Search

What happens to high school youths when they take on jobs during the school year, sometimes working long hours, while trying to maintain the role of student? There is a consensus in the empirical literature that teenage employment, particularly what is termed "intensive" employment, results in a constellation of detrimental consequences: lower school grades, diminished educational ambitions, and emotional alienation from parents. There is even more consensus that work and intensive work puts youths at great risk of committing delinquent acts and other problem behaviors such as smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, and using marijuana and other drugs. In our view, the conclusion that either work or intensive work has a harmful net effect on youths is based on a thin empirical base. The problem is that previous empirical work has not adequately addressed the issue of possible selection effects. In this article, we reexamine the relationship between intensive employment and delinquency and problem behaviors using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY). We conduct two general types of analysis. First, we conduct what we term a traditional analysis wherein we employ observed covariates to capture the selection process. Here we find the same positive relationship between intensive employment and antisocial behavior that others before us have. Second, we conduct both a random and a fixed-effect analysis where we adjustfor both observed and unobserved sources of population heterogeneity. In this second analysis, we find that the positive association between work and antisocial behavior observed in the traditional analysis disappears. We discuss the implications of these results both for analyses of the relationship between work and crime in general and for criminological theory.

The nature of work in America is changing in important ways. Blue-collar jobs are being eliminated because of increased competition from countries where wages are lower, while a greater economic role is being assumend by professional, technical, and clerical workers involved in developing complex technologies, providing services, and processing information. All this affects the values and expectations of those who work as well as their relationships to one another and to society at large. This book discusses this recent transformation. Among the provocative issues raised are - precisely what alienation from work means, and what non-alienated forms of work might be like, what happens within the family when both husband and wife contribute to the family's income, how work values are changing, and whether the primacy of work in people's lives has begun to wane, why American society has failed to develop a full employment policy in the past, how the economy might be redirected to reduce unemployment, whether work sharing (in which available hours of work are divided among a labor force) is feasible in America, and what the future will be like for workers in advanced industrial societies.

Tj~HE phenomenon of marginality, though fairly widespread in the modern world, J has received scant attention from social scientists.' Marginality, I would suggest, refers to a social situation characterized by the following: 1. Two cultures (or subcultures) are in lasting contact. 2. One of them is dominant in terms of power and reward potential. This is the non-marginal culture of the two. Its members are not particularly influenced by or attracted to the other, the marginal culture. 3. The boundaries between the two are sufficiently permeable for the members of the marginal culture to internalize the patterns of the dominant culture as well as that of their own. 4. These patterns, in their entirety, cannot be easily harmonized. 5. Having acquired the goals of the non-marginal culture, members of the marginal group are pulled by the promise of the greater rewards offered. 6. The barriers between the two tend to be hardened by discrimination from the one side, and by pressure against "betrayal" from the other. 7. Marginality acquires particular intensity when the clash persists through more than one generation. On the basis of this characterization of marginality, we can distinguish it from other foci of attention within the general field in which it lies, namely, culture contacts-the study of the laws of development of cultures and social structures under the impact of inter-societal contact. The study of marginality is different from that of: (1) the diffusion of culture between relatively independent societies; (2) the relations between groups in contact with relatively impermeable boundaries, e.g., situations of classical imperialism; and (3) the relatively rapid acculturation and assimilation of individuals orfragmented groupings, emigrants from one culture to another which is hospitable and accepting, e.g., "old" immigration to the United States. Marginality is also to be distinguished from alienation and anomie. It is often said that our society is characterized by these, by no one quite feeling that he belongs anywhere. This is different from the state where one has ties to two partially incompatible societies, and does not wholly belong to either. One can be anomic without being marginal, and marginal without being anomic. It is also frequently argued that modern society is nought but a complex of subcultures, and that, inasmuch as each of us is a member of a class, ethnic, religious, and possibly of other subcultures whose bounds rarely coincide, we are all marginal. Multiple subculture membership can, indeed, be marginal, if there is a conflict between the values and patterns of the subcultures involved, and a sense of belonging to both simultaneously is difficult to achieve. To the extent that this is so, marginality is not to be seen as a phenomenon limited to immigrant groups and their children. I would also call attention to that part of the above characterization of marginality which stresses the superior reward potential of the nonmarginal group. Without this differential, that is, were there no goals which could better or only be realized in the dominant group, members of the marginal group would scarcely be pulled away from it. * Expanded version of a paper read at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Society, September 1955. Appreciation is expressed to the Department of Scientific Research of the American Jewish Committee for support of the study upon which this paper is based. 1 Of the seven published articles in sociological journals in the last dozen years which deal with marginality, only two derive from empirical studies. The others are discussion papers. In 1929 Karl Mannheim placed his hope on the " 'socially unattached intelligentsia'" as those who would evolve a "progressively comprehensive and rational understanding of reality." Freedom, Power and Democratic Planning (New York: Oxford University Press, 1950), p. ix. Since intellectuals are marginal men, studying marginality becomes a matter of self-study, a difficult and uncomfortable affair. This may, in part, explain the neglect of this aspect of reality.

At the present time, in all the social sciences the various synonyms of alienation have a foremost place in studies of human relations. Investigations of the "unattached," the "marginal," the "obsessive," the "normless," and the "isolated" individual all testify to the central place occupied by the hypothesis of alienation in contemporary social science. ... It has become nearly as prevalent as the doctrine of enlightened self-interest was two generations ago. It is more than a hypothesis; it is a perspective.'

Based on interviews with a national sample of Cuban workers, hypotheses on the relationship between work discontent, "estrangement" in the specifically Marxian sense, and revolutionary political attitudes are tested. We find that attitudes toward plant administration, and perception of opportunity for promotion or higher wages in the plant are directly related to support for the revolution. The change the workers reported in their attitudes toward work since the nationalization of industry directly relates to their attitudes toward the revolution: Those whose work attitudes became positive after nationalization are most likely to support the revolution. Viewed differently, the relationship is also direct: Revolutionary workers are most likely to have changed their attitudes toward work from negative to positive. Empirical evidence and theory suggest that changes in work and work attitudes led to support of the revolution, rather than the reverse. Even with prerevolutionary employment status controlled, those whose work attitudes became positive after nationalization are most likely to be revolutionary workers. Types of work discontent are specified, and we find that prerevolutionary "estrangement" from work is even more strongly predictive of revolutionary political attitudes than other types of work discontent. E very age has its key ethical concept around which it can best formulate the cluster of its basic problems," and to many of our thinkers that concept is alienation.1 The frequent use in social science today of some variant of the concept testifies "to the central place occupied by the hypothesis of alienation."2 Much of the concept's value in sociological analysis, however, is diminished because in the very process of trying to "remove the critical, polemic element in the idea of alienation,"3 the concept itself has become 1 Lewis Feuer, "What is Alienation? The Career of a Concept," Sociology on Trial, Maurice Stein and Arthur Vidich, eds. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963), p. 127. 2 Robert Nisbet, The Quest for Community (New York: Oxford University Press, 1953), p. 15. 3 Melvin Seeman, "On the Meaning of Alienation," American Sociological Review, 24 (December 1959), p. 784. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.149 on Thu, 20 Oct 2016 04:29:35 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms ALIENATION AND REVOLUTION 225 alienated from its classical meaning as a radical attack on the existing social structure. In fact, in most sociological writing it is "no longer clear what alienated men are alienated

The generalization that there exists a direct relationship between bureaucratization and alienation is modified by examining the relationships between five bureaucratic characteristics and six forms of alienation among samples of hourly paid workers, salaried managers, and independent businessmen. The data do not support the broad generalization that such a direct relationship exists, but some patterns of relationships are suggestive for future research: (1) bureaucracy may be directly related to alienation among blue-collar workers, but not among salaried managers or independent businessmen; (2) the authority dimension of bureaucracy is more closely related to measures of alienation than other bureaucratic characteristics among hourly paid worikers; and (3) that form of alienation most closely related to bureaucratization among hourly paid workers is self-estrangement. Since the early writings of Marx (cf. Bottomore, 1963:124-131), one of the major themes of sociology and social philosophy has been the attempt to locate the antecedents of alienation.1 Whether the focus is on the qualitative, inferential works of the social commentators (cf. Josephson and Josephson, 1962) or on the empirical contribution of the social scientists,2 there seems to be widespread agreement (Josephson and Josephson, 1962:30-53) that industrialization and its concomitant, bureaucratization, are among the major alienating conditions and that their influence extends far beyond the workplace. The purpose of this discussion is to add to that literature by exploring the relationships between specified dimensions of bureaucracy and different types of alienation among three occupational samples-hourly paid workers, salaried managers, and independent businessmen. With few exceptions (Aiken and Hage, 1966; Blauner, 1964), there has been a tendency in the literature to suggest a direct relationship between bureaucratization and alienation without specifying the bureaucratic characteristics related to different forns or dimensions of alienation. Thus, just as Seeman (1967) has noted and questioned a "generalization theme" in regard to the consequences of alienation, our purpose is to explore the validity of a similar generalization theme in re* Revision of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Social Science Association, Dallas, Texas, April 1968. The authors acknowledge with gratitude the encouragement and critical aid provided by Ivan Belknap and S. Dale McLemore of the University of Texas and Richard L. Simpson of the University of North Carolina. The research reported here is from a larger project funded by the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, Austin, Texas. 1 That alienation is among the concepts of major interest to contemporary sociologists is at once apparent when scanning the contents of our maj or journals. The generalization has also been documented by a content analysis of four major sociological journals over a recent twelve-year period (Bonjean, Hill, and McLemore, 1967 :6-8). 2 Much of this literature is well summarized in Aiken and Hage (1966). This content downloaded from 157.55.39.219 on Tue, 19 Jul 2016 06:04:21 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

