ON THE BALANCE OF A SET OF RANKS
M orris Z e ld it c h , J r .
S tan ford U n iv e r s ity
May, 1S64
ТЯ*7
Bo Anderson
Stan ford U n iv e r s ity
ON THE BALANCE OF A SET OF RANKS
1.
I n tr o d u c tio n .
The purpose o f t h is paper i s to d ev elo p a th eo ry o f the b alan ce o f
a s e t o f ran k s.
A th eo ry o f rank b alan ce i s concerned w ith s it u a t io n s
in which a c t o r s , s t a t u s e s , or c o l l e c t i v e s are ranked in s e v e r a l d if f e r e n t
ways which can be regarded as in c o n s i s t e n t ‫־‬
Some exam ples a re:
the
Negro p r o f e s s io n a l, the w ea lth y Jew, the im poverished B oston Brahmin,
the $5,0 0 0 a year Harvard Ph»D.
I t i s w id e ly supposed th a t d is c r e p a n c ie s
o f t h is kind are a sou rce o f s t r a in and th a t in d iv id u a ls w i l l attem pt to
b rin g t h e ir v a rio u s ranks in t o l i n e ,
1 ,1 ‫־‬
Homans6 Ledger C le r k s .
An i l l u s t r a t i o n o f t h is p ro cess i s rep o rted by Homans (1 9 5 3 , 1957,
1961) .
The s t a t u s e s " led g er c lerk " and "cash p o ste r" in th e b i l l i n g
o f f i c e o f a p u b lic u t i l i t y are ev a lu a te d by such c r i t e r i a as s k i l l , r e ­
s p o n s i b i l i t y , v a r i e t y , incom e, autonomy, and s e n io r it y »
The led g er c le r k
i s regarded by a l l c le r k s in the o f f i c e as more s k i l l e d , more r e s p o n s ib le ,
more s e n io r , more autonomous, and in v o lv in g more v a r ie t y than cash p o s te r .
For v a rio u s h i s t o r i c a l rea so n s the two jo b s are
eq u al in income„
That
the le d g e r c le r k s are u p set by t h is i s shown in t h e ir com p lain ts to t h e ir
u n io n , a g it a t i n g fo r in c r e a se d w a g es, and in t h e ir h o s t i l i t y to mangement.
Cash p o s t e r s , furth erm ore, som etim es r e fu s e what the o f f i c e regards a s
a "promotion" ra th e r than become led g er c l e r k ‫־‬
The "address f i l e cle r k " i s a th ir d s t a t u s in the b i l l i n g o f f i c e ,
■2 ‫־‬
lower than cash p o s te r on a l l c r i t e r i a by which s t a t u s e s in the o f f i c e
are ranked.
Because th ey are a t the bottom o f the o f f i c e h ier a rch y the
ad d ress f i l e c le r k s are n ot s a t i s f i e d w ith t h e ir j o b s , but th ey do not
f e e l u n ju s tly tr e a te d and are n ot as h o s t i l e towards management as the
led g er c le r k s .
1 *2 •
L e n s k i's c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n problem .
A second i l l u s t r a t i o n i s rep o rted by L eneki (1 9 5 4 , 1 9 5 5 ).
A sample
o f resp on d en ts in D e tr o it i s ordered w ith r e s p e c t to o c c u p a tio n a l p r e s t ig e ,
incom e, e d u c a tio n , and e t h n i c i t y .
ranks i s computed.
An in d ex o f d is c r e p a n c ie s among th ese
Among resp on d en ts o f ap p roxim ately the same average
so cio -eco n o m ic l e v e l , th o se w ith the g r e a t e s t d is c r e p a n c ie s are th e most
" lib e r a l" in so cio -eco n o m ic a t t i t u d e s , the most l i k e l y to v o te D em ocratic,
th e l e a s t l i k e l y to be s o c i a b l e ‫ ״‬and th e most l i k e l y to p a r t ic ip a t e in
community a s s o c ia t io n s fo r " u t ilit a r ia n " purposes (such a s " g e ttin g a h ea d " ).
L enski in t e r p r e t s " lib e r a lis m ” a s a d e s ir e to change th e s o c i a l s tr u c tu r e ,
and low s o c i a b i l i t y a s w ithdraw al from u p s e ttin g s i t u a t i o n s .
The respondents
w ith no d is c r e p a n c ie s in rank are c a lle d " c r y s t a lli z e d " ‫־‬
13‫־‬.
D e f in it io n o f Problem .
In g e n e r a l such s it u a t io n s have the fo llo w in g c h a r a c t e r is t ic s :
1)
A c to r s , s t a t u s e s , c o l l e c t i v e s , or o th e r elem en ts o f a s o c i a l
system S may be ordered in k d i s t i n c t ways a cco rd in g to c r i t e r i a
V v*°v
-3 -
2)
Stan ding on a c r i t e r io n r , i s an e v a lu a te d c h a r a c t e r is t ic in
S . T his means th a t members o f S, are d i f f e r e n t i a l l y ev a lu a ted
in d ir e c t p ro p o rtio n to. t h e ir rank on r^ , and p o s s e s s io n o f
p o s i t i v e l y e v a lu a te d sta n d in g on jr. i s seen to be d e s ir a b le
in S .
1
3)
A member o f
who i s ordered in the same way w ith r e s p e c t to
each o f h is k rankings i s s a id to be b a la n ced ; o th erw ise imb a la n c e d ‫״‬
One i s in t e r e s t e d in the b eh avior o f a c to r s w ith im balanced ranks
and o f s o c i a l system s c o n ta in in g such a c t o r s .
V arious synonyms fo r b alan ce are ,,con gru en ce" , " c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n ” ,
" c o n siste n c y " , any o f which may be p r e fix e d by e i t h e r " s ta tu s " , in the
s c a la r s e n s e , or "rank".
A synonym fo r " r e sto r in g b alance" i s " e q u i l i -
b ra tio n " o f ran k s. I n t e r e s t in rank b alan ce g o es back a t l e a s t to Weber
( s e e , fo r exam ple, Gerth and M i l l s , 1946, c h . v i i ) .
A fundam ental paper
on the s u b je c t by B en oit-S m u llyan appeared in 1944 and s in c e th a t time
a number o f in v e s t ig a t io n s have been rep o rted in w hich d is c r e p a n c ie s in
ranks have been lin k e d to o b serv a b le p r o c e sse s ran gin g from p o l i t i c a l
extrem ism (o f both th e r ig h t ( L ip s e t , 19
) and l e f t (B arb er, 19
))
to p sychosom atic symptoms (J a ck so n , 1 9 6 2 ).
D esp ite a long h is t o r y o f g r e a t i n t e r e s t in the problem the a v a ila b le
ev id en ce o n ly w eakly con firm s the c e n t r a l assum ption th a t im balanced ranks
gen era te s t r a in and e f f o r t s to r e s to r e b alance»
C o n tra d icto ry r e s u lt s
have been o b ta in e d , su p p osed ly p o s it iv e r e s u l t s are som etim es q u ite i n ­
c o n c lu s iv e , and i t i s o f t e n n e c e ssa r y to in v e n t ad hoc p r in c ip le s to e x ­
p la in p e c u lia r r e s u lt s in p a r tic u la r ca ses«
T his i s due l e s s to the fa c t
th a t the b alan ce assum ption i s f a l s e , than to the in com p lete and very
-4 -
vague form u lation o f th e th e o r y ‫־‬
I t s assum ptions have n ot been made
e x p l i c i t , the scop e o f the th eo ry has n o t been c l e a r l y d e fin e d , s e v e r a l
d i s t i n c t p r o c e s s e s have been g o in g under th e same name3 and many p o r tio n s
o f the th e o r y ‫ ־ ־‬such as the p o s s ib le resp on se p r o c e s s e s --h a v e n ot been
thought out a t a l l .
In the p resen t paper what i s accom plished i s o n ly a p a r t ia l formu­
la t io n o f a th eory in p r o g r e s s .
We do not even tr y to e x p la in e v e r y th in g
th a t has gone under the name o f rank b a la n c e , but even w ith in the scope
o f what we do in ten d to e x p la in , the th eo ry i s not com plete«
i s narrow ly co n fin ed in scope to e v a lu a t io n s .
The th eory
I f the fo rm u la tio n we su g­
g e s t i s c o r r e c t , resp on se to im balanced e v a lu a tio n s depends on a com parison
p rocess.
But com parison p r o c e sse s are not y e t th orou gh ly u n d ersto o d .
There are a l s o e v id e n t ly more o b serv a b le resp o n se p r o c e s s e s than have
u s u a lly been m entioned in " te s tin g " the th e o r y , but we cannot y e t t r e a t
them e x h a u s t iv e ly .
I f we are asked to j u s t i f y such a p a r t ia l fo rm u la tio n ,
i t s p r in c ip a l advantage i s th a t i t s gaps p o in t to the major u n solved prob­
lems o f the th eo ry more c l e a r ly than no fo rm u la tio n a t a l l .
I t i s th e r e ­
fore a more u s e f u l guide to fu r th e r work.
2•
The S t r a t i f i c a t i o n o f S .
The s t r a t i f i c a t i o n o f a s o c i a l system S can be thought o f in the
fo llo w in g way:
the elem en ts o f Í5 (u^, fo r u n it s ) each have some g en era l
-5■
sta n d in g or o v e r a ll e v a lu a tio n in S (denoted R .) which i s determ ined by
—
“i
some s e t o f c r i t e r i a
(r ^ , r ? , . . . .
).
im portance, a s e t o f w e ig h ts (w ^
S in ce the c r i t e r i a may vary in
‫• •* ־‬
d eterm in es how much each
c r i t e r io n c o n tr ib u te s to th e v a lu e o f R_. .
J u s t how th e w eigh ted v a lu e s
are added up i s d i f f i c u l t to s a y , but c e r t a in ly
c r e a sin g fu n c tio n o f them.
lin e a r fu n c tio n o f
2 •I*
A ssu m p tion .
.. .
i s a m o n o to n ica lly i n ­
For s im p lic it y assume th a t R^ i s in f a c t a
For any g iv e n u. we have:
SLi E q
+
~2‫־״‬i 2
+
*‫ ' ־‬+
~k% k
** ~L
There w i l l be an e x p r e s s io n lik e 2 .1 fo r each elem en t in
and the
whole s e t o f such e x p r e s s io n s d e s c r ib e s the system o f s t r a t i f i c a t i o n o f
¡3 a s a w h o le.
Assum ption 2 .1 sa y s o n ly th a t o v e r a ll sta n d in g i s determ ined by
adding w eigh ted sta n d in g s on v a rio u s c r i t e r i a r e le v a n t in S .
