Search

account for observed variations in the relationship of status consistency to preference for change in the distribution of power for different strata.'4 Both lines of interpretation suggested above appear plausible, at least post hoc. It is impossible at present, however, to assess their relevance. On the basis of the findings of this study, and the arguments given, the following specifications for further research can be made. Measurement of status consistency should take into account the extent to which the status characteristics used are likely to be simultaneously salient. Second, the opportunities for alternative modes of adjustment to status inconsistency should be controlled or systematically varied. Third, to test the rationale underlying the hypothesis relating status consistency and preference for change in the distribution of power, it would be desirable to measure the intervening variables assumed to be important, e.g. tendency to locate the sources of discomfort in the environment, and relate these to the independent and dependent variables. These would seem to be minimum specifications for clarifying the relationship of status consistency to preference for change in distribution of power.

for sociable reasons seem more likely to remain with an organization than those who join for other reasons. Whereas there were only 8 '2 per cent fewer persons with an associational tie of five years' standing among those reporting some sociable motivation (47 cases versus 43 cases), there were 50 per cent fewer among those not reporting a sociable motivation (30 versus 15). Since sociable motivations are less frequently observed among persons with poorly crystallized status, their higher drop-out rate in voluntary associations becomes more understandable.

our democracy as a sort of spontaneous cooperative enterprise. If it comes, Latin American democracy, on the other hand, is apt to be achieved rather in terms of a balance between a sort of paternal authoritarianism and an unwilling electorate in a state of permanent potential rebellion. The people, demanding to be led, will set up leaders whose exercise of power will be limited strictly to what he finds-under the permanent threat of revolution-they will permit him to do. It is probably significant that the new constitution of Guatemala will likely safeguard explicitly, and attempt to implement, a "right of revolution." From the point of view of these countries of Latin America, the most difficult problem in achieving democracy may therefore be not its lack of a tradition of what we think of as the "democratic way" but rather the folklike character of the greater part of the population. Before there can be a democratic nation, there must be a nation; before all people can have equal opportunity in the economic and social system, they must be part of one system. These conditions, in Mexico and most of Central America, are not now met. As in a colonial situation, the ruling groups are largely of one cultural tradition, the ruled masses of another. The Few are part of the Great Society, the Many of a large number of different and parochial small societies. It is only the Few to whom democracy is even a stated end, and unlike the native leaders in colonial countries in which outside interference gives impetus to nationalist movements among the folk, those here will have to "incorporate" the masses into the national culture with no help from these masses.