Если у вас возникли сложности с курсовой, контрольной, дипломной, рефератом, отчетом по практике, научно-исследовательской и любой другой работой - мы готовы помочь.
Предоплата всего
Подписываем
LOMONOSOV MOSCOW STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
English Language Department for the Humanities Faculties
ENGLISH READER FOR SOCIOLOGY STUDENTS
PART I & II
Compiled and Adapted by N.D. Starkova and A.L. Burak
Moscow 2005
LOMONOSOV MOSCOW STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
English Language Department for the Humanities Faculties
ENGLISH READER FOR SOCIOLOGY STUDENTS
PARTI
Compiled and Adopted by N.D. Starkova and A.L. Burak
Moscow 2005
FOREWARD
The Reader includes extracts from original British and American sources on sociology. The second edition also includes an English-Russian dictionary of sociological terms. The texts have been extensively tested on sociology students in the classroom. Most of the materials have been substantially shortened and slightly adopted to suit the local teaching needs. To a greater or lesser extent the Reader is geared to the areas of specialization and specialist courses taught in the Sociology Faculty at Moscow University. Each thematic section of the Reader is supplied with questions and project assig- mcnts aimed at developing the speaking and writing skills of sociology students in the areas of their specialisation. The compilers of the Reader hope that it will be conducive to a more effective teaching of English for specific purposes to sociology students.
In the course of compiling the Reader the following sources were used:
N.D. Starkova, A.L.Burak
The Context of Sociology
The development of sociology, and its current concerns, have to be grasped in the context of changes that have created the modern world. We live in an age of massive social transformation. In the space of only something like two centimes a sweeping set of social changes, which have hastened rather than lessened their pace today, have occurred. These changes, emanating originally from Western Europe, are now global in their impact. They have all but totally dissolved the forms of social organisation in which humankind had lived for thousands of years of its previous history. Their core is to be found in what some have described as the "two great revolutions" of eighteenth- and. nineteenth-century Europe. The first is the French revolution of 1789, both a specific set of events and a symbol of political transformations in our era. For the 1789 revolution was quite different from rebellions of previous times. Peasants had sometimes rebelled against their feudal masters, for example, but generally in an attempt to remove specific individuals from power, or to secure reductions in prices or taxes. In the French revolution (to which we can bracket, with some reservations, the anti-colonial revolution in North America in 1776) for the first time in history there took place the overall dissolution of a social order by a movement guided by purely secular ideals — universal liberty and equality. If the ideals of the revolutionaries have scarcely been fully realised even now, they created a climate of political change that has proved one of the dynamic forces of contemporary history. There are few states in the world today that are not proclaimed by their rulers to be "democracies", whatever their actual political complexion may be. This is something altogether novel in human histoiy. It is true that there have been other republics, most especially those of Classical Grcecc and Rome. But these
were themselves rare instances; and in each case those who formed the "citizens" were a minority of the population, the majority of whom were slaves or others without the prerogatives of the select groups of citizenry.
The second "great revolution" was the so-called industrial revolution", usually traced to Britain in the late eighteenth century, and spreading in the nineteenth century throughout Western Europe and the United States. The industrial revolution is sometimes presented merely as a set of technical innovations: especially the harnessing of steam power to manufacturing production and the introduction of novel forms of machinery activated by such sources of power. But these technical inventions were only part of a very much broader set of social and economic changes. The most important of these was the migration of the mass of the labour force from the land into the constantly expanding sectors of industrial work, a process which also eventually led -to the widespread mechanisation of agrarian production. This same process promoted an expansion of cities upon a scale again previously unwitnessed in history. It has been calculated that prior to the nineteenth century, even in the most highly urbanised societies, no more than 10 per cent of the population lived in towns or cities — usually considerably less in most agrarian states and empires. By modem standards, virtually all cities in pre-industrial societies, even the most famed cosmopolitan centres, were relatively small. The population of London in the fourteenth century, for example, has been calculated at 30,000; that of Florence during the same period has been put at 90,000. By the turn of the nineteenth century, the population of London already outstripped that of any previous city in history, standing at some 900,000 souls. But in 1800, even with such a large metropolitan centre, only a small minority of the population of England and Wales lived in cities of any size. A century later, somewhere near 40 per cent of the population were inhabitants of cities of 100,000 or more, and nearly 60 per cent were living in cities of 20,000 or more.
Percentage of world's population living in cities
|
Cities of 20, 000 or more |
Cities of 100,000 or more |
|
|
1800 |
2.4 |
1.7 |
|
1850 |
4.3 |
2.3 |
|
1900 |
9.2 |
5.5 |
|
1950 |
20.9 |
13.1 |
|
1970 |
31.2 |
16.7 |
|
1982 |
34.6 |
18.1 |
Source: Kingsley Davis, "The origin and growth of urbanisation in the world", American Journal of Sociology, vol. 61, 1955 (updated).
Table 1.1 shows that urbanisation has expanded dramatically upon a world scale, and continues to do so. All the industrialised countries are highly urbanised, by whatever indices one chooses to distinguish the "town" or "city" from smaller population aggregates. But there are rapidly expanding urban areas in most of the Third World countries as well. The largest urban areas in the contemporary world are quite enormous when contrasted to cities in societies before the nineteenth century.
If industrialism and urbanism are at the heart of the transformations that have irretrievably dissolved most traditional forms of society, there is a third phenomenon associated with them which must be given mention. This is the quite staggering increase in the number of people in the world today, compared with yesteryear. It has been estimated that, at the time of the birth of Christ, the world probably contained something less than 300 million inhabitants. The total number seems to have grown at a fairly steady, but slow, rate up to the eighteenth century; world population probably just about doubled over this period. Since then there has occurred the 'population explosion' of which everyone has heard, however little they may know about the details. Today there arc nearly 4,800 million people living in the world, this number expanding at such a rate that, if it continues, world population will double each forty years. While the conse-
quences of such population growth for the future of humankind are fearful, and subject to considerable debate, the factors lying behind the origins of recent population growth are less controversial than those of industrialisation or urbanism. For most of human history, there has been a general balance between birth and death rates. While this in some respects is a complex matter, there are two main phenomena that dominate others. One is that, prior to the last two centuries, the average life span from birth was rarely more than thirty-five years, and often less. The second factor was the size of the mortality rate of children; it was not uncommon, in mediaeval Europe and elsewhere, for up to half of the children bom annually to die before reaching adulthood. The rise in life expectancy, and dramatic decreases in child mortality rates — brought about by improved sanitation, general conditions of hygiene, and the medical conquest of some of the major infectious diseases — have unleashed this prodigious population growth.
Sociology: A Definition and Some Preliminary Considerations
Sociology came into being as those caught up in the initial series of changes brought about by the 'two great revolutions' in Europe sought to understand the conditions of their emergence, and their likely consequences. Of course, no field of study can be exactly pinpointed in terms of its origins. We can quite readily trace direct continuities from writers in the middle of the eighteenth century through to later periods of social thought. The climate of ideas involved in the formation of sociology in some part, in fact^helped give rise to the twin processes of revolution.
How should 'sociology' be defined? Let me begin with a banality. Sociology is concerned with the study of human societies. Now the notion of society can be formulated in only a very general way. For under the general category of 'societies' we want to include not only the industrialised countries, but large agrarian imperial states (such as the Roman Empire, or
traditional China), and, at the other end of the scale, small tribal communities that may comprise only a tiny number of individuals.
A society is a cluster, or system, of institutionalised, modes of conduct. To speak of 'institutionalised' forms of social conduct is to refer to modes of belief and behaviour that occur and recur — or, as the terminology of modern social theory would have it, are socially reproduced — across long spans of time and space. Language is an example of such a form of institutionalised activity, or institution, since it is so fundamental to social life. All of us speak languages which none of us, as individuals, created, although we all use language creatively. But many other aspects of social life may be institutionalised: that is, bccomc commonly adopted practices which persist in recognisably similar form across the generations. Hence we can speak of economic institutions, political institutions, and so on. Such a use of the concept 'institution', it should be pointed out, differs from the way in which the term is often employed in ordinary language, as a loose synonym for 'group' or 'collectivity' — as when, say, a prison or
л
hospital is referred to as an 'institution'.
These considerations help to indicate how 'society' should be understood, but we cannot leave matters there. As an object of study, 'society' is shared by sociology and the other social sciences. The distinctive feature of sociology lies in its overriding concern with those forms of society that have emerged in the wake of the 'two great revolutions' . Such forms of society include those that are industrially advanced — the economically developed countries of the West, Japan and Eastern Europe — but also in the twentieth century a range of other societies stretched across the world. For no social order in modern times remains untouched by the forces unleashed by the 'two great revolutions'. I want to emphasise very strongly that the 'advanced' societies cannot be treated as though they were isolated from the rest of the world, or from societies that have preceded them in time — although a good deal of sociology is written as though such were the case.
In the light of these remarks, a definition can be offered of the subject as follows. Sociology is a social science, having as its main focus the
study of the social institutions brought into being by the industrial transformations of the past two or three centuries. It is important to stress that there are no precisely defined divisions between sociology and other fields of intellectual endeavour in the social sciences. Neither is it desirable that there should be. Some questions of social theory, to do with how human behaviour and institutions should be conceptualised, arc the shared concern of the social sciences as a whole. The different 'areas' of human behaviour that are covered by the various social sciences form an intellectual division of labour which can be justified in only a very general way. Anthropology, for example, is concerned nominally with the 'simpler' societies: tribal, chiefdoms, and agrarian states. But these either have been dissolved altogether by the profound social changes that have swept through the world, or they are in the process of becoming incorporated within modem industrial states. The subject-matter of economics, to take another instance, is the production and distribution of material goods. However, economic institutions are plainly always connected with other institutions in social systems, which both influence and are influenced by them. Finally, history, as the study of the continual distancing of past and present,
• is the source material of the whole of the social sciences.
Many of the prominent thinkers associated with the development of sociology were impressed with the importance of science and technolegy in contributing to the changes they witnessed. In setting out the aims of sociology, therefore, they sought to duplicate, in the study of human social affairs, the successes of the natural sciences in explaining the material world. Sociology was to be a "natural science of society". Auguste Comte, who lived from 1798 to 1857, and who coined the term "sociology", gave this view its clearest and most comprehensive formulation. All the sciences, he claimed, including sociology, share an overall framework of logic and method; all seek to uncover universal laws governing the particular phenomena with which they deal. If we discover the laws governing human society, Comte believed, we will be able to shape our own destiny in much the same way as science has allowed us to control events in the natural world. His famous formula, Prevoir pour pouvoir (to be able to predict is to be able to control), expresses this idea.
Since Comte's time, the notion that sociology should be fashioned upon the natural sciences has been the dominant view of the subject — although it has certainly not gone unchallenged, and has also been expressed in various differing ways. Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), one of the most influential figures in the development of sociology in the twentieth century, continued some of Comte's emphases. Sociology, he declared, is concerned with "social facts", which can be approached in the same objective way as the facts with which the natural sciences deal. In his short, but very influential book The Rules of Sociological Method (1895), Durkheim proposed that social phenomena should be treated like things: we should regard ourselves as though we were objects in nature. Thereby he accentuated the similarities between sociology and natural science.
As I have mentioned earlier, although this type of standpoint has been very pervasive in sociology, it is one I reject. To speak of sociology, and of other subjects like anthropology or economics, as "social sciences", is to stress that they involve the systematic study of an empirical subject-matter. The terminology is not confusing so long as we see that sociology and other social sciences differ from the natural sciences in two essential respects.
It is very important indeed to stress this point, because much social theory — including that of Durkheim — is pervaded by a tendency to think in terms of physical imagery, a tendency which can have damaging consequences. Social systems involve patterns of relationships among individuals and groups. Many sociologists picture these patterns as rather like the walls of a building, or the skeleton of a body. This is misleading because it implies too static or unchanging an image of what societies are like: because it does not indicate that the patterning of social systems only exists in so far as individuals actively repeat particular forms of conduct from one time and place to another. If we were to use this sort of imagery at all, we should have to say that social systems are like buildings that are at every moment constantly being reconstructed, by the very bricks that compose them.
The Sociological Imagination: Sociology as Critique
The practice of sociology, I argue in this book, demands invoking what C. Wright Mills has aptly called the 'Sociological imagination' (C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1970). The term has been so oft-quoted that it is in danger of being trivial- ised, and Mills himself used it in a rather vague sense. I mean by it several related forms of sensibility indispensable to Sociological analysis as I conceive of it. An understanding of the social world initiated by the contemporary industrialised societies — present-day society as first formed in the West — can only be achieved by virtue of a threefold exercise of the imagination. These forms of the Sociological imagination involve a historical, an anthropological, and a critical sensitivity.
Human beings, genetically identical to us, have probably existed for something like 100,000 years. So far as we know from archaeological remains, 'civilisations', based upon settled agriculture, have been in existence at the most for only the past 8,000 years. But this seems a very large period of time compared with the tiny sliver of recent histoiy dominated by the rise of industrial capitalism. Historians are not agreed about dating the origins of Western capitalism as a prevailing mode of economic enterprise; but it is difficult to make a case for placing it further back than the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries in Europe. Industrial capitalism, the conjunction of capitalistic enterprise with machine production in the factory, has its origins no earlier than the latter part of the eighteenth century, and then was to be found only in parts of Britain. The past hundred years, the century or so which has seen the world-wide expansion of industrial capitalism, have none the less brought about social changes more shattering in their consequences than any other period in the whole previous histoiy of humankind. Those of us in the West live in societies that have absorbed the first impact of these changes. The contemporary generation is familiar
with societies geared to rapid technological innovation, in which most of the population live in towns or cities, work in industrial labour, and are 'citizens' of nation-states. But this now familiar social world, created so rapidly and dramatically in such a brief time span, is quite unique in human history.
г
The first effort of sociological imagination that has to be exercised by the analyst of the industrialised societies today is that of recovering our own immediate past — the 'world we have lost'. Only by such an effort of the imagination, which of course involves an awareness of history, can we grasp just how differently those in the industrialised societies live today from the way people lived in the relatively recent past. Brute facts help, such as those I mentioned in connection with urbanism. But what is really demanded is an attempt at the imaginative reconstruction of the texture of forms of social life that have now been very largely eradicated. Here there is no distinction between the craft of the sociologist and the art of the historian. Eighteenth-century Britain, the society in which the impact of the industrial revolution was first experienced, was still a society in which the customs of the local community held sway, knit together by the pervading influence of religion. It was a society in which we can see recognisable continuities with Britain in the twentieth century, but where the contrasts are quite remarkable. The organisations which are so commonplace today existed in no more than rudimentary- form: not just factories and offices, but schools, colleges, hospitals, and prisons only came to be widespread in the nineteenth century.
These changes in the texture of social life are of course in some part of a material sort. As one historian describing the industrial revolution has written:
Modern technology produces not only more, faster; it turns out objects that could not have been produced under any circumstances by the craft methods of yesterday. The best Indian hand spinner could not turn out yarn so fine and regular as that of the mule; all the forges in eighteenth-century Christendom could not have produced steel sheets so large, smooth, and homogeneous as those of a modem strip mill. Most important, modern
technology has created things that could scarcely have been conceived in the pre-industrial era: the camera, motor car, the aeroplane, the whole array of electronic devices from the radio to the high-speed computer, the nuclear power plant, and so on almost ad infinitum... The result has been an enormous increase in the output and variety of goods and services, and this alone has changed man's way of life more than anything since the discovery of fire: the Englishman of 1750 was closer in material things to Caesar's legionnaires than to his own great-grand-children. (David S. Landes, The Unbound Prometheus, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1969, p. 5.)
The sheer scale and pervasive character of technological innovation is undeniably one of the distinctive features of the industrialised societies today. Closely connected to it is the decline of tradition, the foundation of day-to-day life in the local village community and important even in urban life in the pre-capitalist era. Tradition encapsulated the present in the past, and implied an experience of time distinct from that which predominates in contemporary Western societies. The individual's day was not demarcated into 'work time' and 'free time' as tends to be the case today; and 'work' was not cleanly separated from other activities, either in time or in space.
I referred earlier to the intersection of two great revolutions that lie at the origin of the transformation of the societies of Western Europe. The second was political revolution, which connects to the rise of the nationstate, as significant a phenomenon as the rise of industrialism in creating the modern world. Those living in the West tend to take it for granted that they are all 'citizens' of a particular nation, and no one could fail to be aware of the extensive part which the state (centralised government and local administration) plays in their lives. But the development of rights of citizenship, in particular the universal franchise, is also relatively recent. So is nationalism, the feeling of belonging to a distinctive national community, separate from others. These have become characteristic features of the 'internal' organisation of nation-states, but it is equally important to draw attention to the relations among nation-states as fundamentally distinctive of the modern era.
We live today in a world system that has no parallel in previous ages. The 'two great revolutions' have each proved to have ramifications on a world scale. Industrial capitalism is predicated upon an enormously complicated specialisation of production, a division of labour in which exchange relationships are world-wide. Consider the clothes you are wearing, the room in which you arc sitting, or the food you will eat at your next mealtime. It is unlikely that you yourself will have made your own clothing, constructed your own dwelling, or grown the food you consume. In the industrialised countries we are quite accustomed to such a situation, but before the advent of industrial capitalism the division of labour was veiy much less complex. The majority of the population catered directly for most of their own needs, and where they did not they drew upon the services of others in their local community. But today products are manufactured and exchanged world-wide, in a truly global division of labour. Not only are many of the goods consumed in the West produced on the other side of the world, and to some extent vice versa, but there may be intricate connections among productive processes carried on in widely separated places. Some parts of a TV set, for example, might be made in one country, other parts elsewhere; the set might then be assembled somewhere else, and be sold in yet another place altogether.
But it is not only the expansion of economic relationships that has given rise to a novel and unique world system. The spread of capitalism has been accompanied by the general prevalence of the nation-state. I have mentioned some of the 'internal' characteristics of the nation-state. In an important sense, however, it is misleading to speak of'the' nation-state, because from their early origins in Europe there have always been nationstates, existing in mixed relations of harmony and conflict with one another. Today the whole world is divided into a patchwork of nation-states. Both the emergence of nation-states in Europe, and especially their development in other parts of the world are, once more, relatively recent phenomena. For most of its history, humankind has been thinly scattered throughout the world, living in very small societies, and existing by hunting animals and gathering edible plants — so-called 'hunting and gathering' societies. Over most of the past ten or so millennia, the world was still only sparsely populated, compared with today, by people living either in hunting and gathering societies, small agricultural communities, city- states, or empires. Some empires, most notably that of China, have been very large. But they were quite different in form from contemporary nation-states. The central Chinese government in traditional China, for example, never managed to achieve much direct control over its various provinces, especially the more far-flung ones. Most of those subject to the rule of the Chinese state lived lives utterly different from those of their rulers, with whom they had little in common with respect to cither culture or language.
Moreover, although the various types of society just mentioned existed in various sorts of relationship with one another, those connections certainly did not span the globe as they do today. The observation 'East is East and West is West, and ne'er the twain shall meet', prior to the present century, expressed a very real circumstance. There were sporadic contacts, and a certain amount of intermittent trade, between China and Europe from the eleventh century onwards; but for centuries afterwards China and the West to all intents and purposes inhabited separate universes from one another. Today all this has changed, whatever cultural differences might still separate East and West. China is no longer an empire but a nation-state, albeit one of massive dimensions in terms of both territory and population. It is, of course, also a self-professedly socialist state; although nation-states now span the world, they have by no means all followed the 'liberal-democratic' model that has been most firmly established in Western Europe.
If the first dimension of the sociological imagination involves the development of a historical sensibility, the second entails the cultivation of anthropological insight. To say this is again to emphasise the tenuous na
ture of the conventionally recognised boundaries among the various social sciences. The fostering of an historical sense of how recent and how dramatic are the social transformations of the past two centuries is difficult. But it is perhaps even more challenging to break away from the belief, explicit or implicit, that the modes of life which have developed in the West are somehow superior to those of other cultures. Such a belief is encouraged by the very spread of Western capitalism itself, which has set in motion a train of events that has corroded or destroyed most other cultures with which it has come into contact. Moreover, many social thinkers have given concrete form to this notion in attempting to squeeze human history into schemes of social evolution, in which Aevolution' is understood in terms of the capability of varying types of society to control or master their material environments. Western industrialism inevitably appears at the apex of these schemes, since it has undeniably unleashed a material productivity vastly greater than that of any other societies which have preceded it in history.
Such evolutionary schemes, however, express an cthnocentrism which it is the task of the sociological imagination to dispell. An ethnocentric conception is one that takes the standpoint of one's own society or culture as a measure to judge all others. There is no doubt that such an attitude has been deeply entrenched in Western culture. It has also been characteristic of many other societies. However, in the West a conviction of superiority has been in some part an expression and a justification, of the greedy engulfing of other modes of life by industrial capitalism. But we must not confuse the economic and military power of the Western societies, which has allowed them to assume a pre-eminent position in the world, with the highpoint of an evolutionary scheme. The valuation of material productivity that is so pronounced in the modem West is itself a specifically anomalous attitude, when compared with other cultures.
The anthropological dimension of the sociological imagination is important because it allows us to appreciate the diversity of modes of human existence which have been followed on this earth. It is one of the ironies of the modern era that the systematic study of the diversity of human cultures — 'field-work anthropology'- came into being at the very time when the voracious expansion of industrial capitalism and Western military power was accelerating their destruction. But the anthropological aspect of the sociological imagination has featured in the social sciences from their inception, vying with evolutionary thought of an ethnocentric character. In Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of Inequality (1755)3 we find an illuminating insistence upon the idea that, through becoming aware of the dazzling variety of human societies, we can learn better to understand ourselves. 'The whole world,' Rousseau remarked, is covered with societies 'of which we know only the names, yet we dabble in judging the human race!' Imagine, he continued, that we were able to send out an intrepid band of observers sensitive to the diversity of human experience to describe the multifarious societies which exist, but about which we know little. 'Let us suppose,' he wrote, 'that these new Hercules, back from these memorable expeditions, then wrote at leisure the natural, moral, and political history of what they would have seen; we ourselves would see a new world come from their pens, and we would thus learn to know our own.'
In the century and a half that followed the publication of Rousseau's Discourse, travellers, missionaries, traders, and others did make many of these journeys. But the reports they rendered were frequently unreliable or partial, or embodied the veiy ethnocentrism which Rousseau wanted to attack. Anthropological field-work of a systematic and detailed kind only began at about the turn of the twentieth century. Since that time, within a rapidly diminishing universe of study, anthropologists have accumulated a large body of information about different cultures. This information does, on the one hand, confirm the unity of the human race; there are no grounds for holding that people living in small, 'primitive' societies are in any way genetically inferior to or different from those living in supposedly more advanced 'civilisations'. There are no known human societies without developed forms of language, and there seems to be no correlation between types of society and linguistic complexity. On the other hand, modern anthropological research also underlines the wide spectrum of institutions whereby human beings may order their lives.
Often, the contemporary anthropologist is a chronicler of disaster, or culture laid waste by military destruction, ravaged by illness introduced by contact with the West, or undermined by the dissolution of traditional customs. The anthropologist is, as Claude Levi-Strauss, perhaps the most distinguished practitioner of the subject in the world today, has put it, the 'pupil and the witness' of these disappearing peoples. There are urgent and very practical issues involved in the fight to block the continuing despoiling of the rights of such peoples, or at least to smooth their adjustment to new modes of life where their own have already crumbled. But the significance of such struggles should not lead us to ignore the importance of the anthropological work that has been produced over the past half-century or so; from such work we can keep alive in our thinking forms of social life that may be on the verge of being eradicated for ever.
Combining this second sense with the first, the exercise of the sociological imagination makes it possible to break free from the straitjacket of thinking only in terms of the type of society we know in the here and now. Each is thus directly relevant to the third form of the sociological imagination that I want to point to. This concerns the possibilities for the future. In criticising the idea that sociology is like a natural science, I have insisted that no social processes are governed by unalterable laws. As human beings, we are not condemned to be swept along by forces that have the inevitability of laws of nature. But this means we must be conscious of the alternative futures that are potentially open to us. In its third sense, the sociological imagination fuses with the task of sociology in contributing to the critique of existing forms of society.
QUESTIONS AND PROJECTS:
GOALS OF SOCIOLOGY
Sociology analyzes empirical data about human society and social behavior through the use of rational models. Technically, a field of study does not have goals or aims. It is the practitioners of that field — in this case sociologists — who define the purposes of their study. What they perceive the goals of their study to be is closely related to how they define their discipline.
Although their specific word preferences may vary slightly, virtually all sociologists would readily accept our definition of sociology as being fundamentally concerned with human society and social behavior. Research-oriented sociologists are more likely to emphasize the systematic and empirical aspects of the discipline. Most research sociologists, too, agree upon two purposes of their study: the achievement of understanding and prediction. Some would stop there. Others — a growing number — would add a third goal: the achievement of control of social change.
Understanding
The first goal of sociological inquiry is the organization and classification of knowledge upon the basis of explanatory principles. Before this can be done, of course, basic factual information must be assembled. Sociologists constantly seek to add to their store of facts about society.
Ultimately, the hope is that by thus collecting facts and systematically analyzing and classifying them, we might arrive at a general explanation of the relationship between classes of variables. The achievement of such general explanatory statements is what sociologists mean by the goal of understanding society. The general explanatory statements themselves, or groups of related statements, are referred to as sociological theory.
Prediction
Knowledge about social behavior cumulates gradually. A rapid increase in urbanization accompanying industrialization, for example, may be observed first in one or two or three countries. When one man observes such a relationship and publishes his findings, other researchers are led to test the relationship in still other countries. If it holds up in subsequent investigations, the likelihood grows that a general relationship may have been discovered, and people begin to formulate general statements of the relationship. Testing of the relationship continues. There is always the possibility that some of the earlier facts were not correctly evaluated, or that the relationship observed in the countries studied so far will not hold for the next one. Knowledge about human society always is tentative and subject to revision in the light of further evidence.
This being so, how are we to know when the store of existing knowledge is adequate and when sociologists might profitably cease to explore one line of investigation and move on to the study of other relationships? This is where prediction comes in. One of the critical tests of the adequacy of knowledge in an area comes when the researcher thinks he has learned enough from past investigations to be able to predict the results of the next investigation before the evidence is collected. If his predictions are correct, the adequacy of his knowledge in the area is confirmed. If his predictions are not borne out, it indicates that either his theory or his research techniques must yet undergo modification.
Control
In science, as in other areas of life, there are things upon which reasonable men can agree and there are areas where they differ. Reasonable men generally agree upon understanding and prediction as goals of sociological inquiry. Some sociologists would add a third goal - control - while other scholars believe that the problem of control is not a scientific one and that it must be left in the hands of policy makers - administrators, governors, politicians, and the like.
It probably is safe to say that before World War II most sociologists believed that their search for objective knowledge of human relationships demanded absolute neutrality on social issues. It was during this period that the stereotype of the ivory-tower scientist, safely locked away from contamination by the problems of the real world, became popular.
Such a period in the development of social science may have been necessary because science was still trying to separate itself from its roots in social philosophy. There was a strong tendency to moralize on questions ranging from divorce to crime to war. Scientists, if their studies were to be unbiased and their findings trustworthy, had to assume the position that their task was to collect and analyze facts, regardless of whether those facts supported or subverted established beliefs. The task of using research findings to alter the society — to improve it — was to be left strictly to others.
In sociology, the trend toward the position that scientists should assume responsibility for control of how their findings are used was foreshadowed in an article by Alvin Gouldner who argued that value-free sociology was a myth, and that value assumptions are inherent in the process of doing research. Much more explicit statements of the necessity for sociologists to take value positions have been published since and, ironically, one of Gouldner's most recent publications finds him arguing against the extreme commitments to value positions of some of his younger colleagues.
Here the argument stands. Virtually all sociologists agree that the intrusion of values into research poses a serious threat to the integrity of the research. They agree further that bias must be constantly guarded against. It is on the question of how this may be done that they part company. One group argues that the only way in which bias may be eliminated from research is for researchers completely to disclaim responsibility for how their findings are used. This group denies that control, or directed social change, is a legitimate goal of sociological inquiry.
Another group maintains that bias is inherent in all thought and action; that the very choice of topics upon which to do research reflects the biases of the researcher. They argue, further, that sociologists, as scientists and as citizens, have as much right and as much responsibility as anyone else to say how the knowledge that they accumulate shall be used. Indeed they believe that sociologists, by virtue of their special expertise in the analysis of social problems, often are better qualified than diplomats and administrators to help the society move toward fuller realization of its goals. These sociologists add control to understanding and prediction, as proper goals of their science.
STEPS IN THE SOCIOLOGICAL METHOD
There are many large textbooks for more advanced courses that deal solely with elaboration of the steps involved in the sociological method. We cannot go into such detail here, but we can list and discuss six basic steps routinely followed by sociologists in the conduct of research. These steps include: the formulation of hypotheses; data collection; classification of data; analysis of data; generalization; and verification.
Formulation of hypotheses
A hypothesis is a kind of educated guess about the relationship that may exist between two or more variables. It may be based upon common sense, tradition, or idle curiosity. Ideally, it derives from existing sociological theory and prior research. Before undertaking research, one formulates the statement of relationship, predicting the direction of the relationship between the variables. A research project is then designed to test the hypothesis. Before we could consider the hypothesis fully tested, several projects would be necessary.
Data collection
г
In order to test an hypothesis, a research plan or research design must be developed. This includes specifying the appropriate populations from whom the data are to be collected, developing an instrument with which to gather the data, and making plans to ensure that all of the necessary data are secured. The whole data collection process (observation) would likely take several months.
Classification of data
One of the things that beginning researchers have to learn is that one does not have a test of his hypothesis as soon as the data are collected. What one would have, in this case, is a huge stack of questionnaires. Plans would have been made in the research design to assign numerical weights to each answer to each item on the questionnaire. After the data are collected, those item weights would typically be processed through computer. This process of readying the data for analysis generally takes much longer than does the analysis itself when a computer is used.
The computer can only sort the data according to instructions provided by the researcher; it cannot make the basic decisions concerning how the data should be sorted in order to provide the best test of the hypothesis.
Analysis of data
The analysis of the data involves the actual placing of the data in the various cells of a table that the researcher might construct and the computation of various statistics to see whether the differences that are obtained are trustworthy differences or whether they are so small that they might be due to chance. The process again is far from automatic. The researcher must decide which of the many analytic tools available is most appropriate to his problem and his data.
Generalization
Once the hypothesis has been subjected to test, the researcher is faced with still another decision. He must decide how firm and how broad a conclusion is warranted about the relation between the variables stated in the hypothesis.
Assuming that error appears to be at a minimum, there still is the problem of deciding how broadly the findings may be generalized. The researcher must judge whether the sample was large enough and whether the sample was drawn with sufficient care. He must also decide whether the findings may be legitimately generalized to other populations. Only when all of these factors are taken into account, and decisions made on all of them, can the researcher decide how far the findings should be generalized beyond the specific groups studied.
Findings should be neither undergeneralized nor overgeneralized. Undergeneralization occurs when the researcher is too cautious and declines, perhaps, to generalize his results to any population other than that studied. While there is some safety in this, and undergeneralization may be preferable to overgeneralization, undergeneralization denies to the scientist and to others the full benefits of his research. Undergeneralization requires the needless repetition of the same research upon a potentially endless succession of populations.
Overgeneralization occurs when the researcher is not cautious enough and extends .his findings to populations that differ significantly from the one studied. The progress of science is impeded seriously when this happens, for all sorts of false hypotheses may be generated upon the basis of the erroneous conclusions.
Verification
Ideally, the steps in the sociological method conclude with generalization. When everything is strictly in order that is, indeed, the case, The problem is that virtually never is everything strictly in order. There are known sources of error in the project and some that can only be guessed at. Consequently, many scholars prefer to include another step in the method: that of verification.
Verification means essentially replication. The study is done over again by the same researcher or by someone else, with special attention being paid to known and suspected sources of error. Verification may not involve strictly replication for, in order to get at those sources of error, the researcher may vary slightly either the population studied or the research techniques used. The goal is to provide enough continuity so that the evidence cumulates from one project to the next and enough variation so that sources of error are gradually eliminated.
POPULATIONS AND SAMPLES
Modern sociology is very much a research enterprise. Most sociologists, whether they teach in a university, college or junior college — or whether they work in government agencies, corporations, labor unions, hospitals, or slum clearance programs — are at least somewhat involved in collecting data and seeking the answers to questions.
Most sociological research begins with questions about the empirical world. Do lower-class people vote Democratic? Are College Entrance Examinations predictive of future academic success? Are the life styles of marijuana users different from those of people who use opiates or from those of people in the straight world? The questions are restated as hypotheses, and testing of the hypotheses is undertaken.
Whatever the hypothesis, the concepts or variables that compose it define the groups among whom the research must be conducted. The respondents may be lower-class people, or they may be voters; they may be high school seniors or college students/they may be drug users; and so on. The total possible group of subjects upon whom any given research project may be based is called the population, or universe, for that study.
Typically, populations are large and heterogeneous. In a study of life styles and marijuana use, for example, the appropriate population might be all of the adolescents and adults in the United. States. Since study of all U.S. adolescents and adults would not be technically nor financially feasible, the population might be redefined to include, say, all of those persons in a single state. Or it might be restricted, further, to include only persons from 16-44 years of age in just one state.
Populations are defined, somewhat arbitrarily, in terms of the purposes of a given research project. No matter how defined, however, the appropriate populations for most sociological research are still too large to permit reasonably efficient study. A study of adolescents and adults in a state like New York or California, for example, might include eight or ten million people.
Consequently, most sociological research is based not upon whole populations, but upon samples of those populations. A carefully drawn sample of 1500 or 2500 adolescents and adults should yield findings from which generalizations might confidently be made to the population of 8 or 10 million from whom the sample was drawn. Two things are crucial: the size of the sample, and how the sample is selected.
The selection of samples
Full discussion of how samples are selected goes beyond the scope of an introductory course. If you continue to take courses in sociology, you will deal with this in a course on methods of social research.
A basic principle underlying virtually all sampling procedures, however, is the concept of probability. Simply stated, the concept of probability ensures that the chance that any given unit of a population will be selected for inclusion in a sample is known. In the best known form of probability sampling - random sampling - each unit in the population has an equal chance of being selected for inclusion in the sample.
Although random sampling, giving each population unit an equal chance for selection, is widely known and admired, the requirements of probability sampling are met whenever the chances of inclusion of each population unit in the sample are known. The chances need not be equal. They might be one chance out of five, one out of one hundred, or any other number. In practice, other types of probability sampling are used more often than random sampling because of the costs in time and money involved in drawing random samples.
The big advantages in using probability techniques in selecting samples are that such samples permit the use of statistics in analyzing data, and that the researcher can estimate the error in his data, which is a function of the size of the sample used. These advantages are not inconsiderable. Social research depends heavily upon statistics, and the adequacy of the sample is very important in the evaluation of any research.
The size of samples
The use of probability techniques in selecting a sample increases the likelihood that the sample will become more representative of the universe or population as it is made larger. Or, in other words, it guards against the introduction of bias in selecting units for inclusion in the sample. Unless this precaution is taken, it is by no means certain that a large sample will be more representative of the universe than a smaller one. Whatever error is introduced in the selection of the first units for inclusion in the sample may simply be continued, or even increased, as the sample is enlarged.
Large
Small
Small Large
Size of sample
Figure 1. The relationship between sample size and sampling error
In probability sampling, however, samples become more representative as they become larger. Simple formulas are available to show how much the size of a sample must be increased in order for the researcher to keep the known error in his data to a level that is acceptable in his project.
The general relationship between the size of a probability sample and the amount of error that is a function of the size of the sample is shown in Figure 1. The sample size is shown on the horizontal axis and the sampling error is shown on the vertical axis. The sampling error is large when the sample is small, and decreases as the size of the sample is increased.
If researchers had unlimited resources, they would not resort to sampling in the first place; they would study entire universes. But scientists always face practical problems including how much time, money, and manpower may wisely be invested in a given research project. These considerations of available resources enter into the decision concerning the type and size of sample to be used. After the project is completed, and the findings are being evaluated, the wisdom of the researcher in making these decisions has much to do with how much the data are worth.
MEASUREMENT
Sociology assumes that probably everything in the universe exists in amounts that arc measurable. Just as we are accustomed to measuring physical objects through the use of rulers, balances, and other devices, so one aim of sociological research is to develop and use measuring instruments on social phenomena and upon social interaction. At any given point in time, the limits of sociological knowledge are set by the level of measurement that is possible.
Basic to the idea of measurement is the concept of 'variable.' As in ordinary speech, the concept of a variable implies that things exist in amounts of more or less, or occur with greater or lesser frequency. A formal definition of a variable is that it is an object or event xvnicn can change over time, or it refers to two objects of the same class which can differ.
Whether all phenomena in the world exist in amounts that are measurable, there appear to be, at any one time, some variables that defy quantification. Such variables are called 'qualitative' variables to distinguish them from the 'quantitative' variables that may be measured in a fashion analogous to that which is used in the physical sciences. Quantitative variables differ in degree while qualitative variables differ in kind. Current examples of variables that appear to be qualitative variables might include sex, religion, and marital status. Unable to measure these variables, we simply classify people as males, Protestants, married, and so on. Among the many possible quantitative variables, we might include income, population size, birth rate, and so on. These variables can be measured and can be expressed in terms of numbers.
The distinction between qualitative and quantitative variables is important. The researcher must determine which kind of variables he is dealing with because the statistical techniques available for use depend upon the nature of the variables under study. He must use the most powerful techniques appropriate for his particular problem.
Social scientists attempt to put the foregoing material concerning measurement and quantitative and qualitative variables into perspective by distinguishing among four levels of measurement, ranging from the crudest and least quantitative to the most rigorous and most completely quantitative. The four levels of measurement are called: nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio measurement.
Nominal measurement
Only the lowest level of quantification is achieved in this case. Nominal measurement involves the classification of qualitative objects into categories and the assignment of identifying symbols to each of the categories. The only level of measurement possible in dealing with religious affiliation, for example, is nominal.
The categories might be labeled as follows: A. Catholic, B. Protestant, C. Jewish, D. no affiliation, and E. other. Or, with the variable being sex, the categories and symbols might be: A. male, and B. female. The letters assigned to the separate categories merely lump individual cases together on the basis of certain relevant characteristics.
Ordinal measurement
Ordinal measurement involves a slightly higher level of quantification. It permits ranking a series of cases in terms of their having more or less of the thing in question, but it does not permit estimation of the degree of difference among them. It is as though the social scientist, at this level, works with an intelligence test that enables him to rank people in terms of mental ability. The test, however, only makes possible the ordering of people from genius, at one extreme, to profoundly retarded at the other. For example, a child whose performance on the test corresponds to the mildly retarded level is more intelligent than the child who scores at the moderately retarded level. The moderately retarded child, in turn, is more intelligent than the child who scores at the severely retarded level. The social scientist is not able to say whether the difference between the mildly retarded and the moderately retarded child is greater or less than the difference between the moderately retarded and severely retarded child.
Interval measurement
Interval measurement represents a significant step forward in quantification. The units, in addition to being ordered categories, possess the property of equality, or are equal-appearing. To continue the analogy of the intelligence test, let us assume that three people score, respectively, 40, 80, and 120 on the test. We can now say that the difference in magnitude between the first and the second score is the same as that between the second score and the third score. Until this quantification is achieved, the intelligence test scale is only an ordinal one.
What interval scales lack is a generally agreed upon zero point. Because our intelligence test clearly has no meaningful zero point, that is, a total absence of intelligence, it cannot be said that a person with an I.Q. of 120 is three times as intelligent as a person with an I.Q. of 40.
A more familiar example of an interval scale is the thermometer. The intervals on the thermometer are equal. The difference between 10° and 20° is the same as between 40° and 50° . Again, there is no zero point, and one cannot say that 10° above zero is twice as cold as 20° above zero.