What i s im­
p ortan t about i t i s n ot the lin e a r assu m p tio n , which we do not even b e li e v e ,
but the f a c t th a t i t d e f in e s « h a t i s r e le v a n t and what i s n o t .
I f sta n d ­
ing on a g iv e n c r i t e r io n makes no d if f e r e n c e to o v e r a ll sta n d in g in S i t
i s n ot an e v a lu a t io n , or rank, in S .
2 .2 .
D e f i n i t i o n . A rank i s any v alu e on any c r it e r io n » w it h non­
zero w eig h t in £ or any fu n c tio n o f a com bination o f such
v a lu e s .
In order to ap p ly the th eory form ulated here one must know, as a
‫־‬6*
r e s u lt o f o b se r v a tio n s o f S { what the r e le v a n t e v a lu a tio n s are» E v a lu a tio n s
which are th e o n ly in t e r p r e t a t io n o f r^ g iv e n in t h i s p ap er, o b v io u sly
change from c u ltu r e to c u ltu r e so th a t some ranks n!ay e x i s t in one s o c ia l
system th a t do not e x i s t in an oth er system¡, and th e r e l a t i v e im portance
o f any rank depends on the stand ard s o f p a r t ic u la r c u l t u r e s .
C le a r ly
a l s o , from 2 ,2 i t fo llo w s th a t the th eo ry does n o t d e s c r ib e b eh a v io r o f
any elem en t ranked by c r i t e r i a n ot s i g n i f i c a n t to members o f S .
X
EXAMPLE 2 .1 : Suppose the p r e s t ig e o f an a c to r in a cotrsnimity to be
determ ined e n t i r e l y by o ccu p a tio n and e t h n i c i t y , w ith o ccu p a tio n
tw ice a s im portant a s e t h n i c i t y . For con ven ien ce th in k o f w eig h ts
a s adding to 1 ‫־‬Q0, so th a t w1 (o ccu p a tio n ) 667. ‫ ־‬and w? ( e t h n ic i t y ) =
.333« John Doe i s a Jew ish d o cto r who has more 5<? stamps in h is
house than any o th er member o f the cotraaunity. To make sta n d in g s on
d if f e r e n t c r i t e r i a eoromensurabie tran sform them to p e r c e n t ile sco res»
John Doe i s in th e 98th p e r c e n t ile o f o c c u p a tio n a l p r e s t ig e sc o r e s
in S , the 10th p e r c e n t ile o f e t h n i c i t y s c o r e s , and 100th p e r c e n t ile
fo r the number o f 5c stamps he owfis. H is o v e r a ll sta n d in g i s
) ‫ ־‬667 ( ) 98 ( + ) ‫ ־‬333 ( ) 10 ( + ) 0 ‫־‬0 0 ( ) 100 ( ‫ ־־‬6 9 .8
The d e s c r ip t io n o f the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n o f S a s a w hole can be con­
v e n ie n t ly arranged so th a t th ere are th r e e d i s t i n c t a rra y s:
1) a m atrix
o f the v a lu e s o f each elem en t on each c r i t e r io n ; 2) a v e c to r o f the w eig h ts
3) a v e c to r o f the v a lu e s o f R ..
" ‫׳‬I
M atrix methods are not employed in the
p resen t th eo ry and th e m atrix r e p r e s e n ta tio n i s a lm o st e n t i r e l y fo r v is u a l
p u rp o se s‫־‬
In p a r t ic u la r , in th e p resen t s t a t e o f th e a r t o f measurement
1 Because o f t h i s in t e r p r e t a t io n such phenomena a s power, p r o p erty ,
money, a u t h o r it y , in f lu e n c e , and so o n , are w ith in i t s scope o n ly to th e
degree th a t th ey are b a ses o f e v a lu a tio n in
Weber and 3 e n o it ‫ ־‬Sm ullyan,
a s w e ll a s o t h e r s , b e lie v e d th a t i f a stratum o f a c to r s w e© w ea lth y they
e v e n tu a lly c o u ld , u sin g w ea lth a s a r e s o u r c e , a cq u ire power. T his i s
c a lle d a c o n v ersio n p ro cess« There may w e ll be such a ten d en cy , and i f so
i t i s im p o rta n t, but i t i s n ot d escrib ed in th e p resen t th e o r y . Nor does
the p resen t th eo ry e i t h e r p r e d ic t or r u le out th e e x is t e n c e o f "power
e l i t e s ' 5» C onversion p r o c e s s e s w i l l be examined in a sep a ra te p u b lic a tio n .
o f s t r a t i f i c a t i o n the numbers used in i l l u s t r a t i o n s are a r b it r a r y .
With
such q u a lif i c a t io n s in mind we car* v is u a li z e o v e r a ll sta n d in g s in S a s
a product o f the m a trix o f v a lu e s o f each elem en t on each c r i t e r io n p o s t ­
m u ltip lie d by the v e c to r o f w e ig h t s .
EXAMPLE 2 ,2 : Two o th er a c t o r s in John D oe’s community are M ichael
Jones and Edward Sm ith, an A nglo-Saxon garage m echanic and Negro
lawyer r e s p e c t i v e ly . The s t r a t i f i c a t i o n o f S a s a w hole i s an
a rra y o f a l l i t s a c t o r s ' e v a lu a t io n s , in c lu d in g J cn es and Sm ith,
which would lo o k som ething li k e :
O ccu p ation al
rank
John Doe
M ichael
Jones
Edward
Smith
E th n ic
rank
~98
10
6
©
6
A
30
98
&
&
o
a
O v era ll
E v a lu a tio n s
W eights
.99
O ccupation
.667
‫־‬
o>
X
E t h n ic it y
3»S**‫־‬
•»M
.333
.53
<•
4
01
.63
«
I
«
O
è
•
95
Somewhat e l i p t i c a l l y , we w i l l r e f e r to the f i r s t m a trix a s the
s t r a t i f i c a t i o n m atrix o f S , denoted S * .
3«
The Balance o f a s e t o f ra n k s.
B a la n ce, c o n s is t e n c y , con gru en ce, c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n , o r any s im ila r
co n cep tio n means rou gh ly th a t a s e t o f ranks o f th e same elem en t are
" a ll in l i n e ."
In ord er to a v o id d i f f i c u l t problems o f m easuring d is ta n c e s
betw een p o in ts on a g iv e n dim ension o f ran k , or in making d i s t i n c e s in
some way commensurable in comparing d im en sio n s, we w i l l th in k o f a tr a n s form ation o f S_* in which o n ly o r d in a l p o s it io n i s shown.
In th a t ca se
-8 -
th e id ea o f b alan ce or c o n s is te n c y i s sim p ly the " lik e order" o f the v a lu es
fo r a g iv e n elem en t o f S ,
The li k e ord er o f the e n t r ie s o f S* means th a t
ev ery e n tr y in a g iv e n row i s g r e a te r th a n , th e same a s , or l e s s than every
elem en t in an oth er row w ith w hich i t i s compared.
3 .1 . D e f i n i t i o n . Ranks in the i t h row o f S* are b alan ced i f and
o n ly i f ev ery e n tr y in th e i t h row i s g r e a te r th a n , the same
a s , or l e s s than each corresp on d in g e n tr y in any o th e r row„
EXAMPLE 3 .1 : Suppose th a t John Doe, M ichael J o n e s , and Edward
Smith were the o n ly a c to r s in S . The m a trix S* in example 2 .2
cou ld be transform ed a s fo llo w s :
O ccupation E t h n ic it y
Doe
1
2
2
3
S* = Smith
Jones
3
1
No row o f the m a trix i s b a la n ced . Had th e f i r s t row been 1 , 1 , the
second 2 , 2 , and the th ir d 3 , 3 , each row would have been b a la n ced .
3 2 ‫־‬. D e f i n i t i o n . The s t r a t i f i c a t i o n m atrix S* i s b alan ced i f and
o n ly i f ev ery row in i t i s b a la n ced .
The fundam ental assum ptions made in v i r t u a l l y a l l v e r s io n s o f the
th eory o f rank balan ce are th a t im balanced ranks are u n sta b le and th a t
th ey gen era te t e n s io n .
I t i s b ecause th e se assum ptions are t y p ic a l o f
"balance" t h e o r ie s more g e n e r a lly th a t we have a lt e r e d the term in ology
in t h is f i e l d by adding y e t an oth er la b e l (C f. B erg er, Cohen, S n e l l , and
Z e ld it c h , 1962; H e id er, 1944, 1946, and 195G).
3 .3 . A ssum ption. Balanced ranks are s t a b l e .
A ssum ption. Imbalanced ranks tend to change u n t i l th ey become
b a la n ced .
-
3 .5 . A ssum ption.
9
•
Imbalanced ranks produce a s t a t e o f t e n s io n ‫־‬
A b alan ce th eo ry or ranks does not sa y th a t a l l or most or even any
imbalanced rank system e v e n tu a lly w i l l be balanced»
In e m p ir ic a l s o c i a l
system s o th er s o c i a l f a c t o r s may combine to p reven t b a la n ce from o c c u r r in g ‫־‬
The th eo ry does s a y , how ever, th a t in such c a s e s te n s io n w i l l r e s u l t . As
a consequence o f 3«5 a system in which change o f im balanced ranks i s
b lock ed b u ild s up te n s io n and the p ro cess o f ch an ge, where i t o c c u r s , i s
accompanied by te n s io n u n t i l change i s co m p le te ‫־‬
te n s io n v a r ie s a g r e a t d e a l ‫־‬
The a c t u a l form o f the
I t can be d escrib ed p h en o m en o lo g ica lly as
a f e e l in g o f " in j u s t ic e " , or " g u ilt " , or "embarassment", or " resen tm en t" ‫־‬
Anger and h o s t i l i t y o f t e n c o lo r th ese em o tio n s.
Sometimes the a s s o c ia te d
em otions are d ir e c t e d , in th e sen se th a t t h e ir t a r g e t i s some s t a t e o f
a f f a i r s th a t i s seen to be r e s p o n s ib le fo r im balance»
Sometimes th ey are
fr e e f lo a t i n g and become d is p la c e d in s c a p e -g c a t r e a c tio n s or p o s s ib ly
even psychosom atic symptoms.
Very l i t t l e i s known about the c o n d itio n s
under which th e se d if f e r e n t kinds o f em otions occur or how th ey a f f e c t
b e h a v io r ‫־‬
(For an e x c e lle n t d is c u s s io n o f resentm ent se e S c h e le r , 1 9 6 1 )‫־‬
The p a r tic u la r ways in which change i s brought about a ls o vary a g rea t
d e a l.
4*
Two Boundary C o n d itio n s .