This paper discusses tests on three sets of hypotheses dealing with the relationship between selected aspects of the social integration of businessmen and community size. This testing shows that smaller community size is associated with: (1) involvement in the network of voluntary associations in the community-at-large, (2) interest in the opinions of members of these associations and of the community-at-large, (3) feelings of alienation, which are determined in part by the businessmen's inability to adjust themselves to their economic environment. Interpretation of these relationships suggests that, at least concerning the alienation of businessmen, the positive relationship between anomie and size, which Durkheim and others have discussed is now reversed. The hypothesis is offered that this reversal is now extended to the rest of the community. G eneral theories treat size as a condition of action affecting elements and processes of social systems.1 Studies of comnmunities or other types of social systems examine size in relation to (1) the patterns of interaction it helps develop,2 and (2) the person1 Charles Loomis, Social Systemns (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1960). The function of size as a conditioni affecting elements and processes of the social system is explicitly discussed, chap. 1 and P.A. S.M. model in particular; Talcott Parsons, Thte Social SysteCm (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1951), p. 190. Parsons also treats size as a condition of social action, but he does not assign direct causal necessity to it. 2 Scott Greer and Ella Kube, "Urbanism and Social Structure: A Los Angeles Study," in Marvin Sussman (ed.), Comnnutitity Structure and This content downloaded from 157.55.39.35 on Sat, 03 Sep 2016 04:16:02 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

In a comparative study of delinquents and controls strength of religious feelings proved a significant differentiator, while the religious category or church attendance did not relate significantly with delinquency. Delinquents' weak religiosity contributed to high alienation, high hedonism and low life-vision. Unemployment manifested different effects for the delinquents, leading to delinquency and alienation, but not for the controls. When the two groups were dichotomized into higher and lower delinquency ratings, the low family affect was a common contributor, but church and family income had a reverse influence. White delinquents and controls are both more hedonistic than Negro delinquents and Negro controls, otherwise there are no significant differences attributable to race.

Political alienation, defined as attitudes of estrangement from the political system, is conceptualized as falling into two broad categories: political incapability and discontentment. In the first instance, alienation is forced upon the individual by his environment, whereas in the second case it is voluntarily chosen by him. Survey data indicates that incapability occurs most commonly among persons occupying various disadvantaged social statuses, while discontentment is most prevalent among those comprising the "old middle class." Neither category of alienation is markedly correlated with any form of political participation, but they do differ sharply in their relationships to party preference and voting. Persons with high incapability and low discontentment vote overwhelmingly Democratic, whereas those witlh high discontentment and low incapability largely vote Republican. Concern with alienation is not unique to our era. The idea has appeared throughout all of mankind's recorded literature,1 and it was a persistent theme in the writings of nineteentlh-century sociologists such as Marx, T6nnies, Durkheim, and Weber. In recent years, however, social scientists have "recliscovered" alienation-to use Daniel Bell's phrase2-and made it a dominant thlemiie in * This paper was partially drawn from my unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, "Political Assimilation, Social Opportunities, and Political Alienation," University of Michigan, 1965. I am particularly indebted to Professors William A. Gamson and Sheldon Stryker for their many helpful suggestions and criticisms. 1 For a brief but comprehensive survey of the history of the idea of alienation, see Eric Josephson and Mary Josephson, Man Alone: Alienation in Modern Society (New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1962), pp. 9-53. 2 Daniel Bell, "The Rediscovery of Alienation: Some Notes Along the Quest for the Historical Marx," Journal of Philosophyi, 56 (November 1959), pp. 933-952. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.27 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 04:37:02 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms POLITICAL ALIENATION 289 contemporary social theory. Of particular interest to both sociologists and political scientists has been alienation from the political systemwhich numerous writers view as a crucial factor in contemporary politics.3 Despite the current proliferation of writings on political alienation, many questions remain unanswered: How can political alienation best be conceptualized and measured? Are these attitudes simply an expression of the weltanschautng of the "working class" in modern society, or are there also "middle class" forms of alienation from politics? Does political alienation provide a useful predictor of participation in political activities, from informal discussions to partisan campaigning? And are various types of political alienation differentially associated with political party and voting choices? The twin purposes of this paper are (a) to suggest a conceptual framework and related measurement scales with which to study political alienation, and (b) to report empirical data based on this conceptualization that offer at least tentative answers to the above questions.

