavebeensparse
and uneven, proceedingin relativedepth at a few places along the
front,but remainingthinat manyothers.The historianof ourdiscipline
should see this matter of numberscomparatively.There are indeed
about four thousandsociologistsin the United States, a rery large
number,when comparedwith thoseof a generationor tuo ago, but a
I06
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:07:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ROLE-SET
very small number when comparedwith the 80,ooo chemists,the
60,ooophysicists,and even the 20,000 psychologists.I do not intendto
emphasizenumbersabove all, but as has been remarkedof other
disciplines,it requiresmany thousandsof men workingmethodically
with improvedmethodsfor a lifetime,if knowledgein a disciplineis to
accumulaterapidly,ratherthan slowlyand imperceptibly.3
As the numbersof sociologistshave increased,they have become,in
accordwith the Spencerianthesis,moredifferentiated.It is now possible to identifysome thirtyto forty fields of prime specializationin
sociology,and-it must be supposedthat this diffierentiation
unll continue.Evenin the unlikelycircumstancethatself-selection
shouldresult
in an even distributionamong thesespecialities,there would still be,
even amongthe largenumberof Americansociologists,an averageof
only one hundredto workeach field to teachthe mpads of students
who seeksome understanding
of the socialworldthey nevermade, to
advanceknowledgethroughdisciplinedinquiry,to relatewhat knowledgewe haveto problemsof socialpolicy,and to withstandthe assaults
upon sociology^srhich
are periodicallymountedby intelligent,anxious
and sometimesuninformedlaymen.In the aggregate,and contrasted
with what has gone before,the proliferationof sociologistsand sociologicalspecialitiesmay seem excessive;functionally,in relationto the
workthat needsto be done, the fieldof sociologyis still sparselysettled
and undermanned.
Just as sociologyhas experiencedchangesin numbersof personnel,
so it has experiencedchangesin the foci and the methodsof inquiry.
These changesare registeredin the changingspectrumof sociological
theory.One of the principalchangeshas been in the characterof the
taskswhichsocioloFcaltheoristsset themselves.With a few prominent
exceptions,suchas Sorokinand (thoughhe mightdisownthe characterization)Toynbee,sociologistsno longerfollowin the spaciousfootsteps
of a Comte,Marx,or Spencerwho, eachin his own way, triedto work
out an historicalsociologywhichwouldput the entirecourseof human
societyinto singleperspective.
Forbetteror forworse,and thishassurelymeantthatgreathistorical
erudinonhas becomealmostvestipal amongsociolopts, sociological
theoryis no longerfocussedon settingout the historicalpanoramaof
humansocietyin a seriesof cycles,phases,or stages.4
Durkheim,who mustshareuith Weberthe biologicallyimprobable
but historicallypossibleresponsibilityof fatheringmodernsociology,
took a quite differenttack and adopteda quite differenttheoretical
commitment.Rather than trying to reconstructand to forecastthe
historicalpatternsof human society, he developedanalyiical ideas
designedto providebroadtheoreticalunderpinnings
for the discipline
and tried to sharpenthese ideas througha seriesof empiricalmonographs.His pre-eminentcontributionwas to clarifythe functionsof
I07
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:07:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ROBERT K. MERTON
social norms,and their relationsto distinctkindsof social structure.
UnlikeDurkheim,Weberdrewupona breadthof historicalknowledge
almostincomparablein his day, but he too aimed to developa widerangingsystematictheorycentredlargelyon the analysisof the relations
of value-systemsto the organizationof materialresourcesand other
partsof the socialstructure.
Today, I thinkit fair to say, the workof TalcottParsonsrepresents
the one majoreffortto developa comprehensivesociologicaltheory.
This aims to state the fundamentalvariablesof socialsystems,rather
than to furnishsubstantivesolutions,all proceedingfrom the head of
one man,to the numerousproblemsphrasedin termsof thesevariables.
A generaltheory,suchas thisone,is intendedto locateothersociological
theoriesas specialcases;it must thereforeincludevanablesof a high
orderof abstractness.As an avowedeffortto worktowardsa comprehensivetheory,it is logicallyakin thoughobviouslynot substantively
analogicalto a theorysuchas that of classicalmechanics.It is too soon
to say whatthe outcomeof thiseffortwill be. It hasthe ment, as recent
experiencehas shown, of prouriding
theoreticalgliidancefor diverse
empiricalinquiry.It has the practicaldifficulty,however,of being so
rapidlyelaboratedthat its developmentmust far outrunthe pace of
systematicstudiesdesignedto put the ideasto empiricaltest.This,then,
is one directionbeing takenby contemporary
sociologicaltheory.
Apartfromsuchgeneraltheory,therehavebeendevelopingtheones,
alsoanalyticalandsystematic,offar morelimitedscope,theseinvolving
sets of ideas which can be describedas theoriesof the middlerangetheories,for example,of referencegroupsand socialmobility,of communication,role-conflictand the formationof social notms. These
theoriesalsoinvolveabstractions,of course,but abstractionsnot so far
removedom the data of sociologicalobservation.