To s im p lif y developm ent o f the th eo ry we make th e fo H a v in g two
‫ ־‬10
a ssu m p tio n s, w ith o u t w hich n o th in g in th e p r e se n t fo rm u la tio n would be
tru e:
4■•!• A ssum ption. Members o f S a gree on the w e ig h ts to be g iv e n
c r i t e r i a by which th ey e v a lu a te th em selv es and o th ers»
4 .2 . A ssum ption. A member o f S has an o v e r a ll e v a lu a tio n o f h im s e lf
th a t i s not l e s s p o s it iv e than the e v a lu a tio n s o th e r s have o f
him .
The im port o f the f i r s t assum ption i s o b v io u s.
The p o in t o f the
second i s th a t a person m ight n ot f e e l d istu rb ed a t r e c e iv i n g , l e t us s a y ,
much l e s s pay than h is o c c u p a tio n a l p r e s t ig e e n t i t l e s him to i f he has
a v ery low o p in io n o f h im s e lf .
He m ight regard i t a s j u s t th a t o th e r s
t r e a t him in a way th a t norm ally would be regarded a s u n ju s t.
Both boundary c o n d itio n s would be r e la x e d in a more com prehensive
developm ent o f th e th eory o f rank b a la n c e , and vie regard both a s tem porary.
A com pleted th eo ry would c o n sid e r what con sequences cou ld be ex p ected in
a system th a t was irnbalanced but had no
con sen su s about the r e l a t iv e im­
p ortance o f ranks 3 or what resp on se to im balance cou ld be ex p ected from
a c to r s who d ep recated th em selv es even more than d id o t h e r s .
5‫־‬
The com parison p r o c e s s .
I f Robinson Crusoe had been a garage m echanic making $ 4 0 ,000 a year
would he have known th a t he was b ein g overpaid?
$1,00 0 would he have known he was underpaid?
I f he had been paid
S a t is f a c t io n w ith a g iv e n
-11 -
rank i s a r e l a t i v e s a t i s f a c t i o n (or d e p r iv a tio n ) e s t a b lis h e d by com parison
w ith o th e r s li k e o n e s e lf (Durkheim, 18
).
But i f th a t i s s o , then i t
i s p o s s ib le th a t no rank b a la n cin g p ro cess i s a c t iv a t e d because i t i s
p o s s ib le th a t an a c to r does not compare h im s e lf to o t h e r s .
We s h a l l r e fe r
t o t h is a s vacuous b a la n c e .
5 .1 . D e f in it i o n . A row in S* i s v a cu o u sly b alan ced i f i t i s compared
w ith no o th er row in S * .
We then have the very fundam ental r e s u lt t h a t ,
5 .2 .
V acuously balanced ranks a re s t a b l e .
I f a row i 3 not compared w ith any o th er row in S* th ere i s no way to s a t i f fy
d e f in it i o n 3 . 1 , so t h a t even though i t seems a t r i v i a l sen se o f the term
the e v a lu a tio n s are b a la n ced .
And in th a t ca se th ey are not l i k e l y to
ch an ge.
I s com parison then s u f f i c i e n t to a c t iv a t e a b alan ce p ro cess?
I t is
e v id e n t th a t i t i s n o t, s in c e a com parison, even by someone who i s not
balanced from an o u ts id e o b s e r v e r 's p o in t o f v ie w , m ight p o s s ib ly be w ith
an oth er elem en t im balanced in p r e c is e ly th e same way.
EXAMPLE 5 .1 . A c o lle g e p r o fe s s o r in a sm all mid-W estern c o lle g e makes
$5 ,0 0 0 a y e a r . Most o f the tim e he compares h im s e lf o n ly w ith o th er
p r o fe s s o r s a t the same s c h o o l. He w i l l n o t d is c o v e r any d is c r e p a n c ie s
in h is ranks u n le s s th ey occur w ith in th a t s c h o o l.
I n s u la t io n s it u a t io n s o f t h is kind are probably f a i r l y common.
- 12 ‫־‬
5 3 ‫־‬. D e f i n i t i o n . I f a su b se t o f rows i n ¿ * can be arranged to
form a new m a trix Q* such th a t a l l rows in Q* are b a la n ced ,
then Q* i s a b a la n ced subsystem o f
w hether or not S*
i t s e l f i s b a la n c e d ‫״‬
I t should be o b viou s t h a t ,
5»4. I f Q* i s a b alan ced subsystem o f S* and elem en ts o f Q*
are compared o n ly w ith o th er elem en ts o f Q*, the ranks in
Q* are s t a b l e ‫־‬
Furtherm ore,
5«5. I f an im balanced m a trix S* i s p a r t it io n e d in t o su bm atrices
a l l o f which ara b alanced subsystem s and a l l o f which are
in s u la t e d , the im balanced m a trix S.* i s s t a b l e ‫־‬
In order t o a c t iv a t e a b a la n cin g p r o c e s s , in o th er w ords, one must
compare o n e s e lf w ith someone e l s e who i s n ot im balanced in th e same way
as o n e s e lf‫־‬
But even im balanced com parisons are not s u f f i c i e n t to a c t iv a t e a
b a la n cin g p r o c e s s , and in f a c t our knowledge o f the a c t iv a t in g c o n d itio n s
i s in c o m p le te ‫־‬
T his i s becau se not ev e r y com parison th a t occu rs i s
r e l a t i v e l y d ep riv in g or g u ilt - in d u c in g , th e k inds o f com parisons th a t seem
to u n d e r lie rank b alan ce p r o c e s s e s ,
EXAMPLE 5 ,2 , An I ta lia n -b o r n immigrant who has become r ic h compares
h im s e lf w ith an A nglo-Saxon who i s r i c h ‫ ־‬Perhaps he d is c o v e r s th a t
he has been refu sed ad m issio n to a w e ll-r e p u te d clu b o f which the
A nglo-Saxon i s a member‫ ־‬He may th in k , "Why, i f I make as much as
he d o e s, d o n 't I g e t tr e a te d as i f I were j u s t a s good?" But suppose
he compares h im s e lf to an I t a l i a n immigrant who has n ot done so
w e ll a s h e . Re may th in k , "I'm not d oin g so b a d ly , compared to
some I t a lia n s lik e m y s e lf."
The p resen t theorjr i s th e r e fo r e in d eterm in a te uxi'c&l a b e t t e r u n derstanding
o f the a c t iv a t in g c o n d itio n s o f th e p ro cess i s p o s s i b l e ‫־‬
< 13 ‫־‬
6»
Homans 8 th eo ry o f in v e stm e n t, c o s t , and p r o f i t «
The in d eterm in acy o f the com parison p ro cess i s to some e x te n t r e ­
duced in Homans' theory of s o c i a l j u s t i c e (1961),
Borrowing some con­
cepts from economics, Homans t r e a t s some ranks a s in v e s tm e n ts ‫ ־‬A person
w ith h ig h ed u ca tio n has sp en t tin® and money to g e t t h is ra n k ‫־‬
S e n io r ity
in an organization can also be seen a s an in v e stm e n t, s in c e to g e t h igh
s e n io r i t y a person has p a t ie n t ly labored in su b o rd in a te p o s it io n s over
a long p e r io d ‫־‬
Souse ra n k s, li k e income and p r e s t ig e , are rewards ‫־‬
Such a s p e c ts o f a p e r s o n 's b eh a v io r a s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (ta k in g blam e,
w orking long hours) are in Homans' th eo ry c o s t s . P rof i t ) f i n a l l y , can
be d e fin e d a s th e d if f e r e n c e betw een rewards and c o s t s .
The p r in c ip le o f s o c i a l j u s t i c e a s s e r t s th a t:
6 .1 . A person w i l l be u p set i f th ere i s a la c k o f p r o p o r tio n a lity
betw een h is in v estm en ts and h is p r o f i t s .
In order to fin d out w hether p r o f it s are p r o p o r tio n a l to in v estm en ts
a person must compare h im s e lf w ith o th er p eop le soa® o f whom have and some
o f whom have n o t made the in v estm en ts he has made‫־‬
I n t u i t i v e l y i t seems
l i k e l y th a t he w i l l fo cu s a t t e n t io n on th e ranks th a t r e p r e se n t in v estm en ts
and ex p e c t p r o f it s to m atch.
Thus, comparing h im s e lf w ith a person o f
low er ed u ca tio n but th e same p ay, he i s l i k e l y to s a y , ,‫׳‬Why d o n 't I g e t
b e t t e r paid" r a th e r th a n , "I am d oin g ra th er w e l l , b ecause compared to
o th e r s w ith th e same pay I have more e d u c a tio n ."
S ta rred s e c t io n s may be o m itted w ith o u t in te r r u p tin g the development
o f the th e o r y .
-1 4 -
6 .2
A person is more l i k e l y to fo cu s a t t e n t io n in a com parison
on th o se ranks th a t r e p r e se n t in v estm en ts than th o se th a t do
n o t.
I f i t were not fo r the f a c t th a t sotae ranks are hard to c o n ceiv e o f
a s in v estm en ts or rewards t h is would be a d eterm in ate s o lu t io n .
Homans
tr e a t s e t h n ic i t y and s e x , fo r in s t a n c e , a s in v estm en ts (Homans, 1961,
p , 236) but t h is seems a ra th er dubious s t r e t c h in g o f the co n c e p t.
P o s s ib ly age can be tr e a te d a s an in v e stm e n t, because i t i s l i k e l y to be
roughly c o r r e la te d w ith s e n io r i t y and t r a in in g , which a re in v e s tm e n ts .
But Homans' id e a , w h ile u s e f u l in many c a s e s , d oes not seem to be a
g e n e r a l s o lu t io n .
7,
System R eferen ce P roblem s,
So fa r the p o s s ib le u n it s and system s th a t may be ‫’׳‬mixed" in one
s t r a t i f i c a t i o n m a trix have been l e f t w ith o u t r e s t r i c t i o n .
But t h i s p erm its
some ra th er n o n se n s ic a l sta tem en ts which we would li k e to r u le out o f the
th e o r y ,
EXAMPLE 7 ,1 . The ranks d o c to r , fa th e r are compared w ith th e ranks
c a r p e n te r , f a t h e r ‫ ־‬The f i r s t a c to r i s h ig h er than the second on
o c c u p a tio n a l rank, but th e same on h is "fam ily" ran k ‫־‬
EXAMPLE 7 , 2 . The ranks p r i e s t , C a th o lic are compared w ith the ranks
b is h o p , C a t h o lic ‫ ־‬The f i r s t a c to r i s low er than the second on
rank w ith in th e ch urch, but th e same on h is o th er rank.
I t i s n o t rea so n a b le to argue th a t fa th e r and C a th o lic are n o t ran k s,
s in c e w ith in some system s o f r e fe r e n c e th ey a r e ‫־‬
to argue that¿ a t l e a s t
But i t i s rea so n a b le
som etim es, s h i f t i n g l e v e l s o f r e fe r e n c e change
-1 5 -
the meaning o f a com parison.
