Gerhard Lenski

Status crystallization: A non-vertical dimension of social status

IN recent years there have been numerous indications that, in the analysis of social stratification, sociology is rapidly outgrowing the classical conceptual schemes inherited from the past. Critically inclined students have come increasingly to recognize the inability of the older schemes to incorporate many of the findings of present day research, or to adapt themselves to newer theoretical concerns. This trend is evident even with respect to such a basic matter as the manner in which the vertical structure of groups is conceived. From Aristotle to Marx to Warner, most social philosophers and social scientists have described the vertical structure of human groups in terms of a single hierarchy in which each member occupies a single position. Different exponents of this traditional scheme have not always agreed regarding the nature or characteristics of this hierarchical structure. Nevertheless, all have shared the common conception of a unidimensional structure. Since Max Webers day, however, this traditional approach has come to be criticized by a growing number of sociologists, who have argued that the uni-dimensional view is inadequate to describe the complexities of group structure. These critics have maintained that the structure of human groups normally involves the coexistence of a number of parallel vertical hierarchies which usually are imperfectly correlated with one another. If this newer approach is sound, the traditional conception of individual or family

Social participation and status crystallization

The conclusion concerning the relationship of ethnic origin and class position to casual neighboring relations is a general confirmation of the hypothesis proposed. When considered in terms of the two variables defined, predisposition to interpersonal contact and actual neighboring behavior, it was found that casual neighboring is a function both of the respondents class position and of his ethnic membership. In a general sense members of lower-class groups engage in less casual neighboring than members of upperclass groups. In addition, there would seem to be marked differences among the specific ethnic groups as well as between the two generalized ethnic categorizations, Europeans and non-Europeans, with respect to casual neighboring behavior. It was observed that the major differentials between desire and performance in this area of casual neighboring appeared in the middle and lowest class non-European groups. As a whole the non-Europeans were described as characterized by more extensive and more highly ritualized concepts of hospitality and neighboring relations. Since neighboring relations apparently imply to them a more elaborate configuration of rituals and amenities of hospitality involving the availability of considerable means and facilities, it was suggested that the lower class non-Europeans are the least able of all the groups in the community to realize their predisposition to interpersonal contact. The Europeans, on the other hand, since their initial predisposition is lower and since their concept of the amenities and obligations of hospitality is less elaborate, are apparently able to realize their predisposition to interpersonal contact, even in the lowest socioeconomic status group.

RETHINKING MACROSOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

Macrosociologists have too long been complacent about the state and quality of their theory. If macrosociological theory is to progress, and not merely proliferate, several major changes are needed in the way theory is usually formulated. Above all, theories must become falsifiable. This will require that key concepts be stated in an operationally unambiguous manner and that relationships among variables also be specified unambiguously. In addition, theories ought explicitly to incorporate biological and environmental constants and not leave them implicit or ignore them, as is too often the case. Finally, theories should be multilayered, with a general theory employing a covering principle to identify a key variable or variables on which a series of derivative special theories can be based. Above all, theory construction requires greater rigor and discipline than is currently the norm.

Social Correlates of Religious Interest

attempt to test this hypothesis involved the tape recording in the adjoining room. Subjects were asked to fill out a multiple-choice test based on the content of that recording. The problem set by the test was one of correct recognition of the material reproduced from the tape. Analysis of the data gives no indication of a difference between A and D groups in the recall of this material. The within-group variation is great, as is that between groups, in each of the experimental variations.

The Religious Factor in Detroit: Revisited

at least equally reasonable conclusion, would have been that an important linking hypothesis had been tested and disconfirmed, raising the problem of whether the earlier findings meant what they seemed to mean about religious differences. While the specific implications of this paper have to do with the Protestant Ethic thesis as developed by Lenski, there is surely a larger implication concerning the place of replication in empirical sociology. The Re7igious Factor was an original and stimulating work, and while the analysis carried out within it seems somewhat problematic in 1969, the primary issue lies not with the book but with the need to strengthen traditions that make replication an assumed part of sociological research. This is particularly true when the original finding is a nonobvious but intuitively interesting one. As with all science, the development of sociology can be greatly stimulated by unexpected results, but the more remarkable an empirical finding, the more it requires careful scrutiny and systematic replication.

Religion and the Modern Metropolis

main closely identified with others. The omnipresence and the secularization of religion have been pointed out by those who sought to characterize the main institutional features of American society from the start of the Republic. Certainly, changes have occurred in the nature of religious belief and practice as ours has changed from an essentially rural society to a predominantly urban industrial culture, and as science and intellectual life have touched on religious belief. But by far the most striking aspect of religious life in America is not the changes which have occurred in it but the basic continuities it retains.

Religion's Impact on Secular Institutions

During the last decade the subject of religion has received considerable attention both in popular and scholarly circles. Much of this has been devoted to the recent religious revival and its causes. Little attention has been devoted to the consequences of religious belief and practice in the everyday lives of the masses of men. Yet from both the sociological and religious standpoints, these could be of crucial importance.