The principalbasisof advancingsociologicaltheorytoday consists,
I believe,in much the same modestand limiteddevelopmentof ideas
which occurredin the early modeIn period of other sciences,from
naturalhistoryto chemistryand physics.Such theoriesof the middle
range consistof sets of relativelysimpleideas, which link togethera
limited numberof facts about the structureand functionsof social
formationsand suggestfurtherobservations.They are theoriesintermediateto comprehensiveanalyticalschemesand detailedworkaday
hypotheses.The conceptionof this type of theoryis of coursenot new:
thereare allusionsto it in Plato,Baconmademuchof 'intermediateor
middleaxioms'as didJohn StuartMill. Butit seemsto me particularly
importantto emphasizethe distinctivevalueof suchlimitedtheoriesin
a science,such as ours,in which concept and classificationplay such
a major part, whereasfew or no quantitadvelaws have yet been
discovered.6
In emphasizingwhat seems to me the distinciiveimportanceof
I08
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:07:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ROLE-SET
theonesof the middlerange,I wouldprefernot to be misunderstood.
There is, of course,no contradictionbetweensuch theoriesand more
comprehensivetheory,such as that advancedby Parsons.Nor am I
suggestingthat only theoriesof the middle range merit our attention.
After all, sociologyis a large house of many mansions.Moreoverin
intellectualworkas in manualwork,mostof us have a way of finding
certainactivitiescongenial,and it would be self-deceivingto assume
that our tastesplay no partin the kindof theoreticalworkwe preferto
do. To projectour 'temperamental'bents into a generalimperative
may be temptingbut nonethelessill-considered.Thereis no substitute
for such effortsas Parsons'sto developa wide-rangingand comprehensivetheoryof the socialsystemas a whole,whichwill incorporate,
with successivemodifications,more highlydelimitedtheories.But, by
the sametoken,thereis roomalsofor anotherkindof theorizingwhich
is, at the outset,and for some time to come,limitedto morerestricted
rangesof phenomenathan those encompassedby a systemof thought
like that of Parsons.The two kindsof inquirycan usefullyfollowtheir
own course,with periodicreconnaissances
to see to whatextentspecifi
theoriesof a limited range of phenomenaare found to be consistent
with the theory of larger scope. On this view, the consolidationof
delimitedtheoriesin sociologylargelycomesabout throughsuccessive
convergenceof initiallydisparateideas,convergences
of the kindwhich
Parsonshimselfworkedout in analysingthe workof Weberand Durkheim, Marshalland Pareto.
Theoriesof the niiddlerangeare theoriesabouta delimitedrangeof
socialphenomena.Theycan be recognized,in part,by theirverylabels:
one speaksof a theoryof referencegroups,a theoryof prices,or a germ
theoryof disease.The basicideasarerelativelysimple:considerGilbert
on magnetism,Boyleon atmosphencpressure,or Dansin on the formation of coral atolls. Gilbertbeginswith the relativelysimpleidea that
the earthmay be conceivedas a magnet;Boyle,unththe simpleidea
thatone can conceivethe atmosphereas a 'seaof air';Darwin,with the
idea that one can conceiveof the atollsas monumentsoverislandslong
since subsidedinto the sea. Each of these cases sets out a relatively
simpleway of conceivinga delimitedrangeof phenomena.
These ideas give rise to a limited numberof inferencesabout the
phenomenain question.To take but one case: if the atmosphereis
conceivedas a sea of air, then, as Pascalinferred,thereshouldbe less
air pressureon a mountain-topthan at its base. The initialidea is, in
some measure,put to the test of observationby seeingwhetherthese
inferencesturnout to be empiricallyso, and whetherthe idea suggests
other,ilewly observed,characteristics
of magnetism,or of atmosphere
pressure,as the case may be. As moreof theseimplicationsare drawn
fromthe originalfairlyuncomplicatedidea, and are empiricallyconfirmed, there emergeswhat may fairly be called a 'theory of the
H
IO9
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:07:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ROBERT K. MERTON
magnetismof the earth'or 'a theoryof atmosphencpressure'.Theseare
theoriesofthe middlerange:adequateto accountforselectedaspectsof
a delimitedrange of phenomena,arld subjectto being consolidated
with othersof like kindinto a morecomprehensive
set of ideas.
Oncementioned,theseillustrations
fromoutsidethe fieldof sociology
can be droppedfromview. Forthesesimpleideasdrawnfromthe early
daysof physicalsciencein the seventeenthcenturyand of earthscience
in the nineteenth,are not, of course,being presentedas substantive
analogiesto currentsociologicalideasof, say, attractionsand repulsions
betweengroups,or of differingdegreesof socialpressure.It is the relativelysimplelogicalstructurewhichthey exhibitthat is pertinent,not
theirspecificcontent.Contemporary
sociologicaltheoriesof the middle
range may not uniformlyhave the cogencyor power of such earlier
examplesof physicaland naturalscience,but they do exhibitthe same
uncomplicatedlogical structure.Rather than consider sociological
theoriesof the middle range in general, I shall examineone sma]l
example in the hope that it will exhibit the design of one kind of
structuraland functionalanalysis.
