Status Consistency and Preference for Change In Power Distribution

Abstract

DISCREPANCIES between currently experienced and desired distributions of power in society indicate a preference to alter or accept a change in social arrangements. Such dispositions, even when consciously and intensely experienced, are not necessarily incipient pressures for social change. They may be wishful or fantasied changes that dissipate tensions and therefore may actually serve to protect social arrangements against more serious threats. Preferences for changes in the distribution of power are, however, frequently related to the development of social movements and may indeed be requisite for their existence. This paper reports a study of one possible determinant of preference for change in the distribution of power in American society: the degree of consistency. consistency is defined here as the extent to which an individual occupies ranks on relevant dimensions that are defined as comparable in shared expectations.' The dimensions that are relevant may vary from group to group or situation to situation. They may be safety, affection, sex sophistication, rectitude, knowledge, power and the like. The attributes that define the dimensions and the indicators used to communicate an individual's rank position on the dimension may likewise vary. Income may be an attribute with its ranks indicated in terms of money income received per annum, or in terms of land holdings, etc. When two or more dimensions are relevant, there occurs the possibility that a person may rank high on one or more dimensions and low on others. The test for comparability of ranks is the extent to which the rank positions occupied are expected to go together, imply each other, and thus communicate consistent information to the individual and to those with whom he interacts. To the extent that this condition does not hold, the individual is low in consistency. Several studies suggest that the degree of consistency is inversely related to the extent to which the individual prefers a change in social arrangements, particularly change in the distribution of power. This hy* This paper partially reports an analysis of data collected and made available by The Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. The author is also indebted to Werner S. Landecker, Gerhard E. Lenski, and Stephen B. Withey of the University of Michigan for their many suggestions. He is also grateful to Jeanne E. Clare of Brown University for help in a revision of this paper and to Robert C. Davis of The Survey Research Center for critically readir-, an early draft. 1 In recent years writers have increasingly stressed such a non-vertical dimension of status. See, for example, E. Benoit-Smullyan, Types and Interrelationships, American Sociological Review, 9 (April, 1944), pp. 151-161; H. F. Kaufman, et al., Problems of Theory and Method in the Study of Social Stratification in Rural Society, Rural Sociology, 18: (March, 1953), p. 15; and G. E. Lenski, Status Crystallization: A Non-Vertical Dimension of Social Status, American Sociological Review, 19 (August, 1954), pp. 405-413. The most detailed exposition, in terms of status crystallization, appears in R. Freedman, et al., Principles of Seciology, New York: Henry Holt, 1956, especially Chapters 7 and 13. The present paper is indebted to this treatment. Since the author has stressed expectations as a part of the concept to a greater degree, it was thought advisable to use a different label for the variable. 275