Ratio measurement
Ratio measurement involves the veiy highest level of quantification. Not only are the various intervals along the scale equal to one another, but the zero point is known. Scales for determining height and weight are of this sort. It can be said that a person who is six feet tall is twice as tall as a person who is three feet tall. Our example of the intelligence test does not lend itself to ratio measurement. While the test itself may go from zero to some maximum number, the zero on the scale does not indicate a total lack bf the variable, in this case, intelligence.
Unfortunately, the social sciences have not yet been able to achieve ratio measurement in very many areas. One of the few exceptions is found in some devices for handling demographic data. As we learn more about the measurement of social phenomena, other ratio measuring instruments presumably will be developed.
STATISTICS
All of the above forms of measurement involve the assignment of numbers to categories or events so that they may be more systematically and efficiently interpreted. The statistical method refers to the application of mathematical principles to those numbers to further facilitate the analysis of data.
Some students in sociology are inclined to shy away from statistics because of the aura surrounding mathematics. Obviously, there is a certain amount of mathematics involved, but the mathematics is secondary. No math beyond high school algebra is required to gain a basic competence in using and understanding statistics.
The term, statistics, is used in several ways. Sociology is interested primarily in two branches of mathematical statistics. These are called descriptive statistics and inferential statistics.
Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics have as their function the summarizing of information or data in such a manner as to make it more usable. Large quantities of data are condensed into categories so that they may be manipulated and interpreted more easily. Virtually everyone knows something, for example, of the use of measures of central tendency: the arithmetic mean, the median, and the mode. The arithmetic mean is simply the sum of all the scores in a group, divided by the total number of cases. If we take these same scores and arrange them from high to low, the median is the score which divides the distribution exactly in half. The third measure of central tendency, the mode, is the most frequent score in the group.
The three measures of central tendency are measures of how data cluster around some mid point. In the same way, measures of dispersion such as the average deviation and the standard deviation, are measures of the spread of data away from a mid point. Other elementary descriptive statistics include frequency distributions and correlation. These simple statistics are used repeatedly in the sociological literature. Almost any basic textbook in statistics will provide the interested reader with a thorough discussion of these elementary ideas.
Because of the frequency with which it is reported in the literature, some brief discussion of correlation might be helpful at this point. Actually, there are several different measures of correlation but, unless another is specified, the statistic involved usually is the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient. The coefficient is usually designated simply by the letter 'r'.
Pearsonian r generally is used to determine if two variables are related to one another and, if so, how closely they are related. To calculate it, one needs two sets of scores for the same group of respondents. They might be, for example, average monthly income and the average amount of money spent each month for entertainment. Obviously, these two characteristics are variables. One might hypothesize that there is a direct relationship between the two; that higher income is associated with more money spent for entertainment. In other cases, as in the relationship between income and family size, one might hypothesize a negative or inverse relationship. Higher incomes are widely believed to be associated with having fewer children.
Positive correlation No correlation Negative correlation
Score on the x variable
Figure 2. Hypothetical scattergrams illustrating positive correlation, no correlation, and negative correlation
Pearson's r is so constructed that when there is a perfect positive correlation (see Figure 2.), r = +1.00. When there is a perfect negative correlation, r = -1.00. If there is no relationship, r = 0.00. In actual practice, perfect correlations are virtually never found. High correlations generally range from 0.60 or 0.70 to about 0.95. Correlations under 0.50 are generally considered to be low. The direction of the relationship is indicated by whether the sign before the coefficient4 is + or -.
Many such correlations will be reported in later chapters of this book.
Inferential statistics
Inferential statistics, which are also called inductive statistics, have as their function the making of generalizations about a population or universe on the basis of data drawn from a sample. You will remember that sociological data are more often drawn from samples than from complete populations. When the size and representativeness of a sample are assured, inferential statistics permit the researcher to state the specific probability that his findings, based on the sample, are true for the whole population.
If he finds, for example, that 40 per cent of his sample behave in a particular way, he may use inferential statistics to determine that the chances are 99 out of 100 (or 95 out of 100, or any other probability) that the percentage of the total population that engage in that same behavior is, say, between 38 per cent and 42 per cent. The probability that the figure for the whole population is very close to that for the sample (or very far away from it) helps the researcher to know how much confidence to place in his data.
SUMMARY
For more than a century sociologists have generally agreed that their inquiries have two different goals: understanding and prediction. The process of understanding generally involves the accumulation of facts and the arrangement of those facts into the systematic explanations that are called scientific theory. Prediction provides a crucial test of theory by requiring the sociologist to predict the outcome of future research on the basis of past experience. Doing this successfully confirms the theory/failure to do it requires either revision of the theory or improvement of the research procedures.
Although some men argued to the contrary, the general position of sociologists until after World War II was that they did not have and should not have any responsibility for how their findings were used. Objectivity required aloofness from such policy matters.
Principally in response to the threat posed by the development of atomic and hydrogen weapons, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in 1956, endorsed the idea that scientists should also assume responsibility for determining how the results of their studies were employed. This shift reflected growing acceptance in the scientific community, including the sociological community, of a third goal of science: that of control.
The matter continues to be debated. Some sociologists still argue that the integrity of research requires isolation from questions of the uses to which their findings will be put. Other sociologists — a growing number
The research procedures employed by sociologists involve six general steps. First, the researcher formulates a hypothesis for testing. A hypothesis is a kind of educated guess about the probable relationship between two variables. Second, he develops a research plan, constructs his instruments, and collects the data with which to test -the hypothesis. Third, the data must be classified in such fashion that they may be analyzed carefully. The analysis, itself, is the fourth step. Fifth comes the problem of deciding what generalizations are possible on the basis of the data collected. The researcher seeks to avoid either undergeneralization or overgeneralization. The final step is that of verification: going through the whole process again to make sure that the findings hold up with other populations and samples.
The groups, or populations, upon whom sociological hypotheses must be tested are so large and heterogeneous that usually we are forced to base our findings upon samples of those populations. The trustworthiness of findings based upon samples depends upon the representativeness and adequacy, or size, of the samples. The concept of probability is used to ensure representativeness, and statistics are used to determine the error that is a function of sample size.
Measurement also plays a major role in sociological research. Roughly, measurement involves the increasing quantification of variables. There are four general levels of measurement recognized in social science. First, nominal measurement simply involves the classification of qualitative objects into categories and assigning numbers to the categories. One step up, ordinal measurement permits ranking a series of eases along a scale, but without the distance between the cases being known. Third, interval measurement is the same as ordinal measurement except that the distances among the various cases can be determined. Ratio measurement goes one step further in that the scale now has a known zero point and distances along the scale can be multiplied and divided.
The uses of measurement and statistics are closely interrelated. Descriptive statistics are used to summarize information and to make it susceptible to efficient handling. Inferential statistics, or inductive statistics, make it possible to generalize from samples to the whole populations from which the samples are drawn.
QUESTIONS AND PROJECTS:
SYSTEMS
A system is simply a set of related units. The word, set, implies that the units have common properties. Each unit is constrained by, conditioned by, or dependent upon other units. The system is always more than the sum of its parts.
All living things are systems, from one-celled animals to the world's largest societies. These systems may be classified, hierarchically, into at least seven levels. Of the seven levels, the first three are presocial and the last four are social. The seven system-levels may be described as follows:
Level 1 .Cells, composed of atoms, molecules, and multi-molecular organelles.
Level 2.Organs, composed of cells aggregated into tissues.
Level 3.Organisms, composed of organs.
Level 4. Groups and Gatherings, composed of organisms.
Level 5.Organizations, composed of groups and gatherings.
Level 6.Societies, composed of organizations, groups, and organisms.
Level 1 .Supranational Systems, composed of societies and organizations.
The analysis of levels one through three is the province of the biological and psychological sciences. Sociology enters at level four and analyzes levels four through seven. The rudiments of social behavior are to be found at level four, the level of groups and gatherings.
ANIMAL SOCIAL ORGANIZATION
Organized social life, involving groups and gatherings, exists among many animal species. At a level far removed from the human, for example, ants have been found to have a very elaborate social system. Ant colonies often consist of thousands of members and have a complex division of labor. Some ants are warriors, some are 'engineers,' some are breeders, and so forth.
Unlike human social organization, that of ants appears to remain relatively unchanged from generation to generation. Some entomologists believe that the social organization of ants has stayed relatively stable for the last 60 million years.
This stability is believed to be due to the fact that most ant behavior is strictly biologically determined. To put it simply, ant behavior is of three classes: (1) reflexive behavior; (2) instinctive behavior (a series of integrated reflexes); and (3) learned behavior. The reflexive and instinctive behaviors dominate. What little learning does occur appears not to be passed on from generation to generation. Learned behavior dies with the individual organism, and each generation must learn all over again.
If we move far up the evolutionary ladder, we find that the anthropoids
Most instructive are the differences between the social life of groups of monkeys who live in urban areas in India and those who live in the forest. Although they are of the same species, the urban-dwelling monkeys prefer cooked and roasted foods while the forest monkeys prefer leaves and fresh fruit. The urban monkeys establish quasi-permanent housing and sleeping arrangements while the forest monkeys wander a great deal. The urban monkeys are less aggressive at feeding time, but more aggressive under experimental conditions involving encounters with strangers. Urban
monkeys score higher, initially, on monkey I.Q. tests for complex tasks until the forest monkeys have opportunity to learn the tasks.
The social life of the anthropoids shows more change from generation to generation than that of the insects and less change than that of man. This is because the apes are in an intermediate position; part of their behaviour is instinctive and part is learned. Many of the apes show considerable capacity for learning and they learn from one another.
The role of instincts
The question of the respective roles of biological influences and of learning in social behaviour is a continuing one. This question includes the issue of how much of a role instincts play in causing behavior. Technically, the term, instinct, refers to inherited. mechanisms which are fixed, for the species and which produce complex patterns of behavior that cannot be modified significantly through learning. Scientists who accept this definition seek to discover how much of each species' behavior is instinctive.
Many scientists believe that the concept of instinct is not very useful in the explanation of human behavior. They recognize that man has reflexes, of course, such as the knee-jerk reflex and the eye-blink reflex. He also experiences powerful urges, such as those involved with food and sex. Virtually never, however, is his behavior an automatic response to biological urges. Human social behavior is not only complex; it is also variable and changing. Instincts promote uniformity rather than variability, and stability rather than change.
HUMAN LEARNING
Learning plays a large part in human behavior. Human beings teach one another as no other species does and, in the process, they create quite diverse solutions to the common human problems of living. Systems of government range from dictatorships through republics to rare democracies. Economic systems range from feudalism through capitalism to socialism. Family systems are large or small and marriage may be monogamous or polygamous. And so on and on. These complex systems of social organization which arc the subject matter of sociology are the products of learned behavior and not simply of biological structure.
People have no instincts, relying, instead, upon other biological characteristics that facilitate the learning process. These other characteristics permit a sophisticated process of communication.
COMMUNICATION
The simplest kind of social behavior occurs when one organism responds to another in some fashion. The organisms may be insects, approaching one another instinctively, or they may be people assessing one another in terms of their occupations, religions, aspirations, hopes, and so on. The essence of the interaction in either case is the process of communication; the exchange of messages.
All social organisms communicate with one another to some degree. It may be very rudimentary communication, but survival depends upon some exchange of messages. For instance, females must communicate their readiness to mate if there is to be a next generation. As with the amount of learned behavior, communication varies with the evolutionary level of the species.
Man's nonverbal communication
Communication within most prehuman species is nonverbal. Man also, communicates nonverbally, chiefly through the use of gestures. The study of human communication through gestures and expressions is the province of a relatively new academic discipline called ethology. Ethology4 generally is defined as the study of the biology of behavior.
A team of British ethologists has isolated and cataloged 135 distinct bodily gestures and expressions. These gestures and expressions involve the face, the head, and the body. As among other species, this means of human communication apparently expresses feelings and emotions that operate at a lower level of consciousness than those which involve the use of speech.
Nonverbal communication is observed most easily in young children who are less inhibited than most adults. Young children, who obviously have limited vocabularies, express their feelings of pleasure, dislike, contempt, and so forth, by hand movements, positioning of the body, and facial expressions.
Subtle traces of this vivid posturing are still evident in later adulthood. Like the angered child, grownups often turn an open palm toward those who happen to pose a verbal threat, although the gesture may be quite inconspicuous and unconscious. Women, for example, tend to make a rapid hand-to-neck movement when they are agitated disguising it as a hair- grooming gesture. Men also exhibit similar signs of stress. Embarrassed by such a driving miscue as accidentally cutting off another motorist, they will frequently make a seemingly irrelevant sweep of their hair. Actually the gesture represents a very real surge of inner tension and conflict.
Usually, two or more gestures or bodily movements occur as a single unit of behavior. For example, the meaning of a smile or a к frown often can be understood only in conjunction with other facial movements involving the eyes and the forehead. Thus, a 'smile' may communicate friendliness, hostility, seductiveness5, tolerance, contempt, and many other messages. Other gestures and postures are equally complex.
There are instances, as in cases of accident or when a person is psychotic, where verbal communication is impossible and complete reliance must be placed upon nonverbal communication. More commonly, nonverbal communication accompanies and enriches verbal communication. The point may be made by comparing verbal communication over the telephone with that which occurs in face-to-face interaction. Since words can be used over the telephone as efficiently as in face-to-face situations, the countless telephone conversations that end with statements like, 'Oh, I will have to explain it when I see you,' attests to the importance of nonverbal communication among adults.
Sign behavior
In addition to, and at a more abstract level than that of gestures, human communication typically involves the use of signs. A sign is simply any object or thing that leads to knowledge of something other than itself Sign behavior has three basic components: the sign itself; what the sign signifies or stands for; and the observer or interpreter of the sign. All three components are necessary for communication through signs.
Signs may be cither natural or conventional signs. It is useful to make a sharp distinction between the two. And it is the use of a type of conventional signs — verbal signs — which makes human communication different from the communication systems of insects and of primates.
Natural signs and conventional signs. In the case of natural signs, there is an inductive relationship between the sign itself and what the sign signifies, that can be discovered through observation, and without the aid of dictionaries or advice from other people. This is possible because the sign and what the sign signifies occur in the same time-space framework. Several examples should clarify the relationship between the natural sign and its referent: smoke signifies combustion; a watch signifies a watchmaker; and clouds signify moisture.
Conventional signs, by contrast, are related to their referents as a result of convention or common usage. The letters, b-o-x, in that sequence stand for a particular material object and do so arbitrarily because people agree upon that particular usage. The letters, b-o-x, theoretically could be used to stand for any other object if people generally agreed to such usage. Similarly, any other combination of letters could have been used to refer to what we refer to as a box.
Symbols. What we have described as conventional signs are also called symbols. The two terms are synonymous.
Symbols are man's most versatile signs. They can signify imaginary objects and events as well as real ones. They may refer to objects and to quite intangible ideas. Symbols standing for concrete objects would include 'dog,' 'pencil,' and 'house.' Symbols standing for ideas would include 'marriage,' 'loyalty,' and 'race.' Symbols standing for imaginary objects would include 'witches,' 'unicorns,' and 'racial superiority.'
From the standpoint of social behavior, man's most important symbols are words. The use of words distinguishes his communication from that of all other species, enriching it so greatly that human communication seems almost a thing apart. Man's humanity is very much tied up with the possession of language.
Language
The term, language, refers to man's symbolic communication. A noted biologist, J. Biercns de Haan, has suggested that language has six characteristics:
...the sounds used in it are vocal, articulate and have some conventional meaning, they Indicate something, are uttered with the intention of communicating something to somebody else, and are joined together to form new combinations, so that phrases of various and different content are formed.
These six characteristics — vocalization, articulation, conventional meaning, indication, intention, and elements joined in new combinations
The uniqueness of language as a form of communication is further emphasized by Lindesmith and Strauss who have pointed out three characteristics of language symbols that distinguish them from other symbols or signs. First, language symbols are patterned so that each symbol has meaning only when understood within the system. The symbol, teacher, for example, is intelligible only in terms of other symbols such as, student, learning, education, and so on.
Second, language symbols are inherently social; that is, their meanings must be shared if effective communication is to take place. Without the social aspect of symbols, men would vocalize, but conversation would never take place.
Third, language symbols are learned through the process of personality development and are used throughout life. They can be used at will, and they can be used to refer to objects that are present, to objects that are absent both in time and space, and to things that do not exist. This ability of man to talk about things very remote in time and space is unique. In getting at the essence of language, Lindesmith and Strauss observe further:
We should not, however, make the mistake of thinking of language as a system of words, as a combination of phonemes, or as the contents of a dictionary. Language is, first of all, a form of behavior. It is not merely a system of symbols, but is the activity of using and interpreting symbols. Speech is often said to be the most primitive and ancient form of language behavior, but speech is meaningless unless it is addressed to an understanding listener. Hence, we may say that conversation is the essential and
original form of language, noting not only that language behavior originates in cooperative social action but that it is such action. This is why parrots are not given credit for language behavior, even though they may produce words.
Language, however, is not simply a means of communication and a type of behavior. It is vital to a group's very existence and has a profound influence upon the development and maintenance of the human personality. In a later chapter on socialization, this additional function of language will be developed more fully.
Concepts
Much of what has already been said about words and language refers to concepts. Technically, concepts simply are abstractions that are formed by generalizing from particular cases. This process is so common that we are not usually conscious of it when wc do it. It is also essential for communication for, without it, communication would be exceedingly complex and inefficient.
To use a simple illustration, take the word, university. There is no such thing as university. There are hundreds of universities throughout the world, such as Uppsala University, the University of Toronto, the University of Leiden, the University of Illinois, the University of New Mexico, and so on and on. If every time we wished to speak of several universities we had to describe each of them individually, we would not get much accomplished. So, we abstract the essential characteristics that universities have in common and refer to these characteristics through the concept, university. By university, then, we connote a general academic structure involving students, professors, research, library, and so on. We ignore, for the moment, the differences among individual universities in these same qualities. From the context in which we use the conccpt, university, the listener knows, through convention, generally which set of university characteristics is being assumed.
Whether we speak of men, tables, societies, cultures, or systems, the process is the same. We use abstract symbols to group things together, to distinguish one type of object from another and, ultimately, to see the world as orderly. Concepts enable man to classify, sub-classify, and cross- c/assify the objects in his environment. They provide him with the flexibility to see connections among things in ways that otherwise would be impossible. In brief, they make sophisticated thought possible. And they are intimately involved in social interaction.
SOCIAL INTERACTION
The concept of interaction is implicit boin in the concept or social life and in that of communication. For although it is possible for simple reactive situations to exist — for an organism to react to another organism without further stimulating that organism in turn — that is not the usual situation. Instead, social life tends to be characterized by continuing influences of two or more organisms upon one another. That is what we mean by social interaction.
Technically, social interaction refers to the reciprocal influences exerted by two or more organisms upon one another's behavior. It involves a give and take. When a young child attempts to gain his mother's attention, for example, he influences her. She may ignore his cues, reasoning that he has misbehaved and should be ignored. The mother's ignoring causes the child to modify his behavior, either by turning his attention to something else or by repeating and intensifying his attempts to gain her attention. And so it goes. The behavior of each organism involved in the situation continues to be modified by the other's behavior.
While we are emphasizing human social interaction, it must be remembered that all social animals engage in interaction. What makes human interaction so different is man's capacity to use language. Because of the frequency with which language symbols are used, sociologists often describe human interaction as symbolic interaction.
Interactive situations are as variable as human behavior itself. They may be one-to-one, face-to-face situations such as a mother nursing her baby or two pre-adolescent boys having a fight. They include non-face-to- face situations such as a soldier writing a letter to a girl in response to the letter that he received from her that morning. Students reading this book and responding to the ideas presented by the authors, and the authors trying to anticipate the readers' concerns provide another illustration.
Interaction may also occur between groups. Labor unions may demand increased pay and improved working conditions. Management groups respond with threats, pleas, and proposals for compromise. The union members, in turn, are moved to strike, to return to work, or to look for other jobs.
Another way to conceptualize the give and take of social interaction is to look upon it as a process of exchange. As in other exchanges, social interaction involves one's giving something and getting something in return.
Exchange
The basic idea behind exchange theory is really very simple. It is that each person involved in social interaction metes out rewards or punishments to the other participants and he receives rewards or punishments from them in turn. Thus, people exchange rewards or punishments or both. To illustrate, consider a kind of interaction that occurs frequently between professor and student. The student may initiate the interaction by seeking out the professor, either for basic information or for clarification of some point discussed in class. The professor reacts to the student's behavior by providing the desired- information. The professor and the student have interacted, leading to an exchange of rewards. The student is rewarded by receiving the needed assistance, and the professor is rewarded by having his superior knowledge acknowledged. They have exchanged help and approval.
Some interaction involves punishments rather than rewards. The most obvious situation where punishment is involved is in conflict situations.
One individual strikes, verbally or physically, at another. The other strikes back. Each tries to inflict greater hurt than he receives. The interaction comes to a halt when one has clearly defeated the other.
Such obviously punishing interaction is usually of short duration because the pain that cach participant experiences is likely to be more of a deterrent than the backhanded satisfaction of inflicting greater pain upon one's adversary is to be a sufficient reward. The punishing is likely to persist only when neither participant has any meaningful options or when both participants believe that they have the opportunity to achieve victory.
Many situations involve combinations of rewards and punishments, or the exchange of rewards for punishments. One individual, for example, may threaten the other with punishment if the second individual does not prefer help to the first. To return to the professor-student illustration, the student may indicate to the professor that he will not major in the professor's field unless the professor helps him to perform at a satisfactoiy level.
SUMMARY
Organized social life exists throughout the animal kingdom. At lower evolutionary levels, such as the insect level, most social behavior is either reflexive or instinctual, deriving directly from biological structure. The farther up the evolutionary ladder we go, the more learning occurs and the larger looms the role of communication in social interaction.
Human communication is both nonverbal and verbal. Nonverbal communication occurs chiefly through gestures, and verbal communication makes use of both natural and conventional signs. Conventional signs, also called symbols, form the basis of language, and the use of language in human social interaction clearly differentiates it from that which exists among all other species.
Language symbols are so important in human interaction that the whole process often is referred to as one of symbolic interaction. Interactive situations are as variable as behavior itself, and range from simple
two-person interactions to the interaction of groups, organizations, and even nations. Principles of human social interaction need to be broad enough to cover the whole range of human experience.
Sociologists have sought to develop such principles by conceptualizing social interaction as a process of exchange.
Exchange theoiy emphasizes that interaction involves the meting out of rewards and punishments. It also holds that interactions are continued or discontinued on the basis of costs and profits, and that there is a general striving for equity in interpersonal relationships.
Some sociologists have concentrated upon the development of the formal propositions that would constitute a general theory of exchange. Others have worked to develop methodologies for the empirical investigation of social interaction under laboratory conditions. The marriage of theory and research in this area is a veiy new one and is just beginning to produce results that will strengthen both the theory and the research.
Exchange theory also appears applicable to the analysis of social interaction outside the laboratory. It permits the objective analysis of interaction in veiy emotionally laden areas such as those of dating and courtship. Future research in sociology is likely to involve much wider use of exchange theory.
QUESTIONS AND PROJECTS:
Groups in different parts of the world differ drastically in the forms that their behavior takes, but sociologists have discovered that social interaction the world over tends to assume certain common forms. In spite of the differences between Western and Eastern societies, and between advanced and preliterate societies, certain common kinds of social interaction may be observed. These common forms of social interaction that sociologists call social processes are so nearly universal that one suspects that they are deeply rooted in the biological, psychological, and social nature of man. Worldwide, five of these basic forms of social interaction have great import. They are cooperation, competition, conflict, accommodation, and assimilation.
COOPERATION
Even today, one still hears the age-old argument over whether cooperation or competition is the more basic form of social interaction. Those who view social life in terms of sharing and mutual helpfulness tend to see cooperation as primary in human experience. And those who emphasize acquisitiveness and aggression among human beings see competition as more basic.
Actually, all such arguments reflect both oversimplification and misunderstanding of the true complexity of social life. In reality, cooperation and competition always exist as reciprocal aspects of the same general experiences. They are, at bottom, not completely distinguishable from one another and they do not exist apart from one another. The argument over which is more basic, the question of which came first, is irrelevant; neither can exist without the other.
Like the question 'Which is more basic, heredity or environment?' the cooperation-competition argument is inappropriate because no organism can function in the absence of either. A more appropriate question is 'What are the respective roles of cooperation and competition in the human experience?'
Cooperation, of course, involves individuals or groups working together toward the achievement of their individual or collective goals. In their simplest form, levels of cooperation are represented in Fig.3.
antagonistic accommodative Fig.3. Levels of cooperation
Cooperating parlies
Goals
shared
congruent
antagonistic
shared
congruent
Relationship of parties solidary symbiotic accommodative solidary symbiotic
Rewards
joint
individual
individual
joint
individual
individual
Approval and disapproval of cooperation
Another important point is that notions of social approval and social disapproval also attach to various forms of cooperation in various circumstances. In general, American society appears to value cooperation. When one writes a letter of recommendation for another person, that person's cooperativeness often is mentioned as a virtue. The image that each of us conjures up when the word, cooperation, is spoken probably is a pleasant one. Yet, not all forms of cooperation receive such approval. The cooperation of students to cheat on an exam, of street gangs to control access to a neighborhood, of corporations to fix prices, and of business and labor to combat other labor unions are all subject to some degree of social disapproval.
COMPETITION
Just as cooperation exists as a universal form of patterned social interaction so, also, is competition found in all societies. Competition grows out of the fact that human needs and desires appear to be insatiable and the goods, prestige, and perquisites that are the rewards for successful
competition always are in short supply. People everywhere compete for dwelling space, for mates, for elaborate clothing and other bodily ornaments, and for wealth whether defined in terms of land, animals, money, or even cockle shells.
Just as all societies differentially distribute material goods, awarding more to some persons and groups than to others, so, also, do all societies accord more prestige/ more power, and more privileges to some than to others. Whatever the specific categories recognized in any given society, there are always the ruling and the governed, the bosses and the workers, the elite and the common people, the well-to-do and the have-nots. Competition is the mechanism through which people and groups are sorted into such categories.
Competition as an ideal type
An ideal type is a form of concept that is constructed by taking one or more characteristics of a phenomenon and accentuating those characteristics to their logical maximum or reducing them to their logical minimum. The type thus constructed does not represent realty, of course, because the very process of its construction involves exaggeration. Ideal types, nevertheless, are very useful as logical standards against which reality can be measured. This often is done by taking a pair of ideal types and letting them represent the ends of a continuum or scale. Because the ends of the scale are defined in terms of logical extremes, no existing case falls at either end of the continuum, but all cases may be ranged somewhere along the continuum between the two end points.
To return directly now to our discussion of competition as a social process and the relative emphases that different societies place upon competition and cooperation, the situation may be clarified somewhat by the use of ideal types as illustrated in Figure 4.
The first continuum in Figure 4. simply shows the continuum with the end points defined as logically pure competition and logically pure cooperation. We have already said that no actual society would fall at either end point but that all societies would fall somewhere between.
The question arises, where would they fall in between? Would most societies be placed near the center of the continuum, indicating that they show no clear preference for either competition or cooperation, and having many mixed types? Or would some societies fall closer to the competition end of the continuum while others fall closer to the cooperation end? The earlier comparison of American values with those of the Zuni Indians would suggest this latter situation. These two possibilities — of a uni- modal and a bimodal distribution of societies — are shown on the second and third continua in Figure 4.
The unfortunate truth of the matter is that we do not know which pattern is more common in the world. The basic processes of competition and cooperation have been defined with considerable clarity and it is a simple matter to illustrate them with data from different societies. But few efforts have been made to assess the respective roles of competition and cooperation in entire societies. In part, this is because the task would be so overwhelming. Imagine trying to catalog all of the instances of competition and cooperation in a society as large and complex as the United States. In part, too, it is because there are so many situations of mixed competition and cooperation that such a classificatory effort would be doomed to failure before it began. The fact that competition and cooperation are reciprocal to one another would suggest that this would be the case.
Pure exclusive Pure exclusive
competition cooperation
Competition Cooperation
Hypothetical normal distribution illustrating situation where most societies are neither basically competitive nor cooperative, but have many mixed types
Hypothetical bimodal distribution illustrating situation where some societies are basically competitive and others are basically cooperative
Figure 4. The use of ideal types to illustrate different societal emphases upon competition and cooperation
Instead of engaging in what likely would be endless and not veiy productive efforts to classify whole societies as basically competitive or cooperative, sociologists have turned their energies to assessing the conditions and the effects of these social processes in more limited group settings. Consumer cooperatives and marketing cooperatives, for example, have been studied both here and abroad. Research has also been reported on the effects of competition upon efficiency, productivity, and attitudes.
One area in which special attention has been paid to the roles of cooperation and competition in social interaction lies in that of the family.
Approval and disapproval of competition
There is some common sense evidence that competition often may cause people to work harder and to achieve more. The competition of students for grades and of two production lines for output are examples. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has also used the competitive awarding of contracts effectively in achieving technological advances and reduced risks in the United States' space program.
But, at the same time that societies widely value competition and competition appears to stimulate productivity, there is evidence that it also has negative effects that cause its role in the society to be increasingly circumscribed.
Even as competition is widely valued over the world so, also, are efforts to limit the scope of its operation extremely widespread. Specific negative effects of competition that are thus minimized include at least the following. First, competition sometimes has undesirable personal and social consequences for those who are unsuccessful in the competition. Second, competition engenders attitudes and feelings of hostility. And, third, the rules governing the operation of competition tend to break down and to result in open conflict.
CONFLICT
Conflict is goal-oriented, just as cooperation and competition are, but there is a difference. In conflict, one seeks to deliberately harm and/or destroy one's antagonists. The rules of competition always include restrictions upon the injuiy that may be done to a foe, and in conflict those rules break down. In conflict, one seeks to win at any cost.
Probably the most striking thing about conflict is its destructive potential. The word itself often conjures up images of heads being busted, of buildings burning, and of death and destruction. Moreover, the destructiveness that accompanies conflict quickly cumulates. In a confrontation between police and students, for example, things may be quite orderly until the first blow is stmck. Once that happens, however, a frenzy of skull- cracking, shooting, burning, and destroying may follow.
Because the immediate results of conflict often are so terrible, there is a tendency to see it, not as a normal and universal process of social interaction, but as pathological. It is very difficult for the unsophisticated not to imply value judgements in discussing these social processes because our society as a whole tends to do so. Cooperation and competition are more often perceived to be socially useful, and conflict to be harmful.
The situation is not that simple, however. Few would defend the cooperation of a group of men in the rape of a woman. And the school drop-out problem is hardly a beneficial effect of competition. Competition and co-
operation, which otherwise receive a good deal of social approval, also have untoward effects.
So it is, also, with conflict. Conflict is as normal and universal a form of social interaction as are any of the others. Analysis of conflict needs to describe both the ways in which it is harmful and destructive and the ways in which it is useful and socially integrative.
Harmful effects of conflict
The harmful effects probably are easier to see. We have already indicated that conflict tends to cumulate rapidly. This snowballing tendency may lead to complete breakdown before the self-limiting features of most interpersonal exchanges have a chance to operate. Before people can decide that the pain is not worth it, other people may have been killed and property destroyed. Establishments may be closed or they may find themselves in chaos. Similarly, a company of soldiers may shoot down women and children in an orgy of destruction.
A second negative feature of conflict, closely related to the first, is that it is often extremely costly. War probably provides the best example, for 'nothing else in human experience exacts such a toll.
The third negative feature has to do with social costs. Conflict is inherently divisive. It sets man against man and group against group in ways that threaten to destroy organized social life. The late 1960's and early 1970's in the United States have seen conflict so widespread as to raise questions whether anarchy might prevail. Youth against 'the establishment,' blacks against whites, the poor against the affluent, and Jews against Arabs represent something of the range of conflicts.
In such situations, the question becomes not simply how many people will be killed, how much property destroyed, or who will win; it becomes one of societal survival. Can race wars be avoided? Can the police maintain order? Can universities operate? And can presidents keep the support of the populace? Whatever else they are, these are real questions. And the answers are by no means obvious. Conflict threatens the very existence of the society itself.
Useful functions of conflict
The explosiveness, the outward costs, and the divisiveness of conflict are so great that it is often difficult to see the ways in which conflict fulfills socially useful functions. Yet it does at least the following three things. First, it promotes loyalty within the group. Second, it signals the need for and helps promote short-run social change. And third, it appears intimately involved in moving societies toward new levels of social integration.
If conflict pits groups and organizations against one another, it also tends to promote unity within each of the conflicting groups. The necessity to work together against a common foe tends to submerge rivalries within the group and people who otherwise are competitors work together in harmony. Competing football halfbacks block for one another, rival student leaders work together to win concessions from the administration, and union leaders join forces against management. Nations that are torn by dissent in peacetime rally together when they are attacked by other countries.
Thus, conflict is not simply divisive, but works to unify groups. This is not to say that the price of such unity may not be high, or that it might not be possible to have unity that is not based upon conflict with outsiders, but it is to say that conflict does have such a group unifying function and that this function often is overlooked.
A second positive function of conflict is that it serves to notify the society that serious problems exist that are not being handled by the traditional social organization. It forces the recognition of those problems and encourages the development of new solutions to them.
The third general positive function of conflict is closely related to the second. And it is much more problematic. One view of human history tends to focus upon conflict — particularly upon war — as a primary mechanism through which nations have developed.
August Comte, writing in the early 1800's, gave support to this view. He saw a fundamental opposition between the 'spirit of conquest" and the 'spirit of industry,' with the former characterizing ancient societies and the latter characterizing modern ones. In ancient times work, he said, was the duty of slaves while free men were available for war. The great mission of war was the consolidation of societies.
There was no other means, in the early stages, to bring about the indispensable expansion of human society, and to restrain within society, a sterile warlike ardour incompatible with an adequate growth of productive work, except the gradual incorporation of civilised populations into one conquering nation.
In other words, war was the mechanism that permitted the consolidation of scattered, weak societies into large, powerful ones. Similar arguments have been advanced that war was necessary during the early modem period in Europe to permit the formation of nations as we now know them. Presumably, the process still is going on in other areas of the world where societies have not yet achieved the stability and strength associated with modem nationhood.
Unfortunately, there is no way that the truth or falsity of such arguments can be proved. We cannot reconstruct history fully to determine what causal relationships existed in the past. Nor can we set up controlled experiments to see whether the process is operating today. What is apparent about modern warfare is its extreme destructiveness, and that destructiveness leads growing numbers of scholars and laymen alike to the position that, even if it might have served socially useful functions in the past, warfare can no longer be tolerated in the modern world.
ACCOMMODATION
Because of the pain that they inflict upon the competing or conflicting parties, rivalrous situations tend to be unstable. The parties seek, and generally find, ways to restrict the rivalry and to replace it with some degree of cooperation. The ways of ending rivalry also are forms of patterned social interaction; that is, social processes. The first of these is labeled accommodation.
The term, accommodation, refers to several sorts of working agreements between rivalrous groups that permit at least limited, cooperation between them even though the issues dividing them remain unsettled. It does not technically end the conflict, but it holds it in abeyance. The accommodation may last for only a very short time and may be for the purpose of allowing the conflicting parties to consolidate their positions and to prepare for further conflict. Or, as is more often the case, the initial accommodation agreed upon by the parties may be part of the process of seeking solutions to the issues that divide them. If those solutions are not found, the accommodation itself may become permanent.
Of the many forms that accommodation may take, six have been selected for brief discussion here. They are: the truce, the compromise, arbitration, superordination arrangements, and toleration.
The term, truce, is so commonly used in ordinary speech that its meaning probably is clear. It is simply an agreement to terminate the conflict for a definite or indefinite period without any of the issues being settled.
The truce points toward some sort of compromise which is a total or partial solution to the issues that involves both parties making some concessions and receiving some in return.
Compromises are not always readily achieved, particularly if the rivals are of approximately equal strength and if each thinks he still has a chance to win. In the event that negotiations to find a compromise appear likely to break down, and open conflict to begin again, the parties may call in a mediator to assist them. The mediator is a disinterested third parly who presumably can be objective about the issues and who usually has some recognized expertise in the area. His role is to help the parties agree upon a compromise. Mediators frequently are used in labor-management negotiations where concessions can be made to a third party without the same 'loss of face’ that would be involved if they were made directly to the adversary.
Mediation provides assistance toward achieving a compromise and is not a form of accommodation itself. There is some question whether even arbitration is a form of accommodation or whether it merely results in the achievement of other forms of accommodation. In arbitration, the rival- rous parties agree to invite the outside party to assess the issues and to decide upon a solution that will be regarded as binding upon the conflicting parties. The arbitrator becomes, in effect, a judge. Like that of judges everywhere, the role of the arbitrator is more often to find viable compromises than to rule upon matters of principle.
The compromises that arbitrators impose may involve the making of approximately equal concessions by both sides, as implied above, or most of the advantage may go to one of the parties. That is, there may be elements of victory and defeat involved. Where one party clearly gains the advantage, the form of accommodation is superordination. Wars traditionally have ended in superordination arrangements, with the losers being placed in a position of disadvantage and having their ability to carry on the conflict curtailed. Superordination agreements may be a form of unequal compromise and may be achieved either with or without the assistance of an arbitrator.
The final form of accommodation to be described here is that of toleration. As the word implies, the issues remain unsettled but the parties agree, at least implicitly, that neither can or should defeat the other and they must endure coexistence.
Toleration, as a social process, is used frequently to accommodate national, racial, ethnic, and religious differences. It can work well, in considerable amicability, as witness Roman Catholic-Protestant relations in the United States, or it can occasionally be accompanied by bitter strife as witness relations between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.
ASSIMILATION
The one way in which given conflicts between particular groups may be eliminated permanently is through the process of assimilation. Formally, assimilation is the process whereby group differences gradually disappear. Issues are based upon differences. When the differences disappear, so do the issues and the conflict.
The term, assimilation, again is in somewhat general use, being applied most often to the process whereby large numbers of migrants from Europe were absorbed into the American population during the latter part of the nineteenth and the early part of the twentieth centuries. Among the immigrants were large numbers of Irish, Scandinavians, Germans, Poles, Italians, Greeks, and so on.
The history of each of these peoples in the United States was unique but most of them settled, for a while, in ethnic enclaves in American cities. While they thus held on to their old ways of life, conflict between the migrants and the older residents was frequent and bitter. Stereotypes — of the drunken superstitious Irishman, of the ignorant obtuse Pole, and the voluble criminally inclined Italian, for example — grew up to rationalize and support the conflict.
Gradually, however, as the second and third generations of these migrant families grew to adulthood, they moved out of the ethnic neighborhoods, spoke only English, and ceased to be different from their countrymen. This was the process of assimilation. Even today the process is not wholly complete and a few superficial differences remain. But, by and large, the differences have disappeared and so has the conflict that was based upon those differences. Such ethnic epithets as Dago, Wop, Polack, and Shanty Irish have virtually lost the affect that a generation or two ago accompanied their use.
The assimilation of European immigrants in the United States was a dramatic and highly visible set of events and illustrates the process well. There are other types of assimilation, however, and there are aspects of the assimilation of European migrants that require some further explanation. These several points might be put in prepositional form. First, assimilation is a two-way process. Second, assimilation of groups as well as individuals takes place. Third, some assimilation probably occurs in all lasting interpersonal situations. Fourth, assimilation is often incomplete and creates adjustment problems for individuals. And fifth, assimilation does not proceed equally rapidly and equally effectively in all intergroup situations.
The illustration of the assimilation of European migrants might make it appear that the migrants were simply absorbed by the host population until all traces of them were lost. This is not the way that assimilation works. In actuality, the host population and its way of life always change also. The dominant group may not change as much, or as noticeably, but it does change. To return to the illustration of the assimilation of European migrants, Irish stews, smorgasbords, sauerkraut, kielbasa, spaghetti, and ouzo suggest just a few 'American' patterns of food and drink that were contributed by the Europeans. Careful analysis would show similar contributions to the American way of life in areas as diverse as political attitudes, agricultural techniques, and ways of family life.