THE
PROBLEMATICS
OF THE ROLE-SET
However much they may differ in other respects,contemporary
sociologicaltheoristsare largelyat one in adoptingthe premisethat
socialstatusesand socialrolescomprisemajorbuildingblocksof social
structure.This hasbeenthe case,sincethe influentialwritingsof Ralph
Lintonon the subject,a generationago. By status,and T. H. Marshall
hasindicatedthe greatdiversityof mealiingsattachedto thistermsince
the timeof Maine.6Lintonmeanta positionin a socialsysteminvolving
designatedrightsand obligations;by role, the behaviourorientedto
thesepatternedexpectationsof others.In theseterms,statusand roles
become conceptsserving to connect culturallydefined expectations
with the patternedconductand relationshipswhich make up a social
structure.Lintonwent on to state the long recognizedand basic fact
that each personin societyinevitablwr
occupiesmultiplestatusesand
that each of thesestatuseshas an associatedrole.
It is at this point that I find it usefulto departfrom Linton'sconception.The differenceis iniiiallya smallone, somemightsay so small
as not to deservenotice, but it involvesa shift in the angle of vision
which leads, I believe, to successivelygreaterdiffierences
of a fundamentalkind. UnlikeLinton,I begin ^viththe premisethat each social
statusinvolvesnot a single associatedrole, but an arrayof roles.This
basicfeatureof socialstructurecan be registeredby the disiinctivebut
not formidableterm,role-set.To repeat,then, by role-setI meanthat
complementof role-relaiionships
in which personsare involved by
virtue of occupyinga particularsocial status. Thus, ill our current
I IO
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:07:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ROLE-SET
studiesof medical schools,7we have begun with the view that the
statusof medicalstudententailsnot only the role of a studentvzs-a-vzs
his teachers,but also an arrayof other rolesrelatinghim diverselyto
otherstudents,physicians,nurses,socialworkers,medicaltechnicians,
and the like.Again,the statusof schoolteacherin the UnitedStateshas
its distinctiverole-set,in whichare foundpupils,colleagues,the school
principaland superintendent,the Board of Education,professional
associations,and, on occasion,local patrioticorganizations.
It shouldbe madeplainthatthe role-setdiffersfromwhatsociologists
have long describedas 'muliipleroles'.By establishedusage,the term
multiplerole refersnot to the complexof rolesassociatedwith a single
socialstatus,butwiththevarioussocialstatuses
(often,in differinginstituiional spheres)in which people find themselves for illustration,the
statusesof physician,husband,father, professor,church elder, ConservativePartymemberand armycaptain. (This complemcntof distinct statusesof a person,each of thesein turnhavingits own role-set,
I would designateas a status-set.This cencept gives rise to its own
rangeof analyticalproblemswhichcannotbe consideredhere.)
The notionof the role-setremindsus, in the unlikelyevent that we
need to be remindedof this obstinatefact, that even the seemingly
simplesocialstructureis fairlycomplex.All societiesfacethe functional
problem of articulatingthe componentsof numerousrole-sets,the
functionalproblemof managingsomehowto organizetheseso that an
appreciabledegreeof socialregularityobtains,sufficientto enablemost
peoplemostof the time to go abouttheirbusinessof sociallife, without
encounteringextremeconflictin their role-setsas the normal,rather
than the exceptional,state of-affairs.
If this relativelysimpleidea of role-sethas any theoreticalworth,it
shouldat the leastgeneratedistinctiveproblemsfor sociolopcaltheory,
whichcome to our attentiononly fromthe perspectiveaffordedby this
idea, or by one like it. This the notion of role-setdoes. It raisesthc
generalproblemof identifyingthe social mechanismswhich serve to
articulatethe expectationsof thosein the role-setso that the occupant
of a statusis confrontedwith less conflictthan would obtain if thesc
mechanismswere not at work.It is to these social mechanismsthat I
woulddevotethe restof this discussion.
Beforedoing so, I shouldlike to recapitulatethe argumentthusfar.
\Ve departfrom the simple idea, unlike that which has been rather
widelyassumed,that a singlestatusin societyinvolves,not a singlerole,
but an arrayof associatedroles,relatingthe status-occupant
to diverse
others. Secondly,we note that this structuralfact, expressedin the
termrole-set,givesrise to distinctiveanalyticalproblemsand to correspondingquestionsfor empiricalinquiry.The basic problem,which I
deal with here, is that of identifyingsocial mechanisms,that is, processes having designatedeffects for designatedparts of the social
III
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:07:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ROBERT K. MERTON
structure,whichserveto articulatethe role-setmorenearlythanwould
be the case, if these mechanismsdid not operate.Third, unlike the
problemscentredupon the notion of 'multipleroles',this one is concernedwithsocialarrangements
integratingthe expectationsof thosein
the role-set;it is not primarilyconcernedwith the familiarproblemof
howthe occupantof a statusmanagesto copewiththe many,andsometimesconflicting,demandsmade of him. It is thus a problemof social
structure,not an exercisein the no doubt importantbut different
problemof how individualshappento deal with the complexstructures
of relationsin which they find themselves.Finally,by way of setting
the analyticalproblem,the logic of analysisexhibitedin this case is
developedwhollyin termsofthe elementsof socialstructure,ratherthan
in termsof providingconcretehistoricaldescriptionof a socialsystem.