T his w i l l occu r
p a r t ic u la r ly when a rank
th a t d i f f e r e n t i a t e s meabers o f a system d oes n ot d i f f e r e n t i a t e the members
o f a su b system , a s when the Ph.D. d oe3 not d if f e r e n t i a t e a s s i s t a n t pro' f e s s o r from p r o fe s s o r in a f a c u lt y most o f whose members have the d e g r e e .
That co n fu sio n over s h i f t i n g system r e fe r e n c e s i s n ot more common
i s p a r tly due to the f a c t th a t ranks in f a c t s h i f t ra th er r e a d ily .
2
EXAMPLE 7 .3 . The fa c to r y s i s in the community S , w ith in which
e th n ic subgroups, x , v , and z l i v e . O ccu p ation al l e v e l s manager,
s u p e r v is o r , worker may be d i f f e r e n t i a l l y ev a lu a te d in 3 by such
c r i t e r i a a s r e l a t i v e im portance to p r o d u ctio n , r e l a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ,
r e l a t iv e know ledge. E th n ic groups may be e v a lu a te d w ith in S by such
c r i t e r i a a s degree o f a s s i m ila t i o n , how r e c e n t ly im m igrated, average
e d u c a tio n . W ithin £ one b a s is on which a c to r s are ev a lu a ted and
a llo c a t e d to o c c u p a tio n a l l e v e l s i s t h e ir e t h n ic rank in S ( C o llin s ,
1 9 4 6 ).
EXAMPLE 7 .4 , The m ining company £ in the community S c o n ta in s some
w orkers who are o f f i c i a l s in the union u and some who are im portant
in
community p o l i t i c s . S u p e r v is o r s , m ining e n g in e e r s , and
w orkers in th e company t r e a t w orkers who are o f f i c i a l s or p o l i t i c i a n s
w ith more r e s p e c t than th ey do o th er workers (Observed by Anderson
during f i e l d work in a Swedish com m unity)‫־‬
To ru le out n o n se n s ic a l com parisons i t i s s u f f i c i e n t to req u ir e th a t
the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n m a trix S* r e p r e se n t one l e v e l o f system o n ly ; or
\ ^ The r e a d in e ss w ith w hich b a ses o f e v a lu a tio n s h i f t about p a r tly
accou n ts fo r the high degree o f c o n s is te n c y in ranks fr e q u e n tly observed
(Landecker, 1 9 6 1 ). I f income i s a b a s is o f e v a lu a tin g o c c u p a tio n a l
p r e s t ig e , and i f in c r e a s in g w ea lth i s a b a s is o f in c r e a s in g p r e s t ig e
o f an e t h n ic group, and f i n a l l y i f o c c u p a tio n , incom e, and e t h n i c i t y
are b a ses o f e v a lu a tin g an a c t o r ’s "community sta n d in g " , i t i s n ot
s u r p r is in g th a t h is v a r io u s ranks to some degree c o r r e la t e .
‫ ־‬16 ‫־‬
/‫■־‬
I
e q u iv a le n t ly th a t i t s u n it s a l l be o f one le v e l» Because t h is sounds
‫־ "׳‬
/
ra th er r e s t r i c t i v e , in view o f th e in t e r p e n e t r a t io n th a t i s c h a r a c t e r is t ic
o f ra n k ss i t i s d esira b le:: to show th a t the r u le i s in f a c t f a i r l y f l e x i b l e .
I t can a ls o be shown th a t th e r u le i s o n ly an a p p lic a t io n o f assum ption
2 .1 .
There are th ree c a se s o f in t e r e s t :
Ca se 1.
C r it e r ia in one system a re a ls o c r i t e r i a in an oth er system
or a t anoth er l e v e l .
In t h is ca se no problems a r i s e .
So long a s the c r i t e r io n i s a
determ inant o f e v a lu a tio n s in e i t h e r system a t e it h e r l e v e l , assum ption
2 .1 i s s a t i s f i e d „
Case 2 .
No p a r t ic u la r r u le i s n e c e s s a r y .
C r it e r ia a t one l e v e l o f system are not c r i t e r i a a t
an oth er l e v e l , but o v e r a ll e v a lu a tio n s a t th e one l e v e l
are c r i t e r i a a t the o th e r . EXAMPLE: O ccupations may be
ranked in p a rt fo r the way in w h ich , in a g iv e n system such
a s the f a c to r y £ , t h e ir r e l a t i v e c o n tr ib u tio n to t o t a l
output i s e v a lu a te d ; a c to r s in the community may be e v a lu a ted
in p art fo r t h e ir o c c u p a tio n s .
In the second c a s e , in order to s a t i s f y assum ption 2 .1 the o v e r a ll
e v a lu a tio n s a t l e v e l £ must appear as c r i t e r i a in the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n
m atrix a t l e v e l £ + 1 and th e s e o v e r a ll e v a lu a tio n s must a c t u a lly be
among the determ inan ts o f o v e r a ll e v a lu a tio n s a t l e v e l £ + 1«
e q u iv a le n t to a p p ly in g the r u le o f one l e v e l .
T his i s
The r u le i s n ot very r e ­
s t r i c t i v e s in c e e v a lu a tio n s in one system are in f a c t s h i f t i n g to the
o th e r .
Case 3 .
The c r i t e r io n r , determ ines e v a lu a tio n s R. a t l e v e l £ but
n e ith e r r^ nor^I-L are r e le v a n t to o v e r a ll e v a lu a tio n a t
l e v e l s + 1 ( o r , fo r th a t m a tte r , £ 1 ‫«)־‬
-1 7 -
In th e th ir d case i t i s not p o s s ib le to s a t i s f y assum ption 2 .1 i f
l e v e l s are s h ifte d »
I f assum ption 2«1 i s not s a t i s f i e d a t l e a s t one o f
the ranks compared i s not r e le v a n t or s ig n if ic a n t »
I f a t l e a s t one o f
the ranks compared i s not r e le v a n t no rank im balance i s c r e a t e d ‫״‬
I f no
im balance i s c r e a te d no q u e s tio n o f s t a b i l i t y o f ranks a r is e s »
E x p ressin g the r u le in an oth er way,
7 «,I, A rank
from th e m a trix £ * , where a i s a subsystem or
subgroup o f S , i s a rank a ls o in th e m atrix S* i f and o n ly i f
1 . r . i s a l s o among th e c r i t e r i a o f o v e r a ll e v a lu a tio n
“=1
in S
2 . or some fu n c tio n o f
f ( r ^ ) , i s among th e c r i t e r i a
o f o v e r a ll e v a lu a tio n in S ."
But having ru le d ou t com parisons th a t s h i f t l e v e l , we have n ot ru led
out ev ery p o s s ib le absurd comparison»
C onsider
EXAMPLE 7»4» On a f is h in g t r ip w ith a graduate s tu d e n t, a p r o fe sso r
d is c o v e r s th a t he has been outperform ed by th e s t u d e n t ‫ ־‬He compares
the ranks p r o f e s s o r , n o v ice fly -fis h e r m a n w ith the ranks graduate
s tu d e n ts e x p e r t fly -fish erm a n «
Our th eo ry a p p a ren tly p erm its the c o n c lu s io n th a t the p r o fe s s o r i s
d istu r b e d ; in f a c t i t perm its the c o n c lu s io n th a t ev ery a c to r w ants to
be b alan ced on ev ery p o s s ib le b a s is o f e v a lu a tio n w hatever th e s i t u a t i o n .
I f th e number o f rank-dim ensions in S i s very la r g e probably ev ery a c to r
w i l l be ‫״‬out o f l i n e ‫ ״‬on a t l e a s t one o f th e se d is te n s io n s » Hence ev ery
a c to r would a t some tim e or o th e r be d is tu r b e d .
Thought not a problem o f l e v e l s , the u n iv e r s it y and th e f is h in g t r ip
are an oth er example o f s h i f t i n g system s o f r e fe ren ce»
I t i s not l i k e l y
th a t the p r o fe s s o r in example 7»4 i s much d istu r b e d becau se h is incom petence
a s a fly -fis h e r m a n does not much th r e a te n h is competence a s a p ro fesso r«
‫ ־‬18 ‫־‬
One does not tra n sp o r t ranks from one system to a n o th er u n le s s th e b a ses
o f e v a lu a tio n in the two system s have som ething in coirauon‫־‬.
Hence we have
the r u le th a t
7 .2 .
A mixed m a trix £* th a t i s formed o f some ranks r ( e _ ) and some
ranks r ( £ g ) j where s , and gg arc both subsystem s or subgroups
in ¡3, i s a s t r a t i f i c a t i o n m a trix in S i f and o n ly i f s^* and
¿ 2* have a t l e a s t one rank in ccmmon.
I f competence as a fly -fis h e r m a n in v o lv e d some o f the same a b i l i t i e s
a s competence a s a p r o fe s s o r then the two e v a lu a tio n s would be r e le v a n t
to each o th er and th e system in example 7 .4 would be im balanced.
8.
Role D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n .
Adams (1954) has a p p lie d the ran k -b alan ce th eo ry to a s it u a t io n o f
the fo llo w in g k in d .
EXAMPLE 8 . 1 . An a ir -c r e w commander and p i l o t , a m ajor, w ith 7 years
f l i g h t e x p e r ie n c e , but not the most popular member o f h is crew , i s
compared w ith h is c o - p i l o t , a c a p ta in , w ith 4 y ea rs f l i g h t e x p e r ie n c e ,
who i s the most popular member o f h is crew .
I t i s q u e s tio n a b le th a t such a com parison produces an im b a la n ce.
If
the r o le s o f ta sk le a d e r and e x p r e s s iv e le a d e r become d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , does
i t fo llo w from the th eory o f rank b alan ce th a t the group i s itsbalanced? I f
such a r e s u lt were to fo llo w from the th eo ry i t s p r e d ic tio n s would probably
o ft e n be wrong*
When r o le s become d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , what happens i s th a t a c to r s do not
compare the ways in which th e y , as a c t o r s , are e v a lu a te d .