Assimilation is a group process
Second, the experience of the European migrants suggests that assimilation takes place on an individual or family basis. The situation in which some members of the same family assimilate more rapidly than others (and thereby precipitate new conflicts within the family) is a familiar one. Ultimately, of course, assimilation is an individual experience. This should not be permitted to obscure the fact, however, that assimilation also is a group process and that group differences, as well as individual differences, diminish over time. The European migrant experience illustrates both ways of perceiving assimilation, depending upon whether one focuses upon the adjustment of certain people and certain families or upon the gradual assimilation of groups such as the Italians and the Germans.
Assimilation at the group level also is illustrated by the gradual disappearance of differences between the rural and urban populations in the United States. At one time, city and farm ways of life were quite distinct. Clothes, manner, speech, attitudes, and values differentiated 'city slickers' from 'rubes' or 'hayseeds.' Gradually, however, the urban and rural ways of life have become less distinctive and an extensive common style of life, shared in by both urban and rural residents, has come to exist.
Assimilation occurs in all lasting relationships
As a process of reducing differences, assimilation probably also occurs in continuing interpersonal relationships where the persons involved share a generally common way of life to begin with. Perhaps the best illustration of this kind of assimilation is to be found in marriage. Even young persons from very similar backgrounds find differences between them when they first marry. Not surprisingly, conflict also is associated with the early years of marriage. As the couple live together, however, they tend toward common values, attitudes, behaviors, and sometimes even personal appearance. By the time some couples reach old age, other people marvel at how much alike they are, and wonder how it happened. The answer is very simple. The process of assimilation has been more effective between them than between other couples.
Assimilation often is incomplete
If studies of the matter were done, they would likely show that most couples do not achieve such a complete merging of themselves in marriage. And studies of other forms of assimilation such as the assimilation of immigrants in a new country would show the same thing. Assimilation within any one generation, tends to be partial rather than complete. The persons being assimilated tend to take on many of the features of the way of life into which they are being assimilated without completely giving up the way of life that they have left. This situation produces what an early sociologist described as the condition of the marginal man.
The marginal man is a participant in two distinct ways of life without being a full participant in either. He exists on the margin, as it were, of both groups. Contemporary migrants to the United States’ mainland from Puerto Rico provide a good example. Most of the migrants have grown up in the rural, Latin way of life of the island. Most of them migrate to the completely urban environment of New York City. In New York, they rapidly learn to function in very impersonal relationships, but not as effectively as many of the people who were born there. They also try to interact as they would have back home and only succeed in confusing both themselves and those with whom they must deal.
Social scientists perceive the condition of the marginal man both as a curse and a blessing. The curse derives from the fact that the marginal person cannot participate enthusiastically and without reservation in his new way of life. Because he is not fully assimilated, his fellows may be somewhat prejudiced against him, as they are toward the immigrant whose speech betrays his origins or the executive whose behavior is not always sufficiently polished. And the marginal person himself judges his new way of life not only by its own standards but also by those of his former group. The immigrant may be dismayed at the transparent chauvinism of his new countrymen and the rising executive may be especially sensitive to crudities in the behavior of other executives.
The lot of the marginal man is, thus, a lonely one. Unable to share fully in the way of life of any group, he may lack deep friendships and otherwise feel cut off from his fellows. One might suspect that other people may find him to be either abrasive or withdrawn. In extreme cases, these symptoms may be defined as those of incipient mental illness.
The very same isolation that is reflected in adjustment problems for marginal persons tends, on the other hand, to make them exceptionally astute and perceptive observers of the societies in which they live. Having two sets of standards from which to judge situations, they are less likely than other persons to accept, uncritically, platitudes and cliches. They are more likely to fathom the issues that divide societies and are more likely to see how those issues may be resolved. Their very marginality to a society may make them potentially more useful to it.
The last proposition with regard to assimilation is that assimilation does not proceed equally rapidly and equally effectively in all intergroup situations. The point is important both in understanding the historical role of assimilation in the United States and in understanding the more general role of assimilation as a means of terminating conflict.
In an earlier and more optimistic period in American life, there existed a concept of the United States as a giant melting pot in which all of the differences of immigrant groups soon melted away and a homogeneous American way of life was forged. According to a model which proved subsequently to have been based upon the experience of northwestern Europeans of Protestant background, assimilation was supposed to be complete in three generations. The first generation, the immigrants themselves, began the process but generally were not able to give up the old ways. Their children however, the second generation, growing up in the United States and wanting to be like everyone else, explicitly rejected the foreign language, distinctive modes of dress, and so on. When they married, they frequently moved away from the traditional ethnic areas and sometimes even Anglicized their names. The children of the second generation then grew up virtually without a sense of their old-world heritage and the process of assimilation was complete.
This three-generation assimilation model appears to have described the experience of migrants like the Scandinavians and Germans fairly accurately, but it was not accurate for many other groups such as the Poles, Russians, Italians, Jews, and Negroes. It was discovered early that assimilation tended to proceed within the three major religious groups — Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish — rather than across them. People tended to marry within their own religious group and thus to perpetuate religious differences beyond the specified three generations. The greatest barrier of all to rapid assimilation proved to be color differences; and, in general, the period required for assimilation was found to increase in proportion to a combination of language differences, religious differences, and racial differences.
By the 1970's, ' the problem of language differences had virtually disappeared, although traces of it remained among some American Indians, Japanese and Chinese Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and Mexican Americans. Where language differences remained, they tended both to reflect and to give support to religious differences. The most striking instances of nonassimilation are to be found where skin color differences exist. Although some black Americans have family experience in this country going back three hundred and fifty years, white racist traditions have prevented many blacks from becoming fully integrated into the American way of life. The civil unrest of the 1960's and 1970's testifies eloquently to the conflict potential in that situation.
Thus, the American experience indicates that assimilation is not a simple or inevitable solution to the problem of conflict.
Some differences appear much more reconcilable by this means than others do. As a formal matter then, assimilation, where it is possible, provides the ultimate solution to the problem of conflict. And some movement toward assimilation probably characterizes most lasting interpersonal interactions. But the progress of assimilation in some intergroup situations may be slow indeed.
SUMMARY
Certain common forms of social interaction — what sociologist call social processes — exist all over the world. Cooperation and competition are the best known of these. Included also, however, are conflict, accommodation, and assimilation.
Cooperation and competition are reciprocal aspects of the same general process and, although some societies value one more highly than other, neither can really be said to be more basic. Cooperation may be said, arbitrarily, to occur at several different levels. These levels are defined in terms of the number of people involved, how personal or impersonal their relationships, the nature of the goals they seek, and whether the rewards of the cooperation arc individual or shared.
American society generally values cooperative activity, but some types of cooperation toward socially proscribed goals are specifically disapproved. Probably all societies approve of cooperation in some instances and disapprove of it in others.
Competition also can be described in terms of the relationships between the competing parties and in terms of whether it occurs on personal, group, or organizational levels. And, like cooperation, it receives general social approval in some instances and disapproval in others. American society supports the principle that competition produces worthwhile results.
The concept of the ideal type is a useful device in describing the operation of cooperation and competition in human societies. It enables us to see that societies cannot be classified as purely competitive or cooperative but, instead, range along a continuum reflecting varying emphases upon the two processes.
Competition is widely valued in human societies because it appears to increase effort and achievement. At the same time, however, negative effects of competition have caused most societies to limit and regulate it. Those negative effects include the fact of undesirable consequences for people who are unsuccessful in the competition, the fact that competition encourages feelings of hostility, and the fact that competition tends to degenerate into conflict.
Competition shades off into conflict as the harming of one's opponent becomes a conscious goal. Conflict also ranges from the intensely personal to the quite impersonal, and may be conducted by individuals, groups, or organizations.
Conflict is inherently destructive and costly; so much so that its continuance may threaten the very existence of the social order. Conflict also serves useful functions, however, in that it promotes loyalty within the group, and it gives a sign of the need for social change. In longer range perspective, some scholars argue that conflict in the form of war was essential in the establishment of major societies.
A series of ways of terminating conflict are subsumed under the label of accommodation. The forms of accommodation include the truce, the compromise, and superordination arrangements. Mediation and arbitration sometimes are used as means to the attainment of the latter two forms of accommodation. Toleration, as a form of accommodation, may be becoming the preferred way of terminating wars.
The ultimate way of ending conflict is through the reduction of the differences that produced it in the first place. Most people are somewhat familiar with the process of assimilation because of the large role that it has played in American history. They do not always realize, however, that assimilation is a two-way process, that it is a group process, that it occurs in all lasting interpersonal relationships, that it is seldom complete, and that it proceeds unevenly in different intergroup situations.
QUESTIONS AND PROJECTS:
CULTURE GROWTH
Any one date that might be established as the beginning of human culture would be extremely arbitrary. Unmistakably, tools existed half a million years ago and they might be considerably older than that. If, for purposes of convenience, we say that culnire is 500,000 years old, it still is difficult to appreciate the length of the period during which it has grown and how much of what we customarily think of as culture today has appeared in the very recent past.
One dramatic way of representing the growth of culture over time is to select an arbitrary starting date and to divide man's experience from that point into "lifetimes". Alvin Toffler, for example, has divided the last 50,000 years of experience into 62-year lifetimes, placing man currently in his 800th lifetime.
According to this chronology, 650 lifetimes were spent in caves. Written language has existed only for the last 70 lifetimes, and the printed word has been widely available only for the last 6. The electric motor has existed for only 2 lifetimes. Television, airplanes, automobiles, and nuclear weapons all developed within the 800th lifetime. Ninety per cent of all of the scientists who have ever existed are alive during this lifetime.
All of modern technology has developed in less than l/2500th of the total time it has taken for human culture to reach its present level of development. This means, of course, that, in the beginning, the growth of culture was exceedingly slow and only recently has culture begun to change rapidly. The explanation for this situation is to be found in the fact that culture grows in two ways; through invention of new traits within the culture, or through diffusion of new traits from outside the culture.
Invention
When laymen use the term, invention, they usually refer to new mechanical things of one sort or another. These would be inventions in the sociological use of the term, too, but sociologists attach a far broader meaning to the term. To sociologists, an invention is any recombination of existing cultural elements in such a fashion as to produce something new.
Using this definition, it is easy to see that the number of new combinations of culture elements that are possible depends upon the number of elements already existing in the culture. Half a million years ago when man possessed only almond-shaped rocks as tools, the possibilities of change in those tools were exceedingly limited. Gradually and slowly, man learned to flake pieces off those stones to make them easier to handle and more efficient to use. He also learned to fashion the flakes into smaller, sharper tools. Eventually, he learned to set the flakes into crude handles, and rudimentary knives, axes and spears came into being. A very simple process from the modem perspective, these developments took about 400,000 years.
Major advances became possible when Neanderthal man discovered that bones could also be used to fashion tools. With both stones and bones as materials, and with some knowledge of how to affix handles, the rate of invention of new tools began to speed up. About 6000 years ago, man discovered that copper could be used to fashion superior tools, and then bronze and iron came into use.
With each new invention, the culture base was enlarged and the potential number of new combinations of existing cultural elements multiplied. Culture began to grow according to an observable exponential principle.
For hundreds of thousands of years, the growth of culture occurred chiefly through the process of invention within given societies and it was, by modem standards, almost incomprehensibly slow. Over the past few centuries the rate has speeded up to the point where rapid change is normal and expected. Although writers have been predicting for a long time now that the rate of change might soon exceed man's ability to adjust to it, the warning has taken on new urgency in the latter part of the twentieth century.
Diffusion
In spite of the fact that invention occupied a dominant place in the process of culture growth over such a long period of time, most of the content of modern cultures appears to have been gained through the process of diffusion. The term, diffusion, refers to the borrowing of cultural elements from another society in contrast to their independent invention within the host society.
In order for diffusion to operate on a substantial scale, there must be separate societies that have existed long enough to have elaborated distinctive ways of life. Moreover, those societies must be in sufficient contact with one another so that substantial borrowing is possible. These conditions probably developed rather late in the evolutionary process. Once begun, however, the process of culture borrowing became so pervasive that most of the elements of most modern cultures, including our own, originated with other peoples. The anthropologist, Ralph Linton, has provided a classic illustration of this point by caricaturing the beginning of the day for a typical American.
Our solid American citizen awakens in a bed built on a pattern which originated in the Near East but which was modified in Northern Europe before it was transmitted to America. He throws back the covers made from cotton, domesticated in India, or linen domesticated in the Near East, or silk, the use of which was discovered in China. All of these materials have been spun and woven by processes invented in the Near East. He slips into his moccasins, invented by the Indians of the Eastern woodlands, and goes to the bathroom, whose fixtures are a mixture of European and American inventions, both of recent date. He takes off his pajamas, a garment invented in India, and washes with soap, invented by the ancient Gauls. He then shaves, a masochistic rite which seems to have been derived from either Sumer or ancient Egypt.
Returning to the bedroom, he removes his clothes from a chair of southern European type and proceeds to dress. He puts on garments whose form originally derived from the skin clothing of the nomads of the Asiatic steppes, puts on shoes made from skins tanned by a process invented in ancient Egypt and cut to a pattern derived from the classical civilization of the Mediterranean, and ties around his neck a strip of bright-colored cloth which is a vestigial survival of the shoulder shawls worn by the seventeenth century Croatians. Before going out for breakfast he glances through the window, made of glass invented in Egypt, and if it is raining, puts on overshoes made of rubber discovered by the Central American Indians and takes an umbrella, invented in southeastern Asia. Upon his head he puts a hat made of felt, a material invented in the Asiatic Steppes.
On his way to breakfast he stops to buy a paper, paying for it with coins, an ancient Lydian invention. At the restaurant a whole new series of borrowed elements confronts him. His plate is made of a form of pottery invented in China. His knife is of steel, an alloy first made in southern India, his fork a medieval Italian invention, and his spoon a derivative of a Roman original. He begins breakfast with an orange, from the eastern Mediterranean, a cantaloupe from Persia, or perhaps a piece of African watermelon. With this he has coffee, an Abyssinian plant, with cream and sugar. Both the domestication of cows and the idea of milking them originated in the Near East, while sugar was first made in India. After his fruit and first coffee, he goes on to waffles, cakes made by a Scandinavian technique from wheat domesticated in Asia Minor. Over these he pours maple syrup, invented by the Indians of the Eastern woodlands. As a side dish he may have the eggs of a species of bird domesticated in Indo-China, or thin strips of the flesh of an animal domesticated in Eastern Asia which have been salted and smoked by a process developed in northern Europe.
When our friend has finished eating, he settles back to smoke, an American Indian habit, consuming a plant domesticated in Brazil in either a pipe, derived from the Indians of Virginia, or a cigarette, derived from Mexico. If he is hardy enough he may even attempt a cigar, transmitted to us from the Antilles by way of Spain. While smoking he reads the news of the day, imprinted in characters invented in Germany. As he absorbs the accounts of foreign troubles he will, if he is a good conservative citizen, thank a Hebrew deity in an Indo-European Language that he is 100 per cent American.
Culture has grown, then, through a combination of the processes of invention and diffusion. It grew very slowly at first, mostly as the result of invention. As the culture base expanded and as societies became differentiated, the large-scale diffusion of traits became possible and particularly in the Western world, the rate of culture growth has become overwhelming.
The selective addition of culture traits
Culture accumulates with the passage of time. And its growth tends to increase exponentially. There is danger, however, in the possible assumption that cultures grow randomly and unselectively. It is not true that culture is like a huge sponge, simply absorbing anything that happens to come its way.
Instead, it appears that the existing culture base largely determines what new traits will be added. Although large and complex cultures are not totally integrated and, indeed, may embrace many internal conflicts, there is a tendency toward such integration, and that tendency toward integration influences whether potential new elements in the culture will become firmly incorporated into it or whether they will soon be discarded.
As this is being written, for example, various groups of young adults around the country are experimenting with communal living arrangements and are espousing an ideology of selflessness and sharing. These young people perceive themselves as being the forerunners of a whole new way of life in America.
While the ideology that they espouse is anything but new, and has been promoted off and on for over 100 years in the United States, it is an ideology that has never secured widespread support. The basic values of
American society have been acquisitive, emphasizing the possession of power and prestige by those who have 'made it, ' and awarding to them a variety of material goods and services.
If communal living and equal sharing on any scale are to become part of the American way of life, it will represent a radical break with the past and will require re-organization of much of the remainder of American life. This is not to say that it will not happen. It does say that it is not likely to happen. It simply reflects the fact that cultures tend to grow selectively in directions determined by their pasts.
DEFINITION OF CULTURE
By now it probably is apparent that sociologists do not use the term, culture, as it often is used in ordinary speech. Culture, as we conceive of it, does not refer to just the cultivated prestigious patterns of upper-class groups in a society; our use of the term does not focus upon art or music or mamiers. Culture, viewed sociologically, originated at least a half million years ago and refers to the vast store of learned behavior that has been passed down through the generations and which, increasingly, has differentiated the human way of life from that of other animal species.
The concept of culture is so all-embracing that it is difficult to convey its full complexity in any synoptic definition. Without such a definition, however, the concept is likely to remain too vague and imprecise. A formal definition will help to sharpen our usage of the term, and can be expanded to encourage fuller understanding.
For purposes of this book we will define culture as the total learned behavior — including values, norms, and language — and the resulting material artifacts that compose the way of life of the members of society. The terms, society and culture, thus go together. Societies are composed of people — typically, those people who possess a distinctive culture. In turn, culture is usually the distinctive way of life of the members of a given society. Anthropologists estimate that, in the past and the present, there have been some 4000 different human societies. Most of those societies gradually developed their own distinctive collection of values and norms, their own language and customs, and their own array of material goods; in short, their own culture.
MATERIAL CULTURE AND NONMATERIAL CULTURE
Social scientists generally agree that the essence of culture lies in what we are here calling nonmaterial culture: in the system of values, norms, attitudes and beliefs; and in the interrelated habit systems of the members of a society. These are all learned behavior patterns and, as such, they are widely shared among the society's members. They also are taught to the young by their parents; they are transmitted from generation to generation.
In a very strict sense, material objects such as a dish, a building, or a rocket perhaps should not be included within the definition of culture. For they are not learned behavior. Neither can they be shared among the members of a society in quite the same way as learned behavior can. One loses nothing when he teaches something to another person. But although material objects can be shared to some degree, there is always the problem of ownership and control; individuals or groups frequently have rights in material objects that exclude other people from their possession and use.
A society's store of learned behavior may accumulate indefinitely and be transmitted to future generations without loss. Material objects, on the other hand, may be passed on from an individual or a group to persons in the next generation, but the problem of ownership remains, and, sooner or later, the object itself loses its usefulness and must be discarded.
The social scientists who argue that material objects should not be considered as part of culture do so on grounds similar to the above. We have no quarrel with them. Indeed, we agree with them. Nevertheless, it seems to us that material objects which, technically, are products of culture rather than culhire itself may be usefully included within the definition and may be referred to by the term, material culture.
We take this position because the invention and refinement of material artifacts in a society are not clearly separable from the development of nonmaterial culture. Learning makes possible the development of tools, instruments, and so on. And so it has been since the dawn of culture. Up until the development of written language, only some four to six thousand years ago, we can trace the development of culture only through the material objects that have survived. Since that time, the role played by technology in human experience has grown steadily larger, and technology and social institutions have become more difficult to disentwine.
Societies differ not only in language, customs, and rules of behavior. They differ, also, in the level of their technological development and in the specific kinds of material goods that they produce. Not strangely, the level of technological development in societies is related to the possession of a written language. Literate societies generally have a much higher level of technological development and in some societies, such as the United States, the level of technological development is so high as to have itself become a major causal factor in the process of social change.
The problem of cultural lag
The role played by material inventions, that is by technology, in the process of social change probably received most emphasis in the work of the American sociologist, William F. Ogbum. It was Ogburn, also, who was chiefly responsible for the idea that the rate of invention within a society is a function of the size of the existing culture base. He saw the rate of material invention as increasing with the passage of time.
Ogburn believed, too, that material culture and nonmaterial culture change in different ways. Change in material culture is believed to have a marked directional or progressive character. This is because there are generally agreed-upon standards of efficiency that are used to evaluate material inventions. To use airplanes as an example, we keep working to develop planes that will fly higher and faster, and carry more payload at a lower unit cost. And because airplanes can be measured against these standards, inventions in this area appear both rapidly and predictably.
In the area of nonmatcrial culture, on the other hand, there often are no such generally accepted standards. Whether one prefers a Warhol, a Picasso, or a Gainsborough, for example, is a matter of taste, and styles of painting fluctuate unevenly. Similarly, in institutions such as government and the economic system there are competing forms or styles. Governments may be dictatorships, oligarchies, republics, or democracies. Economic systems include communist, socialist, fascist, and capitalist ones. As far as can be told, there is no regular progression from one form of government or economic system to another. The obvious directional character of change in material culture is lacking in many areas of nonmaterial culture.
In addition to the difference in the directional character of change, Og- burn and others believe that material culture tends to change faster than nonmaterial culture. Certainly one of the most impressive aspects of modern American life is the tremendous development of technology. Within this century, life has been transformed by invention of the radio, TV, automobiles, airplanes, rockets, transistors, computers, and so on. While all of this has been happening in the area of material culture, change in government, in the economic system, in family life, in education, and in religion seems to have been much slower.
This difference in rates of culture change led Ogbum to formulate the concept of "culture lag". Material inventions, he believed, bring changes that require adjustments to be made in various areas of nonmaterial culture. Invention of the automobile, for instance, freed young unmarried men and women from direct parental observation, made it possible for men to work at great distances from their homes, and, among other things, facilitated crime by making escape easier. Half a century later, families still were structured much as they had been in the era of the family farm when young people were under continuous observation and men worked right on the homestead. Countless other examples could be given.
The period of culture lag was defined as the time between the appearance of a new material invention and the making of appropriate adjustment in corresponding areas of nonmaterial culture. This time is often long. It was over fifty years, for example, after the typewriter was invented before it was used systematically in office work. Even today, we may have a family system that is better adapted to a farm economy than to an urban industrial one, and nuclear weapons exist in a diplomatic atmosphere attuned to the requirements of the nineteenth century.
As the discussion implies, the concept of culture lag is associated with the definition of social problems. Those who use the concept generally envision some kind of balance or adjustment existing between material and nonmaterial culture. That balance is upset by the appearance of new material objects. The resulting imbalance is defined as a social problem until once again nonmaterial culture changes in adjustment to the new technology.
Not all sociologists, it should be pointed out, accept the premises upon which the concept of culture lag is based, or believe it to be a very useful idea. Some question, for example, the assumption that change in material culture comes first and that change in nonmaterial culture follows. They argue, instead, that material inventions stem from the general state of knowledge in a society, and that knowledge and science belong to the realm of nonmaterial culture. Thus, the relationship between material and nonmaterial culture should at least be seen as a reciprocal one.
A second point of dispute exists on whether change in material culture is simply accumulative in the manner suggested and whether material culture always changes faster than nonmaterial culture. There is abundant evidence of resistance to change in material culture and of very rapid change occurring in nonmaterial culture.
Some elements of nonmaterial culture change exceedingly rapidly. The whole area of fads and fashions provides examples. The slang speech of teenagers, to take one illustration, changes so rapidly that not only can adults not keep current with it, but young people in different sections of the country also struggle to keep up with the latest changes. Similarly, styles of dress for both men and women, trends in popular music, and even patterns of infant care change quite rapidly. While there is no way to compare directly the rate of change in such areas of nonmaterial culture with that in various areas of material culture, the allegedly more rapid material culture change appears at least to be an oversimplification.
In summary, the concept of culture lag is problematic in modern sociology. We cannot resolve the issue here and our intent has not been to try to do so. It simply seems to us that understanding of the concept of culture is facilitated by introducing the subordinate concepts of material culture and nonmaterial culture and of some of the issues related to how culture changes. For culture is, at one and the same time, one of the major determinants both of social order and of social change.
THE CONTENT OF CULTURE
Culture consists of the totality of the learned behaviors among the members of a society. And, as we have defined it, it also includes the material inventions that are some of the products of learned behavior.
Most social scientists, somewhat unlike William Ogburn, believe the essence of culture to lie in its nonmaterial aspects. They include under the rubric of learned behavior — in addition to values, norms, and language — the whole store of human knowledge and creativity. Thus, science, history, philosophy and theology are all parts of culture; they represent the systematization of knowledge that has been acquired in different ways. Similarly, the essence of art, sculpture, and music is conceived to lie not in statues, paintings, and musical scores, but in knowledge of the use of form, color, function, tone, and so on.
Also included within culture are the habits and customs of a people. Going to bed at 10:00 P.M. or 1:00 A.M. — in fact, using a bed at all — is an element of culture. So, also, are wearing mini dresses, going to church or sleeping late on Sunday, observing Christmas or placating evil spirits, hating fascists or student protestors, loving one's enemies, and so on. Culture is, in brief, the total way of life of the members of a society.
For analytic purposes, the content of a culture often is broken down in different ways from the ways in which we have done it so far. In addition to dividing culture into material and nonmaterial, and into language, norms, habits, and so on, cultural elements are classified into traits, complexes, and patterns.
Traits, complexes, and patterns
Quite arbitrarily, the smallest units of culture are defined as being culture traits. A knife or a kiss provide examples. Thousands of other illustrations could be given. Whenever the item under consideration cannot be divided into meaningful parts, we are dealing with culture traits. Traits are the basic building blocks of culturc.
Culture traits seldom, if ever, exist in isolation. Instead, they exist in relation to other traits, with which they form what are called culture complexes. The knife, for example, is likely to exists in varieties that may range from scaples, to switchblades.
What minimum of related culture traits are necessary before we are justified in speaking of complex culture? The concept is not defined that precisely. And, at the other extreme, there is no maximum number of traits in a culture complex refers to a somewhat interminate middle range in the organization of culture traits into larger wholes.
At some point in this process where the number of related traits has become very large and has come to permate many aspects of life, we generally stop referring to them as culture complexes and begin to call them culture patterns. The culture complex of cutting and stabbing, for instance, may be seen as part of the larger culture patterns of medical care and of crime and violence.
The three terms: traits, complex and pattern, are useful in communicating abort culture. The aim is not to dessect culture into its component parts
and to neatly classify each cultural element into various categories, but to permit the quick identification of the level of abstraction or generality of a discussion.
Universals, alternative and specialties.
Culture traits and culture complexes may also be classified according to the degree to which they are shared by all or by only certain segments of a society. One type of culture trait, that is, social norms, has been classified into universals, alternatives, and specialities.
The term, universals. refers to those norms that, avvlv to all of members of a society, with no one beitw excluded or excevted. The best illustration that may be offered is that of the incest taboo. All persons are forbidden to have sexual intercourse with other persons who arc defined as close relatives. The use of the English language whould also come close to being a cultural universal in the United Sates.
True universals are rare in most societies. Even the prohibition of murder, for example, has certain possible exceptions to it. United States' norms are not quite clear about how freely soldiers may kill under conditions of guerilla warfare, or how much persecution blacks must stand from the police before striking back. Social change may also convert former universals into cultural alternatives. To illustrate: the capitalist cthic may have been a universal in the United States only a generation or so ago but appears not to be accepted by growing numbers of young people.
Cultural alternatives are norms that offer to individuals a choice of behaviors, with the various possibilities being almost equally acceptable. If the requirement to wear clothes is a universal in our society, then several styles and colors of clothing constitute alternatives. Alternatives tend to be much more numerous than universals.
The concept of specialties takes us one step further to norms that are neither universal nor are they equally available to all of the members of society. Specialties are norms that are appropriate only for certain indivictuals or groups by virtue of certain characteristics that they possess. Generally, specialties are products of the division of labor in societies. They vary by age, sex, and occupation.
The best examples of specialties probably come from the occupational sphere. Lawyers, physicians, teachers, bricklayers, truck drivers, and so on, all have areas of knowledge and expectcd modes of behavior that are not shared by other occupational groups.
Through its normative system, culture promotes order in a society. Some norms, universals, apply to all members of the society without exception. Most norms, however, are not completely binding upon all members of the society and a range of alternative behaviors is permitted. Finally, there is always some specialization within the society, and certain norms are learned and observed only by individuals and groups for whom they are defined as appropriate.
Real and ideal patterns
One final distinction to be made concerning the content of culture has to do with the relationship between ideal culture patterns and real culture patterns. The distinction is necessary so that the idea of culture may not be oversimplified.
Ideal culture patterns consist of the society's formal norms concerning proper behavior. Thus, in our society, people are supposed to be equal under the law, and our political leaders are supposed to work for peace. These are some of the ideal patterns which are trumpeted through the press, are advocated from the pulpit, and are taught in the classroom. Outwardly, people pretend that these goals are vigorously sought.
In practice, however, merchants give short weight, taxpayers conceal income from the Internal Revenue Service, manufacturers distribute goods that they know to be defective, blacks and ethnic group members are discriminated against, nonconformists are abused by the police and the general public, Congressmen support the expansion of military facilities in their districts, and high officials deliberately follow policies that are likely to cause war. And these are only a few examples of ways in which the actual behavior of people conflicts with the society's official norms.
The extent to which the real behavior of people differs from the ideal patterns probably varies from one culture to another. The discrepancies may be fewer and less glaring in smaller, less complex societies, although there is no systematic empirical evidence that has been collected to support that belief. Certainly, our own complex culture is permeated with inconsistencies. Only in such a society would one recognize the avuncular admonition to 'do as I say, and not as I do.'
One could simply make a moral judgement of this situation and say that the real culturc patterns reflcct the depravity of man/that they are bad and ought to be corrected. To do this, however, would be to miss the point. The point is that the real patterns are as legitimate a part of the culture as the ideal patterns are.
We might ask, instead, what functions the concurrent existence of real and ideal culture patterns serve in the society. At least two such functions may be stated.
First, the ideal patterns probably serve as constraints or checks upon the real patterns. The idea of the regulation of behavior — what sociologists call social control — is inherent in the concept of culture. Many real culture patterns probably represent concessions to the fact that human behavior cannot be controlled perfectly to promote the stability and welfare of the total society.
Thus, our ideal patterns require monogamy and sexual fidelity in marriage. The real patterns, however, take cognizance of the fact that sexual urges are somewhat indiscriminate and not easily contained. Consequently, we at least partly close our eyes to the existence of extramarital affairs and we tolerate the existence of both professional and amateur prostitution. The real culture pattern, widespread semitolerated extramarital sex behavior, helps to preserve families intact by not automatically causing a marital break every time a violation occurs. On the other hand, extramarital affairs involve the risk of emotional involvement between the parties that might cause them to disrupt their marriages in order to continue the relationship. The ideal pattern of marital fidelity causes people to be reluctant to enter extramarital affairs and causes them to feel guilty when they do so. Without the ideal norm to hold behavior in check, extramarital involvements and divorces might be even more common than they are. One function, then, of the ideal culture patterns is to serve as a check upon behaviors that might threaten the stability of the society.
A second function is almost the obverse of the first. It is to open the way to social change. To some extent, the ideal culture patterns represent standards based upon the society's past experience. As such, they are better attuned to past than to present conditions.
To take another illustration from the area of the family, consider the real and ideal patterns relating to divorce. The ideal norms have traditionally provided that a divorce could be secured only when one partner committed an offence that was legal ground for divorce. That partner was then judged to be guilty and was penalized in the terms of the divorce. In accord with what has just been said about ideal norms serving as checks upon behavior, these ideal norms helped to hold down the divorce rate.
Over a long period of time, however, the conditions of marriage changed, and judges came to realize that among most of the couples who sought divorce both the husband and wife were agreed that the marriage should be ended. Moreover, what responsibility there was for disrupting the marriage generally was shared by both spouses. Consequently, judges began to grant divorces on some kind of vague concept of the welfare of the partners and their children. The real patterns of divorce came to be quite different from the ideal patterns that were embedded within the law.
SPECIFIC CULTURES, SUBCULTURES, AND CONTRACULTURES
Up to this point, we have made passing reference to the fact that each society has a culture, but we have not considered, systematically, the different ways in which the term, culture, is used. The word, "culture", may refer to the entire social heritage of mankind or it may refer to the culture enacted by a specific people.
Specific cultures
Ordinarily, one can tell from the context which usage of the term is intended. Culture, used without any modifiers, generally refers to culture in its most abstract and general form: to the learned behavior of men in contrast to the more detailed biological regulation of behavior in other species. When modifiers are used -as in American culture, Arab culture. South African culture, and so on — the reference is to the specific ways of life of the members of individual societies.
The difficulties do not end there, however. Suppose we use American culture as an example. There are certain aspects of American culture, that were earlier referred to as universals, which presumably are shared by all Americans. Beliefs in freedom and democracy, monogamous marriage, and the use of automobiles would seem to approximate universals in American society. But do they?
One exception involves monogamous marriage, There still exist small enclaves of people in the niral southwest who believe in and practice polygyny. And over the past decade or so the idea of communal living, often without any form of marriage or any concept of sexual exclusiveness, has become part of a total way of life for a growing number of people.
But surely the use of automobiles is shared by all of the members of American society. Not quite. There are Amish communities where the use of automobiles is taboo. Horse-drawn carriages driven by fully bearded men wearing plain black clothes and broad-brimmed black hats symbolize a way of life that seems to set the Amish apart from the mainstream of American society.
Subcultures
A subculture really consists of a culture within a culture. It represents an elaboration of the concept of cultural specialties where certain groups within the society share interrelated sets of behavior patterns that are not shared with the larger society.
The term, specialties, is often used to refer to the fairly distinct ways of life of occupational groups such as barbers, college professors, and so on. The distinctiveness of the ways of life of barbers and college professors is far from complete, however, and one does not grow up as a barber or a college professor. To the degree that occupations are transmitted from father to son and the special way of life is perpetuated over the generations, the rudiments of a subculture may be formed.
There is no precise boundary that sets off cultural specialties from subcultures. Nor is there any completely satisfactory way to separate many subcultures from the larger cultures of which they are a part. Yet the concept of subculture is a useful one, especially when the term is used carefully and with full awareness of its inherent ambiguities.
The most legitimate use of the concept of subculture is to apply it to those cases where groups maintain either physical or social isolation, or both, from other groups within the society and where they have developed a distinctive way of life that sets them off from the rest of the society. In contrast to the situation involving what are called cultural specialties, one typically is bom into a group having a distinctive subculture, he grows up in it, he may marry within it, and live out his life in it.
Contracultures
The concept of contra culture came into sociology approximately a decade ago to identify subcultural patterns that are directly in conflict with the values, 'norms, and attitudes of the larger society. Large, complex societies such as our own are believed to be particularly prone to the development of contracultures and the best illustration from American society is usually agreed to be that of the delinquent gang. Other examples — assuming that they become permanent parts of the American scene would include hippies, some communal living groups who reject the basic values of American society, the Black Panthers, some drug users, and others.
The exact means whereby contracultures come into existence is unknown, but it is believed that they are a response to the continued and serious frustration encountered by some groups in their attempts to share in the values of the larger society. Delinquent youth, for example, are presumed to be exposed to values of occupational success and the acquisition of material goods just as other Americans are. They soon learn, however, that their best efforts will not permit them to share significantly in these values. They find solace, then, in the norms of the street gang that define the larger society as hypocritical and explorative.
In time, the gang develops an integrated normative pattern in which loyalty to the gang and its standards comes to replace loyalty to the larger society. The gang members know that stealing is disapproved of by the larger society but, within the gang, successful stealing becomes a route to prestige and the acquisition of material possessions analogous to that afforded through formal education and conformity to middle-class youth.
As in the case of subcultures where the dominant values do not stand in direct opposition to those of the larger society, contracultures are not completely separated from the larger culture. Delinquent youth share much of their argot with other teenagers, they smoke the same cigarettes, watch the same TV shows, admire the same musical groups, and so on.
True contraeultures, like true subcultures, probably must cover the whole life cycle and must be transmitted from generation to generation. The delinquent contraculture appears to come close to meeting this criterion. Many people are bom into families where there is systematic rejection of the standards of the larger society and where the adults earn their livings through illegal or quasi-legal activities. When the youth are grown, they too adopt criminal life styles and transmit them to their children. It probably is too early to tell whether some of the newer apparent contracul- tures such as those of the communal living groups and the Black Panthers will become lasting parts of the American scene.
CULTURAL VARIABILITY
The concepts of subculture and contraculture, along with those of cultural alternatives and specialties, indicate that there may be wide variability in values and norms even within a single society such as the United States. When we compare different societies with one another, the variability in their cultural patterns becomes correspondingly larger. When all 4000 human societies are brought into the picture, almost every belief or trait that one can think of is found to exist somewhere in the world.
Cultural relativity
The concept of cultural relativity simply extends the idea that different cultural patterns constitute different solutions to problems to state that specific cultural patterns can be properly interpreted only in terms of the total context in which they appear. To illustrate, take the use of the igloo for housing among the American Eskimos. At first glance, the igloo appears to be a primitive, uncomfortable, inferior type of dwelling. The anthropologist who understands the concept of cultural relativity, however, interprets it this way: the igloo is a first-rate shield against icy winds and a nearly ideal container for men and for heat energy.
Whether one is evaluating shelter among the Eskimos, the functions of the Red Guard in China, the use of open fireplaces in England, or the role of guerilla organizations in the Arab East, the principle of cultural relativity should be remembered.
Cultural practices can be properly understood only in their total culftir- al setting.
Ethnocentrism
Closely related to the concept of cultural relativity is the concept of ethnocentrism. The root, ethno, comes from the Greek and refers to a people, nation, or cultural grouping, while centric comes from the Latin and refers, of course, to the center. The term ethnocentrism, then, refers to the tendency for each society -со place its own culture patterns at the center of things. Ethnocentrism is the practice of comparing other cultural practices with those of one's own group and automatically finding those other cultural practices to be inferior.
Ethnocentrism appears to be a natural and universal human tendency. Nation-states are notoriously ethnocentric (chauvinistic), and most religions seem to teach that theirs is 'the chosen people.' White attiftides of racial superiority now are matched by the defiant 'black is beautiful'; haute cuisine must compete with soul food; and blacks and whites compete for credit for each new popular music style.
Everyone leams ethnocentrism in the process of growing up. The possessiveness of the small child quickly translates into 'my toys are better than your toys.' Parents, unless they are quite crude, outwardly discourage their children from verbalizing such beliefs. But, in private, they may reassure their offspring that his possessions are indeed very nice. Much of the learning of ethnocentrism is indirect and unintended, but much of it is quite deliberate. History, for example, is often taught to glorify the achievements of one's own nation, and religious, civic, and other groups disparage their competitors quite openly. Among adults, ethnocentrism is simply a fact of life.
Once one becomes conscious of the phenomenon of ethnocentrism, the temptation is strong to evaluate it in moral terms; to label it with epithets such as bigoted, chauvinistic, and so on, and to imply that one who has not discovered and compensated for his ethnocentric biases is not worthy of serious consideration. This, incidentally, is another form of ethnocentrism. The important point, however, is that ethnocentrism is a feature of culture and, like the rest of culture, it needs to be evaluated in terms of its contribution to the maintenance of social order and the promotion of social change.
The functions of ethnocentrism in maintaining social order are much more apparent than those which promote social change. First of all, ethnocentrism encourages the solidarity of the group. Believing that one’s own ways are the best encourages a "we" feeling with one's associates and strengthens the idea that loyalty to comrades and the preservation of the basis for one's superiority are important values. Positively, ethnocentrism promotes continuance of the status quo; negatively, it discourages change.
Second, ethnocentrism hinders the understanding of and cooperation with other groups. If the ways of one's own group are the best ways, then there is little incentive to interact with inferior groups. In fact, attitudes of suspicion, disdain, and hostility are likely to be engendered. Extreme ethnocentrism is likely to promote conflict, as the records of past wars, and religious and racial conflicts make very clear.