All this presupposes,of course,that there is always a potential for
diffieringand sometimesconflictingexpectationsof the conductappropriate to a status-occupantamong those in the role-set.The basic
sourceof this potentialfor conflict,I suggest and herewe are at one
withtheoristsas disparateas MarxandSpencer,Simmeland Parsonsis that the membersof a role-setare, to somedegree,apt to hold social
positionsdiffieringfromthat of the occupantof the statusin question.
To the extentthat theyarediverselylocatedin the socialstructure,they
are apt to haveinterestsand sentiments,values and moralexpectations
differingfrom those of the status-occupanthimself.This, after all, is
one of the principalassumptionsof Matxist theory, as it is of all
sociologicaltheory: social diffierentiation
generatesdistinct interests
among thosevariouslylocatedin the structureof the society.To continuewithone of ourexamples:the membersof a schoolboardareoften
in social and economicstrata which differ greatly from that of the
school teacher;and their interests,valuesand expectationsare consequentlyapt to diffier,to some extent, fromthoseof the teacher.The
teachermay thusbecomesubjectto confliciingrole-expectations
among
such members of his role-set as professionalcolleagues,influential
membersof the schoolboard,and,say,the Americanism
Committeeof
theAmericanLegion.Whatis an educationalessential
fortheonemaybe
judged as an educationfrill,or as downrightsubversion,by the other.
Thesedisparateand contradictoryevaluationsby membersof the roleset greatlycomplicatethe taskof copingwiththemall. The familiarcase
of the teachermaybe takenas paradigmaiic.Whatholdsconspicuously
for this one status holds, in varyingdegree,for the occupantsof aU
other statuseswho are structurallyrelated,throughtheir role-set,to
otherswho themselvesoccupydiversepositionsin society.
This, then, is the basicstructuralbasisfor potentialdisturbanceof a
role-set.And it Fivesrise, in turn, to a doublequestion:whichsocial
mechanisms,if any, operateto counteractsuch instabilityof role-sets
and, correlatively,underwhichcircumstances
do thesesocialmechanI I2
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:07:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ROLE-SET
isms fail to operate,with resultingconfusionand conflict.This is not
to say, of course,that role-setsdo invariablyoperatewith substantial
efficiency.We are concernedhere,not with a broadhistoncalgeneralization to the effect that social orderprevails,but with an analytical
problemof identifyingsocial mechanismswhich produce a greater
degreeof orderthan wouldobtain,if thesemechanismswerenot called
into play. Otherwiseput, it is theoreticalsociology,not history,which
is of interesthere.
SOCIAL MECHANISMS ARTICULATING
ROLE-SETS
I. Relative
importance
of various
statuses.
The firstof these mechanisms
derivesfromthe oft-noticedsociologicalcircumstancethat socialstructures designatecertain statusesas having greater importancethan
others.Familyandjob obligations,for example,are definedin American societyas having priorityover membershipin voluntaryassociations.8As a result,a particularrole-relationship
may be of peripheral
concernforsome;forothersit maybe central.Ourhypotheticalteacher,
for whom this statusholds primarysignificance,may by this circumstancebe betterable to withstandthe demandsfor conformitywith the
differingexpectationsof thosecomprisinghis role-set.For at leastsome
of these others,the relationshiphas only penpheralsignificance.This
does not mean,of course,that teachersare not vulnerableto demands
which are at oddswith theirown professionalcommitments.It means
only that when powerfulmembersof their rote-setare only little concernedwiththisparticularrelationship,teachersarelessvulnerablethan
they wouldotherwisebe (orsometimesare). Wereall thoseinvolvedin
the role-setequallyconcernedwith this relationship,the plight of the
teacherwould be considerablymoresorrowfulthan it often is. What
holds for the particularcase of the teacherpresumablyholds for the
occupantsof otherstatuses:the impactupon them of diverseexpectations amongthosein theirrole-setis mitigatedby the basicstuctural
factof differentials
of involvementin the relationshipamongthosecomprisingtheirrole-set.
2. Diffierences
ofpowerof thosein therole-set.
A secondpotentialmechanism forstabilizingthe role-setis foundin the distributionof powerand
authority.By power, in this connection,is meant the observedand
predictablecapacityto imposeone'swill in a socialaction,evenagainst
the oppositionof otherstakingpart in that action;by authority,the
culturallylegltimizedorganizationof power.
