Power in the Study of Minorities

8/12/2019 Power in the Study of Minorities

1/5

Power as a Primary Concept in the Study of MinoritiesAuthor(s): R. A. SchermerhornSource: Social Forces, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Oct., 1956), pp. 53-56Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2573114.

Accessed: 09/03/2014 09:56

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

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 180.149.52.253 on Sun, 9 Mar 2014 09:56:19 AM
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2573114?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2573114?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup


2/5

POWERAS PRIMARY CONCEPTIN STUDY OF MINORITIES 53him in acquiring a job and in finding temporaryrooming quarters. It does not appear necessary,however, for the migrant to have relatives in largenumbers. (2) In determining the nature of theadjustment of the migrant in his new community,attention should be paid to both pre-migration aswell as post-migrationfactors. (3) This study doesnot give support to the current theory of migrationby stages, but rather supports the point that, interms of subsequent adjustment of migrants, directmigrationis morebeneficial. (4) The length of timethe migrant has lived in his new community is themost important factor in the process of his adjust-ment to all phases of life in the community.

Under what conditions should one-especially asouthern Negro-migrate? The mature Negrowho is married,and who works on a farm or whointends to migrate directly to a northern city inwhich he already has relatives, stands a muchbetter chance of early adjustment to his new com-munity. On the other hand, the prospective Negromigrant who does not possess the above qualifica-tions also stands a good chance of making goodif he acquires a job immediately upon arrival andlives in the community for some length of time. Bymigrating, the southern Negro who acquires a jobin his new community gains everything and losesnothing. This is not so with southern white mi-grantswho seem to gainmainly in increased incomewhile often losing considerable prestige.To aid the migrant in making a successful

attempt at adjusting to his new community, con-sideration should be given to economic, cultural,and social factors which often present problems forhim. (1) Acquiring jobs for newly-arrivedmigrantsor helping them find jobs is a major step in thedirection of their adjustment. Many Negroes donot undertake to migrate unless there is somedegree of certainty that acquiring jobs after arriv-ing at their destination is possible and will not betoo difficult. However, for those who are not ableto secure jobs immediately upon arrival, the serv-ices of both state and private employment agen-cies are indispensable. (2) A major source ofculture conflict for rural southern Negro migrants(as well as for southern white migrants) is the dif-fering racial and social norms of the new com-munity of the North from that of the southernone.The Negro who migrated from a rural communityusually has little regard,in the eyes of city dwellersat least, for property, sanitation, or peace andquieteness. It takes some effort on the part ofneighbors to re-orient him to the norms of his newcommunity if the migrant must know what is ex-pected of him as a neighbor. (3) To be able to takeactive part in the social life of the community, themigrant needs the confidence of neighbors andfriends. Churches, the lodge, and other formalsocial organizationscontribute significantly to themigrant's ultimate adjustment by making con-scious effort to give him membershipand counsel.

POWER AS A PRIMARY CONCEPT IN THESTUDY OF MINORITIES*R. A. SCHERMERHORN

WesternReserveUniversityARK and Burgessproperly nsisteduponthe reciprocal character of social inter-action; from this position it is but a step

to the use of sociological analysisso as to do justiceto both sides of an interaction without sufficientinquiry into the equivalence or lack of equivalenceon each side of the relation. The quest for ob-jectivity has been met by focusing equal attention

on each aspect of the reciprocalrelation, and thusto bias sociological theory in favor of balance,equilibrium, symmetry, and adjustment. By thevery nature of their frame of reference,sociologistsin the Park-Burgess tradition have centered atten-tion on the regular,constant, and equable featuresof society more than on the dynamic, unstable,irregular or uneven ones.'* A modified version of this paper was read at the

meeting of the American Sociological Society in Wash-ington, D. C., Aug. 31-Sept. 2, 1955.1 Jules Henry emphasizes the difference for conceptu-

alization of a theory that assumes equilibrium orstability as a datum, as compared with one that begins,

This content downloaded from 180.149.52.253 on Sun, 9 Mar 2014 09:56:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/5

54 SOCIAL FORCESThis may help to explain why poweranalysis hasbeen relatively neglected by American sociologistsin the past. There are signs, however, that point toan increasing awareness of the importance of thepower concept, and, more specifically, to a con-vergence of agreement on its significance for thestudy of minorities. The searching inquiry ofBierstedt into the theoretical implications ofpower realities, and Hunter's research on thepower structure of a southern community areexamples in point. It has been left to the politicalscientists, however, to do the most thorough andcomprehensiveanalysis of power theory, and theinterdisciplinarynature of the task soon becomesapparent from a perusal of their writings. Of majorsignificance to the discussion below are the

monumentalwork of Lasswelland Kaplan, and thehighly original work of H. S. Simon in a shorter,but more intensive study of the scientific impli-cations involved in power analysis.2Simon's contribution is to show that power, byits very nature is asymmetrical. For example, hepoints out that absolute dictatorialpower is a kindof theoretical limit. In such a dictatorial ideal-typical situation, the decision of A would de-termine that of B without feedback from B to AEmpirically, of course, some feedback is alwayspresent. But our insistence on interactionmust notblind us to the fact that reciprocityis unequal and

uneven. Action on one side of the equation is ef-fective and decisive; on the other side it is re-sistive, perhaps, but it modifies the outcome verylittle. At the most it only qualifies the dominantaction of the firstparty.3Taking into account theseconsiderations let us define power as the asym-metricalrelationshipbetween wo interactingpartiesin which a perceptibleprobabilityof decisionresidesin one of the two parties, evenoverthe resistanceofthe otherparty.The terms party or parties signify eitherindividuals or groups.4 Probability in thedefinition reminds the research-orientedscientistthat potential measurability may be included inthe concept of power, though this aspect of theproblem cannot be discussed here.5 Curiouslyenough, Bierstedt's descriiption of force couldserve well to exemplify what we have calleddecision in our definition. He states that itmeans the reduction, or limitation, or closure, oreven the total elimination of alternatives to thesocial action of one person or group by anotherperson or group. 6If our analysis is correct, whatBierstedt is depicting here is more than mere forceor coercion; t is the wholedecision-makingprocess.

on the other hand, with the assumption of instabilityand then tries to account for stability. He presents con-vincing evidence that the latter alternative is closer tosociological realities, whatever may be said of theformer. Unpublished paper, Homeostasis, Society andEvolution, Committee on Behavioral Sciences, Univer-sity of Chicago, 1954. The present writer is indebted toProfessor Marvin Sussman for directing his attentionto this manuscript.2H. D. Lasswell and A. Kaplan, Power and Society,A Framework forPolitical Inquiry (New Haven, Conn.:Yale University Press, 1950); H. A. Simon, Notes onthe Observation and Measurement of Political Power,Journal of Politics 15 (Nov. 1953), pp. 500-16. Forreferences to Bierstedt and Hunter cf. Robert Bierstedt,An Analysis of Social Power, American SociologicalReview, 15 (Dec. 1950), pp. 730-38, and Floyd Hunter,Community Power Structure (Chapel Hill: Universityof North Carolina Press, 1953). The present writersuggested a power orientation without elaboration inThlese Our People, Minorities in American Culture(Boston: D. C. Heath, 1949), chap. 1. Cf. also G. E.Simpson and J. M. Yinger, Racial and Cultu4ralMinor-

ities (New York: Harpers, 1953), chap. 4.

3 Simon clarifies the point as follows, We mustspecify whether we mean the influence of the elementconsidered as independent, with all the reverse feed-back relations ignored, or whether we mean the netinfluence of the element, taking into account all thereciprocal influences of the other elements upon it.Loc. cit., p. 506.4This is a deliberate departure from Bierstedt whodeclares that power is a sociological, dominance apsychological concept. The locus of power is in groupsand it expresses itself in inter-group relations; the locusof dominance is in the individual and it expresses itselfin inter-personalrelations. Op. cit., p. 732. The positiontaken here is that sociology is a science of interpersonalas well as intergroup relations so that it is artificial to

separate the two as Bierstedt does. The asymmetricalrelation of power is basically the same whether it ap-pears between one individual and another or one groupand another. Power and dominance are closely relatedterms denoting the same relationship.5 Simon's exposition explores this avenue morethoroughly in terms of the theory of games. Loc. cit.,pp. 513-514.6 Bierstedt, op. cit., p. 743. The reader will note thatin this passage Bierstedt no longer insists on the dis-tinction between interpersonal and intergroup situa-tions. If this holds for his definition of force, it wouldseem to have equal relevance for the concept of power

itself.



4/5

POWER AS PRIMARY CONCEPT IN STUDY OF MINORITIES 55The expression even over the resistance of theother party is one dependent on Max Weber.7It simply restates the point above that power, as aconstraining pressure, is often sufficient to over-come the countervailing resistance of any feed-back.A major postulate of the theory advanced here isthat when contacts between two groups with dif-ferent cultural lifelines become regular rather thanoccasional or intermittent, the resulting inter-action crystallizes into a social structure reflectingthe powerdifferentials and the value congruenceofthe two social systems in tensional equilibrium.Inthis brief analysis, it will be impossible to do morethan indicate a few implications of this postulate.What is the significanceof power relations to theminority situation? It is a twofold one. First,power relations furnish the chief agency throughwhich minorities are differentiated. Second, powerrelations enable us to set up a typology of min-orities in terms of their emergence.Since power is of many types or dimensions, itmay be suggested that the forms of power form acontinuumwith traditional values or normsat oneend of the scale, and coercion at the other. Thepowerof tradition is cultural, while, in a sense, thatof coercion is extra-cultural, i.e., involving threatto biological necessities that are subcultural.

Power is regardedas a primary concept becauseit begins at the beginning. Power relations set thebasic frame within which acculturation, discrimi-nation, prejudice, etc. do or do not take place.8In setting forth a theory of this type, it is neces-sary to proceed through definite stages. At theoutset it is important to review the contacts ofwhole social systems or cultures so as to discoverthe major types of power relations within whichthe limited forms existing in the United Statesmay be observed as special cases, not as isolatedtypes unrelatedto other cultures.9In such a review

it is crucial to realize that equality of power be-tween two parties is a rare and limiting case. Froma purely formal consideration it may therefore beexpected that one of the two parties will typicallyestablish forms of superordinanceover the other.A further consequence to be predicted is thatpower will tend toward the coercive end of thescale in these encounters, simply because valuecontrols do not extend to the out-group.It is hypothesized that the instability of thepower situation sets in motion a trend towardequilibriumor resolution of the power clash in oneof three forms: (1) extrusion,where the group withgreater power eliminates the relatively powerlessgroup from the field either by annihilation or bydriving the group from a specified territory; (2)noncontiguous control, where the more powerfulgroup maintains dominanceof the other party at adistance (as in colonialism); or (3) incorporativecontrol, where the superordinategroup brings thesubordinate party within its own geographicalboundaries where day-to-day adjustment and amore efficientaccommodative system are required.In general, the incorporativemode seems to be thedominant one in the United States, utilizing thetechniques of conquest, slavery, or selective ad-mission of immigrants.'0A testing of these cate-gorieswith subsequentmodification can thenbe ob-tained by the use of a researchtool like that of theHuman Relations Area Files.A more difficult test of the theory will come inthe attempt to outline a set of dominant value-systems in various cultures and to note themodifying effect of congruent values on the powerclash. The difficulty is sharpened by the interre-lationships between power realities and valuesystems. In social-psychological terms, value-system here refers to the cultural preferences,selections, and emphases in the social system thatserve as the basis of affective identificationsfor themembersof the society. It has alreadybeen noted7 From Max Weber, Essays in Sociology, translated

and edited with an introduction by H. H. Gerth and C.Wright Mills (New York: Oxford University Press,1946), p. 180.

8 To begin with prejudice and discrimination may bea useful pedagogical device, but unsatisfactory from atheoretical point of view. Cf. this approach in G. E.Simpson and J. M. Yinger, op. cit., chap. 1.9While both Brewton Berry and Paul A. F. Waltertake this universal approach, both neglect the conceptof power. Cf. Brewton Berry, Race Relations (Boston:Houghton Miffin, 1951); and Paul A. F. Walter Jr.,

Race and CulturalRelations (New York: McGraw-Hill,1952).10The reader will find a first approximation to thiscategorization in These Our People, p. 7. The first andfourth categories in the book (groups forced into sub-ordination by conquest; groups forced into strong in-solidarity by a shifting of political boundaries) can thenbe regardedas mobile and nonmobile types of incorpora-tive control.11Note Davis' statement that sentiment implies



5/5

56 SOCIAL FORCESthat power at the noncoercive end of the con-tinuum operates throughtraditionalvalues. In thisform, power is more massive, diffuse, and commonin a relatively homogeneous society with markedconsensus. Consequently it is stable in character.As Russell says, it has on its side the force ofhabit; it does not have to justify itself at everymoment, nor to prove continually that no op-position is strong enough to overthrow it. 12As yet no adequate typology has been developedfor value-systems although Florence Kluckhohnhas made initial progress in this direction.'3Certain relationshipsbetween the two variables ofpower and value factors will appear as in the caseof racist ideas which Robin Williams finds em-bedded in American values.14 One can note thegreater differentials between American and

African society, or between the Euro-Americanculture and that of the American Indian, as com-pared with the differentials between the Ameri-can society and Europeansociety from which thebulk of immigration has come. The intercon-nections between the value systems and powerrelations are still obscure, however, constituting aproblem for further research. Here again it seemslikely that power is the primary concept, since therelation of two social systems is so definitely afunction of the power realities involved, with thevalue variable accounting for variations in ac-culturative forms within the power framework.In closing, it is important to note that thepresentanalysis is related to traditionalsociologicaltheory organically. The older view regarded theelements of social process subsumed under conflictdistributively and reciprocallyin balanced fashionafter the manner of the Park-Burgess model. Inthe present frame of reference we treat the sameelements convergently,.e., as shaping an outcome orfocalizingmany items into determinate decisions.'5There is no contradiction here but simply analternate set of conceptualizations. One is theobverseof the other. It is simply that power in thepresent theory emphasizes the asymmetrical,dynamic, or energisticaspects of the socialprocess;in this way it may be possible to deduce morefruitful hypotheses for testing so as to enlargescientific prediction and control. This in turn willhave an increased pertinence for programs ofsocial action.

the general background of feeling out of which morespecific values emerge. Value, in turn, is more generalthan end. The series sentiment-value-end, is thuscharacterized by increasing specificity. KingsleyDavis, A Conceptual Analysis of Stratification,American Sociological Review, 7 (June, 1942), p. 213.Likewise Lasswell and Kaplan assert, The culturetraits not only determine whether a given object is avalue, but also how much of a value it is, that is, how itcompares in value with other values.... Identifica-tions, expectations, and demands render power authori-tative, and this constitutes consent to the power struc-ture and practices. Op. cit., pp. 98 and 99.12Bertrand, Russell, Power, A New Social Analysis(New York: W. W. Norton, 1938), p. 38.

13Florence R. Kluckhohn, Dominant and VariantValue Orientations, in Clyde Kluckhohn and HenryA. Murray (eds.), Personality in Nature, Society andCulture (2nd ed. New York: A. A. Knopf, 1953), pp.342-357. An elaborated form of this essay is soon toappear as a monograph published by Row, Peterson,Evanston, Ill. late in 1955.

14Robin Williams, Jr., American Society, A Socio-logical Interpretation (New York, A. A. Knopf, 1951),pp. 438-440.

15 In Grafton's words, Without power of some sort,there is no struggle, and the strength of the power willdetermine the effectiveness of the struggle. T. H.Grafton in J. H. S. Bossard et al. (eds.) Introductionto Sociology (Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole Co., 1952),p. 285. Power is therefore a sine qua non of conflict, anecessary, though not necessarily a sufficient, basis ofits operation.


Documents

Power in the Study of Minorities