Conflict, of course, often leads to social change, and in that sense ethnocentrism does become a vehicle for the promotion of social change. It does so, however, through disruption of the social order rather than through encouragement of its peaceful evolution.
There seems to be little doubt that most social scientists are biased in favor of peaceful social change and are opposed to conflict. Consequently, they tend, even if subtly, to denigrate ethnocentrism and to imply that students must rid themselves of ethnocentrism if they are to learn effectively. In so doing, sociologists operate implicitly from a combination of evolutionary and functionalist models.
SUMMARY
Culture develops through invention and diffusion, invention, which is a new combination of existing cultural elements, is dependent upon the size of the culture base. Initially, the rate of invention was very slow, but, as the exponential principle began to operate, the rate speeded up enormously. Diffusion, which is the process of cultural borrowing, may have appeared somewhat later in the evolutionary process but has been a major force in the shaping of modern cultures.
Cultures do not accumulate new elements randomly, and do not grow in uncontrolled fashion. Instead, new elements are added selectively according to how well they fit in with the existing culture.
Culture is the totality of learned behavior — including values, norms, and language — and the resulting material artifacts that compose the way of life of the members of a society. Not all sociologists agree that material objects should be considered as a part of culture, but we see technology as inseparably linked with the knowledge from which it derives. In modern societies, technology has become an important factor in the causation of social change.
There is some indication that material culture and nonmaterial culture change in different ways and at different rates of speed. The tendency for material culture to change faster, and for nonmaterial culture to adapt haltingly, led to formulation of the concept of culture lag. Some sociologists do not accept this thesis, but present contrary arguments to the effect that material culture plays a much smaller role in helping us to understand human behavior.
The smallest units of culture are called culture traits. Traits do not exist in isolation but as parts of combinations of traits that are called culture complexes. Complexes, in turn, are combined into culture patterns, the largest and most pervasive organizations of traits.
Culture traits also are classified into universals, alternatives, and specialties. Universals generally are few in number, alternatives reflect the diversity of culture, and specialties are involved with the division of labor.
Ideal culture patterns consist of the society's formal, explicit norms, while the real patterns describe behavior that often deviates from the formal norms. The ideal norms serve to put constraints upon deviant behavior, and the real norms open up the way to social change.
The term, subculture, refers to the fairly distinct way of life of a subgroup within a larger society. This distinct way of life is more embracing than is usually connoted by the term, cultural specialty, and often is predicated upon some physical and social isolation from the larger society. The term, contraculture, refers to subcultures whose norms are in direct conflict with those of the larger society.
The wide range of variability from one culture to another, while fascinating in its own right, should be seen as reflecting man's ingenuity in inventing different solutions to the common human problems of living. Acknowledgment of the concept of cultural variability leads to understanding the concept of cultural relativity; according to this concept, cultural patterns can be adequately interpreted only in terms of the total context in which they are found.
Ethnocentrism is the practice of judging different cultural practices according to the standards of judgement that derive from one's own culture. It is a universal human tendency and appears to be taught, both intentionally and indirectly, in all societies. Ethnocentrism serves functions both in the maintenance of social order and in the promotion of social change. It promotes loyalty within the group and provides rationalizations for the perpetuation of the status quo. On the other hand, ethnocentrism hinders cooperation with outgroups and promotes conflict. The resulting conflict often is a factor in social change.
QUESTIONS AND PROJECTS:
VI.BUREAUCRACY
Complex organizations are not a modem invention, they have been with us for a long time. The conditions of modern life differ dramatically, however, from those of any earlier period, and the nature and role of complex organizations have changed accordingly. Growing sociological interest in organizations reflects their increasing importance in all of our lives.
THE UBIQUITY OF ORGANIZATION IN THE MODERN WORLD
Modem society is an organizational society. It is many other things too, of course, but no other factor so directly influences the form of the social system or the quality of individual life.
Let us examine a typical person in a modern society. Much of his socialization takes place in schools, churches, the Boy Scouts, and other formal organizations. Additional socialization occurs through the mass media that disseminate the products of other vast, complex organizations. He is subject to the laws of nation, state, and municipality. These laws were created through a complex political apparatus, enforced by ranks and cohorts of police, and adjudicated by an organized court system.
As an adult, he works for a corporation or other large organization. Or, if he is an 'independent' businessman, he depends upon such organizations as suppliers, customers, and so on. His marriage is recorded by state and religious organizations. Virtually all of the goods that sustain life and lend character to it are created and delivered through one organization or another. Waste disposal is accomplished by agencies similar in form if not in function. His death will be attended by representatives of several establishments: medical, mortuary, religious, and insurance.
These are only some of the ways in which his life is touched directly by organizations. In addition, there are many indirect influences.
At some time in his life, the individual may receive a raise in pay. This increase may result from his performance on the job; that is, from factors strictly between him and the organization that employs him. But it may also be due to factors beyond his control, or even beyond his recognition.
A change in the Federal Reserve Board's rediscount rate, a revolution affecting the production of copper in Africa, altered procurement policies in the Department of Defense, a machinist's strike in Tokyo, new import tariffs in England, or hundreds of comparable events in thousands of other organizations all may be involved. Individuals are powerless to influence these events and often are unaware of them.
Organizations are pervasive in virtually all areas of society; in politics, education, religion, the mass media, and so on. People live out their lives in a network of such organizations. The situation is paradoxical. On the dne hand, men find themselves helpless to confront the vast bureaucracies that control their lives, and the resulting anguish and frustration is a major theme in modern society. On the other hand, organizations are essential to the accomplishment of many large-scale, complex tasks. Modern society could not exist without them.
CHARACTERISTICS OF BUREAUCRACIES
All organizations have much in common. To assert that life is influenced by corporations, schools, welfare agencies, governments, churches, and television networks implies that these have a common effect; that, in being organized, they become as one. This section will focus upon the common features of large organizations. Sociologists refer to these common features, and to the organizations that possess them, by the term 'bureaucracy.'
Bureaucracy as an ideal type
No two actual organizations, no two social systems, are exactly alike. They share some features to a greater or lesser degree. By ignoring the differences and emphasizing the common features, we may construct a bureaucratic ideal type that is useful for analyzing specific organizations and organizations in general. The following are some of the elements of such an ideal type of bureaucracy.
Large size. The number of people involved is so great that they cannot all know each other personally. They cannot interact regularly on a face- to-face basis.
Clear-cut membership and system boundaries. Corporation boundaries are defined according to those who get paid. Membership in other types of organizations may be defined by membership cards, a roll, initiation, expulsion, leave-taking ceremonies, and other devices. Relationships within the system are easily separable from those between the organization and its environment. Special rules apply to those who are members.
Elaborate division of labor. Different people within the organization are regularly and specifically charged with the performance of specialized tasks. Taken out of context, some of these tasks would seem nonsensical. Their accretion and organization under the umbrella of the system makes them add up to something more than the sum of the parts.
A system of rides. There are rules for the accomplishment of each individual task. There also are rules governing the ways in which the individual tasks are integrated. These rules are formal, unvarying, specific, and usually are written. They serve as a highly specialized, formal culture that underlies the organization as a working social system.
Hierarchical authority. Each position in the organization is defined in terms of other positions. The rights and responsibilities of superiors and subordinates are circumscribed by their positions in the system and by the rules. There is mutual recognition of the legitimacy of these special relationships.
Multiple levels of supervision. There are at least two levels of hierarchical supervision, and usually more. For most of the membership, the boss has a boss. Communication, responsibility, and discipline move up and down the chain of command. Everything goes 'through channels'.
Immortality. Members come and go. Upon their departure, their places are taken by others who are functional equivalents. The life span of the bureaucracy may be hundreds or thousands of years. Individuals plan for an organizational future that they will not survive to enjoy. The character of the system is not that of its members.
Mission. Large systems do act. And their actions are oriented toward some goal. This is especially evident in the case of bureaucracies. Whether it be 'maximizing profits," 'educating youth,' 'abolishing poverty,' 'manufacturing refrigerators,' 'saving souls,' 'establishing domestic tranquility,' 'curing the sick,' or 'keeping the peace,' complex organizations have stated missions and orient many of their actions to the accomplishment of those goals.
Organizational goals usually cannot be accomplished by individuals or by simple groups. Bureaucracy is a social invention specifically designed to accomplish tasks of great complexity and magnitude. An additional, implicit goal of bureaucracies is the survival of the bureaucracy itself.
Rationality. By 'rationality', we refer to modes of action and decisionmaking that give priority to ends over means. Each act is judged on the basis of its efficiency in the achievement of a particular goal. Efficiency becomes morality. Propriety is judged by outcome. Organizations develop elaborate devices for monitoring and assessing performance. Positions within the organization are awarded, ideally, to those persons whose qualifications and past performances lead to reasonable expectation of success in accomplishment of the tasks associated with those positions. In contrast with tradition, revelation, whim, or chance — rationality is the epitome of organizational behavior.
These are the central features of bureaucracies. Later, we will analyze how diverse systems develop these characteristics. We will also inquire into the tendency for these features to cluster together. Why, for example, are large organizations usually hierarchical? Why are organizations with missions rational? Before doing that, however, we return to the theme of the opening page of this chapter, which was, indeed, introduced in the first chapter of this book.
The origin and development of bureaucracy
The decisive reason for the development of bureaucratic organization is its purely technical superiority oyer all other forms of organization. By itself, this is not a sufficient explanation, however. Before they will develop bureaucracy, people must be faced with tasks of a type and magnitude where this superiority will be effective. They must be in a position to recognize and compare the advantages of various forms of organization. Their value system must find worth in technical superiority rather than in moral or other types of superiority. Finally, they must have the resources and skills that permit the institution and elaboration of bureaucratic systems. Many societies of the past, and some societies today, fail to fulfill these conditions.
To start with, bureaucracy requires a large complement of personnel and must be placed in a societal context larger than itself. Very small societies do not have enough people to man a bureaucracy effectively. Only when man began to induce and control food production, rather than to take his food as nature provided it, did any society's population reach substantial numbers. The agricultural revolution and the gathering of surplus population in cities, then, heralded the possibility of bureaucratic organization.
In contrast to hunting and gathering, fanning results in the production of more food by less labor. In turn, this allows a more elaborate division of labor and specialization in crafts, governance, and religion. These several components of the more complex division of labor accommodate one another through trade.
These developments occurred within the period from 10,000 years to 1500 years ago. By prior standards, social change was rapid and profound. One of the developments of this age was the appearance of bureaucracy. The chain of cause and effect was complex, and much of it can be reconstructed only through archaeological evidence and shrewd guesswork.
The first social systems that possessed all of the characteristics of bureaucracy may well have been armies. Priority does not really matter. Government, as an extension and elaboration of military control, soon showed the same organizational features. Successful principles of organization were adopted by other social agencies. Church, state, and business all learned from one another. Taken together, these principles of organization became the blueprint for bureaucracy.
Over much of the period, and in many societies, the several institutions were not organizationally separable. State religion, governmentally supported economic monopolies, church-sanctioned business practices, and similar intertwinings, were the rule rather than the exception. Out of this conflux grew bureaucracy as the standardized pattern for handling much of the social operation.
For many reasons, this system had peaked by 1500 years ago. In some parts of the world, it continued almost unchanged from that point. In other places, actual regression occurred in terms of such criteria as city size, organizational complexity, and institutional elaboration.
Later historical development of bureaucracy
The next major movement toward bureaucratization came with the Industrial Revolution, the rise of nation-states, and the Protestant Reformation. The threads of change, and stimuli to change, are as interwoven here as in the earlier period. This time we cannot chronicle the end of the era, however, because it has not yet arrived. The trends that began with the Industrial Revolution are still running their course. The time period involved is roughly the last 500 years, plus some indefinite portion of the future.
Stable and accommodating political systems were required in order for massive business concerns to operate. Powerful merchant interests fostered strong central governments. They subsidized governments with shares of their monopoly enterprises. National control expanded and the foundation of empires accompanied exploration. Superior weaponry made the conquest and control easy.
The political importance of guns to this stage of history cannot be overemphasized.
In the realm of ideas, the Protestant revolt urged each man to seek his own salvation, and enhanced the value attached to rationality in all areas of life. Impetus to mass literacy was given by the emphasis upon understanding the word of God, which was written in the Bible. Mechanical printing and the whole technology of publishing were indirect consequences. Protestantism's special emphasis upon disciplined participation in the affairs of the world also had several side effects leading to bureaucratic development. It highlighted the importance of a career. It placed a positive value upon work. It caused people to act in ways that produced capital accumulation.
The mass organization of production was encouraged. Individual producers could not compete with combines of merchandisers, bankers, and so forth. Parareligious motives and hard-headed considerations of meeting the competition both urged the same course toward consolidation. More efficient record keeping and the invention of double-entry bookkeeping contributed to further systematization.
The efficient use of machinery driven by the water wheel, and later by steam, required that many machines be located together and that many people work in the same place. This development simply validated spatially what had already become an organizational fact. Factories became the manifestation of production bureaucracies. Wide markets, production-line techniques, interchangeability of parts, and automation simply are extensions of these trends.
Corporations, holding companies, and similar devices are legal and monetary analogies that simply mean more of the same. Today and tomorrow, the computer, the atom and the opening of outer space do not seem to offer anything basically new. Instead, they offer more and bigger organizations.
Organizations are human inventions, aids to solving problems. Except for speech, religion, and agriculture, perhaps no other inventions have had a more profound effect on the quality of human life. We cannot know modern society without understanding them.
ORGANIZATION AND BEHAVIOR OF BUREAUCRACY
Certain regular practices arc central to any bureaucracy's existence. Such practices are developed and defined in terms of the bureaucracy's mission or goals. Whether they are medical routines in a hospital, productive activities in a factory, or what have you, they are fundamental to the organization's being. They represent its core technology.
Bureaucracy and environment
The concept of technology implies that bureaucracies produce objects. A hospital, for example, 'needs' sick or injured people whom it can turn into healthy ones. Universities 'ingest' relatively uninformed people and 'spew out' educated ones. The core technology consists of the techniques through which these transformations are accomplished. Such accomplishment is the mission of the organization.
In order for the core technology — the organization's specialized procedures — to work properly, there must be still other regular procedures for managing input to the organization and for receiving output from it. The core technology itself does not govern these 'outside' activities. The expertise of medicine, for example, does not provide for getting sick people into hospitals; for making bodies available for medicine to be practised upon. Similarly, the engineering sophistication of factory automobile production offers no solution to how cars, once produced, should be distributed, sold, or even moved away fast enough to keep the factory doors from jamming.
The core technology cannot operate efficiently unless the bureaucracy both cushions it from the environment and relates it to the environment. Being rational organizations, bureaucracies seek to establish buffers between their cores and the environment.
One way in which organizations do this is to try to 'smooth' inputs and outputs. To illustrate the point: a factory that makes Christmas tree ornaments could not operate efficiently if it tried to regulate production according to demand. It would have to work three shifts in early winter and then close down for the rest of the year. The problem could be better handled in two other ways. One possibility would be to have small, steady, year- round production of Christmas ornaments, with provision for regular shipping and ware housing. The seasonally uneven demand would then affect the storage, but not the core technology. Another alternative would be also to produce beach balls, Halloween decorations, and other seasonal products that utilize the same technology (same materials, machines, techniques) as Christmas ornaments. The result would be a full production schedule, made possible by applying similar processes to different products.
Not all bureaucracies can attempt to smooth production as factories do. In such cases, they often attempt to predict fluctuations in their environment and to prepare for them. To take a fairly obvious case, public schools can neither refuse admission to eligible children, nor seek additional children to enroll. They can and do, however, use censuses and surveys to anticipate the number of returnees, transfers, and first graders some years in advance. Rational planning, then, attempts to ensure that there will be adequate physical facilities, teaching staffs, and materials to meet the demand when it develops.
Still another rational strategy employed by bureaucracies faced with constraints from their environments is to try to gain control of, or to change, those environments. Many corporate mergers can be understood in just such terms. Factories that have difficulties, consistently, with particular suppliers are likely to tiy to take over those suppliers, or to establish their own source of supply.
These several strategies — smoothing, predicting, adjusting, rationing, merging, expanding, and controlling — are all rational responses to environmental contingencies. Sometimes, one is more appropriate than another. All are attempts to solve the basic problem of protecting and serving the core technology; to foster the smooth, uninterrupted operation of the organization's basic tasks.
The relationships between the organization and its environment are conceptually distinct from the internal operations of the organization. This point was made in more general terms in Chapter 6 when relationships within social systems were contrasted with those that cross system boundaries. Again in Chapter 10, Bales's work in small groups emphasized the difference between task-oriented behavior and behavior oriented toward group maintenance.
Such a conceptual distinction is important in the analysis of bureaucracy. Actions designed to protect and isolate the core technology are only effective when they are housed, organizationally, in units separate from the core. This emphasis on the arrangement of the various parts of the organization takes us away from analysis of the relation between the bureaucracy and its environment to consideration of the internal structure of the bureaucracy.
Bureaucratic structure
Organizations tend to develop separate units to deal with the environment. These are often called divisions or departments. One division may handle problems of input, another of output. In addition, problems of general service, maintenance, communication, and coordination may require that separate divisions be created.
Some organizations are faced with simpler environments than others are. Some environments contain many units, and some only a few. The various units may also be relatively heterogeneous or homogeneous. Organizations tend to create separate divisions to deal with each homogeneous unit in the environment.
Bureaucracies also follow definite principles in the organization of their technical cores. At least three of these may be specified: reciprocal dependence, sequence, and homogeneity. In all three cases, the principles are utilized to minimize the dollar costs and the effectiveness costs of the positioning of the various units.
Reciprocally dependent units, of course, are those whose operations constantly affect one another. The operating room 'team' of surgeon, surgical nurse, anesthesiologist, and others provides an illustration. In the crisis of the surgical act, there is not time for memos, requisitions in triplicate, or coordination by a special administrative clerk. All members of the team need to react quickly and in concert.
The second organizational principle is that of one-way sequential dependence. The several steps of assembly and inspection in a factory illustrate this principle. At each subassembl stage, there must be an inspection to make sure that the product is ready to be moved along to the next assembly step.
The third principle is that of homogeneity. Tasks that can be accomplished under the same rules tend to be placed together. Academic departments within universities, an automatic lathe department in a machine shop, the secretarial pool in an office, and the combat squad in the military all illustrate this principle.
Closely related to the organizational problem of which units to group together is the problem of how many units there should be. Obviously, departments must be small enough so that effective supervision can be maintained. Several principles combine to determine unit size.
These principles, in combination, determine maximum department or work group size. The maximum department size is usually the optimum size, also, because, if the units are not as large as they can be, a portion of the supervisor's time will be wasted.
ORGANIZATION AND BEHAVIOR IN BUREAUCRACY
The general design of bureaucracy is a series of segmented pyramids, always joined together at the top to form a larger pyramid. Coordination of the work of the several smaller pyramids is achieved through unilineal hierarchies; the chain of command. Authority and responsibility, ideally, flow through clearly defined lines. Each person is in only one such line. He receives orders from only one superior and he gives orders to only one set of subordinates.
Authority and legitimacy
Both parties, the superior and his subordinates, accept the legitimacy of their relationship. The fact that subordinates accept the power of their superior, and acquiesce in it, converts mere power into authority. The German sociologist, Max Weber, first analyzed the special organizational consequences of legitimizing power into authority.
The acceptance of the legitimacy of bureaucratic authority is crucial to efficient organizational functioning. Decisions made at one level will be carried out at lower levels, without retrying them in an endless series of power struggles. The stability of the system, and its hierarchy, is thus assured. Because legitimacy is so important, several strategies have been devised to achieve it.
The first strategy is to emphasize that relationships are between positions, not persons. People can recognize the necessity for positions to be subordinated to other positions more easily than they can accept their personal inferiority to other people.
Inferiority of the position need not imply inferiority of the person. Moreover, the occupants of higher-level positions are not always superior. Some of them are evil, ignorant, corrupt, emotional, or otherwise unsuited for high office. In large organizations with many positions, this is bound to occur often enough to disrupt operations if the acceptance of orders depends upon respect for the person of the order-giver. By making acquiescence to the position, and not the person, organizational relationships become much more dependable.
The separation of the position from the person is facilitated by having quite clear boundaries to the power relationship. When those boundaries are violated, the functioning of the system tends to break down. Executives, for example, may request typing and filing from their secretaries and expect efficient performance. If they ask for sexual favors as well, performance on the job may falter. The secretary may produce sexually but not secretarially, depending on her boss's feelings toward her, or on the threat of blackmail, to prevent dismissal.
The boundaries of organizational relationships are defined by rules. It is the pervasiveness of control by rules that makes the term, bureaucracy, synonymous with the term, formal organization. The primary rules are those that define authority relationships.
Let us illustrate. The position of factory foreman is circumscribed by a variety of rules. Some of these are specific to his job or to the general class of foreman jobs. Others apply to all members of the organization. An incomplete, but representative, list might be as follows:
Among these rules, number 1 demands a specific behavior of foremen. Others may report to work at different times, or may not be tied to specific hours at all. Rule 2 is aimed at foremen, but one can imagine similar rules in the manuals for all other classes of personnel. Rule 3 appears to require an attitude along with other behavior. It also invokes another set of rules (company policy toward union complaints) . Rules 4 and 5 define the lines of authority. Rule 4, through its specification of the kinds of orders that may be given, implicitly prohibits the issuance of illegitimate, nonorgani- sational orders and provides grounds for the building of legitimate acceptance.
In a study of six industrial organizations, Robert Kahn found that personnel believed that superiors should treat all subordinates equally, regardless of personal feelings, that rules are very important, that rules (even unfair ones) must be fairly applied to all, and that superiors have the right to give orders while subordinates have the obligation to obey them. In portions of the sample where these beliefs were less prevalent, job-related tensions and role conflicts were significantly higher.
Legitimacy and rationality also are furthered by the tendency for organizations to develop universal and relevant standards for appointment to office. This principle may seem so firmly established, so commonplace, in contemporary society that its significance is underestimated. Yet, it is vital. And not so standard as one might think.
Office and action
Even today, many positions are allocated on the basis of inheritance, race, or other such criteria. In the very top power positions in American society, about one-fourth of the diplomats are members of the upper class, the majority of these being stationed in major countries. Thirty-three per cent of the partners in the twenty largest Wall Street law firms are listed in the Social Register; and three-fourths got their law degrees from Harvard, Yale, or Columbia. Whether one looks at business, recreation, charitable agencies, or other segments of society, the situation is much the same. High office often is attained on the basis of family background and other attributes not directly related to competence.
If the social inheritance of positions is still with us, however, rational criteria of performance potential are in increasingly wide use. This situation reflects the increasing acceptance of bureaucratic principles. Bureaucracy includes rules for ascension to office as well as rules concerning the behavior of occupants of various offices.
To the extent to which those who are selected for certain positions have similar past experience, character, talent, orientations, and other personal and social characteristics, they may be expected to be much alike. Once in office, adherence to uniform rules causes them to become even more alike. Individuals in bureaucratic positions tend, strikingly, to resemble past, present, and future holders of those positions.
The common stereotypes of the professor, the sergeant, the used-car salesman, the senator, and so on, bear a substantial amount of truth. The uniform selection criteria and the bureaucratic rules conduce to uniformity and cause these stereotypes to differ from racial and ethnic stereotypes. Racial and ethnic groups have no screening for membership. Consequently, stereotypes based on membership in them have less foundation in reality.
This uniformity increases the dependability of performance in office, and ensures the smooth functioning of the bureaucracy. The more relevant standards of appointment that are employed, and the higher the percentage of all standards that are relevant, the more efficiently will the bureaucracy function.
The organization also benefits because following this policy also enhances legitimacy. Other organizational personnel, perceiving the relationship between abilities and assignment, are satisfied with the propriety of this policy and are more likely to cooperate with supervisors selected on such bases. This holds for all levels from manual laborers5 to professionals6. Morale and worker efficiency both are enhanced.
Most bureaucratic positions are filled by persons raised from lower levels within the organization, making it possible for people to have 'careers' in the organization. Individuals routinely expect to advance through several levels, and the experience at the several levels makes each person increasingly valuable to the organization. Legitimacy is enhanced as people put themselves in the positions of their supervisors, positions they hope one day to occupy. This possibility encourages subordinates to act in ways that they hope their subordinates will one day act. As subordinates adopt the values and orientations of their supervisors, they become more pliant subordinates and prepare themselves for higher office.
Studies of the military have shown that enlisted men whose orientations resemble those of noncommissioned officers are more likely to be promoted. This is partly a matter of selection, since only persons with appropriate orientations are selected for promotion. It is also partly a matter of anticipatory socialization. Soldiers who expect to be promoted begin, consciously or not, to adopt the orientations of the group to which they expect to belong.
5Robert Blauner shows that satisfaction with job, supervisor, company, and industry is higher in industries where more workers believe advancement is due to quality of work, energy, etc., than in industries where ’cynical’ beliefs about advancement are common. See his Alienation and. Freedom (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1964). A variety of studies showing that 'foremen whose work groups were superior in productivity were the foremen with greater technical competence in the relevant task’ are cited in Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York: Wiley, 1966), p.328.
6Tensions in bureaucracies occur whenever professionals are under the authority of a superior not of their profession. Such tensions arc reduced when a professional supervises his 'colleagues.' This is illustrated for medical pathologists and university professors in Fred E.Katz, Autonomy and Organization (New York: Random House, 1968), Chapters 4-7, and for social workers in Peter M.Blau and W.Richard Scott, Formal Organizations (San Francisco: Chandler, 1962).
To summarize: bureaucratic offices are positions that (1) center on a specific function, (2) have a limited sphere of competence, (3) are bounded by formal rules, (4) emphasize position over person, (5) recruit according to standards emphasizing performance potential, and (6) imply a personal career for occupants. A bureaucracy then is a hierarchical, segmented, formally organized collection of offices devoted to rational attempts at accomplishment of a mission. All of these internal organizational features are, themselves, implications of rationality in a problem-solving context.
Problems: The unruly individual
Now we turn to a more direct examination of the weaknesses and failures of bureaucracies. One of these derives from the fact that bureaucracies are built of people, who may have different goals and orientations than the organizations of which they are a part. Another derives from the fallibility of planning; rationality, after all, implies only calculated intentions, not outcomes. Still other failures are the result of interference from the environment. Finally, when rationality is employed in more than one context, the multiple rationalities may conflict with one another. It is the complexity of the real world that brings this circumstance into play and contrasts this with an ideal type model.
Bureaucratic personnel are not passive instruments of organizational will. They break out of organizational bonds to act in ways that further their own interests, aggrandize their own positions in the organization, and ease their own personal situations. One sociologist, who was research director for one of New York's largest advertising agencies for eight years, reports that account executives sometimes act in ways that serve their clients more than their employers. Important information that would cast the individual in an unfavorable light is concealed. The work of potential rivals in the organization also may be sabotaged.
Occupants of high office may also use their official authority to exercise power over their subordinates in highly unofficial areas. The idea that men are alienated from their work and from the work organization was first noted by Karl Marx. Specialization, he said, leaves each person with a task so insignificant that he cannot see any relationship between his effort and the ultimate product of the organization. Subjugation to rules discourages imagination, initiative, and responsibility. Men are bored with narrow, repetitive tasks. Having no proprietary interest in the system, they become selfestranged, alienated from their own efforts and from the organization.
Although Marx's analysis was couched in strictly economic terms, contemporary social scientists have begun to apply the concept of alienation to many different aspects of the conditions of modem existence. It is our contention that the concept loses much of its utility when applied so broadly, and we will limit its use to describing the alienation of individual from organization. We will describe the deleterious consequences of alienation both for the system and for the individual.
BUREAUCRACIES AS SYSTEMS
When we compare how bureaucracies do behave with how they are intended to behave, the shortcomings and failures are substantial. Some of these failures are inherent in the system itself and some stem from the nature of the world in which organizations operate. They may not be failures so much as they are realities to be lived with. The emphasis upon attempts at rationality in the face of constraints seems to be a more useful way to conceptualize these phenomena than would be the development of a bureaucratic ideal type.
The world poses problems for which there are no universal solutions. A society without rales would be chaos. With rales, some officials, and their organizations and their clients, become the victims of trained incapacity. Efficiency is predicated on routinisation and a fine division of labor, but personnel operating under these conditions are prone to alienation. Adjusting to changes in the environment disrupts operations in the core technology, but failure to adapt leads the organization to the fate of the dinosaur.
All of these stresses evoke a common theme: the organization has difficulty satisfying requirements for both order and change. Its attempts to strike a balance between the two are tortuous but effective. In discovering this truth, we have simply demonstrated that bureaucracies are social systems. The concluding sections of Chapter 6 emphasized the requirements for, and the tensions between, order and change in all social systems. Among bureaucracies, this effort is best understood in terms of bounded rationality. The organization lives.
SUMMARY
Modem societies are organizational societies. Although many other features are also symptoms of modernity — among them urbanism, technology, nationalism, and secularism — none is so central as the permeation of modem society with bureaucratic forms. Bureaucracy intrades into virtually every aspect of every individual's life. Realizing this, modern man has become fascinated with bureaucratic phenomena.
Bureaucracy was deeply involved in the process that altered large portions of the world from simple to complex societies. There were two great leaps forward. The first followed the development of agriculture. Trade, cities, a complex division of labor, literacy, population concentrations, and inventiveness all re-inforced one another. Innovations in commercial, religious, military, and government institutions led to the development of bureaucratic forms. In turn, these organizational techniques permitted further expansion of the institutions.
About 500 years ago, a new epoch began. Improved transportation, renascent urbanism, centralized national governments, improved technologies, large-scale enterprise, and rising Protestantism all were involved. As in the earlier push, the important triumvirate was that of religion, economy, and government. Protestantism lent a push toward general literacy and provided ethical support for organizationally appropriate behaviors. Broadened trade necessitated gigantism and accommodations with govem- ment. In turn, this led both institutions to greater scale and rationality. These trends continue today.
Bureaucracy evolved as a new solution to new problems. Bureaucracies are large, boundaried, formal organizations with a system of rules, an elaborate division of labor, and hierarchical authority. They endure for a long time, and seek to accomplish their mission through rational means.
Organizations, because they exist in an unaccommodating and constantly shifting world, are never completely successful. Because the systems' actions can be effected only through the behavior of unruly, selfish, and sometimes alienated people, accomplishment never quite matches intent. Consequently, it is more profitable to analyze bureaucracies as struggling compromise-seeking devices than as a static ideal type of rationality structure.
In its inability to maintain perfect internal order in the face of a changing environment, in the urgency and delicacy with which it must strike a balance between routinised efficiency and flexible adjustment, in the tension between the requirements for both order and change — bureaucracy is like any other social system. In the marshalling of large numbers and varieties of people, resources, and units, it differs in scope.
Organizations employ several characteristic strategies. The technical core is insulated from the environment by input and output divisions, and is nurtured by coordination and maintenance components. Units are related to one another through the principles of interdependence, sequential dependence, and homogeneity. The maximum size of units is a function of the possible span of authority and the amount of work to be performed.
Pyramidal chains of command establish the flow of communication, orders, and responsibility, and coordinate among units. Authority, as legitimate power, marks superior-subordinate relationships. Considerations of office — involving expertise, universal and relevant appointment standards, career, rule specificity, and functional limitation of power — serve to validate authority. As occupants of offices become stereotypically identical, and as rules bind each incumbent, personnel become dispensable but the system endures.
Each of these principles has structural weaknesses as well as strengths.
Each is subject to vagaries of operation as well as to consistency. Bureaucracy is a dangerously powerful, but indispensable tool for the accomplishment of human ends.
QUESTIONS AND PROJECTS:
Our founding fathers were both philosophers and politicians. Idealistically, they stated in the Declaration of Independence that men are endowed with certain inalienable rights, including those to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' By the time the Preamble to the Constitution was written, their idealism had become tempered by the experience of trying to run an effective government. Governments, they said, are to ' ... establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty...' This second statement virtually exhausts the functions of government all over the world.
THE NATURE OF GOVERNMENT
As implied by the phrase, 'to insure domestic tranquillity,' government is an agency of social control. Social control begins with the internalization of norms and values in early childhood socialization, and operates through families, peer groups, schools, churches, and many other agencies. Government is the last of these. Government supports the normative order in at least two ways.
Deviance and disorder
All normative systems have weaknesses and suffer occasional lapses. Individual deviation occurs. Deviation threatens domestic tranquillity, because certain forms of deviant behavior deprive others of liberty. If one person is at liberty to hit another person over the head and take his money, then the other person is not free to avoid headaches or to acquire wealth.
Government regulates the deviance which poses a threat to social order. Government weighs competing claims to liberty, and determines which to control. In the homely example given above, government could either punish the person who hit the other, or it could take the second per
son's money and give it to the first. Logically, the two solutions are equally possible; government determines what 'justice' is. What first, then, seems to be a simple matter of controlling deviance is shown to be a matter of adjudicating between conflicting interests.
Interest groups and conflict
All people have special, selfish interests. When these interests are shared, the people who hold them may band together to form an interest group.
Because various groups pursue different interests, conflict among some of them is inevitable. Garment workers, for example, want higher wages, while garment manufacturers want higher profits. If one gets more, the other gets less. On other issues, such as that of tariffs, workers and manufacturers are on the same side and are in conflict with consumers who want lower prices.
All such conflicts are potentially capable of escalating into open warfare. Few groups will sacrifice their interests voluntarily. So an arbitrator, which can weigh the conflicting interests and impose its judgment on the parties, is needed. Government is that agency.
Ideally, governments have no special interests of their own and are, therefore, well suited to arbitrate the interests of others. Practically, we know that governments are not always fair. They may be captured by certain special interests and become tools of those interests. In either case, government maintains a separate existence and wields power in its own name.
Governments control conflicts of interest by appearing to be neutral and by possessing overwhelming force. Much of politics involves efforts by interest groups to sway the government toward their interest and to mobilize its power in their favor. Such interest groups become pressure groups, using organization and skill to exercise influence far out of proportion to their numbers.
Neither justice nor corruption is inherent in government. All that is required is overwhelming force that may be used to ensure compliance, if it is not forthcoming voluntarily. The appearance of governmental autonomy ensures that resort to force will seldom be necessary. Government power is accepted by most of the people and is, thus, legitimate power.
Robert Nisbet discusses four factors which enter into the acceptance of power as legitimate power. First, authority that embodies the central values or sacred qualities of the society is considered to be legitimate. Old people in a society that venerates age, putative descendants of a god, or the wealthy in a society that values economic success are all likely to be granted legitimate authority.
Second, the rational exercise of power enhances that power's claim to legitimacy. When orders appear reasonable and logical, and it makes sense for them to come from that source, they are likely to be accepted as legitimate.
Third, authority which appears to be fair, humane, and just is likely to be accorded legitimacy. People are more likely to be seduced into order by just governments than coerced into order by unjust ones.
Finally, Nisbet believes that authority that is perceived as necessary for the accomplishment of recognized tasks is likely to be accepted as legitimate. Students accept the professor's authority to maintain quiet in the classroom because they accept his educational function and because he cannot exercise that function without quiet. If the professor should attempt to use his power to control students' dress or their sex lives, they would likely resist it as illegitimate.
Governments are the ultimate bulwark of social order. When football referees cannot control their games, or professors cannot control their classes, the final resort is to government power. Liberty is not absolute. Each individual's liberty is curtailed by the rights of others. Governments establish justice. Governments do not simply administer justice, because ideas of justice grow out of the adjudication of disputes within each society.
THE WORKINGS OF GOVERNMENT
Governments in complex societies are bureaucracies, and exhibit most of the characteristics of corporations, universities, or other bureaucracies.
Top officials control the bureaucracy and attempt to establish their own policies. Their control, however, may be more apparent than real. The President of the United
States, for example, has been said to have the authority to control the federal bureaucracy, but not the power. He has the constitutional authority and the stamp of legitimacy, but he cannot oversee the myriad details and cannot apply sanctions to enforce his will.
Also, like other bureaucracies, government develops its own goals of survival and its special routines. It follows the same rules and procedures, no matter what policy directives come down from higher levels. Theoretically, in our country, the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are separate and equal. But, as in most urban-industrial nations, the administrative organization may actually be more important than the three major branches.
Civil service
The massive apparatus of US federal government performs an amazing variety of tasks with considerable efficiency. In spite of the frustrations that citizens encounter in dealing with the system, and in spite of obvious mistakes and inefficiences, government accomplishes far more than we often recognize.
When people rail against the alleged inefficiencies of government, they often do so because they disapprove of certain government goals or priorities. They criticize the 'moon race,' not because they have an alternate means of getting there cheaper, but because they do not wish to pay the price of getting there. Other citizens oppose the goals of urban renewal, the Vietnam war, the highway system, and so on. It is easier to attack alleged inefficiency than to meet these issues head-on. Again, in Robert Wood's words, 'What America needs is a better bureaucracy, not less of one; disciplined bureaucracy, not amateurs run riot.' Given these two conditions, government works.
It also is argued that government bureaucracy is not responsive to the public will. The executive and legislative branches are elective, but the bureaucracy goes on forever. Norton Lang, in a classic article, argues that the reverse is true. He insists that elected officials often come from wealthy families, ascend to prominence through intimacy with vested interests, and expend vast sums in election campaigns. Once elected, they join elite groups and are increasingly isolated from ordinary people. Civil servants, on the contrary, are drawn from the ranks of the common man, live among common men, and often bend the bureaucracy со serve the interests of the common men who are their peers and reference groups.
One important study of 115 independent nations tested the relationship between effective bureaucratization and a number of political, social, and economic variables. Bureaucratic efficiency was found to be related to civilian control of politics, constitutional government, open access to political leadership, freedom of the press, stable government, high level of industrialization, urbanization, high educational levels, efficient transportation and communication, and a large middle class.
Cause and effect, here, may operate either way. Literacy, freedom, and prosperity may result, in part, from the efficient operation of a government bureaucracy. On the other hand, a free, literate, and prosperous people may establish an efficient government bureaucracy. Either way, it speaks well for bureaucracy as a branch of government.
Bureaucracies, then, do well what they do. What they do results, in part, from their own dynamics. In part, they also respond to outside forces. The outside pressures come from individual citizens and from interest and pressure groups. They also come from other parts of government.
Levels and ranges of government
Governments have loyalties and boundaries. Kenneth Boulding, an economist, and Arthur Stinchcombe, a sociologist, working independently, arrived at strikingly similar conclusions about the factors that determine political boundaries.
Each begins by noting that government depends, ultimately, on force. Legitimacy depends, however, on not having to use that force very often. The credibility of the threat to use force drops as one moves away from the center of governmental power. The effective boundary of a government, then, is the frontier beyond which it cannot be expected to use force even when force is necessary.
The existence of several levels of government means that some overlapping of territory is to be expected. Different levels of government also mean that citizens owe loyalty to different government agencies. This situation is tolerable even given the welter of overlapping jurisdictions represented by agencies as varied as school districts, sewage authorities, and municipal, county, state, and federal governments.
In some cases, however, major conflict results. The Civil War was fought, in part, over the question of state versus national supremacy. Ireland, Scotland, and Wales as parts of Britain, Angola's relationship to Portugal, Kashmir to India and Pakistan, Hong Kong to China, and many other cases testify to the potential for conflict in determining what governmental powers inhere in what agencies.
The constitution, in the United States, gives certain powers to the federal government and reserves all others to the states. In Canada, the opposite situation prevails: all powers not specifically accorded to the provinces are the prerogative of the federal government. In both cases, however, modernization has been accompanied by increasing centralization.
So far, this chapter has emphasized government's attempts to impose its authority on people. When we turn to peoples' orientations toward government — their willingness to grant legitimacy, their attempts to influence government policy, their participation in government process — then we are dealing with » politics.
POLITICS
Who wields governmental power, what instruments are used, what policies are pursued, what responses are elicited — are all matters of politics. International politics is called diplomacy. Karl von Clausewitz said, 'War is nothing more than the continuation of diplomacy by other means.' Within nations, government functions to prevent domestic war. Politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.
Political power
Power was defined above as depending upon resources, access, exchange context, and awareness. Applying these terms in the political context, it is easy to see that all eligible voters in democratic societies have one resource — their vote. Money is another resource and people who can use it to finance party operations and campaigns have disproportionate power.
Awareness and access also vary. People do not always vote their own interests, or even understand the issues. The people who are aware have an advantage. Particular advantage accrues to those who make a full-time business of politics — to professional lobbyists and to the people whom they represent. Most lobbyists represent organizations and organized pressure groups. These groups wield considerable power, while unorganized collections of people, such as consumers, wield rather little power.
Party organization
Political parties mediate between government and pressure groups, and provide access to political power. Some societies have one-party systems, and others have multiple parties.
In one-party countries, the party almost becomes a part of government. Competition for the control of government occurs through competition for control of the party. This situation exists in Spain, China, and Mexico, among others.
Some countries have as many parties as there are basic political philosophies. These parties do not seek power as such, but only as a means of promotion of their policies. If they cannot come to power on their own terms, they do not wish to govern. This situation encourages small 'splinter' parties, and promotes a government that operates through uneasy and fragile coalition. The politics of Italy, Belgium, and France provide examples.
Two-party, and sometimes three-party, systems usually exist under conditions of pure party competition. The parties want power more than
anything else. They compete for support, bargain with potential supporters, and come, thus, to represent the power interests of the society. Australia, West Germany, and the United States have such systems.
Parties, generally, are bureaucracies struggling for control of the governmental bureaucracy. Splinter parties sometimes are too small to support a complex organisation, and single-party bureaucracies overlap with the government bureaucracy. Two- and three-party systems foster the development of party bureaucracy.
Smith and Kornberg studied the people who man the party bureaucracies in two United States and two Canadian cities, interviewing 1250 party officeholders and 'insiders.' They found, first, that their respondents were different from the populations they represented and whose support they sought. They tended to be of higher status in occupation, income, and education. They were predominantly Protestant and white. Women participated more frequently than they seem to do in other institutional spheres.
Elections
In one-party countries, political struggles occur within the party bureaucracy. At best, elections deliver a mandate; at worst, they are a sham. In splinter-party systems, elections seldom are decisive because no one gets a majority. Access to government power is the result of bargaining after the election for a workable coalition of parties. In two-party systems, the parties come to resemble one another very closely because they are competing for the same electorates. The choice between platforms and candidates is more apparent than real. In all of these cases, elections are relatively unimportant.
But they are fun. Few societal decisions receive so much attention in the press and in the international community. Social scientists study voting behavior assiduously. Research on voting behavior is facilitated by the comprehensiveness of the reporting and by the immediacy with which the data become available.
Some research has dealt with 'party loyalty,' the degree to which people vote straight party tickets, vote consistently for the same party, and vote as their parents did. Other research has tested the effectiveness of political propaganda and different campaign tactics. A third body of research has focused upon the role of'personal influence' and peer group and reference group pressures. A fourth body of research has weighed the influence of background factors such as race, ethnicity, sex, region, and social class upon voting behavior. Still other research has tested the influence of status inconsistency upon voting behavior. Finally, situations of 'cross pressure,' where one characteristic (e.g., ethnicity) predisposes a person to vote one way while another characteristic (e.g., economic status) pushes him another, have been studied extensively.
Some of the results of an interesting cross-national study are presented here. In three countries, people of higher income and higher occupational prestige tended to belong to the more liberal party. Blacks and Catholics in the United States inclined toward the left, while Catholics in Germany and women in Britain inclined toward the right. The authors used a technique of analysis which tested many combinations of characteristics to determine which were most predictive of party identification. As can be seen in this study, the combinations vary somewhat from country to country.
People shift their party identifications occasionally. If they shift and retain the new party loyalty for more than two major elections, the shift may be considered permanent. When large numbers of people do this, it is a sign of major political change. Such changes in the United States over the past couple of decades have not been striking. The situation for the period from 1952 to 1964 is shown in the following. The Republicans gained/ and the Democrats lost support during 'the Elsenhower years,' but the situation in 1964 was close, again, to what it was in 1952.
Protest
Another resource of the relatively powerless, in their contest with government, is the contribution they make to a well-ordered society. By withholding their 'good behavior,' they may call attention to their grievances. Such protest may also result in severe suppression. Which of these occurs depends on several things.
The first is the scope of the unrest. Many protestors have more influence than a few. A second factor is the basic values of the society. Totalitarian societies such as Nazi Germany was, are more likely to use force than are democratic societies such as present-day Germany. Complex, modern societies also are more valuable to disruption than less developed societies. A final factor is the way in which the people as a whole respond to the protesting minority. If the general public defines the protest as legitimate, some ameliorative action is likely. If the public defines the protest as rebellion or crime, suppression is likely.
Ralph Turner states that protest involves the following elements. First, the action expresses a grievance which the protestors cannot correct through their own efforts. The protestors count on some combination of sympathy and fear to marshall public sentiment in their behalf. Second, the public evaluates the credibility of the protest. If it is too threatening, it is likely to be regarded as criminal; if it is not threatening enough, it is likely to be defined as harmless. The public has something of a vested interest in defining the situation as protest because, then, conciliation or bargaining is appropriate. Through these social processes, the dissident group may be re-integrated into the system, an outcome which generally is preferable either to permanent schism or to the necessity for continued suppression.
Nevertheless, disruption is defined as protest only under a delicately balanced set of conditions, and the protest will result in change only if the mediating efforts bear fruit while these conditions prevail. The conditions are:
It is not the task of sociologists to declare that protest is moral or immoral. We can note, on the basis of empirical evidence, that protest sometimes produces change. We must note, also, that it sometimes brings suppression and degrades the quality of the life for everyone in the society.
Attitudes and expectations
People have attitudes toward their governments, and expectations of what those governments should do. Although major institutions are not as
subject to molding by symbolic interaction processes as individuals are, some of the same forces operate.
If compared, the attitudes of citizens of five nations toward their governments reveal significant national differences. First, Americans and Englishmen are most likely to expect government bureaucrats to treat them equally and fairly. They do not, however, differ from the citizens of other countries so much in expecting consideration from government. In the United States, especially, people believe that government treats them equally by being unresponsive to them all.
There is considerable fear of discussing politics openly in Germany and Italy, and a corresponding apathy toward elections. The even greater apathy toward elections in Mexico may be related to the fact that Mexico is more nearly a one-party nation than the others included in this analysis.
Feelings of political competence tend to go along with favorable attitudes toward government. In data not shown here, the authors also show feelings of political competence to be associated with having more education and more political knowledge, and with having more memberships in voluntary associations.
Another study shows that United States citizens either are satisfied which the services with government provides them or that they want more services. Very few people want fewer services. The data, however, indicate widespread reluctance to pay for additional services. Many people feel that taxes are already too high and would rather cut services than raise taxes higher. Most people, of course, want to cut services to others rather than to themselves. Similarly, if taxes have to be raised, they prefer increases that other people will have to bear.
People also prefer financing services through taxation rather than through fees for services rendered. More educated people are more likely to take this position. There is no difference, on the issue, between blacks and whites.
Most people do not believe that local officials' salaries are too high or that their government is corrupt and graft-ridden. Yet, they are uneasy about the whole administrative process and many believe that they are not getting their money's worth. Over all, people appear to believe that local governments do about what people want but, being unable to accomplish the miracle of providing more services at less cost, they leave people somewhat unsatisfied.
Welfare
Governments collect taxes and provide services. Some services, as in the case of welfare payments, are direct services to individuals.
Other services are less direct and personal. When governments subsidize mail service, for example, magazine publishers benefit rather directly by not having to pay the full cost of distribution of their product. Subscribers benefit somewhat less directly by getting the magazines at lower cost. Even nonsubscribers benefit indirectly by living in a nation with a better informed electorate than would otherwise be the case. Subsidies to highways, universities, and many other services have comparable effects.
Finally, some government services appear to be indivisible and for the equal benefit of all of the people. Police protection provides an illustration. Even here, however, benefits are not always equal. At the very bottom of the socioeconomic structure, people often are more in need of police protection, but get it less effectively. At the top of the hierarchy, people have more property to lose from the lack of protection.
The problem of who pays what to government, and who gets how much from government, is a difficult one. Tax burdens differ among nations. Among these several industrialized nations, government in the United States is relatively cheap. In France, it is quite expensive. These figures are for all levels of government.
The data show the spread of the income tax burdens within the United States. The figures indicate that the tax structure is neither progressive nor regressive in the income range from $3000 to $20,000. Most people within this range are taxed from 15 to 20 per cent of their income. At this level, the system preserves incomc differences and does not redistribute wealth.
People in the lowest income brackets pay virtually no taxes, and people in the $20,000 to $50,000 range pay from 20 to 25 percent of their income in taxes. At these levels the tax system appears to be a progressive one, favoring the poor.
At still higher income levels, however, tax rates are not systematically progressive. Many millionaires pay three-fourths of their incomes in taxes, while others pay no taxes at all. The tax relief granted to the poor is humanitarian. The tax relief granted to the rich is a consequence of favoritism shown to powerful pressure groups.
Other federal taxes, state taxes, and local taxes are more regressive. They tax most heavily those least able to pay.
Turning, now, to how government spends its money, we see that more direct money subsidies and personally allocable benefits go to the poor than to other income groups. People with incomes under $2000 get back $3.88 for each dollar they pay in taxes. People with incomes around $6000 come out even, and those with incomes over $15,000 get a $0.37 return on their tax dollar.
People with higher incomes may pay a lower percentage of their incomes in taxes, but still pay in more dollars. Consequently, they may receive more dollars in return than the poor receive. Second, the general and personally unallocable services provided by government are often of more benefit to the wealthy. People who own more vehicles and do more traveling, for example, receive more benefit from highways, airports, and other travel facilities. Third, the government "subsidizes" certain activities by refusing to tax them. Investment credits, business depreciation allowances, divident exclusions, and similar deviccs provide indirect subsidies of about 10 billion dollars per year. The government also spends about 9 billion dollars a year in the fields of commerce and transportation.
Government benefits to the poor are quite visible while those to the wealthy are more disguised and diffuse. This leads many people to believe that their government practices charity and works toward equalizing real incomes when, in fact, the opposite may be the case. A popular stereotype holds that the poor are lazy, undeserving people who are quite content to accept government handouts. The actual composition of the welfare population, however, includes: 3.5 million children, 900,000 mothers of those children, 2.1 million women over 65 years of age, 700,000 handicapped or blind people, 100,000 men who are unable to work, and only 5,0,000 able- bodied men. Fewer than one-tenth of 1 per cent of the people on welfare are potentially productive males.
One study showed that a welfare mother with three children in Chicago would lose 60 cents of every dollar she earned by working, in reduced welfare benefits. If she earned more than 1000 per year, then each dollar earned would cost a dollar in reduced benefits. Earning over 2000 would actually cost more in benefits than the income. Such negative incentives are built into welfare programs and have worked to trap people into continued poverty.
LAW AND SOCIAL CONTROL
All societies operate under law. In simpler societies, the law may be so deeply embedded in the informal customs of the people as to virtually escape notice. In complex societies, it usually is codified. In both cases, it is essential to the maintenance of social order:
Eveiy society, in every state of civilization, rests on a firmament of law that is vastly greater and more intricate than any ever devised by any government, one that is too great and too intricate to be completely overturned even by the most revolutionary of governments... This firmament of law is composed of various interfused elements, the composition varying with the kind of society. There are societies in which it is almost wholly folk-sustained customary law, with practically no element of legal law, that is, of law interpreted and enforced by courts or judges... Then as we pass to more complex societies we find an increasing amount of statute law... while this more precise framework is filled at its myriad interstices with the pervasive element of custom.
Guy Swanson carries Maclver's point one step further and states that all social systems have constitutions, written or unwritten, which provide the ground rules for their participants' behaving together. Without such 'legal' foundations the interaction would not be orderly enough to exist as a system.
We will restrict the discussion here to legal systems which are directly attached to governmental systems. We will analyze how governments and their agents administer law and how, in the process of administering law, they actually create law.
Basically, we will be dealing with the concept of justice. The justice system contains two elements. First, justice includes the administration of law by governmental agencies which arc specifically charged with this function. Second, the system of justice includes the creation of law by government agencies which are not formally charged with this function.
The provision of justice
The agencies of government most directly charged with the provision of justice are the police and the courts. These agencies produce, not ultimate justice, but whatever is defined as justice in that society at that time.
Figures show several stages in the legal process from the perspective of the victim. The victim, of course, is more directly involved in earlier stages of the process than in later ones, and is an aggrieved party who may be seeking vengeance rather than justice. If conviction with a punishment that the victim feels 'fits the crime' is an appropriate outcome, then fewer than 3 per cent of the 2000 cases upon which the diagram is based meet this standard. Either the system for providing justice is very imperfect, or another standard of justice should be used.
Although over 60 per cent of the victims reported themselves to be at least somewhat dissatisfied, this is far below the 98 per cent that we might have expected. Moreover, although the level of the victim's satisfaction increased as the outcome approached his ideal, the relationship is not perfect. Justice requires a balancing of interests. The picture would only be complete if we had measures of the satisfaction of offenders, policemen, judges, and the general public.
Among the most dissatisfied victims are those who do not report crimes and, thus, do not give the system of justice the chance to work. Other available evidence indicates that the poor and members of minority groups are less likely to report their grievances. The underclasses have reason to mistrust the agents of justice because the system often works to their disadvantage.
Moreover, poor people often are unable to afford lawyers, trials, and time off from work to participate in trials. Finally, with less formal education and less bureaucratic experience, they often do not know how to 'use' the system.
Another factor influencing use of the legal process is the definition of crime and justice itself. People only report crimes when they believe that a wrong has been committed and that so doing will produce a just result.
The police
The police enforce the law and keep the peace. Law enforcement includes two things: arresting suspects and turning them over to other branches of the system of justice for processing and disposition, and deterring potential criminals by the threat of arrest.
The peace-keeping function, which creates law instead of merely enforcing it, occupies more police time than does law enforcement as such. Policemen direct traffic, arbitrate quarrels, comfort lost children, roust 'suspicious' persons, rescue cats from trees, give directions to tourists, hassle those who act arrogantly, supervise morality in bars, warn offenders against repetition, control crowds, warn innocents against exposing themselves to danger, and in many other ways — both friendly and hostile — control the population.
The official position of policemen gives them the license and power to do these things. Theoretically, the courts supervise and control the police, but the courts and police only come into contact when arrests are followed by arraignment, trial, and so on. Since the peace-keeping functions seldom involve arrest, a major portion of police work is essentially unsupervised by any outside agency. Moreover, no official records are made of peacekeeping activities, and there are no detailed policies governing them. The peace is kept by individual patrolmen, guided only by their own judgment and the job's traditions.
Policemen, thus, make law in addition to enforcing law. The impact of this informal law often is greater than that of the codified law, because policemen always enforce their own law but don't always enforce the statutes. The amount of 'play' between statute law and the law as enforced varies. Community values and bureaucratic procedures insist upon enforcement in the case of what are defined as 'serious' crimes. The character of the citizenry also limits police discretion. Policemen must be circumspect in dealing with people of power. Such people may know the law, and may retaliate against policemen who do not enforce it carefully.
The peace-keeping, law-creating, process is most evident in the case of minor crimes committed among citizens of little power. This situation exists in the slums. Thievery, drunkenness, and other minor crimes are common, and the homeless, jobless residents are not viewed sympathetically by the general public. The police keep the peace on skid row even more effectively than they enforce the law.
SUMMARY
Government generally serves the society as a whole. Its basic functions include the maintenance of order and the promotion of the public welfare.
The control of deviance is essential to the maintenance of order. The police and the courts, which are the agencies charged with the control of deviance, not only enforce the law but operate a system for providing justice as well. In the routine work of the police, law enforcement is actually less significant than the general process of keeping the peace; and the manner of keeping the peace is quite sensitive to power and influence. While the whole process reflects broad cultural definitions of propriety, the weight of police power falls heavily upon people of few resources. Wealthy and powerful people are relatively untouched by it.
The courts also are responsive political instruments. They mirror the normative structure of the larger society in the cases they try, the procedures they follow, and the decisions they make. Courts generally administer the statute law, which is only one part of the larger body of informal 'law,' resting in folk definitions, customs, and values. Particularly, the courts arbitrate technical portions of the statute law, apply sanctions, and buttress the general norms.
The police and the courts, as agencies of government, also adjudicate conflicts of interest. The whole of government is successful in mediating and arbitrating conflicts of interest to the degree that it maintains at least the appearance of autonomy. The conflicting parties must view the government's power as legitimate or they will oppose it. Although government can apply overwhelming force, its continued stability depends upon its not often having to do so.
'Polities' refers to the ways by which people attempt to influence government policies or to take control of the government. Since the power to do this generally is greater than individual persons can amass, politics begins when individuals form interest groups and when interest groups are transformed into pressure groups.
Political parties may be conceived of as super-pressure groups. They are also quasi-governmental agencies which influence the access that people and groups have to government power. In one-party political systems, the party virtually is an agency of government. Struggles for power occur within the party hierarchy. Two-party systems encourage competitive politics in which the parties advocatc any policy that they believe will gain them support in their drive to control the government. Multiple-party systems encourage government by coalition and emphasize the role of bargaining among the parties.
Party workers, who usually are not representative of the rank-and-file, exercise disproportionate influence upon politics. By the time elections are reached, the basic choices may already have been made, and people often vote sufficiently on the basis of tradition, personality factors, and cross pressures that no clear mandate is offered.
Government also promotes the public welfare through the performance of tasks that lesser organizations cannot accomplish. The provision of postal service, highways, universal education, and waste disposal provide examples. Public criticism of the ways in which governmental bureaucracies manage these tasks appear, upon close examination, to be directed more to questions of what tasks government should emphasize rather than to the efficiency with which those tasks are performed. Where inefficiency itself is charged, it usually is a matter of imperfect bureaucratization rather than too much bureaucratization.
When large numbers of people become too dissatisfied with their government, they may turn to organized protest to try to change it. Whether protest is likely to be successful depends upon whether large segments of the general public accept the grievances as legitimate and upon their acceptance of the protest tactics.
The institution of government is one of the core structural arrangements in all societies. Political processes affect all other areas of life. Nowhere are the strains and accommodations between order and change more apparent, or more crucial.
QUESTIONS AND PROJECTS:
amples. How do all of these differ from government's license to use force?
POPPER ON DEMOCRACY THE OPEN SOCIETY AND ITS ENEMIES REVISITED
The first book in English by Professor Sir Karl Popper was accepted for publication in London while Hilter’s bombs were falling, and was published in 1945 under the title 'The Open Society and its Enemies'. The book was well received, but in this article Sir Karl questions whether his central theory of democracy (which he does not characterise as 'the rule of the people') has been understood.
My theory of democracy is veiy simple and easy for everybody to understand. But its fundamental problem is so different from the age-old theory of democracy which everybody takes for granted that it seems that this difference has not been grasped, just because of the simplicity of the theory. It avoids high-sounding, abstract words like 'rule', 'freedom' and 'reason'. I do believe in freedom and reason, but I do not think that one can construct a simple, practical and fruitful theory in these terms. They are too abstract, and too prone to be misused; and, of course, nothing whatever can be gained by their definition.
This article is divided into three main parts. The first sets out, briefly, what may be called the classical theory of democracy: the theory of the rule of the people. The second is a brief sketch of my more realistic theory. The third is, in the main, an outline of some practical applications of my theory, in reply to the question: 'What practical difference does this new theory make?'
The classical theory
The classical theoiy is, in brief, the theory that democracy is the rule of the people, and that the people have a right to rule. For the claim that the people have this right, many and various reasons have been given; however, it will not be necessary for me to enter into these reasons here.
Instead, I will briefly examine some of the historicalbackground of the theory, and of the terminology.
Plato was the first theoretician to make a system out of the distinctions between what he regarded as the main forms of the city-state. According to the number of the rulers, he distinguished between: (1) monarchy, the rule of one good man, and tyranny, the distorted form of monarchy; (2) aristocracy, the rule of a few good men, and oligarchy, its distorted form; (3) democracy, the rule of the many, of all the people. Democracy did not have two forms. For the many always formed a rabble, and so democracy was distorted in the itself.
If one looks more closely at this classification, and if one asks oneself what problem was at the back of Plato's mind, then one finds that the following underlay not only Plato's classification and theory, but also those of everybody else. From Plato to Karl Marx and beyond, the fundamental problem has always been: who should rule the state? (One of my main points will be that this problem must be replaced by a totally different one.) Plato's answer was simple and naive: 'the best' should rule. If possible, 'the best of all', alone. Next choice: the best few, the aristocrats. But certainly not the many, the rabble, the demos.
The Athenian practice had been, even before Plato's birth, precisely the opposite: the people, the demos, should rule. All important political decisions — such as war and peace — were made by the assembly of all full citizens. This is now called 'direct democracy'; but we must never forget that the citizens formed a minority of the inhabitants — even of the natives. From the point of view here adopted, the important thing is that, in practice, the Athenian democrats regarded their democracy as the alternative to tyranny — to arbitrary rule: in fact, they knew well that a popular leader might be invested with tyrannical powers by a popular vote.
So they knew that a popular vote may be wrongheaded, even in the most important matters. (The institution of ostracism recognised this: the ostracised person was banned as a matter of precaution only; he was neither tried nor regarded as guilty.) The Athenians were right: decisions arrived at democratically, and even the powers conveyed upon a government by a democratic vote, may be wrong. It is hard, if not impossible, to construct a constitution that safeguards against mistakes. This is one of the strongest reasons for founding the idea of democracy upon the practical principle of avoiding tyranny rather than upon a divine, or morally legitimate, right of the people to rule.
The (in my opinion, vicious) principle of legitimacy plays a great part in European history. While the Roman legions were strong, the Caesars based their power upon the principle: the army legitimises the ruler (by acclamation) . But with the decline of the Empire, the problem of legitimacy became urgent; and this was strongly felt by Diocletian, who tried to support the new structure of Imperium of the God-Caesars ideologically with traditional and religious distinctions and the corresponding attribution of different titles: Caesar, Augustus, Herculius, and Jovius (i.e., related to Jupiter).
Yet it seems that there was a need for a more authoritative, deeper religious legitimation. In the next generation, monotheism in the form of Christianity (which, of the available monotheisms, has spread most widely) offered itself to Constantine as the solution to the problem. From then on, the ruler ruled by the Grace of God — of the one and the only universal God. The complete success of this new ideology of legitimacy explains both the ties and the tensions between the spiritual and the worldly powers which thus became mutual dependants, and therefore rivals, throughout the Middle Ages.
So, in the Middle Ages, the answer to the question 'Who should rule?' became the principle: God is the ruler, and He rules through His legitimate human representatives. It was this principle of legitimacy which was first seriously challenged by the Reformation and then by the English revolution of 1648-49 which proclaimed the divine right of the people to rule. But in this revolution the divine right of the people was immediately used to establish the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell.
After the dictator's death, there was a return to the older form of legitimacy; and it was the violation of protestant legitimacy by James II, by the legitimate monarch himself, which led to the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688, and to the development of British democracy through a gradual strengthening of the power of Parliament, which had legitimised William and Mary. The unique character of this development was precisely due to the experience that fundamental theological and ideological quarrels about who should rule lead only to catastrophe. Royal legitimacy was no longer a reliable principle, nor was the rule of the people. In practice, there was a monarchy of somewhat dubious legitimacy created by the will of Parliament, and a fairly steady increase of parliamentary power. The British became dubious about abstract principles; and the Platonic problem 'Who should rule?' was no longer seriously raised in Britain until our own days.
Karl Marx, who was not a British politician, was still dominated by the old Platonic problem which he saw as: 'Who should rule? The good or the bad — the workers or the capitalists?' And even those who rejected the state altogether, in the name of freedom, could not free themselves from the fetters of a misconceived old problem; for they called themselves anarchists — that is, opponents of all forms of rule. One can sympathise with their unsuccessful attempt to get away from the old problem "Who should rule?"
A more realistic theory
In "The Open Society and its Enemies" I suggested that an entirely new problem should be recognised as the fundamental problem of a rational political theory. The new problem, as distinct from the old "Who should rule?", can be formulated as follows: how is the state to be constituted so that bad rules can be got rid of without bloodshed, without violence?
This, in contrast to the old question, is a thoroughly practical, almost technical, problem. And the modern so-called democracies are all good examples of practical solutions to this problem, even though they were not consciously designed with this problem in mind. For they all adopt what is the simplest solution to the new problem — that is, the principle that the government can be dismissed by a majority vote.
In theory, however, these modern democracies are still based on the old problem, and on the completely impractical ideology that it is the people, the whole adult population, who are, or should by rights be, the real and ultimate and the only legitimate rulers. But, of course, nowhere do the people actually rule. It is governments that rule (and, unfortunately, also bureaucrats, our civil servants — or our uncivil masters, as Winston Churchill called them — whom it is difficult, if not impossible, to make accountable for their actions).
What are the consequences of this simple and practical theory of government? My way of putting the problem and my simple solution do not, of course, clash with the practice of western democracies, such as the unwritten constitution of Britain, and the many written constitutions which took the British Parliament more or less as their model. It is this practice (and not their theories) which my theory — my problem and its solution — tries to describe. And, for this reason, I think that I may call it a theory of 'democracy', even though it is emphatically not a theory of the 'rule of the people', but rather the rule of law that postulates the bloodless dismissal of the government by a majority vote.
My theory easily avoids the paradoxes and difficulties of the old theory — for instance, such problems as 'What has to be done if ever the people vote to establish a dictatorship?' Of course, this is not likely to happen if the vote is free. But it has happened. And what if it does happen? Most constitutions in fact require far more than a majority vote to amend or change constitutional provisions, and thus would demand perhaps a two- thirds or even a three-quarters ('qualified') majority for a vote against democracy. But this demand shows that they provide for such a change; and at the same time they do not conform to the principle that the ('unqualified') majority will is the ultimate source of power — that the people, through a majority vote, are entitled to rule.
All these theoretical difficulties are avoided if one abandons the question 'Who should rule?' and replaces it by the new and practical problem: how can we best avoid situations in which a bad ruler causes too much harm? When we say that the best solution known to us is a constitution that allows a majority vote to dismiss the government, then we do not say the majority vote will always be right. We do not even say that it will usually be right. We say only that this veiy imperfect procedure is the best so far invented. Winston Churchill once said, jokingly, that democracy is the worst form of government — with the exception of all other known forms of government.
And this is the point: anybody who has ever lived under another form of government — that is, under a dictatorship which cannot be removed without bloodshed — will know that a democracy, imperfect though it is, is worth fighting for and, I believe, worth dying for. This, however, is only my personal conviction. I should regard it as wrong to try to persuade others of it.
We could base our whole theory on this, that there are only two alternatives known to us: either a dictatorship or some form of democracy. And we do not base our choice on the goodness of democracy, which may be doubtful, but solely on the evilness of a dictatorship, which is certain. Not only because the dictator is bound to make bad use of his power, but because a dictator, even if he were benevolent, would rob all others of their responsibility, and thus of their human rights and duties. This is a sufficient basis for deciding in favour of democracy — that is, a rule of law that enables us to get rid of the government. No majority, however large, ought to be qualified to abandon this rule of law.
Proportional representation
Such are the theoretical differences between the old and the new theories. As an example of the practical difference between the theories, I propose to examine the issue of proportional representation.
The old theory and the belief that the rule of the people, by the people, and for the people constitutes a natural right, or a divine right, form the background of the usual argument in favour of proportional representation.
For if people rule through their representatives, and by majority votes, then it is essential that the numerical distribution of opinion among the representatives mirrors as closely as possible that which prevails among those who are the real source of legitimate power: the people themselves.
Everything else will be not only grossly unfair but against all the principles of justice.
This argument collapses if the old theory is given up, so that we can look, more dispassionately, and perhaps without much prejudice, at the inescapable (and possibly unintended) practical consequences of proportional representation. And these are devastating.
First of all, proportional representation confers, even if only indirectly, a constitutional status on political parties which they would otherwise not attain. For I can no longer choose a person whom I trust to represent me: I can choose only a party. And the people who may represent the party are chosen only by the party. And while people and their opinions always deserve the greatest respect, the opinions adopted by parties (which are typically instruments of personal advancement and of power, with all the chances for intrigue which this implies) are not to be identified with ordinary human opinions: they arc ideologies.
In a constitution that does not provide for proportional representation, parties need not be mentioned at all. They need not be given official status. The electorate of each constituency sends its personal representative to the chamber. Whether he stands alone, or whether he combines with some others to form a party, is left to him. It is an affair he may have to explain and defend to his electorate.
His duty is to represent the interests of all those people whom he represents to the best of his ability. These interests will in almost all cases be identical with those of all the citizens of the country, of the nation. These are the interests he must pursue to the best of his knowledge. He is personally responsible to persons.
This is the only duty and the only responsibility of the representative that must be recognised by the constitution. If he considers that he has also a duty to a political party, then this must be due solely to the fact that he believes that through his connection with that party he can do his primary duty better than without the party. Consequently it is his duty to leave the party whenever he realises that he can do his primary duty better without that party, or perhaps with a different party.
All this is done away with if the constitution of the state incorporates proportional representation. For under proportional representation the candidate seeks election solely as the representative of a party, whatever the wording of the constitution may be. If he is elected, he is elected mainly, if not solely, because he belongs to, and represents, a certain party. Thus, his main loyalty must be to his party, and to the party's ideology; not to people (except, perhaps, the leaders of the party).
It can therefore never be his duty to vote against his party. On the contrary, he is morally bound to the party as whose representative he was voted into parliament. And in the event that he can no longer square this with his conscience, it would, in my opinion, be his moral duty to resign not only from his party but from parliament, even though the country's constitution may place no such obligation upon him.
In fact, the system under which he was elccted robs him of personal responsibility; it makes of him a voting machine rather than a thinking and feeling person. In my view, this is by itself a sufficient argument against proportional representation. For what we need in politics are individuals who can judge on their own and who are prepared to carry personal responsibility.
Such individuals are difficult to find under any party system, even without proportional representation — and it must be admitted that we have not yet found a way of doing without parties. But if we have to have parties, we had better not, by our constitution, add deliberately to the enslavement of our representatives to the party machine and to the party ideology by introducing proportional representation.
The immediate consequence of proportional representation is that it will tend to increase the number of parties. This, at first glance, may seem desirable: more parties means more choice, more opportunities, less rigidity, more criticism. It also means a greater distribution of influence and of power.
However, this fust impression is totally mistaken. The existence of many parties means, essentially, that a coalition government becomes inevitable. It means difficulties in the formation of any new government, and in keeping a government together for any length of time.
Minority rule
While proportional representation is based on the idea that the influence of a party should be proportional to its voting power, a coalition government means, more often than not, that small parties can exercise a disproportionately great — and often decisive — influence, both on the formation of a government and on its resignation, and so on all its decisions. Most important of all, it means the decay of responsibility. For in a coalition government there is reduced responsibility for all the partners in the coalition.
Proportional representation — and the greater number of parties as a result thereof — may therefore have a detrimental effect on the decisive issue of how to get rid of a government by voting it out of office, for instance in a parliamentary election. The voters are led to expect that perhaps none of the parties will obtain an absolute majority. With this expectation in their minds, the people hardly vote against any of the parties. As a result, on election day none of the parties is dismissed, none is convicted. Accordingly, nobody looks on election day as a Day of Judgment; as a day when a responsible government stands to account for its deeds and omissions, for its successes and failures, and a responsible opposition criticises this record and explains what steps the government ought to have taken, and why.
The loss of 5% or 10% of votes by one or other of the parties is not seen by the voters as a verdict of 'guilty'. They look at it, rather, as a temporary fluctuation in popularity. In time, the people become used to the idea that none of the political parties or their leaders can really be made accountable for their decisions which may have been forced on them by the necessity to form a coalition.
From the point of view of the new theory, election day ought to be a Day of Judgment. As Pericles of Athens said in about 430 BC, 'although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able to judge it.' Of course, we may misjudge it; in fact, we often do.
But if we have lived through a party's period of power and have felt its repercussions, we have at least some qualifications for judgment.
This presupposes that the party in power and its leaders were fully responsible for what they were doing. This, in turn, presupposes a majority government. But with proportional representation, even in the case of a single party governing with an absolute majority and thrown out by a majority of disenchanted citizens, the government may not be turned out of office. It would rather look for the smallest party strong enough to go on ruling with its help.
Hence the censured leader of the larger party would still continue to lead the government — in direct opposition to the majority vote and on the basis of help received from one of the small parties whose policies, in theory, may be far removed from 'representing the will of the people'. Of course, the small party may not be strongly represented in the new government. But its power will be very great since it may topple the government at any time. AH this grossly violates the idea that lies at the root of proportional representation: the idea that the influence exercised by any party must correspond to the number of votes it can muster.
The two-party system
In order to make a majority government probable, we need something approaching a two-party system, as in Britain and in the United States. Since the existence of the practice of proportional representation makes such a possibility hard to attain, I suggest that, in the interest of parliamentary responsibility, we should resist the perhaps tempting idea that democracy demands proportional representation. Instead, we should strive for a two-party system, or at least for an approximation to it, for such a system encourages a continual process of self-criticism by the two parties.
Such a view will, however, provoke frequently voiced objections to the two-party system that merit examination: "A two-party system represses the formation of other parties." This is correct. But considerable changes are apparent within the two major parties in Britain as well as in the United States. So the repression need not be a denial of flexibility.
The point is that in a two-party system the defeated party is liable to take an electoral defeat seriously. So it may look for an internal reform of its aims, which is an ideological reform. If the party is defeated twice in succession, or even three times, the search for new ideas may become frantic, which obviously is a healthy development. This is likely to happen, even if the loss of votes was not very great.
Under a system with many parties, and with coalitions, this is not likely to happen. Especially when the loss of votes is small, both the party bosses and the electorate are inclined to take the change quietly. They regard it as part of the game — since none of the parties had clear responsibilities. A democracy needs parties that are more sensitive than that and, if possible, constantly on the alert. Only in this way can they be induced to be self-critical. As things stand, an inclination to self-criticism after an electoral defeat is far more pronounced in countries with a two-party system than in those where there are several parties. In practice, then, a two- party system is likely to be more flexible than a multi-party system, contrary to first impressions.
It is said: 'Proportional representation gives a new party a chance to rise. Without it, the chance is much diminished. And the mere existence of a third party may greatly improve the performance of the two big parties." This may well be the case. But what if five or six such new parties emerge? As we have seen, even one small party may wield quite disproportionate power if it is in the position to decide which of the two big parties it will join to form a coalition government.
It is also said: 'A two-party system is incompatible with the idea of an open society — with the openness for new ideas, and with the idea of pluralism. ' Reply: both Britain and the United States are very open to new ideas. Complete openness would, of course, be self-defeating, as would be complete freedom. Also cultural openness and political openness are two different things. And more important even than opening wider and wider the political debate may be a proper attitude towards the political Day of Judgment.
QUESTIONS AND PROJECTS:
answer?
What is your own position on this issue?
PART II: A GRAMMAR WORKBOOK
Edited by A.L.BURAK and N.D.STARKOVA
ПРЕДИСЛОВИЕ
Данное практическое пособие по грамматике для студентов- социологов имеет целыо научить студентов правильно понимать и переводить грамматические структуры, наиболее употребительные в текстах по социологической тематике.
Работа над каждым разделом пособия состоит из трех этапов:
Первый этап - внимательное изучение теоретических объяснений и примеров. Второй этап - выполнение всех упражнений на английском языке. Третий этап - перевод изученных конструкций с русского языка на английский в качестве закрепления пройденного материала и контроля за степенью его усвоения.
Пособие является второй частью (Part II) хрестоматии по английскомй языку для студентов-социологов - An English Reader for Sociology Students with a Glossary of Sociological Terms. Part I. Compiled and adapted by N. D. Starkova and A. L. Burak. Glossary compiled by Ye. P. Patsibina. Second edition (corrected and expanded). Moscow. 1999.
В упражнениях пособия указаны номера страниц хрестоматии, на которых содержатся предложения упражнений. Это позволяет студентам находить предложения в их естественном контексте, что особенно полезно при подготовке перевода с русского языка на английский.
Пособие также может быть использовано и независимо от хрестоматии.
Авторы разделов пособия:
Все авторы работают в МГУ им. М. В. Ломоносова.
А. Л. Бурак, Н. Д. Старкова
I. СТРАДАТЕЛЬНЫЙ ЗАЛОГ
(THE PASSIVE VOICE)
ТО BE + PARTICIPLE II
2. Таблица времен Английского глагола в страдательном залоге.
|
PRESENT |
PAST |
FUTURE |
|
|
SIMPLE |
A sample like this is regularly selected. Подобная выборка формируется регулярно. |
The sample was selected last week. Эта выборка была осуществлена на прошлой неделе. |
The sample will be selected next week. Эта выборка будет произведена на следующей неделе. |
|
PROGRES SIVE |
The sample is beina selected now. Эта выборка сейчас осуществляется. |
The sample was beine selected at this time yesterday. Эта выборка проводилась вчера в это время. |
— |
|
PERFECT |
The sample has already been selected. Эта выборка уже осуществлена. |
The sample had been selected bv the end of last week. Эта выборка была завершена к концу прошлой недели. |
The sample will have been selected bv the end of the month. Эта выборка будет завершена к концу месяца. |
|
PERFECT PROGRES SIVE |
|
|
Существует четыре способа перевода страдательного залога на русский язык:
These societies have been dissolved by the profound social changes that have swept through the world.
Эти общества были разрушены значительными социальными изменениями, которые распространились по всему миру.
Б. Возвратными глаголами, оканчивающимися на «-ся»:
The coefficient is usually designated simply by the letter «к».
Этот коэффициент обычно просто обозначается буквой «К».
At that period the day was not demarcated into «work time» and «free time» as tends to be the case today.
В то время день не делили на «рабочее время» и «свободное время», как это делают сейчас.
Г. Личным глаголом в действительном залоге, если указано лицо или предмет, производящее действие:
Nations that are torn by dissent in peacetime rally together when they are attacked by enemies.
Нации, которые в мирное время разъединяют внутренние раздоры, объединяются, когда на них нападают враги.
Для обозначения субъекта действия используется предложное дополнение с предлогом «Ьу» для указания лица, предмета, совершающего действие; или с предлогом «with» для обозначения орудия или метода, при помощи которого совершается действие.
The coefficient is usually designated simply by the letter «к».
Этот коэффициент обычно просто обозначается буквой «К».
The basic processes of competition and cooperation have been illustrated with data from different societies.
Основные процессы конкуренции и сотрудничества проиллюстрированы с помощью данных, полученных при исследовании разных обществ.
К числу таких оборотов, вызывающих у учащихся особые трудности при переводе на русский язык, относятся следующие:
А. Страдательный оборот, в котором подлежащее на русский язык переводится прямым или косвенным дополнением (в дательном, винительным и творительном падеже). Такие страдательные конструкции образуются от глаголов:
|
to advise |
- /советовать/, |
to allow |
- /разрешать/ |
|
to award |
- /награждать/, |
to deny |
- /отрицать/ |
|
to envy |
- /завидовать/, |
to forgive |
- /прощать/ |
|
to grant |
- /вручать/, |
to offer |
- /предлагать/ |
|
to pay |
- /платить/, |
to promise |
- /обещать/ |
|
to refuse |
- /отказывать/, |
to show |
- /показывать/ |
|
to teach |
- /обучать/, |
to tell |
-/рассказывать/ |
|
То advise |
She was advised to accept this offer. |
Ей посоветовали принять это предложение. |
|
То grant |
He was granted a ten days leave. |
Ему предоставили девятидневный отпуск. |
|
То show |
Have you been shown the document? |
Вам показали этот документ? |
|
То ask |
We were asked to wait. |
Нас попросили подождать. |
Б. Страдательный оборот, образованный от переходных глаголов с предлогами:
|
to agree upon |
- /соглашаться на что-либо/, |
|
to arrive at a conclusion |
- /приходить к заключению, решению/, |
|
to comment on |
- /комментировать что-либо/, |
|
to count on |
- /рассчитовать/, |
|
to depend on |
- /зависеть от/, |
|
to insist on |
- /настаивать на/, |
|
to listen to |
- /слушать/, |
|
to laugh at |
- /смеяться над/, |
|
to interfere with |
- /вмешиваться в/, |
|
to look at |
- /смотреть на/, |
|
to look after |
- /заботиться/, |
|
to provide for |
- /обеспечивать/, |
|
to put up at |
- /остановиться/, |
|
to put up with |
- /смириться/, |
|
to refer to |
- /ссылаться на, упоминать о/, |
|
to rely on |
- /полагаться на/, |
|
to send for |
- /посылать за/, |
|
to speak about |
- /говорить о чем-либо/, |
|
to think about |
- /думать о чем-либо/. |
На русский язык перевод таких конструкций начинается с предлога, то есть подлежащее страдательного оборота переводится предложным дополнением с соответствующим предлогом.
|
То refer to |
This article is often re- ferred to. |
На эту статью часто ссылаются. |
|
То speak about |
The film is being much spoken about. |
Об этом фильме много говорят. |
|
То laugh at |
He is often lauehed at. |
Над ним часто смеются. |
В. Страдательный оборот, образованный от фразеологического сочетания глагола с существительным:
to find fault with - /придиратьтя к/,
to lose sight of - /терять из виду/,
to make fun of - /высмеивать/,
to make use of - /использовать/,
to pay attention to - /уделять внимание, обратить внимание/,
to put an end to - /положить конец/,
to take care of - /заботиться о/.
На русский язык страдательные обороты этого типа переводятся либо глаголами, либо эквивалентным сочетанием глагола с существительным.
|
То find fault with |
The poor child was always found fault with. |
К бедному ребенку всегда придирались. |
|
То take notice of |
His remarks were taken no notice of. |
На его замечание не обратили внимания. |
|
To lose sight of |
Soon the boat was lost sight of. |
Вскоре лодка исчезла из виду. |
Г. Страдательный оборот, образованный от английских беспредложных глаголов, которые на русский язык переводятся глаголами с предлогами:
to influence - /оказывать влияние на/, to watch
to answer - /отвечать/, to help
to attend - /посещать/, to follow
to assist - /помогать/, to join
|
То answer |
The first question is readily answered. |
На первый вопрос отвечают охотно. |
|
То follow |
The report was followed by discussion. |
За докладом последовало обсуждение. |
|
То influence |
He had been greatly influenced by Dutch painters. |
На него значительное влияние оказали голландские художники. |
It is expected
Ожидают, что конферен- ция состоится на следую-
It is expected that the conference will take
В английской научной речи часто встречается безличная страдательная конструкция. Она состоит из формального подлежащего “it” и сказуемого в страдательном залоге. На русский язык конструкция переводится неопределенно-личным предложением:
|
place next week. |
щей неделе. |
|
|
It is believed |
It is believed that the new edition of this book will be of no less interest to the reader. |
Полагают, что новое издание этой книги вызовет не меньший интерес у читателей. |
|
It is known |
It is known that many rules have exceptions. |
Известно, что многие правила имеют исключения. |
Exercise 1.
Put each verb in brackets into the passive in an appropriate tense
Pattern: The boxes ... / not pack/yet.
The boxes have not been packed yet.
Exercise 2.
Rewrite each sentence in a more formal style so that it contains a passive form of the word given in capitals
Pattern: Sorry, but we have lost your letter. MISLAY Unfortunately your letter has been mislaid
Exercise 3.
Choose the most appropriate underlined word
Put a suitable preposition in each space
Exercise 5.
Both scntcnccs in cach pair have the same meaning. Complete the second sentence
Exercise 6.
Rewrite each sentence so that it does not contain any of the underlined words and so that it contains a passive voicc form
Pattern: Someone left the phone off the hook all night The phone was left off the hook all night
Exercise 7.
Translate into Russian. Pay attention to the way the subjcct of the passive construction is translated
Exercise 8
Translate the following sentences into Russian
l.The article is often referred to. 2. The ancient manuscript was carefully looked through. 3. This picture will be much spoken about. 4. He is often laughed at. 5. The figurine was looked for but was not found. 6. The room was not lived in. 7. The ship was lost sight of. 8. His remarks were taken no notice of. 9. The easel was not made use of. 10.1 am sure his lectures in archaeology will be listened to with great interest. 11. Such important matters must be spoken of clearly. 12. All the old paints were thrown away. 13. His departure was argued about for a long time. 14.
The students course papers will be handed in next week.
Exercise 9
Translate into English, using the Passive Voice where possible
Exercise 10
Translate into English, using the Passive Voice where possible
A.
Б.
Перевод такой хороший, что в нем нельзя найти недостатков 8. С такими серьезными вещами не шутят 9. За молнией последовал удар грома.
Exercise 11.
Translate into Russian
Exercise 12
в
Transform the following sentences using passive constructions so that each sentence begins with « it »
Pattern: They have decided to cancel the match.
It has been decided to cancel the match
rumor)
confirm)
Exercise 13
Transform the following sentences using passive constructions. Translate the sentence into Russian
Pattern: Another company has taken over our company Our company has been taken over
Exercise 14
Переведите предложения на русский язык, стараясь в русском
варианте, подобрать наиболее точный эквивалент для
выражения безличного страдательного оборота
Exercise 15
In the following sentences underline the Passive Voice constructions.
Name the tensc-forms. Translate the sentences into Russian.
Exercise 16
Translate the following sentences into Russian. Use different variants of translation.
Exercise 17
Translate the following sentences into English
(The Infinitive)
Формы инфинитива.
|
Active |
Passive |
|
|
Indefinete |
to write |
to be written |
|
Continuous |
to be writing |
|
|
Pcrfect |
to have written |
to have been writing |
|
Perfect Continuous |
to have been writing |
Инфинитив в предложении может быть подлежащим, обстоятельством, дополнением, составной частью сказуемого, определением.
Например: То translate this text without a dictionary is hardly possible.
Перевести этот текст без словаря вряд ли возможно (подлежащее).
То translate this text without a dictionary one must know English veiy well.
(Для того) Чтобы перевести этот текст без словаря нужно знать английский очень хорошо (обстоятельство).
She asked me to translate the text without a dictionary.
Она попросила меня перевести текст без словаря (дополнение).
Her perfect knowledge of the language allowed her to translate the text without a dictionary.
Ее прекрасное знание языка разрешило ей перевести текст без словаря (дополнение).
I have come to translate English texts better only now.
Я стал переводить английские тексты лучше только теперь (составное сказуемое).
Не failed to translate the text because he had no dictionary. Ему не удалось перевести текст, так как у него не было словаря (составное сказуемое).
Your task is to translate this text without a dictionary.
Ваша задача состоит в том, чтобы перевести этот текст без словаря (составное именное сказуемое).
You must translate this text without a dictionary.
Вы должны перевести этот текст без словаря (составное модальное сказуемое).
This is a text to be translated without a dictionary.
Вот текст, который нужно перевести без словаря (определение).
Примечание Инфинитив в функции определения переводится на русский язык определительным придаточным предложением с глаголом-сказуемым, выражающим долженствование, если употреблен инфинитив в страдательном залоге, а иногда с глаголом-сказуемым в форме будущего времени.
This question will be discussed at the conference to open in Moscow in April.
Этот вопрос будет обсужден на конференции, которая откроется в Москве в апреле.
Инфинитив в функции определения часто встречается после слов the first, the second, the last и так далее. В этом случае он переводится на русский язык сказуемым в том же времени, в котором стоит сказуемое в главном предложении.
Не is always the first to come to the lectures.
Он всегда приходит на лекции первым.
Не was always the last to come to the lectures.
Он всегда приходил последним на лекции.
Инфинитивный оборот, вводимый предлогом for (for-phrase).
for + somebody + to + инфинитив for + something + to + инфинитив for everybody to know
В этом обороте действие, выраженное инфинитивом, относится к существительному или местоимению в объектном падеже, перед которым стоит предлог for. Оборот выполняет функцию одного члена предложения, а именно: сложного подлежащего, сложной именной части сказуемого, сложного дополнения или сложного обстоятельства. Такие обороты чаще всего переводятся на русский язык придаточными предложениями с союзом “чтобы”. Подлежащим этого придаточного предложения становится субъект действия (см. выше: everybody), а сказуемым - инфинитив (to know).
Примеры 1. For him to know that fact was absolutely necessary.
Чтобы он знал об этом факте было совершенно необходимо (подлежащее).
Главная задача в том, чтобы эта работа была закончена своевременно (именная часть сказуемого).
Для того чтобы эта работа была завершена своевременно, мы должны попросить их помочь нам (обстоятельство цели).
Он просил, чтобы ему переслали документы почтой (дополнение).
Примечани Этот оборот может быть переведен простым предложе- е нием, где инфинитив переводится подлежащим или ска
зуемым.
It is normal for people to believe mass media.
Верить средствам массовой информации (это) естественно для людей.
Оборот “Complex Object” или “объектный падеж с инфинитивом”.
Этот оборот употребляется после определенных глаголов (см. таблицу) и представляет собой сложное дополнение. В русском языке нет аналогичного оборота и он переводится дополнительным придаточным предложением (с союзами “чтобы”, “что”, “как”), где существительное или местоимение в объектном падеже будет подлежащим, а инфинитив сказуемым.
Она хотела, чтобы я позвонил ей на следующее утро.
She wanted me to phone her the next morning.
Таблица употребления оборота “Complex Object”:
|
2. После глаголов, выражающих восприятие с помощью органов чувств: to feel, to hear, to notice, to observe, to see, to watch, to perceive (инфинитив без частицы to) |
I saw him get off the bus. |
Я видел, как он вышел из автобуса. |
|
3. После глаголов, выражающих предположение: to expect (ожидать, предполагать), to suppose (предполагать), to believe (полагать), to assume (считать, полагать), to mean (полагать), to think (думать, полагать), to intend (предполагать), to imagine (представлять себе), а также глаголов: to know, to declare (объявлять), to show и нек. др. |
Do you expcct your article to be published this month? |
Вы ожидаете, что ваша статья будет напечатана в этом месяце? |
|
4. После глаголов, выражающих приказание, просьбу, разрешение (инфинитив в форме страдательного залога): to order, to ask, to let, to allow, to command и др. |
The manager ordered the goods to be put on the shelves. |
Заведующий приказал, чтобы товары были разложены на полках. |
|
5. После глаголов, требующих предложного дополнения: to wait for (ждать), to rely on (полагаться на), to count on (рассчитывать на) |
He knows that I can always rely on her to do everything in time. |
Он знает, что я всегда могу рассчитывать на то, что она сделает все вовремя. |
|
После: а) причастия, образованного от глаголов: to know, to hear, to see, to feel, to notice, to watch и др. |
Knowing him to be my friend, she asked me to help him. Watching him play |
Зная, что он мой друг, она попросила меня помочь ему. Наблюдая за тем, |
(от этих же
b) герундия глаголов) the piano, I couldn’t help enjoying it.
I was surprised at hearing him say it.
как он играет на пианино, я не мог не получать
удовольствие.
Я был удивлен, когда услышал, что он сказал это.
Примечание
После глаголов физического восприятия: to see, to watch, to observe, to notice, to hear, to feel, употребляется оборот “объектный падеж с причастием I”. Этот оборот аналогичен обороту “объектный падеж с инфинитивом” и тоже выполняет функцию сложного дополнения.
I saw him cross the street. Я видел, что он перешел улицу.
1 saw him crossing the street. Я видел, что он переходил улицу.
Между этими оборотами имеется смысловая разница. Причастие (crossing) выражает длительный характер действия, то есть действие в процессе его совершения, а инфинитив (cross) - законченное действие. Поэтому оборот с причастием переводится на русский язык придаточным предложением с глаголом несовершенного вида (переходил), а оборот с инфинитивом придаточным предложением с глаголом совершенного вида (перешел).
Однако когда глагол выражает действие длительного характера (to walk - ходить, to run - бежать, to stand - стоять, to sit - сидеть, to look for - искать и др.) оборот с причастием не отличается по смыслу от оборота с инфинитивом и оба оборота переводятся на русский язык одинаково, глаголом несовершенного вида.
После глаголов “to hear” и “to see”, употребленных в переносном значении “узнавать” (to hear) и “понимать” (to see), оборот Complex Object не употребляется.
I saw that he didn’t want to speak about it.
Я видел, что ему не хочется говорить об этом.
I heard that he had left Moscow for Tula last year.
Я слышал, что он уехал из Москвы в Тулу в прошлом году.
Оборот “Complex Subject” или “именительный надеж с инфинитивом”
Этот оборот употребляется после определенных глаголов (см. таблицу) и представляет собой сложное подлежащее. В русском языке нет аналогичного оборота и предложение с этим оборотом чаще всего переводится на русский язык сложно-подчиненным предложением (см. таблицу).
She is said to live in Paris.
Перевод начинается со сказуемого (is said), которое переводится неопределенно-личным предложением (говорят). При переводе оборота “she ... to live” “she” становится подлежащим придаточного предложения, а инфинитив “to live” - сказуемым.
Говорят, что она живет в Париже.
Оборот “именительный падеж с инфинитивом” употребляется после определенных глаголов, которые можно разделить на три группы:
to appear - казаться, по видимому to prove - оказываться, случаться to turn out - оказываться, случаться to happen - оказываться, случаться Не seems to be a talented scientist.
Он, кажется, талантливый ученый.
to report - сообщать
to find - обнаруживать, оказываться
to intend - иметь в виду, предполагать
to assume - допускать, предполагать и др.
to believe - полагать, считать
to think - считать, полагать
to consider - считать
to say - говорить
to know - знать (известно)
to mean - полагать, считать
Great changes are expected to take place in the economics of these small countries in the near future.
Ожидается, что в экономике этих небольших стран в ближайшем будущем произойдут большие изменения.
to be likely - вероятно, может быть
to be unlikely - вряд ли
to be sure - несомненно, обязательно
to be certain - несомненно, обязательно
to be not likely - маловероятно
She is likely to come home early today.
Она, вероятно, придет домой рано сегодня.
Таблица употребления оборота “Complex Subject”
|
Соотнесенность с на |
Соотнесенность с |
|||
|
стоящим или будущим |
прошедшим временем |
|||
|
временем |
||||
|
I. При |
She seems |
Кажется, |
She seemed |
Она, каза |
|
сказуемом в |
to know |
она хоро |
to have for |
лось, забы |
|
действительн |
English |
шо знает |
gotten her |
ла свое |
|
ом залоге, |
well. |
английский |
promise. |
обещание. |
|
выраженном |
язык. |
(= ^ |
||
|
глаголами: to |
seemed that |
|||
|
seem, to ap |
She doesn’t |
Она, ка |
she had for |
|
|
pear, to prove, |
seem to |
жется, не |
gotten her |
|
|
to turn out, to |
know Eng |
знает анг |
promise). |
|
|
happen.A |
lish. |
лийский |
||
|
также при |
язык. |
|||
|
сказуемом, |
||||
|
выраженном |
There seem |
Кажется, в |
||
|
модальным |
to be great |
ее жизни |
||
|
глаголом |
changes in |
(имеются) |
||
|
may + seem |
her life. |
большие |
||
|
(appear, |
изменения. |
|||
|
prove, hap |
||||
|
pen) |
Our story may seem to be a bit dull. |
Наш рассказ может показаться немного скучным. |
|
И. При |
She is said |
Г оворят, |
She was |
Говорили, |
|
сказуемом в |
to live in |
что она |
said,to |
что она |
|
страдатель |
Paris. |
живет в |
have lived |
жила в Па |
|
ном залоге, |
Париже. |
in Paris be |
риже до |
|
|
выраженном |
fore she |
того как |
||
|
глаголами: to |
came to |
она пере |
||
|
say, to expect, |
Moscow. |
ехала в |
||
|
to know, to |
He is said to |
Г оворят, |
(= It was |
Москву. |
|
believe, to re |
be writing a |
что он пи |
said that she |
|
|
port, to con |
new novel. |
шет новый |
had lived in |
|
|
sider и др. |
роман |
Paris before |
||
|
А также при |
(действие в |
she came to |
||
|
сказуемом, |
процессе). |
Moscow). |
||
|
выраженном |
||||
|
модальным |
Our story |
|||
|
глаголом |
may be said |
Можно |
||
|
may + to be |
have a |
сказать, |
||
|
said |
happy end. |
что наш |
||
|
(expected, |
рассказ |
|||
|
considered, |
имеет сча |
|||
|
known и т.д.) |
стливый конец. |
|||
|
III. При |
They are |
Они, веро |
He didn’t |
Он оказал |
|
сказуемом, |
likely to |
ятно, вер |
prove to be |
ся не очень |
|
выраженном |
come back |
нуться зав |
a very |
квалифи |
|
“to be + |
tomorrow |
тра утром. |
skilled |
циро |
|
прилагатель |
morning. |
worker. |
ванным |
|
|
ное”: to be |
(опытным) |
|||
|
likely, to be |
рабочим. |
|||
|
unlikely, to be |
||||
|
sure, to be |
||||
|
certain |
Оборот “Complex Subject” может быть употреблен в определительных придаточных предложениях, которые начинаются словами which, that, who (а также бывают бессоюзными). В таких предложениях глагол, стоящий перед инфинитивом, переводится на русский язык вводным безличным предложением типа - “как полагают”, “как известно”, “вероятно” и т.п., а сам инфинитив - сказуемым придаточного предложения.
This poem belongs to a group of ballads which are known to date from the 15th century.
Эта поэма принадлежит к ряду баллад, которые, как известно, восходят к XV столетию.
The delegation which is likely to arrive tomorrow morning will be met by our representative.
Делегацию, которая, вероятно, прибудет завтра рано утром, встретит наш представитель.
Иногда определительное придаточное предложение which is likely to arrive... может быть сокращено до “likely to arrive”. Перевод в этом случае не отличается от перевода определительного придаточного предложения.
The delegation likely to arrive early tomorrow morning will be met by our representative.
Делегацию, которая, вероятно, прибудет завтра рано утром, встретит наш представитель.
Иногда определительное придаточное предложение может быть заменено причастием II от глаголов типа “to think”, после которого употребляется инфинитив (thought to belong). Перевод в этом случае не отличается от перевода определительного придаточного предложения.
Now we shall describe some objects thought to belong to this class.
Теперь опишем некоторые предметы, которые, как полагают, относятся к этому классу.
УПРАЖНЕНИЯ
Exercise 1
Replace the following attributive clauses by infinitives used in the func- tion of attributes.
Model She had apparently nothing that she could fear.
She had apparently nothing to fear.
Exercise 2
Translate the following sentences into English using the infinitive in the function of attribute:
Exercise 3
Paraphrase the following sentences so as to use “for-phrases”.
Model It is time that you should go, Nick.
It is time for you to go, Nick.
Exercise 4
Переведите следующие предложении на английский язык, используя “for-phrases”.
Exercise 5
Translate the following sentences into Russian (Pay attention to the translation of “for-phrase” constructions):
Exercise 6
Make op sentences, matching the suggested parts:
Model A. I saw a little boy cross the street
В. I saw that the little boy didn’t want to do it.
The girl hear(s)
The mother see(s)
We saw
him
they
them
the child
he
she
her
young people the old woman
weep over the letter shout loudly didn’t feel well knock at the door cross the busy street sing a horrible song dance rock-n-roll was quite serious enjoy the music enter the house
Exercise 7
Paraphrase the following sentences using complex object constructions:
Model She saw how they went.
She saw them go.
Exercise 8
Replace the following clauses by the “Complex Object” construction:
|
Someone is doing something. |
Can you see someone doing |
|
|
Can you see this? |
something? |
Exercise 9
Paraphrase the following sentences according to the model:
Model - Watching (that she was playing the piano) I couldn’t help enjoying it.
- Watching her playing the piano, I couldn’t help enjoying it.
Exercise 10
Переведите на английский язык, употребляя где это возможно, оборот Complex Object:
Exercise 11
Paraphrase the following sentences using the Complex Subject:
Model It is known that John is good at painting.
John is known to be good at painting.
Exercise 12
Переведите на английский язык, употребляя оборот the Complex Subject.
Exercise 13
Translate the following sentences into Russian. (Pay attention to the translation of the “Complex Subject” and “Complex Object” constructions):
26.... The capitalist ethic may have been a universal in the United States only a generation or so ago but appears not to be accepted by growing numbers of young people, (p. 85)
Exercise 14
Переведите на английский язык, употребляя оборот the Complex Subject.
ПРИЧАСТИЕ
Причастие представляет собой неличную форму глагола, которая соответствует в русском языке причастию и деепричастию.
В английском языке существуют два вида причастий: Participle I с суффиксом -ing и Participle II, представляющее собой так называемую "третью форму" глагола. Например, writing, losing (Part. I) и written, lost (Part. II).
Причастие может выполнять как функции, свойственные глаголу, так и функции, свойственные прилагательному.
|
Функции, свойственные глаголу |
Функции, свойственные прилагательному |
|
Может иметь прямое дополнение: She sat at the table writing a letter. |
Может быть определением к существительному: Не kept thinking about his lost key. |
|
Может иметь определение в виде наречия: They came up to me smiling iovfullv. |
|
|
Может выполнять роль обстоятельства: Не was standing by the window looking at the trees. |
|
|
Имеет формы времени и залога (см. ниже). |
Формы причастия
|
Active |
Passive |
|
|
Participle I |
reading [i:] |
being read [el |
|
Perfect Participle |
Having read |
having been read |
|
Participle II |
- |
read | e] |
Время действия, обозначаемого причастием I, определяется в зависимости от времени действия, выраженного сказуемым предложения, т.е. личной формой глагола. Отсюда следует, что одна и та же форма английского причастия может переводиться на русский язык по- разному, в зависимости от времени, в котором употреблен глагол- сказуемое данного предложения:
Мы увидели детей, игравших (которые играли) в прятки.
Мы часто видим детей, играющих (которые играют) в прятки.
В следующей таблице обобщаются способы перевода английских причастий на русский язык.
|
Формы английского причастия |
Способы перевода на русский язык |
|
|
Причастием |
Деепричастием |
|
|
building |
строящий |
строя |
|
having built |
— |
построив |
|
being built |
строящийся (который строят) |
будучи строящимся (когда его строили) |
|
будучи построенным (когда его построили) |
||
|
having been built |
— |
будучи построенным (когда его построили) |
|
built |
построенный |
- |
Как видно из таблицы, в ряде случаев наряду с причастием или деепричастием в русском переводе можно употреблять придаточное предложение, начинающееся со слов "который" или "когда". Так, возможны два варианта перевода одного и того же английского предложения с причастием:
Having finished the work, the secretary left for home.
|
1. Выражает действие, одновремс а) в функции определения, соо щий и -вший: Look at the man standing bv the car. I looked at the man standing bv the car. б) в функции обстоятельства, с стию на -я или -а: Having some free time, we decided to go for a walk. |
;нное с действием сказуемого: гветствуя русским причастиям на - Посмотрите на мужчину, стоящего v машины. Я посмотрел на мужчину, стоявшего у машины, оответствуя русскому дееприча- Имея свободное время, мы решили пойти на прогулку. |
|
2. Выражает предшествующее дс тельства времени), соответстг или -я: Arriving in the citv. I called him at once. |
:йствие (только в функции обстоя- уя русскому деепричастию на -в Приехав в город, я сразу позвонил ему. |
Participle II
|
1. В функции определения, соот мый, -щийся или на -нный, -ты I read the list of subjects taught in this college. The car produced ten years ago is still in good order. |
ветствуя русским причастиям на - й, -вшийся Я прочитал список предметов, преподаваемых в этом колледже. Автомобиль, выпушенный 10 лет назад, все еще в хорошем состоянии. |
|
2. В функции обстоятельства: а) причины, соответствуя pycci или на -нный, -тый, -вшийся, л причины: Squeezed by the ice, the ship could not move. б) времени, соответствуя русск времени: Asked when I would come, I answered that it would be by noon. |
<им причастиям на -мый, -щийся ибо придаточным предложениям Зажатый льдом (= т.к. он был зажат льдом) корабль не мог двигаться. им придаточным предложениям Когда меня спросили, когда я приду, я ответил, что это будет к полудню. |
|
3. В функции именной части сказуемого, соответствуя русскому краткому страдательному причастию: The work is finished. | Работа закончена. |
|
1. В функции определения, соот мый, -щийся: The question being discussed now, is very important. |
ветствуя русскому причастию на - Вопоос, обсуждаемый сейчас, очень важен. |
|
2. В функции обстоятельства пр русскому страдательному деег или придаточному предложен!- Being bought last vcar. this ticket cannot be used now. |
ичины или времени, соответствуя фичастию ("будучи сделан" и т.п.) ю: Будучи куплен в прошлом году (= т.к. его купили в прошлом году), этот билет не может использоваться сейчас. |
Perfect Participle Active
|
В функции обстоятельства причины или времени, соответствуя русскому деепричастию совершенного вида на -в и -я: |
|
|
Having read a lot of books on the subject, he knew all the details. |
Прочитав много книг по этому предмету, он знал все подробности. |
Perfect Participle Passive
|
В функции обстоятельства причины и времени, соответствуя русским придаточным предложениям причиэны и времени: |
|
|
Having been found too late, this phone number was of no use to me. |
Т.к. его нашли слишком поздно, этот телефонный номер был для меня бесполезен. |
Самостоятельный причастный оборот
Самостоятельным причастным оборотом называется такой оборот, в котором причастие обозначает действие, не относящееся к лицу или предмету, названному подлежащим предложения. Действие, обозначенное причастием в этих оборотах, относится к лицу или предмету, названному существительным, стоящим непосредственно перед причастием:
The weather being fine, we went to the country.
Т.к. погода была хорошая, мы отправились за город.
("being fine" относится не к подлежащему "we", а к "the weather").
Чаще всего самостоятельный причастный оборот выражает время, причину или сопутствующие обстоятельства. Соответственно этому выбирается и способ перевода оборота на русский язык.
Способы перевода самостоятельного причастного оборота на русский
язык
а) причины (с союзами "так как", "поскольку"):
Самостоятельным предложением с сочинительным союзом "причем", "в то время как":
The goods having been sold, the sellers had nothing to do.
б) времени (с союзами "когда" The sun having set, they hurried home.
2
Поскольку товары были распроданы. продавцам было нечего делать.
"после того как"):
Когда солнце село, они поспешили домой.
The treaty is drawn up in two languages, both texts being equally valid.
I usually send her money, my sister helping her with clothes.
Договор составлен на двух языках, причем оба текста имеют одинаковую силу.
Я обычно посылаю ей деньги, в_ то время как (а~) моя сестра помогает ей одеждой.
ГЕРУНДИЙ
Герундий, или отглагольное существительное, представляет собой неличную форму глагола, выражающую название действия.
Герундий обладает функциями как существительного, так и глагола.
|
Функции существительного |
Функции глагола |
|
1. Может быть подлежащим: Skating is his greatest pleasure. |
1. Может иметь после себя прямое дополнение: I remember hearing this song. |
|
2. Может быть именной частью составного сказуемого: His favourite occupation is |
2. Может определяться наречием: Не is fond of sneaking loudlv. |
|
skating. |
|
|
3. Может быть прямым или косвенным дополнением: I remember skating there, I am fond of skating. |
3. Имеет формы времени и залога (см. ниже). |
|
4. Может сочетаться с предлогами: Не can't live without skating. |
|
|
5. Может определяться притяжательными местоимениями или существительными в притяжательном падеже: Не thought about her this daughter's) skating. |
Время действия, обозначенного герундием, относительно, т.е. в каждом конкретном предложении определяется в зависимости от времени действия, выраженного сказуемым предложения.
Формы герундия
|
"~ВрешГ''~~~—-jjajior^ |
Active |
Passive*’ |
|
Indefinite |
writing |
being written |
|
Perfect |
having written |
having been written |
* Формы "Passive" имеются только у герундия переходных глаголов.
В современном английском языке герундий в форме "Perfect" используется нечасто, и даже в случае предшествования одного действия другому часто употребляется форма "Indefinite". Таким образом, вместо:
His having been defeated in free elections became a major blow to his party. -
Можно сказать:
His being defeated in free elections became a major blow to his party.
Способы перевода герундия на русский язык.
В зависимости от контекста и своей роли в предложении герундий может переводиться следующим образом:
200
|
1. Глагол в личной форме. She likes cooking. | Она любит готовить. |
|
|
2. Деепричастие Liza left without saving a word. Лиза ушла, не сказав ни слова. |
|
|
3. Существительное Smoking is harmful for one's health. |
Курение вредно для здоровья. |
|
4. Придаточное предложение. I remember hearing this song. He doesn't like being talked to like that. Excuse me for having interrupted you. |
Я помню, что (я) слышал эту песню. О не любит, когда с ним так разговаривают. Извините меня за то, что я перебил Вас. |
Герундий и субъект действия
Если непосредственно перед герундием не стоит существительное или притяжательное местоимение, то действие, обозначенное герундием, осуществляется тем предметом или лицом, которое обозначено подлежащим.
I look forward to going to London. Я предвкушаю, как (я) поеду в
Лондон.
Если же непосредственно перед герундием стоит существительное или притяжательное местоимение, то именно это существительное или местоимение (а не подлежащее) обозначает субъект действия, выраженного герундием:
I look forward to vour going to Я предвкушаю, как Вы поедете в
London. Лондон.
I ага tired of Peter coming at any Я устал от того, что Питер нри- time. ходит в любое время.
Существительное перед герундием ставится в общем падеже, но для одушевленных существительных возможен также притяжательный падеж. Таким образом, последний пример можно без изменения смысла сформулировать так:
I am tired of Peter's coming at any time.
Наиболее употребительные слова и выражения, после которых глагол необходимо употреблять в форме герундия I. Герундий в роли дополнения ставится после следующих глаголов и глагольных сочетаний:
|
account for |
описывать, от |
intend |
намереваться |
|
читываться за |
be interested in |
интересоваться |
|
|
accuse of |
винить в |
(it) is no good |
бесполезно, |
|
be afraid of |
бояться |
(it) is no use |
нет смысла |
|
aim at |
иметь целью |
keep (on) |
продолжать, не |
|
approve of |
одобрять |
прекращать |
|
|
avoid |
избегать |
keep from |
удерживать(ся) |
|
begin |
начинать |
от |
|
|
blame for |
обвинять в |
like |
любить, нра |
|
be busy |
быть занятым |
виться |
|
|
be capable of |
быть способ |
look forward to |
с нетерпением |
|
ным на |
ждать, пред |
||
|
continue |
продолжать |
вкушать |
|
|
count on (upon) |
рассчитывать |
mind |
возражать про |
|
на |
тив |
||
|
depend on |
зависеть от |
need |
нуждаться в, |
|
(upon) |
требовать |
||
|
disapprove of |
не одобрять |
object to |
возражать про |
|
be engaged in |
быть занятым |
тив |
|
|
enjoy |
получать удо |
persist in |
упорствовать в |
|
вольствие от |
praise for |
хвалить за |
|
|
excuse |
извинять |
prefer |
предпочитать |
|
feel like |
быть склонным |
prevent from |
помешать |
|
к |
be proud of |
гордиться |
|
|
finish |
заканчивать |
regret |
сожалеть о |
|
be fond of |
любить, обо |
rely on (upon) |
полагаться на |
|
жать |
remember |
помнить, вспо |
|
|
give up |
отказываться, |
минать |
|
|
бросать, пре |
resist |
сопротивлять |
|
|
кращать |
ся, противо |
||
|
go on |
продолжать |
стоять |
|
|
can't help |
не мочь не, не |
be responsible |
отвечать за, |
|
мочь удер |
for |
быть причиной |
|
|
жаться от |
result from |
возникнуть |
|
|
be incapable of |
быть неспо |
(произойти)в |
|
|
собным на |
результате |
||
|
insist on |
настаивать на |
result in |
приводить к |
start
stop
succeed in
suspect of thank for think of be tired of
Примечания
Начинать прекращать преуспевать в, добиться успеха в
подозревать в благодарить за думать о уставать от
try
get used to be worth пробовать, пытаться
привыкнуть к стоить, быть достойным
После глаголов begin, continue, intend, like, start, try возможны, наряду с герундием, и формы инфинитива с частицей to:
We start translating. = We start to translate.
После глагола stop также возможна форма инфинитива с частицей to, но в этом случае значение меняется. Конструкция "stop + герундий" означает "прекратить действие, названное герундием": She stopped reading. - Она перестала читать. Конструкция же "stop + to + инфинитив" означает "прекратить движение, чтобы совершить действие, названное герундием":
She stopped to read an advertisement. - Она остановилась, чтобы прочитать объявление.
3.
После глагола help герундий необходим только тогда, когда help - часть сочетания "can't help" или "could'n help":
We could'n help laughing. - Мы не могли не засмеяться.
Глагол help вне указанного сочетания означает "помогать" и требует после себя только инфинитива.
II. Герундий в роли определения ставится после следующих существительных с предлогами:
|
ability of |
способность |
disappointment |
разочарова |
|
к |
at |
ние |
|
|
advantage of |
преимущест |
experience in |
опыт в |
|
во |
fear of |
страх, боязнь |
|
|
apology for |
Извинение за |
habit of |
привычка |
|
art of |
искусство, |
hope of |
надежда |
|
мастерство |
idea of |
идея, пред |
|
|
astonishment at |
изумление по |
ставление 0 |
|
|
поводу |
importance of |
важность, |
|
|
chance of |
возможность |
значение |
|
|
disadvantage of |
недостаток |
intention of |
намерение |
ri
interest in интерес к
means of Средство
merit of Заслуга
method of метод, способ
necessity of необходимость
objection to возражение против
opportunity of удобный случай
plan for pleasure of possibility of preparation for
problem of process of reason for ight of way of план
удовольствие возможность приготовление к проблема процесс причина право на путь, способ
логов:
after
before
besides
by
on, upon
при, во время, в процессе
вместо
in
instead of
through
without
после до, прежде помимо, кроме
путем, посредством
после (в отличие от "after", данные предлоги перед герундием подчеркивают , что действие, обозначенное сказуемым, произошло сразу, непосредственно вслед за действием, обозначенным герундием)
благодаря, из-за
(сочетание этого предлога с герундием переводится как "не + деепричастие")
We learned a lot about Wales by reading this magazine.
Besides teaching, she writes scientific works.
Instead of going to school, Tom stayed at home.
On seeing Mrs. Black John bowed.
You may come without warning me.
Мы узнали много об Уэльсе, чи-- тая этот журнал (... путем чтения этого журнала).
Помимо преподавания (помимо того, что она преподает), она пишет научные работы.
Вместо того, чтобы идти в школу, Том остался дома.
Увидев миссис Блэк, Джон поклонился (сразу же).
Вы можете приходить, не предупреждая меня.
УПРАЖНЕНИЯ
Упражнение 1.
Определите, в роли какого члена предложения употреблена форма на -
ing и является ли она причастием или герундием. Переведите на русский язык.
Упражнение 2.
Переведите на русский язык.
Упражнение 3.
Переведите на русский язык.
Упражнение 4.
Перефразируйте, используя причастия.
Упражнение 5.
Перефразируйте, используя герундий.
&I. Общая характеристика
Модальные глаголы выражают отношение говорящего к высказыванию. К ним относятся: can, could, may, might,will, would, shall, should, must, ought to.
В модальном значении также употребляются: be able to, be to, have to, need (to).
Can suggest, must learn, ought to investigate, have to be completed, is to be published, need to go; don't need to go / needn't go; do you need to go? / need you go? , etc.
При этом после модального глагола возможно использование любого из существующих инфинитивов: simple infinitive, continuous infinitive, perfect infinitive и perfect continuous infinitive, как в активном, так и в пассивном залоге.
I shall do what you asked me to. -Simple Infinitive, Active.
(Я обязательно сделаю то, о чем ты меня попросил).
Profound research cannot be done in a day. - Simple Infinitive,
Passive. (Основательное исследование нельзя выполнить за один
день).
She would be analysing the latest statistics at the moment. - Continuous Infinitive, Active. (Сейчас она, скорее всего, анализирует последнюю статистику).
Не must have been working on his thesis for three years. - Perfect
Continuous Infinitive, Active (Он работает над диссертацией, наверное, три года).
Capitalist ethics may have been a universal in the USA only a generation or so ago. (Капиталистическая этика возможно была всеобщей в США еще одно или несколько поколений назад).
Simple Infinitive и (Perfect) Continuous Infinitive после модального глагола указывают на соотнесенность предложения с настоящим или будущим временем.
Perfect Infinitive - на соотнесенность с прошедшим временем.
Must the policy of control be left in the hands of politicians ?
Вопрос к глаголу have to строится при помощи вспомогательного глагола do:
What do beginning researchers have to learn when the data are collected?
This should not be permitted.
В устной речи предпочтение отдается слитным отрицательным формам модальных глаголов: can't, couldn't, mightn't, won't, wouldn't, shan't, shouldn't, mustn't, oughtn't, needn't.
Исключение: may - may not. Модальный глагол may не имеет слитной отрицательной формы.
Ср. I hope his new book would answer some pressing questions. (Я надеюсь, что его новая книга ответит на некоторые актуальные вопросы. - Соотнесенность с будущим. -Would- выражает уверенность говорящего).
I would use these materials from the library last year, but now they are not available.
(В прошлом году я регулярно пользовалась этими библиотечными материалами, но сейчас к ним нет доступа. - Соотнесенность с прошедшим. -Would- выражает регулярность действия в прошлом).
No one has been able to solve the problem. (- Никто не может решить эту проблему / Никому еще не удалось решить эту проблему. Present perfect. Употребление глагола -сап - в этой форме невозможно). I am having to read this very carefully. (Мне нужно прочесть это очень внимательно. Present continuous. Глагол -must- в этой форме не используется. Здесь уместно использовать форму be having to. Однако следует помнить, что эта форма используется нечасто, обычно используют have to).
В данном пособии тип употребления модальных глаголов в значении вероятности условно называется типом А, в других значениях - типом Б. В разных контекстах один и тот же модальный глагол может выступать в разных значениях - то как глагол типа А, то как глагол типа Б.
Ср.: His recent article should be extremely interesting. ("Его недавняя статья, наверное, чрезвычайно интересна". 'Should' = "наверное", выражение вероятности. Тип А).
Не should accumulate more data to obtain objective results. ("Ему следует накопить больше данных, чтобы получить объективные результаты". 'Should' = "следует", выражение совета. Тип Б ).
УПРАЖНЕНИЯ
а/ какой инфинитив использован после модального глагола в каждом
предложении и почему;
б/ по какому типу - А (вероятность, предположение) или Б (другие значения) употреблены модальные глаголы в каждом предложении;
в/ с каким временем соотносятся использованные модальные глаголы.
Модальные глаголы могут использоваться для выражения разных степеней вероятности, возможности или уверенности в том, о чем сообщается в высказывании.
Таблица 1.1
|
Утвердительная форма |
Отрицательная форма |
Значение |
Возможный перевод |
|
will |
won’t |
полная уверенность |
“уверен”, “конечно” |
|
must |
can’t, couldn’t |
логический вывод из ситуации |
“наверняка”, “уверен” |
|
would |
wouldn’t |
меньшая уверенность |
“скорее всего” |
|
should |
shouldn’t |
вероятность ожидаемого события |
“вероятно”, “наверное” |
|
ought to |
oughtn’t to |
вероятность |
(6 |
|
may |
may not |
предположен ие о возможности действия, допущение, планирование |
“может быть” |
|
could, might |
mightn’t |
малая возможность, предположение, допущение, планирование |
Примеры:
You will already be familiar with this subject. (Ты, конечно же, знаком с этим предметом. - Полная уверенность. Соотнесенность с настоящим (а не будущим)).