As a consequenceof social stratification,the membersof a role-set
are not apt to be equallypowerfulin shapingthe behaviourof statusoccupants.However,it does not followthat the individuals,group,or
stratumin the role-setwhich are separately
most powerfuluniformly
succeedin imposingtheirdemandsupon the status-occupant,
say, the
I I3
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:07:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ROBERT K. MERTON
teacher.Thiswouldbe so onlyin the circumstance
that the one member
of the role-sethas eithera monopolyof powerin the situationor outweighsthe combinedpowerof the others.Failingthis specialbut, of
course,not infrequent,situation,there may developcoalitions
of power
amongsomemembersof the role-setwhichenablethe status-occupants
to go theirown way. The familiarpatternof a balanceof poweris of
coursenot confinedto the conventionally-defined
politicalrealm. In
less easily visible form, it can be found in the workingsof role-sets
generally,as the boy who succeedsin havinghis father'sdecisionoffset
his mother'sopposeddecisionhas ample occasionto know. To the
extentthat conflictingpowersin his role-setneutralizeone another,the
status-occupant
has relativefreedomto proceedas he intendedin the
firstplace.
Thus, even in those potentiallyunstablestructuresin which the
membersof a role-sethold contrastingexpectationsof what the statusoccupantshoulddo, the latteris not whollyat the mercyof the most
powerfulamongthem. Moreover,the structuralvariationsof engagementin the role-structure,
which I have mentioned,can serveto reinforcethe relativepowerof the status-occupant.
For to the extentthat
powerfulmembersof his role-setare not centrallyconcernedwith this
particularrelationship,they will be the lessmotivatedto exercisetheir
potentialpowerto the full. Withinvaryingmarginsof his activity,the
status-occupant
will then be freeto act as he would.
Once again,to reiteratethat whichlendsitselfto misunderstanding,
I do not say that the status-occupant
subjectto conflictingexpectations
among membersof his role-setis in fact immuneto controlby them.
I suggest only that the power and authority-structure
of role-setsis
often such that he has a largermeasureof autonomythan he would
have had if this structureof competingpowerdid not obtain.
3. Insulation
of role-activities
fromobservability
bymembers
of therole-set.
Peopledo not engagein continuousinteractionwith all thosein their
role-sets.This is not an incidentalfact, to be ignoredbecausefamiliar,
but one integralto the operationof social structure.Interactionwith
eachmemberof a role-settendsto be variouslyinterttent. Thisfundamentalfact allowsforrole-behaviour
whichis at oddswiththe expectations of some in the role-setto proceedwithoutunduestress.For,as I
elsewheresuggestat some length,9effectivesocial controlpresupposes
social arrangementsmaking for the observabilityof behaviour.(By
observability,a conceptionwhich I have borrowedfFomSimmeland
tried to develop,I mean the extent to which social normsand roleperformances
can readilybecomeknownto othersin the socialsystem.
Thisis, I believe,a variablecrucialto structuralanalysis,a beliefwhich
I cannot,unhappily,undertaketo defendhere.)
To the extent that the socialstructureinsulatesthe individualfrom
having his activitiesknown to membersof his role-set,he is the less
I I4
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:07:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ROLE-SET
subjectto competingpressures.It shouldbe emphasizedthat we are
dealingherewithstructuralatTangements
for such insulation,not with
the fact that this or that personhappens
to conceal part of his rolebehaviourfromothers.The structuralfact is that socialstatusesdiffer
in the extent to which the conduct of those in them are regularly
insulatedfromobservabilityby membersof the role-set.Some have a
functionallysigtiificantinsulationof thiskind,as forexample,the status
of the universityteacher,insofaras normshold that what is saidin the
classroomis privileged.In this familiartype of case, the normclearly
has the function of maintainingsome degree of autonomyfor the
teacher.For if they wereforeversubjectto observationby all thosein
the role-set,with their often differingexpectations,teachersmight be
drivento teach not what they knowor what the evidenceleads them
to believe, but to teach what will placate the numerousand diverse
people who are ostensiblyconcernedwith 'the educationof youth'.
That this sometimesoccursis evident. But it would presumablybe
morefrequent,wereit not forthe relativeexemptionfromobservability
by all andsundrywhomaywishto imposetheirwillupontheinstructor.
Morebroadly,the conceptof privilegedinformationandconfidential
communicationin the professionshas this same functionof insulating
clientsfromobservabilityof their behaviourand beliefs by others in
their role-set. Were physiciansor priestsfree to tell all they have
learnedaboutthe privatelives of theirclients,the neededinformation
would not be forthcorningand they could not adequatelydischarge
their functions.More generally,if all the facts of one's conductsand
beliefs were freely available to anyone, social structurescould not
operate. What is often describedas 'the need for privacy' that is,
insulationof actions and beliefsfrom surveillanceby others- is the
individualcounterpartto the functionalrequirementof socialstructure
that some measureof exempiionfrom full observabilitybe provided.
