Power and Discontent. by William A. GamsonReview by: George J. McCallSocial Forces, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Sep., 1969), pp. 116-117Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2575478 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 11:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.55 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:40:22 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

116 SOCIAL FORCES

servative, but it is echoed in other parts of the book. In his "modest proposal" for the abolition of academic tenure, Nisbet can scarcely be con- sidered an advocate of the corporate integrity of the professoriat. Far from strengthening them as an "intermediate structure" his proposal would fragment them along lines heretofore proscribed as consistent with "analytical individualism." In his discussion of academic loyalties, there is little "conservatism" in evidence. Instead, we are told that a rational view of the present situation in higher education is not to try to "make large uni- versities seem like small colleges," but to make small colleges more like large universities. It is ironic that Nisbet himself has spent almost his entire academic career at the University of Cali- fornia-not a private institution but an instrument of the state.

These comments concerning the application of Nisbet's "conservatism" in the area of higher edu- cation are not intended to serve any function but one: to raise the question of how the analysis of an avowedly conservative American sociologist differs from that of nonconservatives. Is it pos- sible that the American experience renders a specifically conservative orientation somewhat be- side the point? Does not Professor Nisbet's dis- cussion of academic life sound very much like that of some of his pragmatic, "liberal" colleagues? Whatever the answer to these questions, I hope that liberals and conservatives alike will read these es- says, the products of a provocative and scholarly mind.

LEON BRAMSON

Swacrthmore College

CONSTRUCTING SOCIAL THEORIES. By Arthur L. Stinchcombe. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968. 303 pp. $3.95.

The central problem that has occupied social scientists at all levels of activity is how social ex- planations are made, looking at social events. The search for a theory of theory-making has been coordinate with the development of social science, and one can only say that "progress has been made." There is a built-in contradiction to the supposition that one can operationalize theory- making, if by the latter we mean discovering new ways to see things. One can prescribe for analysis only after he has a theoretical framework in which to analyze, so that, in the main, we have our theories before we can rationalize them and the events which they signify.

Arthur Stinchcombe in this stimulating and useful book uses a technique of reconstruction, essentially the retroduction of C. S. Peirce, to show how social explanations can be made about as well as we can now make them. He says, in effect, that we start with some observed social conditions and we look for significant relation- ships among them. To help us we have formal logic, modern relational logic, statistics, projec- tion lines, fourfold tables, and a range of otlher

conceptual devices. Sometimes causal explana- tions lie in simple relationships. Usually they do not, but one must learn to make them first. In addition, we have categories of causal explana- tion-functional, historical, ecological, and teleolog- ical (in a cybernetics sense). The logic of these categories forms the skeletons upon which more specific and detailed models can be built. He draws pictures of these skeletons. A conspicuous feature of each is that of circular causality, indi- cated by a feedback loop which is also the repro- duction loop of the social pattern. Using con- cepts drawn from general systems and communi- cations theory, these models can be elaborated in neutral (nondoctrinal) and powerful ways. In fact it is soon evident, althouglh not pointed out, that the several form one larger model of social causality.

Continuing, one needs to understand how others have ferreted out complex causal relationships. To do this one must look for clues in the works of successful theorists-Marx, Weber, Coleman, Bendix, Duncan, Helder, Selznick, Homans- whomever one finds convincing. Whatever the original framework, their tlheories can be shown to adapt to the suggested causal models. For example, the feedback model satisfactorily de- scribes Marx's theory of the differential effects of class power. This is done by assigning correct weights to a number of feedback loops to show the proportionate communication and hence control effectiveness of the classes to structure society in their own interests. Marx's preoccupation with a less-fitting causal model, the Hegelian dialectic, didn't prevent his theory from appearing valid in a newer conceptualization.

Thus, the pragmatic approach of Professor Stinchcombe avoids the pitfalls of both the atheo- retical and the hypermetaphysical. For added measure he has included in his later chapters some very convincing theorizing of his own in the area of power as it relates to institutionalization. If there is some lack of integration and adequate conclusions, there is nothing lacking in food for thought in this book which deserves to be in wide use.

ROGER NETT

Universidad Catolica de Chile and Universitv of Houston

POWER AND DISCONTENT. By William A. Gam- son. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1968. 208 pp. $3.25.

This volume represents a comprehensive, crea- tive synthesis of many of the strands of theorizing on social power. Gamson groups these theoretical strands under two major perspectives on power and discontent, each focused on one side of a single relationship between authorities and potential partisans. The influtence perspective "takes the vantage point of potential partisans and emphasizes the process by which such groups attempt to in- fluence the choices of authorities or the structure

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.55 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:40:22 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 117

within which decisions occur." The social control perspective "takes the vantage point of authorities and emphasizes the process by which they attempt to achieve collective goals and to maintain legit- imacy and compliance with their decisions in a situation in which significant numbers of poten- tial partisans are niot being fully satisfied." The influence perspective emphasizes the distributive aspect of power, the allocation of private goods, whereas the social control perspective emphasizes the collective aspect, the generation of public goods.

Chapters on influence in use and in repose con- stitute major contributions to the conceptualiza- tion and measurement of influence, its bases, and its employment. The parallel treatment of social control is less satisfying in that the importance of such mechanisms as insulation, participation, and cooptation is blurred by ambiguity regarding the nature of the controlling social organization. Nonetheless, a systematic set of interesting hy- potheses is generated relating exercise of in- fluence, means of influence, political trust, and social control. These hypotheses are intended to apply to any social organization in which there are au- thorities making binding decisions. However, the theory is most clearly applicable to institutional- ized politics and is not well worked out for such organizations as associations and small groups, though both are mentioned in places.

Much of this book's conceptual leverage stems from the analytic device of examining a group's power (1) relative to authorities (2) concerning a discrete decision. There is little discussion of the relative power of two or more competing groups and almost none regarding the direct interactions amonig such groups that are stressed in the collec- tive behavior literature. (Social movements and countermovements, for example, are paid scant attention despite frequent implication of their importance.) Particularly, the Blutmerian view of publics, with its emphasis on the total patter-n of re- ceived influences from various interacting groups and on the role of such groups in defining the is- sues for decision, stands in sharp contrast to Gamson's analytic strategy.

Although the author's prefatory remarks indi- cate that this book grew out of an interest in dis- content rather than in power, discontent (or po- litical alienation) is definitely a secondary theme in terms of scope and centrality. Discontent is con- ceptualized primarily as the dimension of political trust, the perceived favorable or unfavorable bias of authorities. The extensive literature on the sources and dynamics of discontent receives little attention, as Gamson's interest in discontent lies largely in relating political trust to the strategy and tactics of influence and social control.

This book provides a remarkably useful treat- ment of social power and a systematic set of hy- potheses that appears potentially quite fruitful for

empirical research in political and organizational sociology.

GEORGE J. MCCALL University of Illinois at Chicago Circle

DEFINING THE SITUATION: THE ORGANIZATION OF MEANING IN SOCIAL INTERACTION. By Peter McHugh. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968. 143 pp. $2.95.

There are a number of concepts and ideas within sociology which have achieved an accepted status unwarranted by the systematic examination and explication they receive. "The definition of situa- tion," in spite of noble origins and long use, is such an idea. Professor McHugh's book is an effort aimed at rectifying this condition by, first, ex- tending the intellectual bases of the idea; sec- ondly, making explicit the parameters of the processes involved in defining a situation; and finally, examining these parameters in laboratory research.

It is through definition-dependent actions that institutions and, consequently, all social order is achieved and maintained. Thus, definitions are arrived at through some systematic procedures. The author develops the foundations for the rules governing this systematic character from analytic philosophy as well as sociology. Experiencing and interpreting reality are essentially epistemological phenomena even though they are socially influenced and social in their consequence. From this approach the rare union of sociology and philosophy is used for elaborating "the definition of the situation."

The two principal parameters in defining a sit- uation are "emergence" and "relativity." Events are experienced sequentially and the specific or- dering is utilized in understanding the nature of events. Thus, while past, present, and future are distinct, they are integrated into ongoing experi- ence whereby the present assists in defining the past and in defining the future. The identified properties of emergence are theme, elaboration, fit, authorship, and revelation. While emergence re- fers to the temporal aspects of the definition of the situation, relativity refers to an event's "relation- ship to other events across the boundaries of space." The attachment of meaning to an event is derived from its relation to some other event. As properties of relativity, the author cites typ- icality, likelihood, causal texture, technical effi- ciency, moral requiredness, and substantial con- gruency. The final point in the conceptual frame- work is equating the absence of emergence and relativity with social disorder in the collective and anomie in the individual.

In order to evaluate this framework and to un- derstand the functioning of emergence and rela- tivity in the definition of the situation, a labora- tory research study with thirty college students was conducted. The subject's verbal behavior was taken as an indicator of hiis ongoing defining of the situa- tion. The concepts have utility in explaining a par- ticular sequence of subject behavior but are not

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.55 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:40:22 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions