Search

We examine the connection between personal network characteristics and the activation of ties for access to resources during routine times. We focus on factors affecting business owners' use of their core network ties to obtain legal, loan, financial and expert advice. Owners rely more on core business ties when their core networks contain a high proportion of men, are very dense, and have high occupational heterogeneity. We conclude with suggestions for future research and implications for other populations in need of routine resources.

N THIS paper we report on the residential mobility inclinations of families of former mental patients. Two questions are considered: 1. Are the mobility inclinations of families of former mental patients similar to those of typical families in an urban community? 2. Are families of former patients inclined to move for reasons associated with the illness of family members? The data analyzed here were gathered in a survey focused primarily on the relationships between patients' posthospital performance levels and characteristics of their families and family members.' In addition to investigating correlates of posthospital performance, the survey was undertaken in order to examine the attitudes of patients' families with respect to a number of common social processes, including residential mobility. Our attempt to describe systematically the attitudes of patients' families was in response to direct calls for survey research findings to supplement the clinical impressions and limited case studies that now constitute the sole sources of data regarding patients' posthospital experience.2 Our approach is less stringent than the ideal research design, since the data were gathered ancillary to the study of correlates of posthospital performance. Ideally, we should have employed two study groups, one representative of families of patients and the other of typical families in the community. In lieu of this, we have attempted to introduce a comparative approach by replicating the research of others. In this case we have selected Rossi's study of families in Philadelphia.3 This approach has, of course, a number of limitations. For example, the investigations were conducted in different geographical areas, there is a time lapse of several years between the field work of the two studies, and the items are embodied in different interview schedules. One reason Rossi's research was selected is that the magnitudes of the relationships are reasonably high, which suggests that their generality is not limited to a single city, time period, or other similar condition. In order to answer the second question-whether or not the mobility inclinations of families of former patients are associated with characteristics unique to them-a second set of variables was included in the analysis. These reflect differences associated with the patients' illness, such as length of hospitalization and the number of times hospitalized. Insofar as the limitations of the design permit, we have analyzed the interrelationships between the variables in each of the two sets.

M ENTAL hygiene and family counselling are both comparatively new and Protean arts, each lacking an adequate formulation of its scientific concepts in theory and a clear delimitation of its field in practice. The topic assigned to me for discussion is therefore by nature such that I must begin by criticising one of its terms and defining the other. Let us first attempt the easier task of defining our second term. Family counselling is often too narrowly centered upon problems of marital discord. But conflict between husband and wife is rarely due to factors arising wholly within the marriage situation, and its effects are rarely confined to strain or disruption of the marriage bond. If family counselling is not to operate in a vacuum, it must consider the family as a dynamic unity of interacting personalities, and must become the inclusive art of social guidance concerning all the interpersonal relationships that arise within it, including the relations of parents and children, as well as those of parents to one another and of children among themselves. But the criticism of our first term can not be so summarily disposed of, for mental hygiene is a good term gone wrong. It is generally employed with the assumption that it expresses an attitude toward mental health strictly analogous to that expressed toward bodily health by the older term physical hygiene. But nothing could be further from the facts. For physical hygiene is the art concerned with the preservation and the improvement of health in both individuals and communities. It is primarily concerned, not with the pathological, but with the normal, and it is primarily addressed, not to the sick, but to the well. As the art of personal and social sanitation, it is not a monopoly of the medical profession. In its social aspects, it is quite as much the professional responsibility of physiologists, engineers, home economists, nurses, social workers, educators, etc., as of physicians, and in its individual aspects every citizen must become his own hygienist if the art of personal hygiene is to be practiced at all. It requires no specifically professional training to advise a neighbor about the undrained puddle in his back yard or the drained bottles under his back stoop, however much it may require tact! And no professional body objects to any citizen giving such counsel, though one's neighbors may! But the emphasis of mental hygiene has from the first been upon the pathological, not the normal; and its informational content as well as its practical techniques have been devoted to better understanding, treatment, and management of the actually or incipiently ill, not to a system of sanitation for those who have no need of a physician. It is fortunately true that mental hygiene has latterly come to include this positive phase of concern about improving the conditions that make for better mental health in the general population, but it is still largely absorbed in its earlier negative phase of treatment, so that "the mental hygiene approach" to any problem is still almost universally understood to mean the approach to that * Read before the fourth Annual Conference on Conservation of Marriage and the Family, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, April I3, I938.

THE DEVELOPMENT of social work in scope and technique as well as in organiza? tion and administration presents from many points of view an interesting evolution. It is with reference to that evolution that the pres? ent organizational and administrative chaos can be best apprehended. Social work has developed, not in response to some clearly visioned purpose, not under the direction of clearly comprehended principles of social structure and function, but under the stress of felt needs, and in our attempts to meet them we have more or less blindly groped our way. We have discovered our social needs only as they have grown to such magnitude as to compel attention. Then we have adopted such plans of procedure as seemed immediately practicable, and trusted their administration to such social machinery as seemed temporarily expedient. Hence, the chaos in organization, the duplication in function, the waste in resources, the conflicts in jurisdiction, the cross purposes in administra? tion with which our daily experience renders us all too familiar.