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here." ("Откуда вы знаете, что я безумная ? " - спросила Алиса. "Должны быть. Иначе вы сюда не пришли бы". - Логическое заключение Чеширского Кота.)
You wouldn't remember my name, but I was your student five years ago. (Вы, скорее всего, не помните моего имени, но я учился у вас пять лет назад).
You can't / couldn't be my student. Five years ago I was a student myself. (Вы не можете быть моим студентом. Пять лег назад я сам был студентом. - Логическое заключение).
The Conservatives should win the next election. (Консерваторы, наверное, победят на следующих выборах. - Говорящий ожидает этого. Для передачи негативных идей -should- не употребляется).
We may go / may be going / might go / might be going to Paris next year. (Может быть, мы поедем в Париж в будущем году. -Глаголы -may- и -might- в сочетании с Simple Infinitive или Continuous Infinitive часто употребляется, когда говорится о планах на будущее.)
The Italian film could / might be worth seeing, but it didn't get very good reviews. (Может быть и стоит посмотреть этот итальянский фильм, но рецензии были не очень хорошие. - Делается допущение. Однако возможность того, что фильм хорош, для говорящего невелика.)
must: can't / couldn't could?
could: mightn't might?/cou!d?
She must be back from holidays. (Она, должно быть, вернулась из отпуска).- She can't / couldn't be back from holidays. (He может быть, чтобы она уже вернулась из отпуска. - Отрицание вероятности. Тип А ).
Ср.: She musn't be back from holidays. (Она не должна возвращаться из отпуска. - Приказ. Тип Б).
Не could be right. (Может, он и прав) - Не mightn't know it. (Возможно, он этого не знает) - Тип А, выражение возможности.
Ср.: I could speak two foreign languages when I was a child. - I couldn't speak any foreign language when I was a child. (Я могла говорить.../ не могла говорить...) - тип Б, выражение интеллектуальной способности.
Таким образом, "симметричные" отрицательные формы, must - mustn't- и could - couldn't -, свойственны типу Б (подробнее см. &
3).
В вопросительных предложениях с модальными глаголами could? и might? спрашивается о возможности или о вероятности того, о чем сообщается.
Could / might race wars be avoided? (Возможно ли избежать расовых войн? - Это вопрос о вероятности ситуации).
"Why, you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see'!" said the Hatter. ("Но тогда ты с таким же успехом можешь сказать, что "я вижу, что я ем." то же самое, что и "я ем, что я вижу."-сказал Шляпник.)
"You might just as well say," added the Dormouse ..." that 'I breathe when I sleep' is the same thing as 'I sleep when I breathe'!" ("С таким же
217
успехом ты можешь сказать,- добавила Соня, -что "я дышу, когда я сплю" то же самое, что и " я сплю, когда дышу")
а/ возможные планы на будущее
We may / might be going to the football match tonight. (Мы, может быть, пойдем на футбольный матч сегодня вечером.) Simple Infinitive также может употребляться в этом же значении: We may / might go to the football match tonight.
б/ возможность того, что действие будет не закончено, процесс будет продолжаться:
Don't ask me for dinner on Saturday eveninig. I might / may be working. (He приглашай меня на обед в субботу вечером. Я, может быть, буду работать.)
Continuous Infinitive сочетается и с другими модальными глаголами, имея при этом значение незаконченного действия относительно настоящего или будущего времени:
I can't believe it! You must be joking. (Я не могу поверить. Ты, должно быть, шутишь.)
Don't disturb me at 7. I will be writing my essay. (He беспокой меня в 7 часов. Я буду писать эссе.)
Примеры:
It must have been difficult to resolve the problem. (Наверное, было трудно решить эту проблему)
She could have been right. (Она, может быть, была права.).
The management can't have agreed to sign the contract. (He может быть, чтобы руководство согласилось подписать этот контракт).
By the time he was arrested, he would have known that his accomplice was dead. (К моменту ареста он, скорее всего, уже знал, что его сообщник мертв.).
Не may have forgotten to call. (Он мог забыть позвонить). УПРАЖНЕНИЯ
Упражнение 1
Упражнение 2
Подберите модальные эквиваленты к следующим словам, используя
значения модальных глаголов из Таблицы 1.
Ответы: 2) would 3) must 4) should/ought to 5) may/might/could
Используя ответы к Упражнению 2 и опуская слова в скобках, вставьте модальные эквиваленты.
Ответы: 1. should be fine 2. They must be very... 3. It must be ... 4. You may/might/could agree... 5. Parents may/might/could find that... 6. You will understand that... 7. You wouldn't know my name... 8. Our visitors should/ought to arrive... 9. It shouldn't be difficult... 10. He would forget it.
Упражнение 4
а/ в отрицательной и вопросительной формах настоящего времени; б/ в утвердительной, отрицательной и вопросительной формах прошедшего времени.
Используйте слитные отрицательные формы модальных глаголов, где это возможно. См. & 2, пункты 2 и 4.
Закончите предложения, используя must +Simple Infinitive, can't + Simple Infinitive для ситуаций в настоящем времени, и must +Perfect Infinitive, can't (couldn't)+ Perfect Infinitive для ситуаций в прошедшем времени. Переведите предложения на русский язык.
Возможные ответы: 3. have been taken in by his charming manner 4. have read it very carefully 5. have received it 6. have had a quarrel about something or other 7. have been much earlier 8. be getting any better 9. have got to know him very well 10. have been a great shock to his family.
Упражнение 6
Составьте 5 предложений о ваших возможных планах проведения социологического исследования или о планах на каникулы (выходные). Используйте в каждом предложении may, might, may as well или might as well в сочетании с Simple Infinitive или Continuous Infinitive. Cm. &2, пункт 3.
Пример: I may go for a walk with my dog. / I may be working hard on the new data.
Упражнение 7
Определите значение модальных глаголов.
Письменно переведите предложения на русский язык и устно обратно.
Упражнение 8
Переведите на английский язык:
&3. Употребление модальных глаголов по типу Б: выражение совета, рекомендации, способности, желательности, необходимости, обязательности, разрешения, приказа, просьбы и т.д.
Отрицательные формы: cannot (can't), not be able to (= be unable).
A house in London can cost a lot of money.
We are already able to predict the outcome of the events.
I am afraid, I cannot / am not able / unable to do this..
а/ когда действие реально имело место, используются:
Till the end of the 18th century, American Indians could freely migrate across the vast territories of the country. (До 20 века американские индейцы могли свободно кочевать по обширной территории Соединенных Штатов.);
223
Fortunately, he was able to change his opinion on the subject in question. (К счастью, он смог изменить свой взгляд на обсуждаемый предмет. - Речь идет о единичном случае, поэтому использован глагол - be able to-, а не -could-);
1 managed to pass the exam, although I was not well-prepared. (Мне удалось сдать экзамен, хотя я не был достаточно подготовлен).
Отрицательная форма - couldn't- возможна для любых ситуаций:
The professor couldn't agree with my objections. (Профессор не мог согласиться с моими возражениями).
б/ когда действие могло произойти, но не произошло, т.е. оно нереально, к модальному глаголу присоединяется перфектный инфинитив основного глагола: Modal Verb + Perfect Infinitive.
I could have given him an answer yesterday (Я мог бы дать ему ответ вчера. - Подразумевается : "но не дал".). Ср., когда действие реально имело место: I was able to give him an answer yesterday. (Я смог дать ответ вчера.).
I couldn't have given him an answer anyway, because I didn't have all the documents. (Я все равно не мог бы дать ему ответ, т.к. у меня не было всех документов. - Речь идет о нереальном действии).
УПРАЖНЕНИЯ
Вставьте could, was / were able to, managed или их отрицательные формы (см.: 3.1/2а)
а/ We rescue the girl from the fire.
Ы I had forgotten my camera, so I take any photoes.
с/1 looked very carefully and I see a figure in the darkness.
d/ 'I don't quite understand you," said Alice, as politely as she .
e/ The student said there was a few questions he not answer.
f/ Luckily, we retraced our steps and find our way again.
g/ The main road was under repair, but we take an alternative
route.
h/ By pretending to be ignorant of rules, he escape being punished.
Упражнение 2.
Вставьте -could или -could+Perfect Infinitive основного глагола. Объясните ваш выбор. См.: 3.1 /2а,Ь.
а/ Не (drive) a car when he was 14.
Ы When I first arrived in England I found I (understand) English
better than I (speak) it.
с/ It's a pity you weren't in. You (persuade) him to come, if
anyone .
d/ You (see) that he was bored to death.
e/ The doctor (see) you last Monday, but you didn't want to
wait for him.
f/ When they asked for my advice I (suggest) only one way of
solving the problem.
g/1 (get) into the house, because I had forgotten my key.
Упражнение 3.
Объясните употребление модальных глаголов.
Переведите предложения на русский язык
Упражнение 4.
Переведите упражнения на английский язык
3.2.Особенности перевода глагола -мочь- с русского на английский язык
Рассмотрим основные ситуации, вызывающие затруднения при переводе:
Звонит телефон. Может быть, это Том. -The telephone is ringing. It could be Tom. В вопросе высказано предположение, поэтому употреблен модальный глагол вероятности could. Возможно и употребление синонимичного ему глагола might.
Ср. Что мы будем делать? Можем посмотреть (может, посмотрим) телевизор (?).
-What shall we do? We can / could watch TV.
В английском варианте, как и в русском, возможно употребление обоих модальных глаголов - и способности к действию, и вероятности, т.к. смысл при этом не меняется.
Я так устала. Я могла бы проспать год. - I'm so tired. I could sleep for a year.
Я так голоден. Я мог бы съесть лошадь.-1 am so hungry. I could eat a horse.
Сон длинною в год, утоление голода лошадью - это образные выражения, гиперболы, поэтому в таких высказываниях используется - could со значением предположения, а не глагол способности к действию -сап.
Ср. высказывание в прямом смысле: If you are very hungry, we can/could have lunch now.- Если ты голоден, мы можем (могли бы) пообедать прямо сейчас. Здесь значения вероятности и способности к действию взаимозаменимы, т.к. не влияют на смысл высказывания.
Может быть, я куплю завтра новый компьютер. - I could buy а new computer tomorrow. (Вероятность действия в будущем).
Я мог делать все, что угодно, когда жил у бабушки. - I could do whatever I wanted, when I stayed with my granny. (Способность к действию в прошлом).
Благодаря моей гувернантке, я мог читать и писать в возрасте 4 лет,- Thanks to my governess, I could read and write at the age of four. (Действие имело место, оно реально, поэтому берется Simple Infinitive )■
Я мог бы стать хорошим музыкантом, но меня никто никогда не учил. - I could have become a good musician, but nobody ever taught me. (Событие не произошло, он мог бы стать музыкантом, но не стал. Действие нереально, поэтому берется Perfect Infinitive).
Таким образом, предложения с частицей "бы" или вводными словами "может быть" переводятся на английский язык посредством could при соотнесенности с настоящим и будущим временем (см. выше примеры 1-3) и could + Perfect Infinitive при соотнесенности с прошедшим временем (см. пример 4).
УПРАЖНЕНИЯ
Упражнение 1.
Переведите на английский язык
must, have(got) to, need, be to, should, ought to
На русский язык они часто переводятся словом "должен" или его эквивалентами. Сравните:
Таблица 2.
must 1. решение о необходимости действия принято самим говорящим: I simply must tell you what happened. It will help me. (Я просто должен рассказать тебе, что произошло. Это мне поможет.) 2. приказ (обычно от старшего младшему): You must work harder! (Ты должен больше работать! - приказ родителя ребенку)
have (got) to "вынужден" - необходимость вызвана обстоятельствами: Sorry, but I have to tell you what happened. (Извини, но я должен / вынужден рассказать тебе о том, что произошло. Подразумевается: против своей воли; ситуация вынуждает)
need "необходимо", "нужно" I need (to) read this article.
Вопросительные формы, соответственно: Do you need to read this article? / Need you read this article? (need to... и do you need... более употребительны)
be to должен согласно плану, расписанию, договоренности и т.п. I am to inform you about what we discussed at the last meeting. (Я должен проинформировать вас о том, что обсуждалось на прошлом собрании. Подразумевается: мне поручено / меня назначили проинформировать.). The dictionary is to be published in December. (Словарь будет издан в декабре. Подразумевается: согласно плану издательства.).
should, ought to "следует". Это формы вежливого обращения к собеседнику, передающие совет или рекомендацию. You should/ought to be very carefull while making criticism. (Когда вы критикуете, следует быть очень осторожным.) При формулировке приказа используется -must-: You must work harder to pass the exams. (Ты должен больше работать, чтобы сдать экзамены. - Приказ старшего младшему.). -Should- часто употребляется после глаголов suggest, propose, recommend, insist, demand и прилагательных
strange, odd, funny, typical, natural, interesting, important, essential, vital, suprising, etc. 1 insisted that he should apologize. What do you suggest I should do? I was suprised that she should be late. She is usually on time. It's only natural that parents should worry about their children.
had better Cd better) " (лучше) бы" - выражение совета, когда предлагается наиболее разумное действие в определенной ситуации. Используется только с Simple Infinitive и соотносится только с настоящим и будущим временем.
You'd better see a doctor if you are still feeling ill tomorrow. (Ты бы сходил к доктору, если по-прежнему будешь себя плохо чувствовать завтра).
Упражнение 1
Вставьте must, have to или be to
Упражнение 2
Ответьте по-английски на данные утверждения, используя модальные глаголы should, ought to, 'd better to :
Упражнение 3
Переведите на английский язык, используя глагол should после подчеркнутых глаголов и прилагательных/наречий:
Таблица 3.
mustn't запрет действия You mustn't plagiarize. (Нельзя заниматься плагиатом.)
don't have to, needn't, don't need to вы не обязаны совершать действие, но можете и совершить You don't have to participate in the seminar. (Тебе необязательно участвовать в семинаре. Подразумевается: но можешь и поучаствовать.) You needn't (don't need to) answer the letter, if you don't want. (He нужно отвечать на письмо, если ты не хочешь.).
shouldn't, oughtn't to (BE) не рекомендуется совершать действие Sociologists shouldn't/oughtn't to ignore the importance of works on anthropology. (Социологам не следует пренебрегать работами по антропологии.).
'd better not обратите внимание, что частица 'not' стоит после всей фразы You'd better not make a mistake next time. (Лучше бы ты не ошибался в следующий раз.) Однако при построении вопроса 'not' следует после 'had': Hadn't you better see who that is at the door ? А не лучше ли тебе посмотреть, кто это там за дверью?
У пражнение 4.
Переведите на английский язык, используя модальные глаголы needn't, not need to, not have to
а/ если действие реально имело место:
Таблица 4.
Must - have to, had to - I had to learn a lot of things before formulating the hypothesis. (Мне пришлось многое изучить перед тем как сформулировать эту гипотезу.)
need - needed - Analysis of conflict needed to describe both of its destructive and useful sides. (Анализируя конфликт, необходимо было описать и его деструктивные, и полезные стороны.)
be to - was / were to - He was the first to take the floor. (Он должен был выступать первым.) б/ если действие должно было произойти, но не произошло, т.е. оно нереально, к модальному глаголу долженствования прибавляется перфег- ный инфинитив:
Таблица 5.
should - shoud + Perfect Infinitive You should have verified the results before making generalizations. (Тебе следовало бы/ ты должен был бы проверить результаты перед тем, как делать обобщение. - Подразумевается: но ты не проверил.) Форма -should + Perfect Infinitive- обычно несет оттенок упрека, неодобрения.
ought to - ought to + Perfect Infinitive You ought to have identified the roots of the problem first. (Тебе нужно было сначала выявить корни этой проблемы. - Подразумевается: но ты не выявил.)
Однако глаголы must и needn't в сочетании с перфектным инфинитивом имеют иные значения, чем выражение нереальности действия в прошлом:
в/ форма -must + Perfect Infinitive- имеет значение результативности действия, свойственное перфектному инфинитиву:
То get a full pension, an employee must have contributed to the fund for at least twenty years. (Чтобы получать полную пенсию, служащий должен выплатить взносы в пенсионный фонд по меньшей мере за двадцать лет.)
г/ форма -needn't + Perfect Infinitive- означает, что действие выполнено, но сейчас очевидно, что в нем не было необходимости:
Не needn't have repeated all the information to the audience. It was just a waste of time (Ему не нужно было бы повторять всю информацию. Это оказалось просто тратой времени.).
форма didn't need to... означает, что действие не выполнено, и это было правильно.
Ср.: The teacher was happy that he didn't need to repeat the rules.
Everybody remembered them quite well. - Преподаватель был рад, что не пришлось повторять правила. Все помнили их достаточно хорошо.) д/ выражение you'd belter для описания событий в прошлом не используется.
Упражнение 5
Поставьте модальные глаголы в прошедшее время:
Упражнение 6
Переведите на английский язык, используя формы didn't need to... или needn't + Perfect Infinitive:
При переводе предложений с глаголом "должен" в прошедшем времени с русского языка на английский могут возникать трудности, обусловленные тем, что в английском языке существует несколько эквивалентов этого глагола (см. выше
Таблицы 4, 5). Выбор нужного эквивалента зависит от контекста. Рассмотрим наиболее типичные случаи:
Everybody was to come to the meeting, but nobody did.
Употреблено -was to- , которое передает идею запланированного действия.
(Неправильный перевод: Everybody had to come to the meeting, but nobody did. -had to- подразумевает "вынуждены", поэтому такой вариант звучал бы противоестественно: "Все вынуждены были прийти на собрание, но никто не пришел").
Другой вариант перевода:
You were to submit your report immediately on your arrival.
Здесь эмоциональность снята. Говорящий констатирует, что было условлено сдать отчет по прибытии. (При этом из предложения не следует, сдан отчет или нет. Возможны оба варианта.)
(Употребление -had to- , как и в 1 примере, невозможно, поскольку предложение приобрело бы противоречивый характер.)
Третий вариант перевода:
You were to have submitted your report immediately on arrival.
Здесь ясно указывается посредством Perfect Infinitive, что отчет не был представлен своевременно вопреки договоренности или плану
You had to edit your article before it was printed and it lost some of its originality.
Действие было совершено против воли автора статьи.
You should have editted your article before it was printed to avoid
mistakes.
Выражен упрек по поводу несовершенного действия.
Упражнение 7
Переведите на английский язык
Упражнение 8
Переведите на русский язык
Упражнение 9
Переведите предложения на английский язык
Для описания регулярно повторяющегося действия или привычной схемы поведения используется модальный глагол -will-, а в ситуации соотнесенной с прошлым, - прошедшая форма этого глагола, - would- (синоним -used to-).
When he has a problem to solve, he will work at it until he finds the- answer. (Когда ему нужно решить проблему, он обычно работает над ней, пока не находит решения. -Это предложение является не предсказанием на будущее, а утверждением общего характера).
When he had a problem to solve, he would work at it until he found the answer. (Когда ему нужно было решить проблему, он обычно работал над ней, пока не находил решения.).
Если в речи will / would находится под ударением, т.е. выделяется голосом, эго означает, что говорящий раздражен повторением одного и того же действия:
Не will borrow my things without asking! (Он всегда берет мои вещи без спросу!)
Упражнение 1
Замените подчеркнутые слова на will/would +Simple Infinitive Найдите и правильно прочтите предложения, выражающие раздражение говорящего.
Переведите на английский язык
Эти модальные глаголы могут выражать отказ людей совершить действие, а также неготовность предметов к действию в настоящем времени - won't и в прошедшем времени - wouldn't.
The car won't start. (Машина не хочет заводиться) - The car wouldn't start. (Машина не хотела заводиться).
Не was angry, because she wouldn't wait any longer. (Он был сердит, потому что она не желала больше ждать.).
В приведенных примерах -won't - и -wouldn't- не имеют никакого отношения к будущему времени.
УПРАЖНЕНИЯ
Для выражения предсказания на будущее обычно используются: в речи- сокращенная форма '11 для всех лиц (I'll come, he'll come), а также сокращенные формы (ai/1) и (wi:/l) вместо I shall и we shall; на письме - shall для I, we и will для других лиц (We shall arrive, they will arrive). Эти полные формы также характерны для официальной речи.
В некоторых ситуациях полные формы shall и will могут иметь другие оттенки: shall- вера, уверенность 'We shall overcome one day', will - 1) желание, намерение совершить действие Will you marry me? 2) приглашение Will you come to the party? Will you join us? 3) просьба Will you help me? 4) другие значения.
Упражнение 1
Объясните, в каких значениях употреблены модальные глаголы:
240
Для получения разрешения используются глаголы сап (разговорный вариант), could (вежливая форма), may (официальная форма), а также shall/should с местоимениями I, we.
May I leave a bit earlier today? (обращаясь к начальнику) - Can 1 leave a bit earlier today? (обращась к коллеге). - Ответ: Yes, you may / Yes, you can.
Could we join you? (вежливо осведомляемся). - Certainly!
Can I have these envelopes? (просим в магазине). - Here you are. Could I have the salt, please? (за столом). - Of course. Here it is. Shall / should 1 read ? (Мне читать? - Просим распоряжения).- Please, do.
УПРАЖНЕНИЯ
Переведите на английский язык:
&4. Модальные глаголы в косвенной речи
В предложениях, передающих косвенную речь в прошедшем времени, следующие модальные глаголы обычно меняют свою форму:
can - could "You can't leave until tomorrow." They said that he couldn't leave until tomorrow.
may-might "You may have missed the beginning of the story." He suggested that I might have missed the beginning of the story, shall-should или would (для предсказания) "Shall 1 write the preface?"(0TreH0K долженствования) She asked if she should write the preface. 'I shall be able to come' (предсказание на будущее) 1 said that I would/should be able to come.
will - would "I'll do that tomorrow." I promised that I would do it tomorrow.
Другие модальные глаголы обычно не меняют свою форму:
My friend told me 1 ought to stop worrying about my thesis.
The doctor told me I must / had to work less and enjoy my life.
Глаголы, синонимичные модальным, be to, have to, be able to, need обычно меняют свою форму на прошедшую.
УПРАЖНЕНИЯ
Упражнение 1.
Замените прямую речь косвенной
Переведите на английский язык
описываемой ситуации, то есть степени вероятности того или иного события с точки зрения говорящего. В соответствии с этим принято выделять четыре основных типа условных конструкций:
|
Tense/Situation |
If-clause |
Main-clause |
|
Present/Real |
am, is, do smth are |
do smth |
|
Future/Real |
am, is, do smth are |
will do smth shall |
|
Future, Present/Unreal |
were did smth |
should do smth |
|
(was) |
would |
|
|
Past/Unreal |
had been had done smth |
should have done smth |
|
would |
Рассмотрим ряд примеров, иллюстрирующих приведенную схему.
General (not specified) Present (настоящее время, передающее универсальные истины или общеизвестные факты):
If you heat ice, it melts. (Если нагревать лед, он тает, или Если нагреть лед, он растает)
If х equates a and у equates a, then х equates у. (Если икс равен а, и игрек равен а, то икс равен игрек)
If I don’t know the way, I always ask. (Если / когда/ я не знаю дорогу, я всегда /непременно/ спрашиваю)
Future regarded as real or at least probable (реальное условие, относящееся к будущему):
If we catch the 10 o’clock train, we shall (can, may ,etc.) get there by lunch-time. (Если мы сядем на десятичасовой поезд, то поспеем туда к обеду.)
If you don’t marry me, I shall die for sorrow. (Если ты не пойдешь за меня, я умру от горя.)
She will take a walk if weather is fine. (Если погода будет ясной, она отправится на прогулку.)
Present or Future regarded as unreal or highly improbable (нереальное условие для настоящего и будущего времени):
If we caught the 10 o’clock train, we would (could, might, etc.) get there by lunch-time. (Если бы нам успеть на десятичасовой поезд, мы бы добрались туда к обеду.)
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him. /F.-Н. Voltaire/ (Если бы Бога не было, его необходимо было бы выдумать.)
If I were not king, I should lose my temper. /Louis XIV/ (Если бы я не был
королем, я бы вышел из себя.)
Past / unrevertable, hence unreal (нереальное условие в плане прошедшего времени):
If we had caught the 10 o’clock train, we would (could, might, etc.) have got there by lunch-time. (Если бы мы сели /т.е. не опоздали/ на десятичасовой поезд, мы бы добрались туда к обеду.)
If I hadn’t been a writer, I think I should have been a gardener. (Если бы я не стал писателем, я думаю, я был бы садовником.) /А.П. Чехов/
Типы 1 и 2 иногда принято объединять в одну группу, причисляемую к предложениям фактического условия. То есть, предполагается, что данные предложения содержат реальное условие, осуществление которого неизбежно или вполне возможно (в противоположность 3 и 4 типам условных конструкций, в которых речь идет о воображаемом или нереальном, невыполнимом условии.) В русском языке реальное условие выражается, как правило, формой будущего времени глагола (см. примеры: нагреть, растает, сядем, успеем и т.д.) Однако следует помнить, что в английском языке будущее время после if грамматически невозможно.
Предложения 3 и 4 типа обычно соответствуют в русском языке конструкциям с частицей бы. При этом, независимо от реального времени действия, глагол ставится в форму прошедшего времени: Если бы бабушке да бородку, был бы дедушка; ср. Если бы ты смотрел под ноги, ты бы не упал. В английском языке обозначение фактического времени события всегда обозначается дополнительно, накладываясь на характеристику данного действия с точки зрения его вероятности.
Тип 1. Причина и следствие.
Примеры данной конструкции, в силу своей афористичности, нередко используются в текстах научного и технического характера. Они представляют собой высказывания, формулирующие универсальные истины или общеизвестные факты. В этом типе предложений if соответствует по значению (и может заменяться на) when (ever). Грамматическая форма глагола в придаточном предложении здесь безусловно совпадает с временной формой глагола в главном предложении. Ср.:
If I make a promise, I keep it.
(Если я что-то обещаю, я /всегда/держу слово.)
If I made a promise, I kept it.
(Если я пообещал, значит выполнил обещанное.)
If you put nothing into your purse, you take nothing out.
(He наполнив кошелек, ничего из него не вынешь.)
And where / = if/ two raging fires meet together,
They do consume the thing that feeds their fury.
(Коли столкнуться два безумных жара,
То поглотят питающий их гнев.) /Шекспир/
Тип 2. Реальное условие.
Конструкции данного типа представляют предложения, которые содержат реальное условие, то есть условие, осуществление которого вполне возможно, но не обязательно. Вопрос допускает два решения и остается открытым:
I’ll call you, if I need you.
(Я позвоню, если вы мне понадобитесь.)
What shall we do if it rains?
(Что будем делать, если пойдет дождь?)
If you are late, they won’t let you in.
(Если ты опоздаешь, тебя не впустят.)
Рассмотренные примеры воспроизводят ситуацию, когда выдвигаемое условие и его последствия относятся к фактическому будущему времени. Однако ситуация может меняться, и в придаточных предложениях такой конструкции возможно употребление любых времен изъявительного наклонения за исключением будущего времени с вспомо-
7
гательными глаголами will и shall.
7
Употребление глагола will в условных придаточных предложениях в формах настоящего (will) и npouic;iiucro(wow/</) времени возможно только в том случае, если он выполняет функции модального глагола, выражающего волю, готовность или настойчивость в ч.-л. В данном случае will (would) всегда произносится с ударением. Cf.:
If you help me, we can finish by six. (Если вы поможете мне, мы закончим к шести.)
If you will help me (if you will be so kind to help me), wc can finish by six. (Если вы согласитесь помочь мне, мы закончим к шести.)
Итак, кроме традиционного сочетания Present Indefinite в придаточном и Future Simple в главном предложении, возможен также ряд других комбинаций глагольных форм, определяемых общим значением высказывания:
Come indoors at once if it rains. (Если пойдет дождь, немедленно домой.)
What are we to do if she is late? (Что нам делать, если она опоздает?) If you need good advice, consult an old man.
(Понадобится хороший совет, спроси пожилого человека.)
Unless he has done the work to my satisfaction, I shall not pay him for it. (Я не заплачу ему, пока меня не удовлетворит проделанная им работа.)
If she promised to be here, she will certainly come. (Если она пообещала быть там, то непременно придет.)
If you don't hurry and get there before five o’clock, he will have left the office and gone home. (Если я не потороплюсь и не попаду туда до пяти часов, он уйдет из конторы и отправится домой.)
If you will bet (if you insist on betting) on horse-races, you must not complain when you lose your money. (Если вам так хочется играть на скачках, вы не должны жаловаться, когда
проигрываете.)
If you shouldn V (oughtn’t to) do it, don’t do it. (Если тебе не нужно этого делать, не делай.)
The artifacts will be found, should they look in the right place.
The artifacts will be found, if by any chance they look in the right place.
248
If he arrived only yesterday, he is unlikely to leave today.
(Если он только вчера прибыл, вряд ли он сегодня уедет.)
If he hadn 't come when you arrived, he won’t come at all this morning.
(Если он еще не появился к твоему приходу, он вообще не придет сегодня утром.)
If he hadn V left any message when you called, he probably intends to be back before you leave.
(Если он не оставил тебе сообщения, возможно, он надеется вернуться до твоего отъезда.)
Тип 3. Нереальное условие (в отношении к настоящему и будущему).
If you were not so obstinate, you wouldn't get into so much trouble. (Если
бы ты не был таким упрямым, ты бы не попадал в бесконечные неприятности.)
Интересно отметить, что в рамках одного и того же типа условных предложений могут уживаться как совершенно фантастические (Если бы, да кабы во рту выросли грибы.), так и теоретически возможные предположения (Если бы меня избрали президентом...) Ср.:
a If we caught the 10 o’clock train, we would (could, might, etc) get there by lunch-time.(.vz//?/ms7/;o«a/, but possible) Если бы нам успеть на поезд, мы бы добрались туда к обеду, b If I came into a fortune, I would give up working .(hypothetical, but not impossible) Если бы я получил наследство, то бросил бы работать, с If Manhattan had the population density of that of Alaska, it would have only 14 inhabitants, (contrary to present fact, and hence unreal) Если бы плотность населения Манхеттена была такой же, как на Аляске, там проживало бы всего 14 человек.6
Тип 4. Нереальное условие, (в отношении к прошлому).
If a primitive man had had an atomic bomb in his possession, he would not have hesitated to use it. (Если бы у первобытного человека была атомная бомба, он бы, не задумываясь, воспользовался ею.)
В конструкциях нереального условия, в зависимости от более широкого контекста, возможно сочетание различных временных форм главного и придаточного предложений (т.н. смешанный тип). Ср.:
(а) условие или причина относится к прошлому, а ее следствие - к настоящему времени:
If he had not helped us, we would be in a difficult position. (Если бы он нам не помог, мы были бы /сейчас/ в затруднительном положении.)
(Ь) черты характера описываются в настоящем времени, а вызванные ими действия могут относиться к прошедшему:
If he were not so generous, I would have never married him. (Если бы он не был так щедр, я бы ни за что не вышла за него.)
I wish I were rich. (Если бы я был богат!)
I’d rather you told me the truth. (Лучше, если бы тебе сказать мне правду.)
It’s time we reached the place; are you sure we have not lost the way?. (Пора бы нам уже добраться до места; ты уверен, что мы не заблудились?)
Не thought: “If that is true, the consequences will be disastrous.”
He believed that if that was true, the consequences would be disastrous. (Он понимал, что если это так, последствия будут ужасны.)
She complained: ”If I had a car, we should get there pretty soon.”
She complained that if she had a car, they would get there pretty soon. (Она посетовала, что если бы у нее была машина, они бы в два счета
туда добрались.)
EXERCISES
Take the first two chapters of the English Reader for Sociology Students and search them for the conditional sentences of the first type. Write out the statements and discuss their grammatical meaning.
III. Answer the questions with conditional sentences (if you are not sure about the answer, consult the English Reader):
2.If the cap fits,
3.If Jack is in love,
4.If the pills were pleasant,
5.If you sell the cow,
6.If you don’t open the door to the devil,
7.If we didn’t flatter ourselves,
8.If nobody takes notice of our faults,
9.If wishes were horses, lO.lf thou dealest with a fox,
12.1f your joys cannot be long,
13.If an ass goes a travelling,
14.If you buy the cow,
15.If things were to be done twice,
16.If we are bound to forgive an enemy 17.If a fool has success,
18.If all the world were ugly,
II.
k. all would be wise.
m. he goes away.
n. we are not bound to trust him.
o. he will not come home a horse.
p. take the tail into bargain.
q. beggars would ride.
r. so neither can your sorrows.
If I got a job, I’d have to change my whole lifestyle.
If you play with matches, you might burn yourself.
If he won’t come, let me know.
Would it be all right if I used your phone?
If I spoke Spanish, they would have offered me the job.
I would come with you tomorrow if I weren 7 dining with my boss.
If I accepted the job, V d be earning a good salary now.
j. a research design must be developed.
k. we find that apes also are social animals.
Model:
He is thinking of going to England, (to have to learn English)
If he goes to England, he will have to learn English.
possible in meaning to the original sentence, but using the words given in brackets.
Model: It’s a pity I don’t have a car. -1 wish I had a car!
see?
much about our histoiy)
development of culture)
we are all fools, (to think)
manner of painting)
9 Mr. Smith while I’m at lunch, tell him to leave the message.
10.1 can’t possibly advise you properly unless (to hear all about
the matter)
call the police)
ОТВЕТЫ К УПРАЖНЕНИЯМ РАЗНЫХ РАЗДЕЛОВ
Key to exercises from the section "Modal Verbs"
К упр. 1 (стр. 76):
Ответы: a. managed to b. couldn't c.could d.could e. couldn't / wasn't able to f. managed to g.could h. managed to
К упр. 2 (сгр. 76):
Ответы: a. could drive b. could understand , could speak c. could have persuaded, could d. could e. could have seen f. could g. couldn't get
К упр. 1 (стр. 81):
Ответы: 1. must 2. must 3. must 4. are to 5. am to 6. have to 7. must / has to К упр. 4 (стр. 82):
Ответы: 1. We needn't leave / don't need to leave... 2. You don't have to come... 3. I don't think we need to take (to) .... 4. You needn't decide/don't need to decide ... 5. You don't have to go... 6. You don't have to do ..., do you? 7. We needn't do/don't need to do...
К упр. 4 (сгр. 82):
Ответы: 1. Had to 2. Was ...to decide 3. Should have verified 4. Needed 5. Should have worked 6. Ought to have been more carefull 7. Had to admit
К упр. 7 (стр. 87):
Ответы: 1. was to come 2. had to agree 3. should have submitted 4. were to submit 5. were to have submitted 6. should have verified 7. had to follow
К упр. 1 (стр. 90):
Ответы: 1. will sit 2. will often buy and leave 3. will leave 4. would freeze, would have to call in 5. would interrupt 6. would insist 7.would listen 8. will go out and leave 9. would go
К упр. 1 (стр. 91):
Ответы: 1. won't hold 2. wouldn't start 3. won't fit 4. wouldn't seat 5. won't suit
К упр. 1 (стр. 92):
Ответы: 1. уверенность 2. характерное поведение 3. просьба 4. предсказание / нежелание 5. команда, инструкция 6. предсказание 5. характерное поведение 8. предсказание 9. обещание 10. уверенность
К упр. 1 (стр. 94):
Ответы: 1. Might leave 2. Could put off 3. Could see 4. Might ask 5. Could borrow 6. Might be parked 7. Should/would have more to say 8. Would be given 9. Wouldn't be sorry 10. would/should be making, mustn't be late
Key to exercises from the section "Conditional Sentences"
Exercise 1
1 e; 2. f; 3. h; 4. i; 5. 1; 6. m; 7; j; 8. b; 9. q; 10. g; 11. d; 12. r; 13. o; 14. p;
Exercise 4
Если он не захочет прийти, дайте мне знать.
Не мог бы я воспользоваться Вашим телефоном?
Если бы я говорил по-испански, мне бы предложили эту работу.
Я бы составил тебе завтра компанию, если бы не обедал с началь иком.
Если бы я согласился на эту работу, сейчас получал бы приличную зарплату.
Exercise 5
Exercise 6
Exercise 7
Exercise 8
Exercise 9
Exercise 11
Exercise 12
Exercise 14
VI. ЭМФАТИЧЕСКИЕ КОНСТРУКЦИИ
Цель: усиление утверждения.
Конструкция: для времен Present и Past Indefinite; "to do" - перед смысловым глаголом в соответствующем времени, лице, числе.
Пример: I do need this book for tomorrow.
Перевод: "действительно", "все-таки", "на самом деле":
"Мне действительно нужна эта книга к завтрашнему дню."
Интонация: ударение на "to do" .
Целъ\ усиление отрицания.
Типы конструкции:
|
___ |
|
|
NOT |
In- (il-, im-, ir-) |
|
Dis- |
Конструкция-, not uncommon, not infrequently.
Перевод-, а) "вполне", "весьма", "довольно +прилагательное (наречие)", б) "не... не" ("не кажется неизбежным").
Перевод', а) "не без";
б) "It is not without significance that..."
"Также весьма важно, что...".
265
с) "not " - перед прилагательными, наречиями, причастиями с отрицательным значением:
прилагательное
NOT
наречие
J
причастие
Отрицательные значения
Пример: "Sarcasm is not missing in his work."
Перевод'. "Его произведение [написано] не без сарказма".
Пример: It is by no means obvious that he meant exactly this thing.
Перевод: "вовсе не...", "совсем не..." (и в зависимости от общего стиля предложения):"
Вовсе не очевидно, что он имел в виду именно это."
Цель: Выделение
"It is ...that which (who,whom)...".
прямого или косвенного дополнении
обстоятельства
Пример: It was then that the Saint Paul's cathedral began to be rebuilt.
Перевод: "именно";
"как раз";
"только": (а) для обстоятельства времени, (б) для слова "only"; "лишь";
в предложениях с отрицанием - "вовсе не...", "совсем не...": "Именно тогда собор святого Павла начали перестраивать."
В) Эмфатическая конструкция "It is not until (till)... that...".
обстоятельств
Цель: Выделение
Обстоятельственных временных придаточных предложений
Пример-. It was not until after the composer's arrival to London that the score was finished.
Перевод: с добавлением усилительных слов
(а) при выделении обстоятельства:
"лишь", "только";
(б) при выделении придаточного предложения:
"только тогда, когда...":
"Только после приезда композитора в Лондон партитура была закончена."
С) Эмфатическое сочетание "not... till (until)...".
Конструкция: "NOT + сказуемое + TILL + обстоятельство времени".
Пример: "The work was not finished till late in the evening."
Перевод: Сказуемое переводится в утвердительной форме.
Перед обстоятельством ставятся слова "только", "лишь": "Работа была закончена только поздно вечером."
Цель: для усиления и подчеркивания значения второстепенного члена предложения (обычно обстоятельства).
Конструкция: (а) (обычный порядок слов)
(б) (инверсия)
Если сказуемое состоит из 2-х частей, перед подлежащим ставится 1-ая часть.
Если сказуемое состоит из одной части, перед подлежащим ставится вспомогательный глагол.
Усилительные и ограничительные слова, вызывающие инверсию сказуемого:
|
only |
только |
|
not only... but also |
не только, но также и... |
|
so...that |
так... что |
|
hardly (scarcely)...than |
едва... как |
|
no sooner ...than |
как только |
Могут употребляться и для прямого порядка слов
Отрицательные слова, вызывающие инверсию сказуемого:
|
never |
никогда |
|
(in, at, on, of и др.) no... (but) |
никакой, ни один (в соответствующих падежах) |
|
nowhere |
нигде |
|
nobody |
никто |
|
not until |
только; только тогда, когда... |
|
nor |
а также... не, и... не |
|
neither |
ни один; а также... не |
|
neither... nor |
ни... ни |
Таким способом можно выделить целое придаточное обстоятельственное предложение. В этом случае инверсия сказуемого наблюдается в главном предложении.
Пример: "Only after all the accounts had been checked, did he leave the office."
Перевод: "Только после того, как все счета были проверены, он ушел из конторы."
Л-полная или частичная замена сказуемого.
(Эмфатические "so" и "nor").
Цель: Замена сказуемого производится для того, чтобы избежать повтора сказуемого в одном и том же предложении.
Заместители: Глаголы "to do", "to be" и др.
Пример: "Не is very busy now, and so are both his friends."
Перевод: "тоже", "также":
"Он сейчас очень занят, и его друзья тоже."
Цель: Для повествовательного стиля речи, при особом подчеркивании обстоятельств совершения действия.
Конструкция:
[1] [2] [3]
Причастие /часть сказуемого/ -\- начальная часть -J- подлежащее
сказуемого
(с обстоятельством и/или дополнением)
Пример: Related to this phenomenon are also some other social processes.
Перевод: В следующем порядке -
"С этим явлением связаны также и другие социальные процессы."
Модель
[1] И
Именная часть сказуемого -|- Союз
(прилагательное/ (as/
причастие/ though)
наречие)
Пример: Difficult though it may seem, the work has to be finished in two days.
Перевод: "как (бы) ни... + именная часть сказуемого";
"какой... ни";
"хоть и...".
"may" обычно не переводится:
"Хоть это и покажется трудным, работа должна быть закончена через два дня."
В) Эмфатические уступительные предложения.
Модель
[1] И
Союз -(- Именная часть сказуемого
however (прилагательное/
причастие/
наречие)
Пример: However dangerous it seemed, they decided to continue their journey to the south.
Перевод: начинается со слов "как ни...",
"как бы ни...",
"хоть и...",
"сколь бы...":
"Сколь бы опасным это ни казалось, они решили продолжить свое путешествие на юг."
|
however |
как (бы) ни; хоть и... |
|
whoever |
кто (бы) ни; всякий, кто... |
|
whatever |
что (бы) ни; все, что...; какой (бы) ни; всякий, который... |
|
wherever |
где (бы) ни; всюду, где...; куда (бы) ни; всюду, куда... |
|
whenever |
когда (бы) ни; всякий раз, когда... |
Основные трудности синтаксиса
Конструкция: That the author shares this view is quite obvious.
Подлежащее сказуемое
Придаточные предложения вводятся следующими союзными словами:
|
that |
"то, что" |
|
what |
"то, что1’ |
|
if, whether |
как частица ’’ли” после сказуемого в предложении-подлежащем |
|
who |
"кто”; "тот, кто" |
|
which |
"кто из..."; "который из..." |
|
whatever |
"все, что..."; "чтобы ни ..." |
|
where |
"то, где..."; "вопрос в том, где..." |
|
when |
"то, когда..."; "вопрос в том, когда..." |
|
why |
"то, почему..."; "вопрос в том, почему..." |
|
how |
"то, как..."; "вопрос в том, как..." |
|
how + прилагательное |
"насколько + прилагательное" |
ПримерХ'л) "How difficult it was to accomplish this work is seen from his diary." (b) "Whether the author shares this view is not quite clear."
Перевод', (а) "Насколько трудно было выполнить эту работу, видно из дневника."
(б) "Разделяет ли автор эту точку зрения, - не вполне ясно."
Перевод следует начинать с определения сказуемого; в русском предложении перед союзным словом ставится слово "то (тот, та, те)."
"То, что автор разделяет эту точку зрения, - вполне очевидно."
Конструкция: предложения-сказуемые вводятся теми же союзными словами, что и предложения-подлежащие (см. таблицу).
Пример: What seemed most strange in this battle was that the immense army should have been defeated by so small a force.
Перевод: особое внимание следует обратить на перевод глагола-связки "to be".:
"Наибольшая странность этого сражения состояла в том, что столь громадной армии суждено было потерпеть поражение от столь малочисленного войска."
Рекомендуемые способы перевода глагола-связки "to be”:
— состоит в том, что...";
ТО BE представляет собой то, что...";
является тем, что..."; это то, что...".
Конструкция: предложения-дополнения вводятся теми же союзными словами, что и предложения-подлежащие (см. таблицу); делятся на 2 вида:
|
Пример |
Перевод |
|
|
Предложение - прямое дополнение |
Не confirmed what he already know. |
Он подтвердил mo, что мы уже знали. |
|
Предложение - предложное дополнение |
Archaeological ex- cava-tions give us a better idea of how the people of those days lived. |
Археологические рас-копки дают нам более правильное представле-ние о том, как жили люди в те времена. |
Конструкция: предложения-обстоятельства вводятся союзами:
|
when (whenever) |
"там, где..." |
|
where (wherever) |
"в тех случаях, когда..." |
Пример'. "Where the sentences are separated by the colon...".
Перевод'. "В тех случаях, когда предложения разделяются двоеточием...".
Конструкция: предложения-определения вводятся словами "why" и "that", которые стоят после определяемого слова.
Пример: "The reason why he was absent is not clear to me."
Перевод'. "Причина того, почему он отсутствовал, не ясна для меня."
Смысл употребления-, во избежание повторения уже названного существительного.
♦that that one one**
♦those those ones ones**
♦возможен определен- **употребляются без
ный артикль. артикля.
Пример: "Her height is the same as that of her mother."
Перевод', в русском варианте предложения существительное нередко повторяется: "Ее рост такой же, как и рост ее матери."
Частный случай: если после слова-заместителя идет определительное придаточное предложение, возможен перевод "тот, который":
Пример: "This system of calculation is quite different from the one described in the book."
Перевод: "Эта система счета совсем иная, чем та, которая (или: система, которая) описана в книге."
Конструкция: повторяющееся прилагательное может быть заменено словом "so".
Пример: "The first task was very difficult, the last one less so."
Перевод: прилагательное в русском варианте предложения следует повторять, либо не переводить слово "so":
"Первое задание было очень трудным, последнее- менее (трудным)."
Конструкция: во избежание повторения смысловой глагол может заменяться глаголом "to do"; перед заместителем глагола могут стоять слова, требующие эмфатической инверсии сказуемого:
|
as |
как |
|
than |
чем; нежели , |
|
nor |
а также... не |
|
so |
также; такой же |
|
Тины конструкции |
Пример |
Перевод |
|
1. Время смыслового глагола и глаго- ла-заместителя совпадает. |
1. Не stayed there much longer than he usually did. |
1 .Глагол-заместитель можно не переводить: "Он оставался там значительно дольше, чем обычно." |
|
2. Время смыслового глагола и глаго- ла-заместителя не совпадает. |
2. Не stayed there much longer than he usually does. |
2.Г лагол-заместитель следует переводить: "Он оставался там значительно дольше, чем остается обычно." |
|
3. Сложная форма глагола (повторяется первая часть всей формы и служит ей заместителем). |
3. Today he is reading better than he was yesterday. |
3. "Сегодня он читает лучше, чем (он читал) вчера." |
4. 'Which" в значении "что".
Конструкция: "Which" может относится не к одному существительному в предыдущем предложении, а ко всему предложению в целом; в этом случае предложение, которое вводится словом "which", отделяется запятой:
Пример-. "The lime-trees round the house are very tall, which makes the hall dark."
nepeeod:"Which" переводится словом "что":
"Липы вокруг дома очень высокие, что затеняет зал."
Модель
|
The |
прилагательное |
the |
прилагательное |
/наречие /наречие
в сравнительной в сравнительной
степени степени
Перевод: "the... the" = "чем... тем":
|
Типы конструкции |
Пример |
Перевод |
|
1. Прямой порядок слов. |
1. The more he read, the better he understood the language. |
1. Чем больше он читал, тем лучше он понимал язык. |
|
2. Инверсия сказуемого во второй части. |
2. The longer I looked at the picture, the more did it appeal to me. |
2. Чем дольше я смотрел на картину, тем больше она привлекала меня. |
|
3. Отсутствие сказуемого в обеих частях или во второй части. |
3. The nearer the summer, the longer the days. |
3. Чем ближе лето, тем длиннее дни. |
Конструкция: имеет сложную пунктуацию: части предложения, содержащие предлоги, разделяются запятой (эти части всегда являются однородными членами предложения); помимо этого, предлог гделяется запятой от существительного, к которому относится.
Пример'. "After a second journey to, and stay in, America he returned to France once again in 1823."
Перевод: каждый предлог следует присоединять к существительному порознь, гак что иногда существительное может быть повторено (или вместо него употребляется местоимение или наречие):
"После второй поездки в Америку и пребывания там (в Америке), он снова вернулся во Францию в 1823 году."
УПРАЖНЕНИЯ
(А) Инверсия сказуемого:
(p. 145)
Образцы: a) It is quite plausible that researchers might have seriously considered the hypothesis, (implausible)
It is not implausible that researchers might have seriously considered the hypothesis.
It was not until the late 50s the abolition movement spread throughout the country.
Nor were the solicitors allowed to represent parties involved in litigation in front of the court.
Running short of water as the company was, still they continued their journey through the desert.
The closer to the door the policeman was coming, the more impatient Wilson grew.
It was yesterday news that has exasperated him beyond telling.
(as)
/. Переведите на русский язык:
(А) Пуидаточные-дополнения:
24)
(В) Поидаточное-подлежашее:
придаточные в роли членов главного предложения (придаточные-
подлежащие, придаточные-сказуемые, придаточные-
обстоятельства):
Образцы: a) His behaviour evoked our suspicion, (what)
What evoked our suspicion was his behaviour.
Bob takes photo wherever he arrives to.
What he constantly bore in mind was that most of their statements were totally unreliable.
128)
(А) Заместители существительного:
с инверсией:
129)
слова в скобках):
Образцы: a) They act in the same way as most people act under similar circumstances.
They act in the same way as most people do under similar circumstances.
b) Some works by this painter seemed to me almost fascinating, but others were definitely not so fascinating, (less)
Some works by this painter seemed to me almost fascinating, but others were definitely less so.
I. Переведите на русский язык:
Разные предлоги при одном существительном:
I. Переведите на русский язык:
(С) "Yet":
1. Yet it seems that there was a need for a more authoritative, deeper religious legitimation, (p. 143)
Ключи к упражнениям II (c.l 1) и II (с. 15):
GLOSSARY
Chapter 1. Sociology: issues and problems 1 SOCIAL ORGANIZATION /p.6/ - a formal organization which has three distinguishing features: it arises at an ascertainable moment in time; as artefact it exhibits patterns of social relations which are less taken for granted than those in non-formal organization (such as a family) and which organizational participants often seek to coordinate and control; consequently, considerable attention is paid to the nature of these social relations, and to planned changes of them. /Oxford Concisc Dictionary of Sociology, p.370./
Составитель: Е.Л. Поцыбина Глава I.
/Краткий словарь по социологии, стр.218/
Migration involves (more the less) permanent movement of individuals or groups across symbolic or political boundaries into new residential areas and communities . /Oxford Concisc Dictionary of Sociology, p.329/
Narrowly defined, urbanization refers to the city formation. Most sociological attention has focused on the large -scale urbanization accompanying industrialization and the emergence of modem societies.
/Oxford Concisc Dictionary of Sociology, p. 549/
.трудоспособное население , трудовые ресурсы )- часть населения, обладающая способностями и возможностями участвовать в труде в соответствии со своими возрастными, физическими данными, знаниями и практическим опытом, профессиональной подготовкой.
/Экономическая энциклопедия, стр.53/
Э МИГРАЦИЯ НАСЕЛЕНИЯ социально-экономический и демографический процесс, представляющий собой совокупность перемещений, совершаемых людьми между странами, районами, поселениями.
/Краткий словарь по социологии, стр. 159/
/Краткий словарь но социологии, стр. 424/
Both words denote the transition in methods of production which has been responsible for the vastly increased wealth - creating capacity of modem societies compared with traditional systems. Typical characteristics include a division of labour; cultural rationalization; a factory system and mechanization; universal application of scientific methods to problem-solving; time discipline and def- fered gratification; bureaucracy and administration by rules ; and a socially and geografically mobile labour force.
/Oxford Concisc Dictionary of Sociology, p.244/
/Современная зап. социология; Словарь, стр. 113/
Urbanism refers to patterns of social life through typical of urban populations. These include a highly specialized division of labour, growth of instrumentalism in social relationships, weakening of kin relationships pluralism, secularization , increase of social conflict, and growing impotance of the mass media.
/Oxford Concisc Dictionary of Sociology, p.549/
экономический процесс, выражающийся в распространении на все общество городского образа жизни, который характеризуется: занятостью населения преимущественно индустриальными формами груда, широким разнообразием досуга, высокой плотностью человеческих контактов, обусловливающей анонимность и форма- лизованность общения, в связи с чем надает роль соседских связей.
/Краткий словарь по социологии, стр.426/
8 SOCIOLOGY /р.б/
Sociology - is some times seen as the intellectual and often conservative response to the specific social problems which were produced by the French Revolution and the tran-
/Oxford Concisc Dictionary of Sociology, p.8/
некоторое количество людей, собранных в определенном физическом пространстве и не осуществляющих сознательных взаимодействий.
/Фролов С.С., Социология ,1996, стр.345/
sition from a traditional to an industrial society. It attempt to measure and analyse urban poverty, political instability, mortality rates, deseas, crime, divorce, suicide, etc.
/Dictionary of Sociology, p.398/
Sociology may be defined as the study of the study of the bases of social membership. /Dictionary of Sociology , p. 396/
Социология - наука, изучающая структуры общества , их элементы и условия существования, а также социальные процессы, протекающие в этих структурах.
/ Фролов С.С. Социология, стр.351/
Society - a group of people who are share a common culture, occupy a particular territorial, area , feel themselves to constitute a unified and distinct entity.
/Oxford Concisc Dictionary, p.498/
2. в узком смысле: структурно или генетически определенный:
а. Тип (род, подвид и т.п.) общения .предстающий как исторически определенная целостность, или
б. Относительно самостоятельный элемент (аспект, момент и т.п.) этой устойчивой целостности.
/Современная зап. социология, стр.233/
1OAGRARIAN SOCIETIES /р.6/
Agrarian societies are these which combine horticulture and animal husbandry in systems of farming.
/Oxford Concisc Dictionary of Sociology , p.9/
An industrial society is symply one displaying the characteristic features of industrialism. The term “Industrial Society” is also used in the abstract to denote the thesis that a definite type of society exists whose culture, institutions, and development are determined by its industrial production process.
/Oxford Concisc Dictionary of Sociology, p.243/ 10 АГРАРНЫЕ ОБЩЕСТВА - это
доиндустриальныс общества, определяющим фактором развития которых является ссльскос хозяйство, а главными институтами - церковь и армия. /Кравченко А.И. Введение в социологию, стр.25/
ОБЩЕСТВО - это общество , основанное на машинном производстве, фабричной организации и дисциплине труда, национальной системе хозяйства со свободной торговлей и общим рынком.
/Современная зап. социология: словарь , стр. 114/
/Oxford Concisc Dictionary of Sociology, p.250/ The term is widely used to describe social practices that are regularly continuously repeated are sanctioned and maintained by social norms, and have a major significance in the social structure.
/Oxford Concisc Dictionary of Sociology, p.493- 494/
Social system can refer to a stable relationships between two actors, to societies as a whole, to systems of societies, or indeed any level between these.
The systematic properties of social systems thus stem from the nature of social action rather then the system itself.
/Oxford Concisc Dictionary of Sociology , pp. 494-495/
понятие, обозначающее устойчивый комплекс формальных и неформальных правил, принципов, норм, установок, регулирующих различные сферы человеческой деятельности и организующих их в систему ролей и статусов, образующих социальную систему.
/Современная западная социология, cip. 117/
Социальными науками являются социология, психология, социальная психология, политология (зарубежный синоним политическая наука), экономика, антропология, этнография. Социология изучает структуру законы развития человеческого общества, поведение людей. Она способна описать поведение больших масс людей, поэтому тяготеет к статистике. Психология изучает внутренний мир человека. Социальная психология описывает человека в непосредственном окружении, взаимодействие людей в малой группе.
/Кравченко А.И.Введение в социологию, стрЛО/
определенное целостное образование, основными элементами которого являются люди, их нормы и связи. Социальная система образует новое качество, не сводимое к сумме качеств ее элементов.
/Краткий словарь по социологии, стр. 304/
Chapter 2. Sociological research.
SOCIAL INQUIRY /р.20/ - an investigation, especially an official one, into something that has happened or something that people feel needs to be examined.
/Col. Cob-d Eng. Lan. Dic./p.753/
/Oxf. Con.Dic. of Sociology, p.554/ VARIABLE - a characteristic that changes among situations, individuals, or groups and can be measured / M. Spcnccr, p.611/
/р.ЗО/ - a variable consisting of numerical units.
/ J. Shepard. Sociology, p.43/
/р.ЗО/ - a variable that consists of discrete categories rather than numerical units. It measures differences in kind rather than numerical degree. Sex, marital status and group membership are three qualitative variables often used by sociologists.
/ J. Shepard. Sociology, p.43/
Глава 2. Социологические исследования.
СОЦИОЛОГИЧЕСКИЙ ОПРОС -
метод сбора первичной информации в социологическом исследовании, предусматривающий, во-первых, устное или письменное обращение исследователя к определенной совокупности людей с вопросами, содержание которых представляет изучаемую проблему на уровне эмпирических индикаторов, и, во- вторых, регистрацию и статистич. Обработку полученных ответов, а также их теоретическую интерпретацию.
/ Энцик. соц-нй словарь, стр.486/ ПЕРЕМЕННЫЕ ВЕЛИЧИНЫ - объект, свойство или состояние, которые меняются в процессе наблюдения (измерения) качественно или количественно.
/ Крат, словарь по социологии, стр.26/
КОЛИЧЕСТВЕННЫЕ ВЕЛИЧИНЫ
/ Крат, словарь по соц-гии, стр.27/
КАЧЕСТВЕННЫЕ ВЕЛИЧИНЫ -
это величины, которые изменяются качественно, у них изменяются признаки (напр., пол или профессия).
/ Крат, словарь по соц-гии, стр 27/
/Oxf. Con. Die. of Sociology, p.230/
/Oxf. Con. Die. of Soc-gy, p.555/
/ Col. Cob. Eng. Lang. Die., p. 1178/
/ Die. of Sociology, p.366/ 5. ГИПОТЕЗА - утверждение о фактах, эмпирических связях или принципах функционирования и развития социальных явлений, не имеющее эмпирического или логического обоснования.
Гипотеза используется во всех видах социологических исследований, в фундаментальной и прикладных областях. Наиболее общая классификация гипотез в социологии делит их на описательные и объяснительные, в зависимости от основных функций в исследовании.
/ Краткий словарь по соц-гии, сгр.27/ ВЕРИФИКАЦИЯ процедура оценки социологических гипотез, состоящая в сопоставлении их с фактами, положением дел в действительности. Результатом верификации может быть либо подтверждение либо опровержение гипотезы.
/ Крат, словарь по соц-гии, стр.27/.
разновидность опросника, используемого для сбора данных при письменном опросе. Анкета представляет собой тиражированный документ, содержащий совокупность вопросов, сформулированных и связанных между собой по определенным правилам. Анкета рассчитана либо на самостоятельное чтение и заполнение респондентом (при заочном анкетировании), либо на заполнение респондентом после вводного инструктажа, проводимого анкетером (очное анкетирование, групповое или индивидуальное).
/ Энцикл. Соц-ий словарь, стр.27/.
часть объектов совокупности генеральной, отобранная с помощью специальных приемов для получения информации о своей совокупности в целом. Число наблюдений, составляющих выборочную совокупность, называется се объемом (объемом выборки). Определение объема выборочной совокупности представляет собой один из основных этапов ее формирования. Рассчитывая объем выборки для каждого при-
/ Oxf. Con-sc Die. of Soc-gy, p.403/
/Oxf. Con. Die. of Soc-gy, р.319/
/Oxf. Con-sc of Soc-gy, p.461/
знака, значения которых оцениваются по результатам выбором, исследования, можно найти объем, удовлетворяющий требованиям точности по всем изучаемым признакам.
/ Энцикл. соц-ий словарь, стр. 680/
/Энцикл. соц-ий словарь, с'гр. 680/
/ Краткий словарь по соц-гии, стр. 83/
/Краткий словарь по социол., стр. 453-454/
/Eng. Reader for Sociology Students, p.31/
/ Eng. Reader for Soc-gy Students, p. 31/
/ Eng. Reader for Soc-gy Students, р.31/
/ Eng, Reader for Soc-gy Students, p.32/
инструмент измерения, который даст возможность качественно различать предметы и явления по их наиболее общим признакам, присваивая им определенные наименования. При помощи номинальной шкалы измеряют преимущественно объективные признаки респондентов (пол, возраст, семейное положение, профессия).
/ Основы приклад, соц-гии, 4.1 стр. 63- 64/
/ Основы приклад, соц-гии, Ч. 1, етр.64/.
шкала, позиции которой расположены по равным или неравным интервалам, в зависимости от значений индикатора, используемого для конструирования шкалы. Шкапы с неравными интервалами имеет такой вид: “Сколько лет Вы работаете на данном предприятии?” менсс года;
от 1 до 3 лет включительно; от 3 до 6 лет; свыше 6.
/ Осн. Приклад, соц-гии, 4.1, стр.64/.
/ Осн. приклад, соц-гии, Ч. 1, стр.64/.
Chapter 3. Communication and social interaction.
/ Oxf. Con-sc Die. of Soc-gy, p. 199/
получение, обработка и анализ совокупности данных, характеризующих количественные и качественные закономерности социальной жизни, социальных процессов и явлений в неразрывной связи их качественным содержанием.
Долгое время С.с. развивалась в рамках общей статистики. В настоящее время С.с. формируется в отдельное направление. Использует С.с. массовые социологические и статистические наблюдения, методы группировок, средних величин, индексов и некоторых др. Главной задачей С.с. является получение и использование в практике управления данных о ходе выполнения планов социального развития, изменениях социальной структуры населения и уровне его жизни, процессах формирования и удовлетворения потребностей, отношений к различным видам деятельности, состоянии и тенденциях общественного мнения. Для получения социальной информации об общественном сознании и проблемах его развития в социальной статистике широко используются данные социологических исследований.
/ Энцикл. социолог. Словарь, стр 770/.
Глава 3. Коммуникация и социальное взаимодействие.
/ Краткий словарь по социологии, стр.235/
BEHAVIOUR /р.41/ - behaviour is seen in terms of an identifiable and measurable response to external or internal, recognizable, and measurable stimuli.
/ Oxf Con-sc Die. of Soc-gy, p.27/
/ Oxf. Con-sc Die. of Soc-gy, p.483/
/Энцикл. социологический словарь, сгр. 435/
внешнее проявление деятельности, в которой выявляются конкретная позиция человека, его установка. Эта форма превращения деятельности в реальные действия но отношению к социально значимым объектам. Оно представляет собой внешне наблюдаемую систему действия (поступков) людей, в которой реализуется внутреннее побуждение человека. В качестве механизмов саморегуляции Социального поведения личности выступают диспозиции личности, формирующиеся в результате взаимодействия стимулов и мотивов в конкретных условиях внешней среды.
/ Энцикл. социол. Словарь, стр.549/
/ Oxf. Con-sc Die. of Soc-gy, p.71/
/ Oxf. Con-sc Die. of Soc-gy, p. 160/
/ Oxf. Con-sc Die. of Soc-gy, p.472/
/ Oxf. Con-sc Die. of Soc-gy, p.472/
держание и формы К. отражают общественные отношения и исторический опыт людей. Коммуникация - необходимая предпосылка функционирования и развития социальных систем, так как обеспечивает связь между людьми, делает возможным накопление и передачу социального опыта, разделение труда и организацию совместной деятельности, управление и трансляцию культуры.
/ Энцикл. социол. Словарь, стр. 286/
/ Совр. Словарь иностр. Слов, стр. 728/
/ В. Даль, Толковый словарь, Т. 1, стр.536/
Знаки обычно подразделяются на языковые и неязыковые. Знак служит для обозначения чего-либо другого; в
силу этого понимание знака невозможно без выяснения его значения - как предметного (обозначаемый им объект), так и смыслового (образ обозначаемого объекта), и экспрессивного (выражаемые с его помощью чувства). / Философ, словарь, стр. 146/
LANGUAGE /р.45/ - any verbal or non-verbal communication engaged in by humans, animals, or even machins. Human language consists of humanly created and ceasly modified symbols which name, and so may be understood more or less complicatedly and problematically to stand for, the things and happenings that humans wish to talk about. Languages do not consist of individually created and recreated representations, but rather of signs that are products of extraindividual structures of systems of differences (such as alphabets, grammars, lexicons).
/ Oxf. Con-sc Die. of Soc-gy, p.461 /
The link between symbol and referent is not always arbitrary, as was with sign, but may be motivated by an association of attributes (for example, the crown as a symbol of monarchy).
/ Oxf. Con-se Die. of Soc-gy, p.524/ 8 ЯЗЫК - знаковая система любой физической природы, выполняющая познавательную и коммуникативную функции в процессе человеческой деятельности. Язык может быть как естественным, так и искусственным. Под естественным знаком понимается язык повседневной жизни, служащий формой выражения мыслей и средством общения между людьми. Искусственный язык создастся людьми для каких- либо узких потребностей (язык математической символики, язык физических теорий, различные системы сигнализации). Язык представляет собой определенную систему, “структуру”, со своей внутренней организацией, вне которой нельзя понять природу и значение языкового знака.
/ Философ, словарь, стр.551/
закрсплясмость и преемственность.
/ Краткий словарь по социологии, стр.302- 303/
SOCIAL INTERACTION /р.48/ - а form of communication in which actors have to take notice of actions and whishes and aims of others. Social interaction has a systematic character. Systems of social interaction have certain needs of their own which have to be met, required both by the relationship between the social system and its environment, by the internal workings of the system.
There are four such functional needs: _ adaptation - the need to relate to the environment by taking resources from; its goal attainment - the setting of goals for the system; integration - the maintenance of internal order; latency or pattern maintenance - the generation of sufficient motivation to perform task.
/ Dic-ry of Sociology, p.304/
Chapter 4 Social processes.
/The Oxf. Large Print Dic-ry p.636/
/ Энцикл. социол. Словарь, стр.94/
Глава 4. Социальные процессы.
слсдовательнос изменение состояний или элементов социальной системы и се подсистем, любого социального объекта; любая поддающаяся идентификации модель социальных взаимодействий: конфликт, кооперация, дифференциация и т.д.
/ Энцикл. социол. словарь, стр.612/
/ Щспанский “Я. Элементарные ноня-
тия соц-гии”, стр. 199/
/ Shephard. Sociology, p. 112/
COMPETITION /р.53/ - a process in which individuals with different and opposed interests seek to maximize their own advantages and rewards. Competition was defined as peaceful conflict, consisting of attempts to gain control over scarce resources. For Weber, competitive struggles were an inevitable feature of all social relationships and not specific to capitalism.
/ Dic-ry of Soc-gy, pp.77-78/
/ Dic-ry of Soc-gy, p.80/
/ Щепанский “Я. Элементарные понятия соц-гии”, стр. 20/
Фролов С. Соц-гия, стр. 348/
Конфликт - это социальный процесс, в котором индивид или группа стремится к достижению собственных целей, удовлетворению потребностей, реализации интересов путем уничтожения или подчинения себе другого индивида или группы, стремящихся к сходным или идентичным целям.
/ Щепанский “Я. Элементарные понятия соц-гии” стр. 201/
5. ПРИСПОСОБЛЕНИЕ - процесс адаптации индивида или группы к новой среде, принятие культурных норм, ценностей и эталонов этой среды. Процесс приспособления содержит несколько элементов: познавательный - узнавание новой ситуации, обучение новым образцам и способам поведения, психологическая переориентация - то есть использование соответствующих определений и ситуаций согласно при-
quirements of external social world. / Dic-ry of Soc-gy, p. 1/
/ Oxf. Die. of Soc-gy, p.20/
Chapter 5. Culture
/ Perucci. Sociology. Basic Structures and processes, p.577/
/ Щепанекий “Я. Элементарные понятия соц-гии” стр. 197/
6 АССИМИЛЯЦИЯ - процесс взаимного культурного проникновения, через который личности и группы приходят к разделяемой всеми участниками процесса общей культуре. При ассимиляции уже достаточно сформировавшиеся этносы или отделившиеся от них небольшие группы, оказавшись в тесном контакте с другим народом - более многочисленным или более развитым в социально-экономическом отношении (и особенно находясь в среде этого народа) воспринимают его язык и культуру. Постепенно они, обычно в последующих поколениях, сливаются с ним, причисляют себя к этому народу.
/ Фролов С. Соц-гия, сгр. 345, Энциклоп. соц. словарь, стр. 60/
Глава 5. Культура
1 КУЛЬТУРА - это все материальные и нематериальные продукты человеческой деятельности, ценности и признанные способы поведения, объективированные и принятые в любых общностях, передаваемые другим общностям и последующим поколениям.
/ Щепанекий Я. Элементарные понятия соц-гии, стр.42/
/ Oxf. Con-se Die. of Soc-gy, p. 123/
/ Oxf. Con-se Die. of Soc-gy, p.293/
/ Metta Spencer. “Foundation of Modern Sociology”, p.606/
/ Metta Spencer. “ Foundation of Modern Soc-gy, p.611/
такие внутренние факторы, как социальная дифференциация и классовый конфликт.
/ Энцик. экон. словарь, стр. 190/
Эта категория даст возможность комплексно, во взаимосвязи рассматривать основные сферы жизнедеятельности людей: их труд, быт, общественную жизнь и культуру, выявлять причины их поведения (стиль жизни), обусловленного укладом, уровнем, качеством жизни.
/Энцик. соц-кий. словарь, стр. 464/
/ Щепанский Я. Элементарные понятия соц-гии, стр.47/
/ Perucci. “Soc-gy. Basic Structures and Processes”, p.581/
/ Perucci “Soc-gy - Basic Structures and Processes”, p.575/
/ J. Shepard. “Sociology”, p. 126/
обобщенные, типизированные образцы (модели, стандарты, алгоритмы) поведения людей в известной обстановке.
Н.м. бывают иногда объединены в кодексы и переданы четкими, запоминающимися словесными формулировками. Н.м. существуют не только в сознании, а объективированно - в поступках, поведении, моральных качествах личности, в нравственных позициях и отношениях людей.
/Энцик. соц-кий. словарь, стр. 454/
Вера религиозная выступает в качестве высшего проявления человеческого сознания, высшей нравственной ценности и более высокой формы познания, чем разум.
/Энцик. соц-кий. словарь, стр. 90/
/Кравченко А.И. Введение в соц-гию, стр. 66/
/ J.Shepard “Sociology”, p.92/
/ Oxf. Con-se Die. of Soc-gy, p.518/
/ Oxf. Con-se Die. of Soc-gy, p.95/
это такие нормы, ценности, правила, традиции и свойства, которые присущи веем культурам независимо от географического места, исторического времени и социального устройства общества.
/Кравченко А.И. Введение в соц-гию, стр. 44/
/Краткий слов.по соц-гии, стр. 401/
/Кравченко А.И. Введение в соц-гию, стр. 59/
Chapter 6. Bureaucracy.
/ Oxf. Con-se Die. of Soc-gy, p.498/
/Энцик. соц-кий. словарь, стр. 919/
Глава 6. Бюрократия
с пенсионным возрастом. На каждой стадии существуют особые институты социализации: семья, дошкольн. дет. учреждения, школа, трудовые коллективы, неформальные объединения, группы "по интересам" и др. Воздействие каждого из таких институтов обусловлено системой общественных отношений, существующих в обществе. /Краткий словарь по соц-гии, стр. 318- 319./
BUREAUCRACY /р.97/ - a body of administrative officials, and the procedures and tasks involved in particular system of administration, for example a state of formal organization. The characteristics of bureaucracy are hierarchy of offices and the channelling of communication through hierarchal levels; files and secrecy; clearly defined spheres of authority determined by general rules and governed by regulations; and the administrative separation of official activities from private affairs.
/ Oxf. Con-se Die. of Soc-gy, p.35/
/ Oxf. Con-se Die. of Soc-gy, р.313/
ИНФОРМАЦИИ - социальные институты (пресса, книжные издательства, агентства печати, радио, телевидение и т.д.), обеспечивающие сбор, обработку и распространение информации в массовом масштабе. Массовая информация предназначена для численно большой, обычно географически рассредоточенной аудитории и отличается быстротой и регулярностью распространения, практически одновременностью потребления, опосредованным, в известной степени стерсотипизированным характером. Ее распространение - неотъемлемая часть массового духовного общения людей, которое возникло на определенной ступени развития человечества в дополнение к непосредственному межличностному общению. СМИ по своей природе предназначены для широкого и всестороннего обмена
сообщениями в рамках всего общества. /Энцикл. социолог, словарь, стр. 763/
DIVISION OF LABOUR /р.97/ - one of the oldest concepts in social sciences. It denotes any stable organization , coordinating individuals, or groups, carrying out different, but integrated activities. Modem societies as a whole are characterized by an extensive social division of labour, involving the specialization and interdependence of whole institutions and social processes.
/ Oxf. Con-se Die. of Soc-gy, p. 128/
/ Oxf. Con-se Die. of Soc-gy, p.412/
/Энцикл. социолог, словарь, стр. 625/
apparently or actually passes to a managerial elite, appointed on the basis of presumed or credentialed expertise. Large corporations in the private sector are the outcome of joint stock (share) ownership and blocks of impersonally owned and controlled finance capital. In the public sector they typically result from state nationalization and ownership of assets.
/ Oxf. Con-se Die. of Soc-gy, p.94/
/ Dic-ry of Soc-gy, pp.425-426/
/ Oxf. Con-se Die. of Soc-gy, p. 153/
стной деятельности и образующих самостоятельный субъект права - юридическое лицо. Чаще всего корпорации организуются в форме акционерного общества. В частной корпорации большинство акций принадлежит одному владельцу, семье или узкой группе акционеров.
/Энцикл. социолог, словарь, стр. 489/
представляет собой способ организации и упорядочения целесообразной практической деятельности, совокупность приемов, направленных на определение или преобразование (изменение состояния) социального объекта, достижение заданного результата. При этом речь идет о специфических, собственно социологических средствах. Специфика технологии в том, что она алгоритмизирует деятельность и поэтому может быть многократно использована, тиражирована для решения сходных задач, достижения заданных результатов посредством трансляции профессиональной, в данном случае социологической культуры.
/Энцикл. социолог, словарь, стр. 823- 824/
/Oxf. Con-se Die. of Sociology , p.485 /
/Энцикл. социолог, словарь, стр. 763/
Глава 7 Форма правления
I. СОЦИАЛЬНЫЙ КОНТРОЛЬ -
способ саморегуляции системы, обеспечивающий упорядоченное взаимодействие составляющих ес элементов, посредством нормативного (в том числе правового) регулирования. Стабилизирующая функция системы социального контроля заключается в воспроизводстве господствующего типа общественных отношений, социальных (групповых, классовых, государственных) струк- тур.Социальный контроль - элемент более общей системы регулирующих воздействий на поведение индивидов со стороны общества. Отличительной особенностью формы воздействия является упорядоченность, формализованность, категоричность требований, предъявляемых индивиду, их нормативность, обеспеченность санкциями. /Энциклопедический социологический словарь ,стр 302/
поведение индивида или группы, которое не соответствует общепринятым нормам, в результате чего эти нормы ими нарушаются.
/Ф. Фролов. Социология, стр. 350/
E. Durheim and T. Parson being influential sociological exponents of value consensus. 3) The compulsion approach emphasizes power and domination - variously military, judicial, spiritual, economic, - and the capacity of those who dominate to enforce order. Among sociological theorists, K. Marks and M. Weber are notable exponents of compulsion, though neither denies the contributary role of value.
/ Dic-ry of Soc-gy , p. 389/
/р. 123(7?)/-
the term “reference group” was coined by Herbert Human to apply to the group against which and individuals evaluates his or her own situation or conduct. Human distinguished between a membership group to which people actually belong and a reference group which is used as a basis for comparison .
/Oxford Concise Dictionary of Sociology, p. 441/
/Oxford Concisc Dictionary of Sociology , p. 253 /
/J. Shephard. “Sociology” , p. 162/
/Энциклопедический социологический словарь, стр. 411/
/Краткий словарь но социологии, стр. 49/
/Oxford Concise Dictionary of Sociology, p.399/ зации путем овладения политической властью и осуществления государственного руководства стараной. П.п. являются продуктом раскола общества на социальные классы и группы, различные по социально-экономическому и политическому положению и интересам, но осознавшие эти различия и выразившие их в форме политико-идеологических объяснений действительности и программ ее преобразования. Исходя из структуры и внутренней организации П.п. можно выделить кадровые (элитарные) и массовые (популистские); централизованные и децентрализованные; с постоянным и неоформленным; индивидуальным и коллективным членством. По территориальному масштабу деятельности различаются общенациональные и региональные П.п.. Целесообразно отделять правящие партии от партий стоящих в оппозиции, легальные от нелегальных. /Энцикл. социол. словарь ,стр.527/
CONTENTS
Part I
Part II
the Subjunctive Mood) 244
GLOSSARY 293
Типография ордена «Знак Почета» издательства МГУ 19992, Москва, Ленинские горы Заказ № 596 Тираж 500 экз.
АНГЛИИСКИИ
для общепрактических целей
(6 уровней, 420 учебных часов)
Продолжительность 1 уровня — 2,5 месяца.
Объявляется набор на курсы английского языка на все уровни.
Учебные группы до 6 человек. Оплата за обучение проводится в 2 этапа. Группы фомируются постоянно.
Тестирование ежедневно с 15.00 до 18.30.
Занятия в удобное для Вас время и дни (начало занятий в 16.30 или 19.00) 2 раза в неделю по 3 учебных часа. Основная задача — развитие навыков устной речи. Занятия проводят опытные преподователи, работающие на гумунитарных факультетах МГУ, и преподаватели из Англии и США. Предоставляется возможность продолжить обучение в Честере (Графство Чешир, Западная Англия) 20 уч. часов + полный пансион = 260$ в неделю.
Записаться в группы и получить подробную информацию об условиях обучения можно в ауд. 732, 737 (1 гум. корпус МГУ) Тел: 939-33-92
2 См. ж-л "Социологические исследования", № 2, 1994, с. 129-138 (Перевод).
3 Рассуждение о происхождении и основаниях неравенства между людьми.
4 Coefficient - (technical) the number by which something that varies is multiplied. In 8pq the coefficient ofpq is 8.
5 Ethology - the scientific study of animal behaviour, esp. in relation to habitat.
6 Приведенные примеры, совершенно одинаковые с формальной точки зрения , однако, различаются контекстуально. Комментарии, представленные в скобках, определяют по убывающей три степени вероятности описываемых событий. Пример а аналогичен конструкциям второго типа ('If we catch we shall gel’), по имеет более условный характер;
то есть говорящий либо считает такую возможность мснсс вероятной (хотя и не исключает се совершенно), либо стремится облечь высказывание в вежливую форму. Пример Ь более метафоричен. Он отражает ситуации, которые теоретически возможны, но практически почти неосуществимы; или крайне нежелательные ситуации, которых говорящий стремится не допустить. Определенную трудность представляют предложения, не обязательно имеющие в русском эквиваленте частицу бы. (tfl tost ту job, I’d regret it. Мне будет жаль, если я потеряю работу = если предположить, что я потеряю работу, что возможно, но крайне нежелательно). Пример с представляет полностью выдуманные, искусственные ситуации, вступающие в противоречие с реальной действительностью.
188