What th ey com­
pare i s the s e v e r a l ways in w hich t h e ir r o le s are e v a lu a te d ‫״‬
EXAMPLE 8 . 2 . D r, Smith i s a su rg eo n . As an a n a e s t h e t is t he i s not
so com petent as Dr. J o n e s , a c e r t i f i e d a n a e s t h e s i o l o g i s t . During
su rgery i t i s J o n e s' job to gas and S m ith ’s jo b to cut« The s t a tu s
o f surgeon i s , in the h o s p i t a l, regarded as th e more r e s p o n s ib le ,
the more s k i l l e d , i t has more p r e s t ig e , i t has more income»
‫־‬20«
s e v e r a l a c to r s may r e s to r e balan ce a t the same tim e but n ot n e c e s s a r ily
to the same e f f e c t , no m icr o -p r o cess a lo n e i s s u f f i c i e n t to r e s to r e
b alan ce and th e m acro-p rocess i s o f t e n more u n sta b le than would be i n ­
fe r r e d from any s in g le m icro -p ro cess«
92‫־‬
No b a la n c e -r e s to r in g b eh a v io r o f u. i s s u f f i c i e n t to b alance S ,
~‫־‬i
‫־־־‬
EXAMPLE 9«2» Union U i s an o ld , r e s p e c t e d , and h ig h ly s k i l l e d c r a f t union
w h ile union V i s a new u p s t a r t , m o stly o f m od erately s k i l l e d w ork ers,
the dynamic le a d e r sh ip o f which has o b ta in ed a s u b s t a n t ia l wage i n ­
c re a se th a t eq u a ls U‫״‬s wage le v e l« A ssig n in g N orth-H att s c o r e s and
wages a r b i t r a r i l y , we have to b eg in w ith :
P r e s tig e
Ranks
Wage Level
U
“ 67
$ 4 .5 0 /h rT
V
60
$ 4 «50/h r »
Unions
There are two m icro‫״‬p r o c è s s e s , one from U and one from V 's p o in t
o f view :
Union U 's m icr o -p r o cess
Time 0 .
Time 1 .
Time 2 .
Time 3«
Time 4«
U has ranks 6 7 , $4«50
Members o f U compare them­
s e lv e s w ith V.
Members o f U f e e l r e l a t i v e l y
d e p r iv e d , underpaid
Union U a g it a t e s fo r in c r e a se
in wages to m ain tain wage
d iffe r e n tia l
Union U su cceed s in in c r e a s in g
wages to $ 5 «0 0 / h r .
Union V 's m icr o -p r o cess
V has ranks 6 0 , $4 .5 0
Members o f V compare them­
s e lv e s w ith U«
Members o f V f e e l r e l a t i v e l y
d e p r iv e d , not s u f f i c i e n t l y
r e sp e c te d
Union V conducts campaign to
change i t s p u b lic image and
c lo s e p r e s t ig e d i f f e r e n t i a l
Union V su cceed s in r a is in g
p r e s t ig e to a sco re o f 67
Assuming a s we have th a t each su cceed s in r a i s i n g i t s low er rank,
-2 1 -
each co u ld have r e s to r e d b a la n cé had th e o th er not a lt e r e d i t s own
ranks» But in s t e a d , we have
Ranks
P r e s t ig e
Wage L evel
U
(~ 67
$5 00‫“־‬
V
L 67
$ 4 .5 0 _
Unions
which i s s t i l l n ot b a la n ced .
9 .1 and 9 .2 may be c a lle d spread o f s t a t e theorem s.
A th ir d spread
o f s t a t e phenomenon i s the r e b u ff p r o c e s s .
EXAMPLE 9 .3 . G iovanni C ic c i , a v ery w ea lth y I t a lia n - b o r n im m igrant,
moves in t o o ld -Atnerican neighborhood £ , puts h is c h ild in p r iv a te
s c h o o l, a p p lie s fo r a d m issio n to the cou n try c lu b , and in o th er ways
t r i e s to improve h is s t y l e o f l i f e and s t a t u s honor so th a t i t i s
more in lin e w ith h is incom e. But he fin d s th a t h is n eigh b ors do
n ot v i s i t much, h is c h ild r e n do n o t fin d v e r y many fr ie n d s in the
nevj s c h o o l, he i s n ot ad m itted to th e cou n try c lu b , and in g en era l
h is I t a l i a n o r ig in i s n ot e a s i l y l e f t b eh in d .
What i s im portant in t h i s ca se i s th a t ego h im s e lf would have f e l t
the im balance o f e th n ic and income ranks v ery much l e s s or n o t a t a l l i f
i t were n ot fo r the resp on se o f a l t e r s .
Probably th ey are resp on d in g not
o n ly to C i c c i ' s rank i t 3e l f , but a l s o to h is a m b itio n t o be one o f them.
In any case t h e ir resp on se makes apparent what m ight n ot have been so
ap p aren t, th a t h is e th n ic rank i s n ot so e a s i l y brought in t o l i n e .
A l­
though e s s e n t i a l l y a secondary p r o c e s s , r e b u ff can th e r e fo r e have an im­
p o rta n t b ea rin g on the in d eterm in acy d e sc r ib e d in s e c t io n 4 .
had not f e l t r e l a t i v e d e p r iv a tio n b e f o r e , he m ight now.
Where C ic c i
From the p o in t
o f view o f a l t e r , i t seems l i k e l y th a t r e b u ff w i l l occur whenever e g o ’s
-2 2 -
e f f o r t to b alan ce ranks c a u ses a l t e r to lo s e rank»
T his m ight e i t h e r
be through c o n ta g io n , where a s s o c ia t in g w ith ego means a lo s s o f rank
f o r a l t e r , or through d e p r e c ia tio n o f a ran k , a s where a lt e r * s " club",
h is neighborhood, e t c . are le s o va lu ed b ecause o f t h e ir changing com‫״‬
p o s it io n ,
10.
(s e e pagas 3 3 -3 4 ).
O bservable Response P r o c e s s e s .
The l e a s t s a t is f a c t o r y p art o f the th eory o f rank b alan ce i s i t s
accou n t o f how b alan ce i s r e s t o r e d .
A ll th a t i t sa y s so fa r i s t h a t , once
comparison a c t iv a t e s the p r o c e s s , im balance i s d is tu r b in g and an attem pt
w i l l be made to r e s t o r e b a la n ce; how i s u n c le a r .
m entioned mechanisms are m o b ility and r e v o lu t io n .
The m ost commonly
In B en o it-S m u lly a n ,
fo r exam ple, an a c to r who i s im balanced f i r s t a ttem p ts to r a is e h is lower
ra n k s‫־‬
I f b lo c k e d , he then tu rn s to r a d ic a l, e x tr e m is t p r o t e s t d ir e c te d
a g a in s t the rank s tr u c tu r e i t s e l f »
What may be c a lle d a Benoit-Sm u11yan
resp on se p ro cess i s i l l u s t r a t e d in example 1 0 1 ‫־‬.
EXAMPLE 1 0 .1 In the e a r ly 18th c e n tu r y , the French B o u r g e o isie ,
r a p id ly in c r e a s in g in w e a lth , were a b le to buy army coranissions
and ju d ic ia r y p o s ts from the crown. They did so where\‫׳‬e r th ey
cou ld because such s t a t u s e s were n o b le , a llo w in g the b o u r g e o isie
to co n v ert income in t o s t a t u s hon or. Because th e se s t a t u s e s were
becoming l e s s and l e s s c e r t a in s ig n s o f n ob le o r i g in , and hence
were d e p r e c ia tin g in v a lu e , the n o b i l i t y fo rced th e crown to sto p
t h e ir s a le to the b o u r g e o isie .T h e b o u r g e o is ie then became r e v o lu tio n a r y
(B arb er, 19
).
I f t h i s were th e p ro cess a c t u a ll y to be e x p e c te d , the o n ly d i f f i c u l t
q u e s tio n would be:
what d eterm in es " b lo ck in g ”?
Even t h i s q u e s tio n i s
not v ery d i f f i c u l t , s in c e probably th e most im portant c o n d itio n s are
*
‫ ־‬23‫־‬
e it h e r th a t e g o 's lower rank i s a sc r ib e d or th a t e g o ’s m o b ility ca u ses
a l t e r to d ecrea se in ran k ‫־‬
But the !natter i s n o t n e a r ly s c s im p le ‫־‬
L enski has shown th a t some in c o n s is t e n t s r e t r e a t in t o i s o l a t i o n (195
) ‫״‬
F ra z ier has shown th a t some r e t r e a t in s te a d in t o in s u la t io n ( F r a z ie r , 19
)„
Even i f in c o n s is t e n t s do not withdraw th ey do n o t n e c e s s a r ily r a is e t h e ir
lower ranks; fo r F en ch el, M onderer, and H a r tley (19
) found some a c to r s
who low ered t h e ir h ig h er ra n k s. Furtherm ore, some a c to r s become r a d ic a l
w ith o u t w a itin g fo r a l t e r to b lo ck t h e ir m o b ilit y .
L ip s e t has argued
th at u l t r a ‫״‬Am ericanism , a s a f a c to r in r a d ic a l r ig h t b e h a v io r , i s e s s e n t i a l l y
a way o f cla im in g h ig h er e th n ic rank ( L ip s e t , 19
).
In f a c t the p o l i t i c s
o f rank im balance have n ot emerged v ery c l e a r l y a s y e t .
Sometimes i t i s
l e f t p o lit ic s ,s o m e t im e s r ig h t p o l i t i c s , som etim es a cu rio u s b len d o f both
th a t i s found (Anderson
and Z e ld it c h , 1964)«
That i s o l a t i o n or in s u la t io n are resp o n se s to irabalance fo llo w s from
the f a c t th a t i t i s com parison th a t a c t iv a t e s the b alan ce p r o c e s s ‫־‬
Hence
r o l e - d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n to o must be counted a p o s s ib le r e s p o n se , s in c e any
fa c to r th a t i s an a c t iv a t in g c o n d itio n o f im balance i s a ls o a p o s s ib le
resp on se to i t »
The p o s s ib le w ithdraw al resp o n se s a re:
1 0 1 ‫־‬. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n .
1 ‫ ״‬I s o l a t io n i s a resp o n se to im balance in which y.. i s com­
pared w ith no o th er u.. in S * .
2• I n s u la tio n i s a resp o n se to im balance in which u. i s com­
pared o n ly w ith th o se a,, , s in S* which a re not im balanced
w ith $¿^‫־‬
J
3 • R o le‫ ־‬d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i s a resp o n se to im balance in which
a c t o r s compare th em selv es o n ly a t the l e v e l o f s t a t u s e s
w hich are th em selv es b a la n c e d ‫־‬
‫־‬24‫־‬
The d e f i n i t i o n o f in s u la t io n i s somewhat d e c e p tiv e b ecause i t con­
c e a ls two ra th er d if f e r e n t r e s p o n se s.
In one an a c to r compares h im s e lf
o n ly w ith o th er a c to r s having the same im b alan ce, a s w e ll- t o - d o Negroes
m ight withdraw in t o a community in which th ey en cou n ter o n ly o th er m id d lec l a s s N eg ro es.
In the o t h e r , an a c to r compares h im s e lf o n ly w ith o th er
a c to r s among whom one o f h is im balanced ranks i s n ot a s i g n i f i c a n t rank,
a s a w e ll- t o - d o Negro might become a member o f th e Negro community a s a
w h o le, but a v o id the w h ite community.