'Privacy'is not only a personalpredilection,though it may be that,
too. It is also a requirementof social systemswhich must providefor
a measure,as theysayin France,of quant-a-soi, a portionofthe selfwhich
is kept apart,immunefromobservationby others.
Likeothersocialmechanisms,thisone of insulationfromfullobservability can, of course,miscarry.Werethe activitiesof the politicianor,
if one prefers,the statesman,fully removedfromthe publicspotlight,
socialcontrolof his behaviourwouldbe correspondingly
reduced.And
as we all know, anonymouspower anonymouslyextrciseddoes not
makefor a stablesocial structuremeetingthe valuesof a society.So,
too, the teacheror physicianwhois largelyinsulatedfromobservability
may fail to live up to the minimumreqviirements
of his status.All this
meansonly that somemeasureof observabilityof role-performance
by
membersof the role-setis required,if the indispensablesocialrequirementof accountabilityis to be met. This statementdoes not contradict
I I5
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:07:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ROBERT K. MERTON
an earlierstatementto the effectthat somemeasureof insulationfrom
observabilityis alsorequiredfor the effectiveoperationof socialstructures. Instead,the two statements,taken in conjunction,imply that
thereis an optimumzoneof observability,difficultto identifyin precise
terms and doubtlessvaryingfor differentsocial statuses,which will
simultaneouslymake both for accountabilitry
and for substantial
autonomy,ratherthan for a frightenedacquiescencewith the distribution of powerwhichhappens,at a particularmoment,to obtainin the
role-set.
4. Observability
of conpZicting
demands
by members
of a tole-set.This
mechatiismis impliedby what has been said and thereforeneedsonly
passingcommenthere.As long as membersof the role-setare happily
ignorantthat theirdemandsuponthe occupantsof a statusare incompatible,eachmembermaypresshisowncase.The patternis thenmany
againstone. But when it becomesplain that the demandsof some are
in full contradictionwith the demandsof others,it becomes,in part,
the task of membersof the role-set,rather than that of the statusoccupant,to resolvethesecontradictions,eitherby a strugglefor overridingpoweror by some degreeof compromlse.
In such circumstances,the status-occupant
subjectedto conflicting
demandsoften becomescast in the role of the tediusgaudens,
the third
(or moreoften, the nth)partywho drawsadvantagefromthe conflict
of the others.Originallyat the focusof the conflict,he can virtually
become a bystanderwhose functionit is to highlightthe conflicting
demandsbeingmadeby membersof his role-set.It becomesa problem
for them, ratherthan for him, to resolvetheircontradictorydemands.
At the least,this servesto makeevidentthat it is not wilfulmisfesance
on his part whichkeepshim fromconformingto all the contradictory
expectationsimposedupon him.l° When most effective,this servesto
articulatethe expectationsof those in the role-setbeyond a degree
whichwouldoccur,if thismechanismof makingcontradictory
expectationsmanifestwerenot at work.
5. Mutualsocialsuppodamong
status-occupants.
Whateverhe maybelieve
to the contrary,the occupantof a socialstatusis not alone. The very
fact that he is placedin a social positionmeansthat there are others
moreor lesslike-circumstanced.
To this extent,the actualor potential
experienceof facinga conflictof expectationsamongmembersof the
role-setis variouslycommonto all occupantsof the status.The particular personssubjectto theseconflictsneed not, therefore,meet them as
whollyprivateproblemswhich must be coped with in whollyprivate
fashion.
It is thisfamiliarand fundamentalfact of socialstructure,of course,
which is the basis for those in the same social status formingthe
associationsinterrnediateto the individualand the largersocietyin a
pluralisticsystem.These orgaIiizations
constitutea structuralresponse
I I6
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:07:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ROLE-SET
to the problemsof copingwith the (potentiallyor actually)conflicting
demandsby thosein the role-setsof the status.ll Whateverthe intent,
these constitutesocialformationsservingto counterthe powerof the
role-set;of being, not merelyamenableto its demands,but of helping
to shape them. Such organizations so familiara part of the social
landscapeof differentiatedsocieties-also develop normativesystems
which are designedto anticipateand therebyto mitigatesuch conflictingexpectationsThey providesocialsupportto the individualsin
the statusunderattack.They minimizethe need for theirimprourising
personaladjustmentsto patternedtypes of conflictingexpectations.
Emergingcodes which state in advancewhat the socially-supported
conductof the status-occupant
shouldbe, alsoservethissocialfunction.
Thisfunctionbecomesall the moresignificantin the structuralcircumstanceswhen status-occupants
are highlyvulnerableto pressuresfrom
their role-setbecausethey are relativelyisolatedfrom one another.
Thus,thousandsof librarianssparselydistributedamongthe townsand
villagesof Americaand not infrequentlysubjectto censorialpressures
receivedstrongsupportfromthe code on censorshipdevelopedby the
American Library Association.l2This only illustratesthe general
mechanismswherebystatus-peers
curbthe pressuresexerteduponthem
individuallyby drawingupontheorganizational
andnormativesupport
of theirpeers.
6. Abridging
therole-set.