In this paper I have tried to suggest some probable extensions and projections into the future of what is at present a dimly visible and restricted condition. As previously reported, the situation at present is stable, in the sense that the attitudes supporting the traditional way of life of both Ladinos and Indians are dominant, and some of the tensions are capable of being drained off by desertion of Indians to other areas. Moreover, the average Indian is so securely orientated and integrated to a pattern of poverty, illness, and hard work that he seems quite capable of taking considerable slack in his psychological belt to adjust to still more of the same. The dynamics of alienation from tradition are at present cumulating their forces. How quickly the power which they contain will be recognized by or forced upon the Indians and Ladinos is a matter of speculation. The evidence would seem to point to considerable resistance to any variation in the way of life to adjust to the lnew forces at work. It is for this reason that in a previous paper the situation was described as one which has much promise of long life. For, there always remains the alternative that the Indians will grow increasingly small in numbers, but will nevertheless stubbornly keep up their traditions. If this alternative is pursued, it may be some generations yet before they either effectively disappear as a local community, or, through various other mechanisms, become so altered as to be no longer recognizable for what they were in 1940. It seems of significance to note here, finally, that the stratification by age and generation and the vertical division of the sexes in the community have come to have special significance. It makes considerable difference to the observer whether he views the situation through the eyes of a young man or an old man, a father or a son, a mother or a daughter. One does not get the same picture from any randomly selected individual in the community. This in some measure is a decided qualification on the usual assumption of homogeneity of such peasant or primitive communities, an assumption which underlies the use of one or two "trustworthy informants" as the principal sources of information about such communities. These materials therefore incidentally suggest that a more adequate sampling of peasant populations in transition is called for than has hitherto been practiced in typical ethnographic investigation.

This paper examines Simmel's analysis of the secret society as a source of rich insight into the role of secrecy in social organization. Some of the central attributes of the secret society as a constructed type are reviewed, and the principal instance of an attempt to empirically test Simmel's analysis is evaluated. Then, Nine Propositions extracted from Simmel's essay are presented and discussed. The major contention of this paper is that if Simmel's insights are to be fruitfully utilized, the deliberate generation of sound propositions must be the first step. O ?f Simmel's many insightful essays, one of the most frequently overlooked in American sociology is "The Secret and the Secret Society,"' which was first translated into English in 1906.2 As well as being an analysis of the role of secrecy and of organizations peculiarly marked by conditions of secrecy, this essay also presents many significant elements of Simmel's analyses of more general sociological concerns such as community, alienation, and authority. The student of de Tocqueville or of Marx, for example, will find much that is familiar before he confronts the elaborations and modifications that are uniquely Simmelian. Yet the essay has attracted little sustained interest.3 One possible reason for this lack of attention is the decreased significance, both numerical and subjective, of the secret society in recent American history. The number of "visible" secret organizations has apparently declined since the early 1900's, and of those that have survived (e.g., Ku Klux Klan, Rosicrucians, Cosa Nostra, and recent "Black Nationalist" groups) none has received the serious interest of contemporary sociologists, with the tentative exception of the "Black Nationalist" organizations. Whatever the reason, the oversight is unfortunate, since the essay contains numerous insights into, among other phenomena, the role of secrecy as a means for the manipulation and control of a central variable in social organization: information.4 The purpose of this paper is to present in propositional form some aspects of Simmel's analysis of the secret society. The Propositions make no pretension to the status of theory; they lack sufficient integration for that. Instead, they represent a simple inventory of primarily bivariate statements. Nor is any evidence of verification offered for the Propositions, either singly or collectively, beyond the sporadic illustrations and examples provided by Simmel himself (which do not, of course, constitute evidence of nomothetic validity).5 The intended * The author is indebted to Joseph Lopreato for his critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper. 1 Originally published in Georg Simmel, Soziologie, Untersutchungen fiber die Form-en der Vergesellschaftung (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1908), chap. 5. Translated as Part 4 of Kurt H. Wolff, The Sociology of Georg Simmel (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1950). Future references to the essay are to Wolff's rendition. 2 "The Sociology of Secrecy and of Secret Societies," translated by Albion W. Small, Aserican Joural of Sociology, 11 (January 1906), pp. 441498. 3 For example, an examination of the first 70 volumes of the American Journal of Sociology (1895-1965) reveals only three articles (including Small's translation) concerning the secret society, and the first 30 volumes of the American Sociological Review (1936-1965) contain none. 4 Information in the sense of the knowledge and skill that a person possesses relative to given role performances. See for example, Kaare Svalastoga, Social Differentiation (New York: David McKay Co., 1965), chaps. 1 and 2; and Wilbert E. Moore and Melvin M. Tumin, "Some Social Functions of Ignorance," American Sociological Review, 14 (December 1949), pp. 787-795. 5 Simmel's reliance upon the occasional example for substantiation of his analysis is one of the greatest weaknesses of not only this essay but most of his other essays as well. It should be emphasized, however, that his essays were not "speculative" in the pejorative sense of the word; his method of comparing both similar and diverse inThis content downloaded from 157.55.39.205 on Sun, 04 Dec 2016 05:00:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

According to the theory of mass society, organizational membership drags people into routine politics, while discouraging participation in direct action movements. The thesis of this paper is that this theory needs severe modification. First, for an important class of organizations-organizations with goals unincorporated by the larger society or containing members with interests or values that are unincorporated-membership increases rather than inhibits participation. This is indicated both by a theoretical analysis of mass theory and by data gathered from participants in the Negro sit-in movement of the early 1960s. Second, this data indicates that the existence of many such organizations is necessary if a direct action movement is to be strong. Thus, not only routine, but disorderly politics too requires an organizational substructure to create and sustain it. Third, the data indicates that the substructures of these two types of politics are not totally distinct, but rather share certain organizations in common. Some organizations seem to generate participation in both types simultaneously, while others may, at one point in their history, inhibit participation, but at another, when a movement has gathered strength, generate it. In short, theory and data suggest the need for a major revision of mass theory which takes the variable of unincorporation into account. Most formal democracies have experienced mass movements that go outside the routine channels of political action to obtain their aims. These movements often engage in illegal or semi-illegal acts and occasionally, intentionally or unintentionally, generate violence. Because they bypass normal channels, they are generally termed direct action movements. Because they frequently give rise to disorder, the kind of politics they involve might best be termed disorderly politics. The cause of such movements has not yet been resolved. One of the more common explanations for their rise argues in terms of "hard" deprivations-deprivations of income, status, power-and facilitating conditions. Thus, for example, the trade union movement, which involved considerable disorder in its early phases, has been explained in terms of such deprivations as long hours, low prestige, and the like, and in terms of such facilitating conditions as the growth of large plants, plants which broke the personal ties between worker and manager, permitted the concentration of activists, etc. This perspective can be termed the class theory of direct action movements. Recently, however, sociologists and other writers have stressed an alternative theory, the theory of massification.1 This theory points to organizational membership as its central explanatory variable. A rich organizational life, it is argued, drags people into routine politics while simultaneously reducing their alienation from the system, leading in this way to restrained "rational" politics. An impoverished organizational life, on the other hand, leads to alienation and a conse* We would like to thank Charles Perrow for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. As he disagreed with parts of our analysis, however, he should not be held responsible for any errors it may contain. 1 The writers and works generally cited as being in this tradition are Arendt (1958), Kornhauser (1959), Nisbet (1953), and Selznick (1960). It is not clear to us that all these writers are saying precisely the same things. We have had to choose among them, therefore, in our exposition of the theory. As Kornhauser's statement is the fullest and as it consists of a synthesis of the writings of the others (insofar as this is possible), our treatment shall rely primarily on his analysis.