In th e l a t t e r ca se h is c o lo r i s
o n ly a membership c r i t e r io n ; w ith in the community i t s e l f i t i s not a rank.
3
So long a s he were granted d eferen ce w ith in the community fo r h is w e a lth ,
he would n ot be im balanced.
Probably one would fin d him to be an Uncle
Tom le a d e r --a le a d e r b ecause o f r e s p e c t fo r h is w e a lth , an Uncle Tom b e ­
cause he would fin d th a t any in t r u s io n in t o the w h ite community u p set
h is b a la n c e .
P a r t ic u la r ly th e l a t t e r type o f in s u la t io n d e se r v e s c a r e f u l i n v e s t i ­
g a tio n , but as a m atter o f f a c t no w ith d raw al mechanism has been s u f f i c i e n t l y
in v e s t ig a t e d to be a b le to say what c o n d itio n s determ ine them«
For the
moment, though we cannot sa y why, suppose th a t none o f them occur:
w i l l an a c to r tr y to b alan ce h is ranks then?
how
Very probably an attem p t to
change h is in d iv id u a l ranks i s more l i k e l y than an e f f o r t to change the
whole rank s tr u c tu r e o f S , but i s i t t r u e , a s commonly su pp osed , th a t he
3
T his ig n o r e s the f a c t th a t c o lo r d if f e r e n c e s a re in f a c t ranks
w ith in the Negro community, s in c e the p o in t i s n ot much a f f e c t e d by t h i s f a c t .
-2 5 -
w i l l f i r s t tr y to r a is e h is lo w est ranks?
Or i s the fo llo w in g example
n ot p la u s ib le ?
EXAMPLE 1 0 2‫־‬. Through some p e c u lia r flu k e o f p a s t h is t o r y , A s s is t a n t
P r o fe sso r S m ith, o f u n iv e r s it y U, has been g iv e n a p r iv a te o f f i c e .
U manages to h ir e J o n e s , a very d is t in g u is h e d f u l l p r o fe s s o r in
the same f i e l d a s Smith* B u t, l i k e many u n i v e r s i t i e s , U has a space
problem and cannot fin d p r iv a te o f f i c e space fo r Jones« Smith very
g en ero u sly g iv e s up h is o f f i c e to Jon es and moves in. w it h two o th er
ju n io r c o lle a g u e s .
I t cannot be supposed th a t u n i v e r s i t i e s are l e s s l i k e l y than o th er
o r g a n iz a tio n s to in v e s t r u g s , o f f i c e s , d e s k s , and so on , w ith rank»
What
has happened, in s t e a d , i s th a t the o f f i c e can be looked on more a s a
symbol or cue o f an oth er ran k , r a th e r than a s an independent rank in i t ‫״‬
s e l f ‫ ״‬When th ere i s a q u e s tio n o f b r in g in g a rank and i t s symbol in t o
l i n e , i t i s e a s ie r to see th e symbol as changing than the rank i t sy m b o liz e s.
Probably t h is can be g e n e r a liz e d to any s it u a t io n in w hich a c to r s in £
see a c a u s a l r e l a t io n betw een two ran k s—a s th ey m ig h t, fo r exam ple, in
the ca se o f a b i l i t y and rew ard s‫״‬
10»2, D e f i n i t i o n . L et i t be supposed in ¡3 th a t r . i s the cause o f
r . ‫ ־‬Then r and r . are c o n tin g e n t ra n k s, and r . i s the inde
pendent w h ile r . ii> the dependent rank,
Our b a s ic assum ptions a re:
1 0 .3 . A ssum ption. I f r . and r . are n o n co n tin g en t im balanced ra n k s,
w hichever rank i s low er‫ '־‬i s r a is e d .
1 0 .4 . A ssum ption. I f r and r are c o n tin g e n t im balanced ran k s,
w hichever rank i s dependent i s changed in the d ir e c t io n o f
b a la n c e ,
‫־‬26‫־‬
But the q u e s tio n th a t was asked was:
i f o n ly a c to r s were m obile»
what w i l l an "actor" do? as
Any elem en t o f S co u ld be m o b ile , n ot o n ly
a c t o r s , and i t makes some d if f e r e n c e what elem en t i s m eant» We may d e­
fin e m o b ility in g e n e r a l to mean:
1 0 .5 .
D e f in it i o n . M o b ility i s the in c r e a s e or d ecrea se o f some
rank r . by a ivy elem en t u. in S .
“ TL
V
t
.
—
For la t e r u s e , we in tro d u ce th e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
1 0 .6 .
C la s s ific a tio n .
1 . M o b ility o f a n e g lib ib le number o f a c t o r s i s in d iv id u a l
m o b ilit y .
EXAMPLE 10.3» Z etter b e rg found th a t one m otive fo r ta k in g co u rses
in Columbia U n iv e r s it y 's S ch ool o f G eneral S tu d ie s was th a t a few
w e ll- t o - d o suburban matrons had n o t com pleted a c o lle g e degree and
were etabarassed when asked by fr ie n d s o f t h e ir husb an d s'; ,,What
sc h o o l d id you graduate from?" In order n ot to have to respond
w ith t h e ir h ig h s c h o o l th ey e n r o lle d in an ‫’׳‬a d u lt" c o lle g e where
th ey com pleted a B.A. (Z e tte r b e r g , 19
)»
2‫־‬
M o b ility o f a la r g e number o f a c to r s on a g iv e n rank zv,
i s stratum m o b ilit y .
EXAMPLE 1 0 .4 . M o b ility was th e p r in c ip a l i n t e r e s t o f th e 18th
cen tu ry French b o u r g e o is ie . As th ere were many b o u r g e o is ie buying
t h e ir way out o f the c l a s s , we can speak o f m o b ility o f a whole
stratu m .
3«
M o b ility o f a s t a t u s , c o l l e c t i v e , or a c t io n i s r e e v a lu a t io n .
EXAMPLE 10»5» The way the rank o f the s t a t u s d o cto r ha3 in cr ea se d
from the 19th to the 20th cen tu ry i s one i l l u s t r a t i o n . Had the
French b o u r g e o is ie devoted th em selv es to im proving th e p r e s t ig e o f
the merchant In stea d o f le a v in g the s t a t u s , th ey would have been
an oth er i l l u s t r a t i o n .
Further exam ples are probably su p erflu o u s«
But i t i s worth remarking
th a t m o b ility o f a s t a t u s , i f th ere a re many occu p an ts o f th e s t a t u s , i s
a ls o stratum m o b ilit y .
>
-2 7 ‫־‬
The argument le a d in g to 1 0 3 ‫ ־‬and 1 0 4 ‫ ״‬socew hat c a s u a lly assumed
th a t m o b ilit y i s more l i k e l y than r e v o lu tio n a r y change in the rank
7
stru ctu re‫־‬
L ike B anoit-Sraullyan we e x p e c t e x p lo s iv e con sequences to
fo llo w from im balance o n ly i f m o b ility i s "blocked‫״״‬
blocked?
How i s m o b ility
Ego may be to o o ld to e x p e c t to change ra n k s.
must be changed may be an a s c r ib e d rank.
Or th e rank th a t
Or the o p p o rtu n ity s tr u c tu r e
o f S may be lim it e d . Or th e rank might be o n e, li k e r e l i g i o u s denom ination
or n a tio n a l o r ig in , to w hich a c to r s are so s e n tim e n ta lly a tta c h e d t h a t ,
even were i t p o s s ib le to "pass*' fo r someone o f h ig h e r ran k , ego m ight
not want to co n v ert or a s s i m i l a t e . Or, very im p o rta n t, a l t e r may be
w i l l i n g and a b le to p reven t ego from changing h is ra n k s.
1 0 .7 .
D e f i n i t i o n . M o b ility o f an elem en t o f S i s b lock ed i f e it h e r
a c t o r s do n ot want or e x p e c t to be m ob ile or o th e r s can and
do a c t to preven t them from b ein g m o b ile .
1 0 .8 .
A ssum ption. I f com parisons rem ain im b a la n cin g , m o b ility
occu rs u n le s s b lo ck ed .
B lock in g i s so d e fin e d th a t so long a s ego e x p e c ts to be m o b ile ,
w hether a c t u a ll y m obile a t a g iv e n time or n o t , he w i l l not become a s
u p set a s h is itt&a lan ce a t the moment would lead one to p r e d ic t ‫־‬
A
c o lle g e -e d u c a te d w h ite c o l la r worker who, comparing h im s e lf w ith a h ig h s c h o o l ed ucated b lu e c o l la r w ork er, fin d s he does not make a s much a s
he sh o u ld 9 may not g e t v ery u p set i f he i s s t i l l v ery young and e x p e c ts
to make much more in a few y e a r s .
Only i f he e x p e c ts im balance to be
a r e l a t i v e l y ‫ ־‬permanent s t a t e i s he l i k e l y to f e e l i t s in j u s t ic e «
10«9«
Thus,
The l e s s permanent an im balance i s seen to b e , the l e s s
m o b ility i s b lo ck ed .
But suppose m o b ility were b lo c k e d ‫״״‬must th e r e s u l t be r e v o lu tio n ?
R ev o lu tio n i s a v ery com p licated id e a , probably in v o lv in g a t l e a s t :
1) an o rgan ized movement; 2 ) a r a d ic a l change; 3 ) a c o n f l i c t .
These th ree
are p a r tly in d ep en d en t, in the sen se th a t o r g a n iz a tio n need n ot im ply
r a d ic a l change or c o n f l i c t , c o n f l i c t need n o t alw ays im ply r a d ic a l change,
and so on»
s e lf«
T h erefore we cannot d e a l w ith th e q u e s tio n o f r e v o lu tio n i t ­
But i f we ask how b lo c k in g i s r e la t e d to o r g a n iz a tio n , ch ange, and
c o n f l i c t each in tu rn we can shot‫ ;׳‬o n ly th a t i t i s a n e c e ssa r y c o n d it io n ,
not th a t i t i s s u f f i c i e n t .
O rg a n iza tio n i t s e l f i s e com p lica ted m a tte r , m o stly in v o lv in g f a c to r s
independent o f th e th eo ry o f rank b a la n c e .
That i s , in order to a d eq u a tely
accou n t fo r o r g a n iz a tio n o f a movemant we would have to add assum ptions
to our th eory (a b o u t, s a y , e c o lo g y and com m unication) th a t are independent
o f the assum ptions we have made so f a r .
h a u s t iv e .
Here we do n ot pretend to be e x ­
We want to add a s few new assum ptions a s p o s s i b l e , m o stly
drawing the im p lic a tio n s about o r g a n iz a tio n th a t are in h e r e n t in assum ptions
we have a lr e a d y made.
Not th a t th e q u e s tio n o f o r g a n iz a tio n i s u n im p ortan t,
becau se i t
i s probably r e la t e d n o t o n ly t o the r e v o lu tio n a r y con sequences o f im­
b alan ce but a ls o to i t s a c t iv a t in g c o n d itio n s«
Once o r g a n iz a tio n e x i s t s
-2 9 -
!}
i t may a c t iv a t e many p erson s who were i s o la t e d or in s u la t e d , g iv e them
s o c i a l su p p o rt, make t h e ir in j u s t i c e more r e a l , r e in fo r c e th e im pulse
to a c t io n , and make them f e e l more p o w e rfu l.
P ro b a b ly , t h e r e f o r e ,
o r g a n is a tio n has a sn ow ball e f f e c t , im p lyin g ch a t p u b lic e x p r e s s io n o f
d is c o n te n t i s a th r e sh o ld phenomenon.
And once i t g a th ers momentum i t
can be ex p ected to have a r a p id ly d ev elo p in g 1'ta k e -o ff" p e r io d .
B efore a sk in g about the form ation o f a new movement, i t must f i r s t
be observed th a t i t i s a ls o p o s s i b l e , even p ro b a b le, th a t an e x i s t i n g
o r g a n is a tio n be transform ed to new p u rp o ses.
EXAMPLE 1 0 .6 . Many in t e r p r e t a t io n s o f th e N azi movement make i t
a p a rty a p p ea lin g p a r t ic u la r ly to the d is p la c e d m iddle c l a s s e s
(ru in ed by d e p r e ssio n and i n f l a t i o n ) « But o f cou rse i t was e a r l i e r
an a n t i- b o u r g e o is , a n ti-e s ta b lis h m e n t p a r ty , a s w e ll a s anti-W eim ar.
Whether an e x i s t i n g p a rty becomes transform ed seems to depend on a t
l e a s t two c o n d itio n s :
e i t h e r th e e x is t e n c e o f a "mass ap p eal" p a r ty ,
lik e the N azi p a r ty , which would g r a v it a t e to any p o o l of d is c o n te n t;
or the e x is t e n c e o f a s i n g l e - s t a t u s a s s o c ia t io n (such a s an e t h n ic clu b
or o c c u p a tio n a l a s s o c ia t io n ) many members o f whom come to share a common
im b alan ce.
In b oth c a s e s , what appears t o be r e le v a n t i s th a t im balance
be a shared e x p erien ce o f a whole stra tu m .
The same f a c t o r seems most
r e le v a n t to th e form ation o f a new o r g a n is a t io n .
I t seems r e a s o n a b le ,
th e r e f o r e , to assume:
1 0 .1 0 .
A ssum ption. A b lock ed stratu m has g r e a te r te n d e n c ie s to
o r g a n ise a s a movement than b lo ck ed in d iv id u a ls .
‫״‬3 0 ‫־‬
But in th a t ca se b lo c k in g a lo n e i s not s u f f i c i e n t to produce o r g a n iz a tio n ‫״‬
I f n ot s u f f i c i e n t s how ever, i t appears t o be n e c e s s a r y , b ecau se
I..
1 0 .1 1 ‫ ״‬The more members o f an im balanced stratum th a t e x p e c t to
be m obile o u t o f th e stra tu m , th e l e s s the ten dency o f the
stratum to become o r g a n iz e d .
which seems a rea so n a b le in fe r e n c e from 1 0 .6 and 7 .
I t i s im portant to se e th a t b lo ck in g o f in d iv id u a l m o b ility i s not
th e same a s b lo c k in g o f stratum m o b ilit y . That unorgan ised in d iv id u a ls
are b lock ed does n ot mean t h a t , when o r g a n is e d , th ey are a l s o b lo ck ed as
a stra tu m .
I t i s p e r f e c t ly p o s s ib le th a t t h e ir in c r e a se d power makes
m o b ility o f the w hole group p o s s ib le where m o b ility a s in d iv id u a ls was
n o t.
Hence i t i s p o s s ib le to have b lock ed in d iv id u a ls o r g a n is e , n ot for
change or c o n f l i c t , b u t fo r m o b ilit y .
EXAMPLE 1 0 .7 i E a rly u n ion s were o fte n formed by t r a d it i o n a l c r a f t s
r e s i s t i n g p r o le t a r is a t io n . In th e U nited S t a t e s t h e ir i n t e r e s t s
were e a r ly c o n fin e d to in c r e a s in g wages and job s e c u r i t y , w ith
l i t t l e d e s ir e fo r major s o c i a l changes or p o l i t i c a l r e v o lu tio n .
The im pulse to change i s n ot l e s s co m p lica ted than the q u e s tio n o f
o r g a n is a t io n , and i t does n o t h elp th a t th e d e f i n i t i o n o f " r a d ic a l change"
i s so much more d i f f i c u l t »
For a th eo ry o f rank b alan ce we s h a l l mean
by r a d ic a l change a r e d e f i n i t io n o f the system o f s t r a t i f i c a t i o n in S ‫״‬
A r e d e f i n i t io n i s a change in th e im portance o f th e c r i t e r i a th a t d e­
term ine e v a lu a t io n , or in o th er words
10.12«
D e f i n i t i o n ‫ ״‬R e d e f in it io n i s a resp on se to im balance in
which th e w eig h t v e c to r W i s changed‫־‬
EXAMPLE 1 0 8 ‫־‬. A poor son o f an o ld M ayflower fa m ily l i v e s in a
lo w -ren t d i s t r i c t o f B o sto n . H is n eigh b ors g e n e r a lly regard i n ‫״‬
come a s the most im portant d eterm inan t o f ran k , but he h im s e lf
em phasizes the im portance o f lin e a g e and regard s income a s i r ­
r e le v a n t .
The d e s ir e to change th e rank s tr u c tu r e o f S has o f t e n been thought
a
o f a s /r a d ic a l l e f t i s t a t t i t u d e . L e n sk i, fo r example (1954)* has supposed
th a t in c o n s is t e n t s tend to be l e f t i s t in t h e ir so cio -ec o n o m ic a t t i t u d e s .
Of course^ L ip s e t has supposed th a t th ey tend to be r a d ic a lly r ig h t in
t h e ir c i v i l l i b e r t i e s a t t it u d e s (195
) , but t h is does not c o n tr a d ic t
L en sk i, s in c e the two a t t it u d e s c o r r e la t e r e l a t i v e l y p o o r ly .
The l e f t -
r ig h t d is t in c t io n s p a r t ic u la r ly where i t i s presumed to be th e same a s
a D em ocratic‫״‬R epublican d i s t i n c t i o n , i s probably a bad one fo r our pur­
p o s e s , but th e q u e s tio n o f what d ir e c t io n r a d ic a l change i s to take i s
c e r t a in ly a m ean in gfu l o n e.
I t i s a ls o a co m p lica ted o n e, becau se an i n ­
c o n s is t e n t c l e a r ly can corns to be o f the r ig h t in two v ery d is s im ila r w ays.
One r e s u l t s from a d e s ir e fo r r a d ic a l change th a t fa c e s a d e c lin in g e l i t e ‫״‬
This p ro cess i s , rou gh ly:
an upper stratum b e g in s to d e c lin e e i t h e r b e ­
cau se a r i s i n g e l i t e d is p la c e s i t or s o c i e t y changes in su ch a way th a t
th e stratu m l o s e s former ground, and some members o f the o ld e r e l i t e p ro­
t e s t i t s lo s s b oth by d efen d in g the im portance o f i t s v e s t i g e s o f rank—
say lin e a g e and e t h n i c i t y —and by a tta c k in g th e fo r c e s which th ey h old
r e s p o n s ib le fo r t h e ir d e c l in e - - s a y new e l i t e s or th e p o l i t i c s of th e New
D eal and i t s s u c c e s s o r s , in c lu d in g moderate R ep ub lican ism ‫־‬
T h is then
-3 2 -
le a d s to a ttem p ts a t r e d e f i n i t io n o f the rank s tr u c tu r e i n a r ig h t
(" rea ctio n a ry " ) ra th er than l e f t d ir e c t io n ,a n d to h o s t i l e a g g r e s s iv e a t ­
ta ck on " fo rces o f change".
1 0 .1 3 .
Thus we have th e fo llo w in g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n :
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n . 1 . A r e d e f i n i t io n i s a r ig h t-w in g p r o te s t
i f i t a ttem p ts to in c r e a se th e im portance o f an o ld , e s t a b ­
lis h e d h ig h er rank and d ecrea se th e im portance o f a new
rank which i t s e e s a s d is p la c in g i t .
2.
A r a n k -p r o ta st i s a le ft-w ir tg p r o te s
i f i t a ttem p ts to d ecre a se th e im portance o f an o l d , e s t a b ­
lis h e d rank w hich i t s e e s a s b lo c k in g m o b ilit y , and a ttem p ts
to in c r e a se th e im portance o f a new rank w ith r e s p e c t to
which i t s members have been r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t ly r i s i n g .
But what lo o k s lik e a r a d ic a l- r ig h t p r o t e s t may a l s o r e su lt¿ n ot from a
d e s ir e fo r r a d ic a l ch an ge, b u t from m o b ilit y .
T h is p ro cess i s , roughly:
Ego i s upwardly m o b ile , t r i e s to a s s o c ia t e w ith members o f th e c l a s s i n ­
to w hich he has r i s e n , i s r e b u ffe d , or th in k s he i s r e b u ffe d , b e li e v e s
t h is i s due to h is s p e e c h , c l o t h e s , a t t i t u d e s , and o th e r s ig n s o f h is
low er ra n k s, and th e r e fo r e t r i e s to change in th e se r e s p e c t s .
T his then
le a d s to s t r i c t co n fo rm ity or even o v erco n fo rm ity w ith th e b e l i e f s and
v a lu e s o f the upper stra tu m , a symptom o f w hich may be an u lt r a - c o n s e r v a tiv e
p o l i t i c a l p o s it io n .
A Goldwater R epublican i s produced.
Because th ey want to r a d e fin e W in c o n tr a d ic to r y ways c o n f l i c t o f
l e f t and r ig h t look s in e v it a b le «
In f a c t i t i s to th e p ressu r e fo r
r a d ic a l change th a t one o f t e n a t t r ib u t e s th e c o n f l i c t th a t su p p osed ly r e ­
s u l t s from b lo c k in g .
But d oes r a d ic a l change n e c e s s a r ily c r e a te c o n f lic t ?
I f ego wants to compel o th e r s to r e d e fin e W iu the same way a s he
h im s e lf d e fin e s i t , change must c r e a te c o n f l i c t .
What i s p ro b lem a tic i s
‫״‬3 3 ‫״‬
w hether he w ants to compel the co n sen t o f o th ers«
I f th ere i s c o n f l i c t
i t must be b oth b ecau se ego can change S in no way th a t does n o t in v o lv e
f o r c e f u l com pulsion and b ecau se a l t e r r e s i s t s ch an ge.
What we w i l l show
f i r s t i s th a t some a l t e r s in v a r ia b ly r e s i s t r e d e f i n i t i o n .
From 1 0 .3
i t fo llo w s th a t i f ego changes W what he w i l l do i s d e ­
c re a se the Importance o f h is lower rank.
1 0 .1 4 .
G iven: r.. and r . are n o n co n tin g en t ra n k s, r^ i s l e s s than
r . , and ego make¿ some form o f change in W‫ ־‬Then ego p re­
f e r s to d ecrea se w. and in c r e a se w . .
~J
I f , t h e r e f o r e , most o th e r s do co n sen t to r e d e f i n i t i o n , some p r e v io u s ly
w e ll- e s t a b lis h e d a c t o r s in S_are su ddenly d is p la c e d .
I f eg o i s im balanced,
so i s any a l t e r who compares h im s e lf w ith eg o ( 9 « 1 ) , but some o f th ese
a l t e r s are p a r t ic u la r ly a f f e c t e d because t h e ir irobalance i s th e con verse
o f e g o 's ; th a t i s , i f fo r ego r ^
a lte r s
r ^ , fo r a l t e r
r\ „
For th e se
p a rticu la rly ^ i f w. i s d ecrea sed t h e ir o v e r a ll e v a lu a tio n i s d e­
c r e a se d , and t h e ir own r e d e f i n i t io n o f W i s p r e c is e ly th e o p p o site o f
e g o 's »
So some a l t e r s w i l l alw ays r e s i s t ch an ge.
Because i t i s so g e n e r a lly Im portant to th e q u e s tio n o f c o n f l i c t in
t h i s p a r tic u la r kind o f s i t u a t io n d e se r v e s c a r e f u l d e f i n i t i o n .
A lte r
r e s i s t s change whenever th ere i s a p a r tic u la r kind o f c o n tin g e n t r e l a t io n
(a s used in 1 0 . 2) betw een h is ranks and e g o 's .w h ic h can be c a lle d a
/
-3 3 a -
zero-sum r e l a t io n .
1 0 .1 5 .1 .
D e f i n i t i o n . A 0-sum c o n tin g e n t rank r^ i s a rank such
th a t ego cannot in c r e a se the v a lu e o f h is own rank on
r . w ith o u t a co rresp o n d in g d ecrea se o f a l t e r ' s v a lu e on
r. .
‫!־־‬
EXAMPLE 1 0 .8 . R ussian Jews are an e th n ic group o f r e l a t i v e l y low
rank in S3. As sorae o f them a cq u ire w ea lth th ey move ou t o f n eig h b o r­
hood s } which has ra th er low e v a lu a tio n in S_, in t o neighborhood jt,
occu p ied by old-Am ericans and w ith ra th er h ig h e v a lu a tio n in !3. U su a lly
the e f f e c t i s to d e p r e c ia te the v a lu e o f t , in c r e a s in g ly so as more
R ussian Jews in v a d e. E v e n tu a lly the newcomers su cceed to occupancy
a s the old-A m ericans f l e e to new n eigh b orh ood s.
S in ce th e v a lu e o f a neighborhood a s a s ig n o f rank depends on the e v a lu a tio n
o f the e th n ic group which l i v e s in i t , a low er group cannot e a s i l y in c r e a se
i t s own " r e s id e n t ia l" rank w ith o u t d e p r e c ia tin g th a t o f the o ld e r occupants
o f neighborhoods in t o which th ey move.
I t i s l i k e l y th e r e fo r e th a t a l t e r
w i l l in some way r e s i s t the change in h is own rank.
P a r t ic u la r ly so s in c e
he has moved from a b alanced to an im balanced s t a t e .
1 0 .1 5 .2 .
A ssum ption. A lte r w i l l r e s i s t any 0-sum c o n tin g e n t change
in rank by e g o .
‫־‬34‫־‬
V
R eturning to th e main li n e o f argum ent, what we have s o fa r concluded
i s th a t
1 0 .1 6 .
Every con verse im balanced a c to r i s d ep riv ed o f rank by a
change in W.
10.17»
For ev e r y im balance in S th ere i s a co n v erse im b alan ce.
T h erefo r e,
1 0 .1 8 .
Every r e d e f i n i t io n o f W to which a l l a c t o r s in S co n sen t
i s an 0 ‫ ־‬sum c o n tin g e n t change fo r some a c t o r s in S..
Hence we ought to be a b le to con clud e th a t c o n f l i c t i s i n e v i t a b l e .
from 1 0 .1 5 , we have th a t a l t e r w i l l r e s i s t th e ch an ge.
For
But what tie a c t u a lly
have i s o n ly th a t c o n f l i c t i s in e v it a b le I f ego com pels the a s s e n t o f
o th e r s ; we must s t i l l dem onstrate th a t t h is i s e g o 's o n ly way o f changing
W, which cannot be d em on strated .
As he cou ld have a t any e a r l i e r s te p in the b a la n ce p r o c e s s , a g a in
ego co u ld r e t r e a t .
We have s t ip u la t e d th a t we w i l l c o n s id e r what happens
g iv e n th a t he does n o t, but r e t r e a t a t t h i s s ta g e o f th e p r o c e ss i s a new
v a r ia n t o f r e t r e a t a s d e fin e d in 1 0 . 1 , and i s w orth se p a r a te a t t e n t io n .
I f a t t h i s p o in t ego i s o l a t e s h im s e lf from o th e r s he makes h i s new d e f i ­
n it io n o f W an a lt o g e t h e r p r iv a te r e a c t io n , but s t i l l he has made a r a d ic a l
change ( i n h is own view ) o f s t r a t i f i c a t i o n in
S in ce e v a lu a tio n s are
so p e c u lia r ly dependent on h0w the p u b lic g ra n ts on es c la im s , however*
ego may want to o b ta in co n sen t from a t l e a s t some o t h e r s .
D e sp ite •o u r
p revio u s lin e o f argument i t s t i l l d oes n o t fo llo w th a t c o n f l i c t occu rs
becau se ego m ight o b ta in co n sen t from j u s t th o se who have som ething to
-3 5 -
g a in and n o th in g to l o s e , and so lo n g a s t h i s group in s u la t e s i t s e l f i t
i s not brought in t o c o n f l i c t w ith th o se o th e r s who have som ething to lo s e
and n o th in g to g a in .
What • r e s u l t s , in f a c t , i s probably two s u b c u ltu r e s ,
w ith opposed r e d e f i n i t io n s o f W but co m p lete ly in s u la t e d from each o t h e r .
I f th ey can remain in s u la te d th ere w i l l be no c o n f li c t »
There w i l l be
c o n f l i c t o n ly i f th ey are fo rced in t o c o n t a c t , or i f e i t h e r com pels con­
s e n t from some m ean in gfu l au d ien ce whose e v a lu a tio n s a re im portant to
th e o th e r .
EXAMPLE 1 0 .9 . A ,,s o c i a l r e g is t e r " i s a w ell-k n ow n way fo r person s
o f o ld lin e a g e and o ld w ea lth to p r o te c t th em selv es from the in ­
tr u s io n o f nouveaux a r r i v l s , fo r whom w ea lth I s more im portant a s
a determ inant o f rank than i t i s fo r the e s t a b lis h e d lin e a g e s .
Very o f t e n th e s o c i a l r e g i s t e r i s n o t o n ly a bar to encrance o f
the newcomer, i t i s a l s o a r e l a t i v e l y I n su la te d s u b c u ltu r e . I t
i s p r o te c te d from the im portance o f w e a lth in the la r g e r s o c ie t y
by th e f a c t th a t i t s e r v e s to c o n fin e in t e r a c t io n so narrow ly and
because i t c a r r ie s an id e o lo g y th a t d e n ie s the im p o rta n ce o f th e
d e f in it i o n s o f a la r g e r a u d ie n c e .
Because r e d e f i n i t io n has con sequences o th er than c o n f l i c t i t cannot
be s a id th a t b lo c k in g must produce c o n f l i c t .
On th e o th e r hand, i t can
be s a id th a t c o n f l i c t , even c o n f l i c t due to b lo c k in g , can be c r e a te d in
o th er w a y s‫־‬
1 0 .1 9 ,
In f a c t , in g e n e r a l
Any 0-sum change th a t does n ot r e s u l t in w ithdraw al r e s u lt s
in c o n f l i c t .
Sim ply to i l l u s t r a t e , one im portant c a se i s th a t in w hich a m obile stratum
attem p ts to cap tu re p e r q u is it e s or p o s it io n s from an oth er stratu m w hich ,
b ecause th ere are n o t enough p la c e s to s a t i s f y b o th , i s d is p la c e d in the
p rocess.
Such a p ro cess may be c a lle d r e d i s t r i b u t i o n .
-36‫־‬
1 0 .2 0 .
D e f i n i t i o n . A r e d is t r ib u t io n o f r^ o ccu rs when a p o s it io n
a t a g iv e n v a lu e o f
th a t was h e ld by u^ corn s to be h eld
in s te a d by u^.
Probably r e d is t r ib u t io n occu rs when a w hole stratum i s m ob ile but rank
is scarce.
So s o c i a l str u c tu r a i s l i k e l y to be u p se t i f j u s t a few i n d i ­
v id u a ls in c r e a s e rank, even i f rank i s s c a r c e .
No s o c i a l s tr u c tu r e i s
l i k e l y to be u p set even i f many in d iv id u a ls in c r e a s e ran k , so lo n g a s the
number o f ranks i s exp an d in g.
1 0 .2 1 .
L et T be the t o t a l number o f p o s it io n s a t a g iv e n l e v e l o f
r , and l e t the stratum w h old most or a l l o f such p o s it io n s .
U n less stratum V i s sm a lle r than th e number o f e x c e s s p o s it io n s ,
members o f v cannot occupy p o s it io n s a t th a t l e v e l u n le s s
£ s i s r e d is t r ib u t e d .
J3o c o n c lu s io n cou ld be more o b v io u s , but the i l l u s t r a t i o n i s n ev er­
t h e le s s a good on e.
S in ce r e d is t r ib u t io n i s an 0-sum ch an ge, u n le s s a
r i s i n g stratu m fin d s some o th e r path to b a la n ce c o n f l i c t must o c c u r .
1 0 .2 2 .
A ssum ption; I f r.. rem ains a ' d i f f e r e n t i a l l y ev a lu a te d
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , stratum m o b ility w i l l lea d to c o n f l i c t in
d ir e c t p ro p o rtio n to the e x t e .it th a t the h ig h er stratum g e ts
d is p o s s e s s e d when th e lower stratum moves up.