Thereis, of course,a limitingcasein the modes
of copingwithincompatibledemandsby the role-set.Role-relationsare
brokenoff, leavinga greaterconsensusof role-expectations
amongthose
who remain.But this modeof adaptationby amputatingthe role-setis
possibleonly underspecialand limitedconditions.It can be effectively
utilizedonly in thosecircumstances
whereit is still possiblefor statusoccupantsto performtheir other roles, without the supportof those
with whom they have discontinuedrelations.It presupposesthat the
socialstructureprovidesthisoption.By and large,however,thisoption
is infrequentand lited, since the compositionof the role-set is
ordinarilynot a matterof personalchoice but a matterof the social
organizationin which the status is embedded.More typically, the
individualgoes, and the socialstructureremains.
RESIDUAL CONFLICT IN THE ROLE-SET
Doubtless,these are only some of the mechanismswhich serve to
articulatethe expectationsof thosein the role-set.Furtherinquirywill
uncoverothers,just as it will probablymodifythe precedingaccount
of thosewe have provisionallyidentified.But, howevermuchthe substancemay change,I believethat the logic of the analysiswill remain
largelyintact. This can be brieflyrecapitulated.
First,it is assumedthat each socialstatushas its organizedcomplement of role-relationships
which can be thoughtof as comprisinga
I I7
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:07:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ix8
ROBERT K. MERTON
role-set.Second,relationshipshold not only the betweenoccupantof
the particularstatus and each memberof the role-set,but always
potentiallyand often actually,betweenmembersof the role-setitself.
Third,to the extentthat membersof the role-setthemselveshold substantially differingstatuses,they will tend to have some differing
expectations(moraland actuarial)of the conductappropriatefor the
status-occupant.Fourth,this gives rise to the sociologocalproblemof
how their diverseexpectationsbecomesufficientlyarficulatedfor the
status-structure
and the role-structureto operatewith a modicumof
effectiveness.Fifth, inadequatearticulationof these role-expectations
tendsto call one or moresocialmechanismsinto play, whichserveto
reducethe extentof patternedconflictbelowthe level whichwouldbe
involvedif thesemechanismswerenot at work.
And now, sixth, finally and importandy,even when these (and
probablyother)mechatiismsare operating,they may not, in pariicular
cases,provesufficientto reducethe conflictof expectationsbelow the
level requiredfor the social structureto operate with substantial
effectiveness.This residualconflictwithinthe role-setmay be enough
to interferemateriallywith the effectiveperformanceof roles by the
occupantof the statusin question.Indeed,it may weIl turn out that
this conditionis the mostfrequentone role-systems
operatingat considerablyless than full efficiency.Without trying to draw tempting
analogieswith other types of systems,I suggestonly that this is not
unlikethe caseof engineswhichcannotfullyutilizeheat energy.If the
analogylacks force, it may neverthelesshave the merit of excluding
the utopianfigmentof a perfectlyeffectivesocialsystem.
We do not yet knowsomeof the reqliirements
for fullerardculation
of the relationsbetweenthe occupantof a statusand membersof his
role-set,on the one hand, and for fullerarticuladonof the valuesand
expectationsamongthosecomprisingthe role-set,on the other.As we
have seen, even those requirementswhich can now be identifiedare
not readilysatisfied,withoutfault,in socialsystems.To the extentthat
they are not, socialsystemsare forcedto limp alonewith that measure
of ineffectivenessand inefficiencywhichis often acceptedbecausethe
realisticprospectof decidedimprovementseemsso remoteas sometimes
not to be visibleat all.
NOTES
1 Ihe author was C. R. Henderson, in RivistaItalauta
di Sociologsa,
I900, i,
the social meliorist and professorof I27 ff., but comingto my attentiononly
sociologyin the Universityof Chicago: afterit was repnntedas an appendixto
'Business men and social theorists', Armand Cuvillers' Ou va la soaologsc.
Arrcan iournalof Sociology,
I895-96, fransisc? (Paris: Librairie Marcel
x, 3857, at 389
RiviEreet (:ie, I953), I78-208.
' E:mileDurkheim,'La sociologie et
3 L. J. Hendersonmade thesematterson domainescientifique',firstpublished of-factobsetvationssome time ago, but,
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:07:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ROLE-SET
I x9
evidentas theyare, they oftendropfrom bridge, Mass.: Harvard University
view. See his comparisonbetween the Press,I957).
8 BernardBarberhas drawn out the
characterof orgaxiicchemistryand of
sociology, in Parcto'sGcntralSocwlogy implicationsof this structuralfact in his
(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversity study of voluntaryassociations;see his
Press,I 935), I o78.
'Participation and mass apathy in
' On the generalissue,see the obser- associations',in A. W. Gouldner,ed.,
vations of Ernest Nagel. 'Despite the Studzes
in Lcadership
(New York:Harper
variability and instability of social & Brothers,x950), 477-504, especially
phenomena,they may neverthelessbe at 486 ff.
subsumableundera commontheory. . .
' RobertK. Merton,SocialNcoy and
thoughwhetherthisis morethana fancy Social Stmsturc(Glencoe, Illinois: The
is at presentany man'sguess.But some Free Press, rev. ed., in press), 336-56.
things are fairly clear. If a comprehen- This discussionof role-set draws upon
sive socialtheoryis everachieved,it will one part of ChapterIX, 'Continuitiesin
not be a theoryof historicaldevelopment, the Theory of Reference Groups and
accordingto which societiesand institu- SocialStructures',368 84.
10See the observationsby WilliamG.
tions succeedone anotherin a seriesof
inevitablechanges.Thosewho are seek- Carr, the executive secretary of the
ing a comprehensivesocial theory by NationalEducationAssociation,who has
chartingthe rise and declineof civiliza- summarized some of the conflicting
tions, are looking for it in the wrong pressuresexertedupon school curricula
place.The theorywill undoubtedlyhave by voluntaryorganizations,such as the
to be highlyabstract,if it is to cut across AmericanLegion,the Associationfor the
the actualculturaldifferencesin human United Nations, the National Safety
behaviour.Its concept will have to be Council,the BetterBusinessBureau,the
apparently remote from the familiar AmericanFederationof Labour,and the
and obvious traits found in any one Daughtersof the AmericanRevolution.
society; its articulationwill involve the His summarymay serve through conuse of novelalgorithmictechniques;and crete example to indicatethe extent of
its applicationto concretematerialswill competingexpectationsamong those in
require special training of high order. the complex role-set of school superBut aboveall, it will have to be a theory intendentsand local schoolboardsin as
for which a method of evaluatingevi- differentiateda society as our own.
dence mut be availablewhichdoes not Sometimes, Mr. Carr reports, these
dependon the vagariesof specialinsights voluntary organizations 'speak their
and privateintuitions.It will have to be collective opixiionstemperately,somea theorywhich, in its methodof articu- timesscurrilously,but alwaysinsistently.
lating its concepts and evaluating its They organize contests, drives, collecevidence, will be continuow with the tions, exhibits, special days, special
theoriesof the naturalsciences.''Prob- weeks, and anniversariesthat run all
le of concept and theory formation year long.
in the socialsciences',in Sci4nsc,
Languagc, 'They demandthat the publicschools
and HumanRights. Proceedingsof the give more attention to Little League
American Philosophical Association, baseball, first aid, mental hygiene,
Eastern Division, Volume I (Phila- speech correction,Spanish in the first
delphia: University of Pennsylvania grade, military preparedness, international understanding,modernmusic,
Press,I952), 4343, at 63.
6 In writing of Keyncs's theories, world history, American history, and
R. F. Harrodcharacterizeseconomicsin local history, geography and homemuch these terms. Nc Life of John malcing,Canadaand SouthAmerica,the
MaynardMCgtncs
(Macrrlillan,London, Arabsand thc Israeli,the Turksand the
I95I), 462-3Greeks,ChristopherColumbusand Leif
' T. H. Marshall, 'A note on Ericsson,Robert E. Lee and Woodrow
"status"', in K. M. Kapadia (editor), Wilson,nutrition,care of the teeth, frec
Professor
Ghuryc
Fclstation Volurnc
(Bom- enterprise,labour relations,cancerprevention, human relationships, atomic
bay: PopularBookDepot, n.d.), I I-I9.
7 R. K. Merton, P. L. Kendall, and energy, the use of firearms,the ConG. G. Reader, editors, Nc Studunt- stitution,tobacco,temperance,kindness
Physician: Introductory
Studies in tfw to animals, Esperanto,the 3 R's, the
Sociologyof Medical Edacation(Cam- 3 C's and the 4 F's, use of the typewriter
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:07:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I20
ROBERT K. MERTON
and legible penmanship,moral values,
physical fitness, ethical concepts, civil
defence, religious literacy, thrift, law
observance,consumer education, narcotics, mathematics,dramatics,physics,
ceramics,and (that latest of all educationaldiscoveries)phonics.
'Each of these groups is anxious to
avoid overloadingthe curriculum.All
any of them askis that the non-essentials
be droppedin orderto get theirmaterial
in. Most of them insistthat they do not
want a special coursthey just want
their ideas to permeatethe entire daily
programme.Every one of them proclaims a firm belief in local control of
educationand an apprehensivehatredof
nationalcontrol.
'Nevertheless,if their national orgaxiizationprogrammein education is
not adoptedforthwith,manyof themuse
the pressureof the press,the radianceof
the radio, and all the props of propaganda to bypass their elected school
board.'An addressat the inauguration
of Hollis Leland Caswell, Teachers
College, ColumbiaUniversity,November 2I-2, I955, IO.
11In this context, see the acute
analysisof the formationof the National
Union of Teachersby AsherTropp, Nc
School Teachers(London: Heinemann,
I 957).
19See R. P. McKeon, R. K. Merton
and W. Gellhorn, Freedomto Rcad
(I957).
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:07:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions