Social Psychology: An Analysis of Social Behavior

Chapter 14: Personality and Occupational Attitudes

Kimball Young

Table of Contents | Next | Previous

A. Economic Groups.

1. Occupational Status.— No one would deny that hunger and the sex urge are the two dominant physiological drives in human behavior. The sex urge, as we know, may be sublimated and shifted about to all kinds of objects and situations which may, practically, leave the original impulses out of the picture. Although desire for food and drink may be put off for some hours or even days, it ultimately overpowers us if we do not satisfy it in a direct physiological manner. The appetite for food and drink underlies survival. The potency and urgency of these needs lead to a routine manner of satisfying them which we call the economic order. However, the form in which the economic system has developed is the result of historical accidents and causes rather than of the original appetites on which it is based. There is no point in involving ourselves in any controversy about the original appetites and the institutions of communism, private property, or the development of thrift and profit-seeking. Our concern is to note some of the effects of occupations upon social attitudes and social conduct.

At the outset the occupational attitudes of the child arise from the home. They may be favorable or unfavorable to the occupation of the parent. Where class lines are rigidly drawn, the sons naturally continue with the vocation of the father, and in the caste systems the shift from one occupation to another is, according the code, impossible. In our country, however, we find a great shifting from one economic class to another. There is often a tendency for parents to project upon their children the desire to rise in the social-economic scale by taking up occupations above those of the parents. This is seen both in immigrant families and in our older American stock when it is thrown against urban civilization. The shift may not always occur, but the trend is very apparent. Not only the parents but the schools encourage advancement in status. In truth, the ordinary boy or

(320) girl at home and in school is so inculcated with the notion of progress that he feels disgraced if he has not some definite vocational goal in mind. In the main he must look to one which will net him wealth and, therefore, prestige. Occasionally we do find cases where the parents discourage their sons or daughters from trying to rise in the social scale, but in our society such instances are rare.

As an example of change in occupational status the following case of a Freshman who, as an advisee, came to the writer in college is interesting:

Paul is the son of Polish parents but he was born in this country. His father is a stationary engineer, one of his brothers is a mechanic in a factory, and an unmarried sister is a stenographer. He is in college to educate himself to be an engineer. His high school grades are very poor and he has come to college against the recommendation of the high school principal. But the family, especially the brother, is much interested in his educational advancement and the family is proud to have a son in a state university. The boy is determined to make good in spite of the evidence of mediocre ability given by his high school grades.

It remains to be seen if his emotional drive can compensate for what appears to be a lack of ability to do college work. But he is typical of thousands of boys from immigrant families who are attending college in the interest of improving their economic and social status, but at the cost of enormous sacrifices at home.

To illustrate a very common phenomenon of the influence of family life on vocational choice, we may consider three cases from the writer's own files:

(i) The Y. family is made up of five boys and two girls. The father is an expert cabinet maker. His children all seem to have a bent for mechanical work. One of his sons followed his own trade, one is a master plumber and another a journeyman plumber. The fourth boy is a painter. Only the youngest son has failed to take up some trade seriously. The eldest daughter married early, but the second girl works in an office. Although the parents were economically handicapped in their efforts to provide further education for their children, they lived in a community where high school and college education was inexpensive and easily available. in tact, the home was across the street from the campus of a good college. Yet none of the children attempted to attend the college. Here is an instance of family stimulation plus a desire to make money early in life.

(ii) The G. family is made up of two children a girl and boy. The father

(321) is an attorney for several corporations in which his wife's family and he himself are financially interested. The family conversations revolve very much around making money, business deals, losses and profits and prospects for the future. While the father is well educated his whole life is bound up in moneymaking. The small boy very early began picking up the attitudes of his father. He would invite visitors to play simple card or other games with him for money. He soon became quite a trader among the boys of his neighborhood and at an early age began soliciting for newspapers and magazines. As he has grown up this trait has not changed except in the extent of his money-making activities.

(iii) The H. family is made up of five daughters and two sons. The father is a retired farmer and rentier. He never made any money, but after inheriting a modest patrimony he retired to read and think over the world's problems. The eldest son left home early and entered a trade. The girls all took to business or teaching, but the youngest child, the second son, was brought up under the influence of his father's leisurely habits. The father although a man of slight formal education was widely and profoundly read. He and an old retired physician of the town would sit for hours— discussing philosophy, economics, biological problems and contemporary civilization. Although the youngster frequently did not understand what it was all about, he did acquire a certain method of attacking problems and an attitude toward alleged facts and loose statements which he carried over both to the grammar school and especially to the Sunday school with distinctly disastrous effects for the teachers. In the home were books of good literature, the works of Tom Paine, Robert G. Ingersoll, Thomas Huxley, Charles Darwin, and much of Herbert Spencer. The father leaning heavily to individualism found Man versus the State by Spencer valuable reading. Schopenhauer curiously enough was the most common philosopher at hand. The boy showed the effects of his fixation on his father in his reading interests.

The father was not altogether an introvert, but spent much of his time out of doors hunting and fishing. The boy accompanied him on these expeditions. In coming and going the father and son talked for hours on all sorts of things, from a description of the geological formations of the mountains in which they lived to problems of international politics, such as the United States and the Philippines. The boy was keenly absorbed in geography and history and really knew more of these subjects than his high school teachers. At the age of thirteen he had read Tylor's Anthropology and in his high school he came into contact with men in the social sciences and psychology who doubtless stimulated in him a definite interest toward these fields.

In this family there was little talk of money, except that one had to be careful about expenditures, as there was not enough in the family exchequer for any extravagances. But there was no talk of the art of making money and the few adolescent attempts of the boy to sell things ended disastrously for want of self-confidence and a good technique. While the father had once learned and

( 322) practiced a good trade, the boy never learned more than the rudiments of carpentry during one summer vacation. Although he lived much out of doors during the summers until he was in college, his fundamental interests tended more and more toward those of a scholar. He loved books although he confesses that as a youth he did not read many novels or find time for all the books he would have liked. But he retained what he did read and this coupled with his father's stimulation, gave him a distinct bias toward the teaching profession. He has now no keen interest in money-making and although he can on occasion do such things with his hands as making a table or putting up a shelf, or attending to simple repairs on his automobile, he really has no interest in handicrafts. The only muscular habits which he retains are those found in games which he plays, but even here his interest is one of health and not genuine concern in the things for themselves. His whole world of values is found in research, writing, and teaching.

While all of the factors involved in the determination of occupational interest are not here exposed, it is clear that the framework of one's vocation is the result not alone of economic opportunity but of values laid down for the child in the family and neighborhood. Both cultural and personal-social conditioning assist in determining which occupation one will take up.

2. Personality and Machine Production.— Occupational status in the pre-industrial age was very different than it is at present. Profound changes have been brought about in our methods of manufacture by the introduction of specialized power machinery. The social and personal effects of these alterations have been ably discussed by Hobson, Veblen, Tead, Mecklin, and others. Where the handicrafts thrived and men took to the making of a pot, the weaving of a rug, or the tillage of the soil as a more or less unified activity, the effects of these habits on personality organization were doubtless different from those of present-day machine production. Under the old handicraft system a man's tools were a part of himself. Moreover, the product of a man's labors was a unified, complete object. It's inception and finish constituted a whole consummatory act involving the entire personality. Today men operate machines making only a small part of the manufactured article. There is little or no conception of the finished object as the outcome of one man's skill. There is decidedly little feeling of one's self being put into the product. Pride in workmanship and sense of personal possession do not develop in a factory where a workman goes on hour after hour, day after day, in the following fashion:

( 323)

Up one line and down another goes a continual stream of motor parts in the process of assembling. One man fits the parts together so that the bolt holes come right. The next man slips the bolts in place. The next has a pan of nuts before him and all day long he scoops them up and with his fingers starts them on the thread of the bolts. The next man has a wrench and he gives them the final twist that makes them tight.[1]

The artistry of the product is transferred from the man to the machine. Furthermore, routine factory production has a distinct effect upon the man's ideas, attitudes, and habits. As Veblen puts it:

There results a standardization of the workman's intellectual life in terms of mechanical process, which is more unmitigated and precise, the more comprehensive and consummate the industrial process in which he plays a part . . . . A habit of thinking in other than quantitative terms blurs the workman's quantitative apprehension of the facts with which he has to do . . . . The machine process compels a more or less unremitting attention to phenomena of an impersonal character and to sequences and correlations not dependent for their force upon human predilection nor created by habit and custom. The machine throws out anthropomorphic habits of thought. It compels the adaptation of the workman to his work, rather than the adaptation of the work to the workman. The machine technology rests on a knowledge of impersonal, material cause and effect, not on the dexterity, diligence, or personal force of the workman, still less on the habits and propensities of the workman's superiors. Within the range of the machine-guided work, and within the range of modern life so far as it is guided by the machine process, the course of things is given mechanically, impersonally, and the resultant discipline is a discipline in the handling of impersonal facts for mechanical effect. It inculcates thinking in terms of opaque, impersonal cause and effect, to the neglect of those forms of validity that rest on usage and on the conventional standards handed down by usage.[2]

The machine has changed the situations toward which a man must orient himself in his material adjustments, and thus it has affected his life organization. The machine is impersonal and inhuman. It is external to the worker in a way that hand tools were not. Where every movement of wrist, anti, deft fingers played a past, along with the mental picture of the carving or the rug to be made, the individual in a sense injected or wove his personality into the object. When the mechanical turning of a

(324) crank, the throwing of a gear, or the release of a stamp machine with the foot is all that is needed through a repetitious system all day along, the workman develops a different organization of both covert and overt behavior patterns. His chief concern is not the standardized product, but his money wages and what they will buy. The only nexus between a man and his product is money. Mecklin remarks:

Machine production tends to obscure the joy of creative effort and to fix the attention upon the possibilities for possession . . . . The result is that the intention of worker as well as of business man is not so much the creation as the exploitation of wealth. To get something CHEAP, that is, with as little expenditure of time, energy or money as possible, comes very near being the dominating MOTIF in the industrial world.[3]

It has often been said that the machine process dissipates creativeness. Miss Marot remarks:

The tenure of each man employed in production is finally determined not by any creative interest of his own or by his employer, but by whether in the last analysis, he conforms better than another man to the exigencies of profits. . . . A factory employee is required to do a piece of work; and he does it, not .because he is interested in the process or the object, but because his employer wants it done .[4]

What stimulation is there for millions of workers to feel an urge for inventiveness, for alteration of pattern in terms of individual wishes or novel conceptions, when work comes to them already laid out, and when usually their part in the process is only one two-hundredth of the whole anyway? Under such conditions it is hard to be inventive.

On the other hand, the wealth of incentive to improve processes was never greater than it is today, but the single, hermit-like workman-inventor is giving way to the trained expert who, with all of the facilities of modern science at hand, deliberately sets out to improve some industrial or commercial process. Thus motivation to invention in the mass of workers tends to be suppressed, while creativeness becomes the special province of trained experts and engineers. This segregation of impulse in terms of education and opportunity probably means that in the masses there is actu-

(325) -ally a considerable loss of creativeness in their culture pattern and a substitution of vicarious experiences to offset the dull work of factory or office.

The machine is not an unmitigated evil by any means. Higher standards of living and more leisure have had amazing effects upon millions of people. In other words, the personality of the common laborer is greatly expanded on the side of contacts with the outside through newspaper, radio, moving picture, and automobile, made possible by money wages. But his interest in creation of material objects on his own initiative is quite lost. This means a remarkable recasting of personal values in terms of occupations. Values tend to be less in the occupation itself and more in the expenditures which the wages make possible. This psychological separation of the workman from his work is one of the most striking features of modern machine production.

Machine production in many instances frees the worker from close attention to every movement in his work so common in the case of the skilled handicrafts. This condition leaves the individual free to give attention to subjective matters. Elton Mayo has shown how important daydreaming may become in the worker's life. Reveries take on various contents and offer a means of taking up the emotional slack produced by machine control of overt activity. These fantasies may be of antagonistic sort in regard to the management, towards the man's family situation, etc., or of more pleasant sort. It is evident that mechanization of industrial processes does not alter the place of introvertive, fantastic associations although it may shift their nature and direction.

Another effect of the machine upon the personality is the frequent induction of fear. The tools of the handicrafts are rarely dangerous. While a man may occasionally cut himself with a sharp-edged knife or other tool, on the whole there is nothing in the working situation to set up fear responses. Power-driven machinery is different. There is always danger of becoming entangled with belts, pulleys, and other mechanisms. Here we find, as Veblen says, that the workman is the slave of the machine, not its master. In the early days of factory production there occurred frequent and often tragic accidents to life and limb. Protective devices have been installed, both through legal enforcement and through the desire of employers to safeguard their workmen. Yet, in spite of these efforts at protection, there is no doubt that anxieties may be built up in workers through see-

( 326) -ing accidents to others and through experiencing them personally. Fatigue, loss of attention through monotonous repetition of acts, and lack of interest in the production may lead to greater frequency of accidents. The following narrative from a young worker in a grinding works is instructive:

I had been warned of the dangers and for several weeks as I went in and out of the different departments, I feared nothing. Oftentimes I stood and watched these men work. One day though, as I was going through the "siding" department in search of special hard wheels which are used for forming the designs on cut glassware I heard a slight cracking noise which was followed by a loud crash. A wheel some thirty inches in diameter and four or five inches in thickness had ripped the guard off, breaking into three chunks. The wheel had been traveling at a rate of eight hundred revolutions per minute. One of the pieces flew up into the ceiling but on its way glanced off the poor workman's head. The man was immediately rushed to the shop hospital and thence to the city hospital. He did recover after some time but was never able to return to work. After that I seldom went through that department and when I did pass through there I did so with great care.

The following year I was offered a job running one of those siding machines, but of a smaller type. I was to receive good money and I knew two other fellows who were to accept similar jobs. I did not want to show my fear, so I accepted the job. I worked the whole summer without a single accident while at the machine. However, one afternoon a severe thunderstorm broke loose. The power went off and the lights went. There was nothing to do but hang around for awhile. My machine was situated close to a steel support and the wiring to my light ran through a jointed steel tubing which, I noticed later, had been pushed up against the steel support. I was leaning back on my stool against the girder when suddenly the lights flickered and the belts jerked simultaneously with a crash of lightning. In an instant I was thrown to the floor but received no injury.

Later I was put to work on a "Norton Grinder." This kind of machine grinds the external surfaces of cylindrical pieces of steel. The machine is regulated so as to take or rather grind off any amount from a half-thousandth up to fifteen thousandths at a single chip. Four days I had been manipulating this machine with great success. On the fifth day just before closing time I had a piece all ground, but to waste a couple of minutes 'l let the wheel run, which by the way travels at four or five thousand revolutions per minute. From some undetermined reason the wheel seemed to "purr" and so I stepped over to see what the trouble was. Before I had time to wink, the piece of steel was forced out at a terrific speed, striking me just over the right eye. I saw "stars" all right but did not faint. A fellow-worker had shut the power off as my mind was a blank. I

( 327) "came to" and picked the piece of steel up from the floor and threw it nervously on the bench. The blood was streaming down my face, still I could not feel it. The "boss" arrived and inquired what had happened. He shouted in a fashion that did not suit me (I found out later that he was more excited than I) and my fear seemed to change to anger. I felt strong and I felt that I wanted to smash the machine and the boss and then "throw up" my job. Yet my actions were inhibited and I was nervous. I was sweating coldly and words failed me. My cousin, a toolmaker, happened to come along and brought me immediately over to the nurse. I was bandaged up and after soothing the gash, I still had a headache which I attribute to my nerves which were shattered. The next day I went to work with a greater courage but was very careful how I inserted each piece into the machine. That day a piece shot out and struck me just below the shoulder. I had now learned to stand to one side while the machine was in operation. I felt now that I was overcoming my fear of this machine. Three days later I again heard a whirring noise and I stepped to one side just in time to get a glimpse of the piece of steel, driven by the great speed of the grinding wheel, shoot over a fellow-worker's head, and then smash through a window to land on the other side of the road which passed by the shop. That was enough for me. The "boss" again came over, this time questioning me as to what I was trying to do. Again my fear changed to anger and I walked away without saying a word. I spoke to. the superintendent about my troubles, whereupon he transferred me to the assembling department which was connected with the tool-room. The superintendent got into connection with the Norton Company, the makers of the grinding machine. The following day two experts arrived. I was questioned and the machine was carefully scrutinized. I was freed from any blame whatever and the fault was attributed to the fact that the wheel was of the wrong grade and size for the job. Although I was asked to do some small, odd job on the grinder I would never do it. Something seemed to haunt me.

The following summer I took a job in another tool-room. I had a feeling when I first entered the shop that if the foreman asked me to run an external grinder he was going to be "out of luck" so far as I was concerned. I was given several jobs for that machine but through a petty boss I managed to avoid them and get other things to do. I have a slight suspicion that if I really had been forced to work on the machine I would have done it.

The results of fear are painful for the time being, and forgetfulness follows. I remember distinctly that about two nights after my accident on the machine T hart a dream. This dream brought me through my experience again, giving clear-cut pictures of the machine, the boss, my fellow workmen, and the nurse. A cold sweat came over me and I remember waking up, my mouth being very dry and I was trembling all over. Fear is a complex of bodily sensations.

In my experiences I could not feel a good result with the exception of the

(328) warning to be more careful. It kept me on my nerve all the time so that whenever I tended to feel sleepy I immediately "snapped out of it" for fear of having another accident.

Another factor of importance in modern machine production is fear of losing one's job, fear of ill health, of over-aggressive bosses and employers. And of course on the side of the employers there is fear of "soldiering," sabotage, strikes, and discontent of workmen. As MacKenzie King remarks: "Now the peculiar thing about fear is that fear begets fear. Thus a vicious circle is produced: labor fears capital, which makes capital fear labor, and so on ad infinitum." [5] This is merely an instance of social interstimulation and response. And when associated with decided in-group— out-group values and attitudes these fears become distinctive factors in restlessness, anxiety and antagonism between employers and employees.

3. Class Consciousness and Occupation.— That a certain class consciousness arises from occupational developments is self-evident. We witness here the same features as in other social groupings welded into common interest out of conflict and competition. We have at present, roughly, three groupings: the capitalist employers, including business men; the laborers; and the professional classes, which stand between the other two.

a. The Employer Class.— The employers develop a class consciousness when it becomes necessary for them to give up strictly individualistic competition for coöperation in the presence of outside competition, or to develop a control of the labor supply or to enhance their prestige with the public that uses their goods. Under the guidance of the ideology of the competitive profit-seeking system, the employers develop a set of attitudes of domination, of self-interest, and of business success which they rationalize in terms of public good. These they project on other groups, especially the church and school, as socially worth while. Babson's Religion and Business is an illustration of the close linking of Puritan thrift, acumen, and temperance with the ethic of business. He remarks:

Statistics lead me to believe that the faith, industry, thrift, and enterprise in people is largely due to religion . . . . Where people are religious, there are found enterprise, industry and thrift. Where people are irreligious, are found indifference, wastefulness, and extravagance . . . . Ninety-five per cent of the

(329) people who do not get along well materially owe their misfortune to lack of these religious qualities of faith, industry, courage, imagination and thrift. This means that the real great work of the church today lies in reviving these great productive qualities in the souls of the masses.[6]

Such a view should not surprise us when we realize that Puritanism and Capitalism have grown up hand in hand in our society. The psychology of modern employers and business men can not be understood without reference to this fact. One should read Tawney's Religion and the Rise o f Capitalism (1926) for details of the intimate relation of modern business enterprise to religious-moral attitudes in our society.

Employers have a sense of superiority, of self-importance, and an egocentrism to be found in all organized in-groups. The attitudes are not different from what they are in a primitive tribe or a self-righteous religious body; only the objects of attention and action are different. Employers regard themselves as representatives of sound social and economic progress. They rationalize the profit-seeking motive in terms of material and moral advancement. They use the school, the church, the press, and the political state in indirect but effective manner to enhance their importance and to secure popular approval. Toward their enemies, business competitors and the laboring classes, they have antagonistic attitudes just as any in-group has toward an out-group. They blame the laboring groups for obstructing natural competition in the labor market with their unions, rules of work, and fixed wages. To defeat their business opponents they attempt to secure monopolies which will destroy competition in the market. Havemeyer once remarked that it was his ambition to refine all the sugar of the American people, and Gates of the American Steel and Wire Company announced that his corporation aspired to control the wire output of the world.

The development of the business-industrial corporation has been an important factor affecting the growth of these attitudes of dominance. As Williams puts it:

Once the trend toward monopoly is started under the impulsion of the rivalrous and dominating dispositions of masterful personalities, other psychological conditions tend to accentuate it. The big concern and the names of successful organizers associated with it exercise a suggestive control over the public.

( 330) It can afford to advertise extensively. Even an enterprise that is not economically monopolistic may acquire a prestige over rivals, through advertising and otherwise, that makes it what we might call a psychological monopoly, "a monopoly of custom and prestige. This form of monopoly is sometimes of great value, and is frequently sold under the name goodwill, trade marks, brands." . . . When a corporation is also economically monopolistic, this adds many new ways of advertising and perfecting the psychological monopoly. Its mere bigness and importance in the industrial world causes it and its officials to be frequently referred to in the papers, and its products and name are distributed everywhere among the people. Thus it builds up a reputation in the community until people come to react to their attitude to the establishment, without considering whether or not its goods are superior. When a number of great corporations have attained this psychological advantage, popular sentiment for breaking up monopolies begins to weaken, and courts begin to find reasons for justifying their existence. The monopoly has acquired a social-psychological foundation and courts attempt to give it a legal foundation.[7]

This is precisely what has happened in this country in the last fifty years. The trend toward monopolies has caused a shift in the popular rationalization of their existence. The social psychologist is further interested to note that the older individual bargaining, the laissez-faire philosophy, in regard to the relations of employers to laborers continues. No shift in popular rationalization about monopolies in the control of the labor supply has occurred to correspond with the shift in attitude toward industrial monopolies.

The corporation has another interesting aspect psychologically. It is an impersonal, legal fiction, but with powers of contract and bargaining. It can be sued and can sue, as can a person. It is a part of the objective, materialistic mechanization of the economic order. The corporation is the final form of institutionalization of the present-day economic system. While it is controlled by human beings, its organization and profit-making purposes set the framework, in large measure, in which habits and attitudes are built up. The economic-legalistic ritual of corporation relationships is definitely a part of our whole culture schema.

The boy or girl brought up in the employer class takes on the attitudes of domination, importance, and superiority which go with this setting. He must conform to the mores of corporation finance, corporation management, and corporation purposes of profit-making. Attempts to do other-

( 331) -wise lead to reactions against the management or owners by other corporations and owners. Any breaks in the solid wall of self-protection, in relations with the public, in the field of selling, or in relations with workmen, beyond what is demanded by the power of these other groups, are plain treason. "A business man must conform. If he does not, he is guilty of the worst crime in the catalogue of business." One recalls the subtle but effective pressure put upon George F. Babbitt in Sinclair Lewis' novel by his fellow business men when Babbitt attempted to be kindly and open-minded about his former friend who had turned radical. Save in rare instances one can not at once belong to the employing class and have any attitudes toward organized labor except those of antagonism and avoidance.

b. The Working Classes.— The laboring groups tend, under stress, to develop antagonistic attitudes toward the employer groups. The earlier relation of employer to his workman, such as existed in the medieval guilds or in the domestic manufacturing period, has disappeared with machine production and with capitalistic financial and corporate organization of business and industry. Class consciousness among the workers developed from the stress of long hours, low wages, unemployment, and bad working conditions. In the first half of the nineteenth century there arose in England and on the Continent a number of social-economic movements aimed at betterment of the conditions of the laboring classes. Various utopian socialistic schemes were advanced. It was the period of Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, Robert Owen, Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, and Ferdinand Lassalle. There was in England, especially, important factory legislation in which the political state cut across the conflict between labor and capital. In the latter half of the nineteenth century there arose strong labor unions both inside and outside the socialistic-anarchistic philosophical systems. Organized labor became a definite aspect of the economic culture pattern of our time, especially in the skilled trades.

The union, like the gang, is integrated through conflict with the outside. It develops the marks of an intense in-group toward various out-groups. There arises a code of conduct, regulating the actions of members toward each other, toward non members among the laboring classes, as well as toward employers. In fact, unionists look down with more disdain on the unorganized, unskilled laboring men than they do on their employers. The former are outside the pale. They are inferior and weak, and deserve what they get because of their ignorance and folly. Toward powerful em-

( 332) -ployer organizations the unionist may feel bitterness and fear. But contempt is about all he has for his unorganized non-union co-laborers.

The trade union is frankly an organization developed to retain some control over the productivity of labor. As the capitalist has absorbed the instruments of production, he has a distinct advantage over his employees. The union bargains collectively, that is, as a group, with the employer for conditions of labor-hours, wages, sanitation, apprenticeship, and the like. These agreements mean a standardization of working conditions without reference to individual differences among the workmen. This formalization is protective. It produces a sense of social solidarity against the out-group, the employers. To admit variability in ability or skill would be to admit the falseness of the standard wage per hour, the regular hours, the routine of apprenticeship. It would open the gates to a breakdown of union strength. It might encourage pace-setting, piecework, and other alleged evils in which the abler workman is set against his duller and weaker brother.

Other devices of protection are restriction of output and insistence on the closed shop. As Carleton puts it:

The anti-social practices of labor organization such as restrictions of output and the insistence upon the closed shop with the closed union, are rooted in no small measure in two circumstances:-(z) Bitter opposition to labor organization on the part of employers and employers' associations, and (ii) the lack of regularity in industry leading periodically to temporary closing of plants and to unemployment . . . . The demand of the unions for a closed shop is the natural sequel to the employers' discrimination against the man who carried a union card.[8]

It is one closed corporate body against another. Loyalty, obedience, and conformity to rules with no individual bargaining are emphasized in the union. During a strike the workman must follow the decision of his group, or run the risk of punishment and banishment from the union.

It is in the strike that the attitudes and habits of the two groups become most apparent. As the employers rationalize their standpoint in terms of classical laissez-faire economics, that is, individual bargaining anti purchase of labor as a commodity without reference to group organizations, so the unions develop their defenses in terms of collective responsibility, the larger social ethics, "rights" to some regulation of their working con-

( 333) -ditions and wages, and, above all, the protection of the individual workman against the overpowering odds which they believe the employer to possess. One of the most powerful employers' organizations thus states its case against the unions:

The National Association of Manufacturers believe in the principle of the open shop— the right of a man to work where he pleases, without dictation, without molestation and certainly safe from murder, whether a man belongs to a labor union or does not belong to a labor union.[9]

The employers throw blame for union organization and strike fomentation upon labor agitators. They often attempt to separate the attitudes of their workmen from those who would lead them into union affiliations. The following quotation is selected from a three-page pamphlet circulated in New England by a large employers' organization in 1924:

You know that nine out of ten industrial disturbances are caused by professional agitators— brewers of disturbance who make their living in that particular way! They rely on lack of knowledge on the part of the rank and file to make it possible for agitation to mislead them. Men who lack knowledge and sound leadership are easy prey for the agitator. They do not know that his promises are sometimes absolutely impossible to fulfill. And they fall for alluring prospects and much talk. When men follow such destructive leadership the very fact that they have deliberately chosen the foolish Nvay proves that they do not understand the situation with which they are dealing. Men do not make fools of themselves intentionally. That is why the one opponent, the agitator, fears more than anything else is facts. (Then follows a narration of "facts" unknown to the average worker— "raw material," "plant," "equipment," "transportation and financing problems," questions of selling, distribution, collection, the relation of one industry to another and other matters of management.]

Do you wonder that they do not know wages have such relation to cost of living, that unfair increase in wages may react to their disadvantage? That they do not understand limiting their production also inevitably limits the possibility of what they receive. That they do not know wages come out of production, and are not paid out of profits! . . . They are told they can double or treble their wages, cut down hours and production, and somebody else will pay for it. They are told that bankers own all wealth and are starving and maltreating them. They are told that Wall Street owns everything in the United States and is robbing a hundred million of us. They are told that they can get anything they want without working for it if they will make the demand strong

( 334) enough. They are told that the employer who furnishes their jobs is their worst enemy. And all these dangerous and destructive fallacies they believe, because they are without the simple facts. Everywhere, in every industry, the rank and file direly need facts. They need facts on which to base sound judgment, and avoid misdirection.

In contrast, the following statement made by President Slesinger of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union at the time of their strike against a return to the piecework system is typical of the union standpoint:

The action of the employers in assuming to determine for themselves, without consultation with their employees or their organization, the conditions under which such employees shall work and live, and to "promulgate" their decision by an "order," indicates the thoroughly unprogressive and unenlightened psychology of our employers, who would not even recognize the right of the workers to have a say in the disposition of their own labor.

The employers characterize the proposed changes as a "radical readjustment of industrial standards." They are more than that. They mean a total destruction of all humane labor standards in the industry, a return to the "sweat shop." [10]

In an effort to enlist the public's sympathy and to counteract the union, the employers replied to President Slesinger as follows:

The idea of "sweatshop" is preposterous because there is no "sweatshop" to return to. President Slesinger knows, too, that the majority of workers look upon the piecework system as their only salvation. It has proved a success for over thirty years.[11]

Beside strike tactics, the union builds up other habits=`soldiering," boycotting unfair employers, and even sabotage in the attempt to restrain the power of the employer. How soldiering may even become a "right" and a tradition in a well-organized industry is shown in this story:

A certain anthracite miner was telling how he had given a lesson in the ways of the mines to the newly-landed "hunky" who was working as his laborer. "Conic here, Frank, says I. Here's the boss. Don't work. Always sit down when the boss is around." [12]

(335)

During the post-war controversies between labor and capital on the Pacific coast the I. W. W., one of the more radical organizations, circulated among all classes of workers in the state of Oregon the following dodger:

BOYCOTT

— —  ALL— — 

CALIFORNIA PRODUCTS

Oranges, lemons, raisins, all canned fruit,
the motion pictures, etc.
In that State they send men to jail because of member-
ship in Labor Unions and for the Expression of
Opinions.

— — — — 

Industrial Workers of the World

— — — — 

EAT OREGON PRUNES

Picketing unfair merchants and factories is another method of counteracting employer opposition. In retail business, picketing is directed toward the buying public as well as toward the non-union workers. In the factories it attempts directly to prevent the employment of non-union men.

The final recourse in the struggle between these groups is the strike. Here the antagonistic attitudes and habits gain full sway. There is appeal to the most elemental motive-physical dominance. The employers use spies, company guards, the police of the political state (under the legal pretext of protecting private property), and even the violent tactics of the gunman and slugger. The unions, on occasion, resort to equally violent methods. As a result we have little wars going on between these conflict groups within the larger community. In times of acute labor needs, the unions often win. When there is an over-supply of labor, they tend to lose. It is during these periods of active fighting that the conflict attitudes are built up on both sides. These attitudes persist for years among the members of both groups. The workmen repeat to each other and to their friends their stories of hardship, unemployment, and fighting. The em-

( 336) -ployers relate and remember the destruction of property, the interference with non-union labor, and the general dislocation of industry which resulted from these periods of strife. They call the strikers "Bolsheviks," "radicals," "Reds," "traitors" and "madmen." The workmen, in turn, refer to the strike-breakers as "scabs," "bums," and "traitors to labor," and call the employers "cruel" and "inhuman." In this way the attitudes and opinions of one group about the other are created and nourished in preparation for the next open conflict.

The more radical labor groups, such as the I. W. W., look to one big union of all workers as a means of coercing the employers to relinquish their power over production and distribution. To these radical groups, milder trade unionism is of little consequence. The conflict attitudes of the I. W. W. are revealed in the Preamble to their Constitution:

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace as long as hunger and want are found among millions of working people and the few who make up the employing class, have all the good things in life.

Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the earth and the machinery of production, and abolish the wage system.

We find that the centering of the management of industry into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping to defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.

These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries, if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.

Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the Wage System."

It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized not only for the every-day struggle with capitalism, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.

( 337) Here is a perfect example of the extreme attitudes of a violent in-group against an out-group. This is not unlike similar attitudes in fanatical religious organizations or among the ardent citizens of a nation in time of international war. Revolt from the authority of any other groups is evident, and the fantastic romanticism of a utopian future is also clearly apparent. This is the ideology behind the communist movement the world over. It colors the thinking and the attitudes of great numbers of working people and brings forcefully to mind the fact that in-group— out-group relationships exist in the economic order as well as in religious systems or political states.

In the heat of open conflict with labor the employers use the lockout and other devices to block the unionists. But in a great many industries milder methods of offsetting antagonism, disloyalty, and poor quality of work are being developed. These methods are known as "education of workers," "welfare capitalism," and "company union" schemes. One method is to furnish the employees with "facts" about raw materials, production, and distribution which the ordinary workman does not comprehend. The example cited above (p. 333) in another connection illustrates the faith in furnishing facts to employees. Another is the use of slogans and rewards calculated to instil in the men a feeling of being a part of the great productive establishment in which they work. One manager reported a scheme of plant education to assist promising youngsters to advance more rapidly than usual:

We give credits also for conduct, effort, personal appearance, punctuality, and regularity. We believe that by appealing to the play instincts of our students we awaken their minds for work in the best possible way . . . . It is impossible to calculate in dollars and cents the profits the school has brought us . . . . Naturally when they return to their places (in the factory) they are so enthusiastic that they work with a vengeance. [13]

Other managers attempt to stimulate loyalty. Some play upon the sense of rivalry. One large employer, writing on "Putting `Pep' into Production," told how contests were staged between various departments:

With us a contest may mean either work or play. Each gives us better production with invaluable by-products such as contentment and tolerance and better understanding. [14]

( 338) Another device was that of using slogans and mottoes to stimulate good workmanship and loyalty and to promote production. A manager writes:

In working up this keep-your-promise campaign the means employed to stimulate interest and endeavor were of four kinds— talks, letters, pay- envelope slips, and cartoon posters . . . . Letters which bore some message intended to stimulate loyalty and endeavor were sent to each employee.[15]

Some employers make use of joint meetings of the workers and the managerial and sales forces. Here the business end of the factory is explained. As one man put it, "the secret lies in getting the men to look at the situation from your point of view." Another reported:

Thanks to the mutual understanding built up in the meetings, the factory men listened and saw what was in the salesmen's minds . . . . Coöperation has become typical, largely as a result of the meetings.[16]

In some plants lecturers explain the operation of the entire factory, and instructive talks are given on the care and use of machinery, in the hope of stimulating personal interest in productivity and of cutting down "soldiering." Some employers stimulate sociability among the men by annual banquets, social gatherings in clubhouses, and recreational opportunities.

Still other methods aim to alleviate antagonism between foremen, inspectors, and the workmen. Care in selecting the minor executives is stressed, as some petty officials rub the common employee the wrong way; others may be skilful enough in handling men actually to avoid much labor trouble.

Bonus schemes, profit-sharing plans, special rewards, commissions, and the like are also in favor in many plants. Since the fear of unemployment looms large in the minds of workers, some firms, notably the Dennison Manufacturing Company, have attempted to integrate production to other seasonal work so that at certain slack periods in the factory the employees may find work outside. The company assists its men ill scouring this outside employment.

In some sections of the country decentralization of industry has been in progress. Plants have been moved from large industrial cities into the

( 339) country and the management has attempted to "humanize" the organization by breaking down class lines between management and men.

Out here in the country we rub shoulders daily. There is absolutely no class distinction, no chasm between employer and employee. We are working as a unit . . . . I The men I talk about "our plant." When a worker's heart and soul is in his work, it makes nimble fingers, it quickens the step and sharpens the intellect (sic) . . . . One of our workers said to a visitor who went through the plant: "In Chicago I was nobody, but in Elkhorn I am one of its citizens— everybody knows me and speaks to me as I pass them on the street. It is nice to feel that you are some one after all." [17]

It is obvious that with some laborers, at least, such schemes work out very well. Perhaps the in-group spirit of the close-knit union is lost, but many of these plans seem successful in producing industrial peace. Much depends on tradition. Where there has been no union, these devices operate fairly well. Antagonistic attitudes, or at least attitudes of indifference, may arise, but they seldom become articulate because they are amorphous and lack group sanction.

In a number of industries various technical time studies have been made in an effort to cut down waste motion in production. There is often an effort to interest the men personally in these plans. Following a six-weeks time-study program in which every job in a ship-building concern was analyzed, the management reported:

The benefits manifested themselves in an increased satisfaction among the workmen, more company loyalty, less destructive criticism and more constructive thought along lines of improvement, a slowly increasing spirit of cooperation between men and departments and a general uplifting of morale throughout the plant.[18]

The introduction of labor-saving devices is a frequent means of cutting down production costs. By simplification of work the Firestone Rubber Company eliminated great waste, cut labor costs 20 per cent, and improved the quality of the product. The following quotation from Mr. Firestone is indicative of one employer's attitude toward these methods:

Simplification is largely a matter of education. Constant repetition of a com-

(340) -paratively simple and easy task soon makes the workman highly skillful and enables him to increase the productivity and quality of his work . . . . A manufacturing plant is more than buildings and equipment— it requires human beings to plan and carry out the operations of the plant. The human element is extremely important— perhaps the most important element— and where the energies of this human equipment are all devoted to the accomplishment of a single purpose, the unity of purpose brings results which cannot be attained in any other way . . . .

The orderliness of method and operation, in the company's experience, gradually imbues the workers with a spirit of orderliness which results in better attendance, greater promptness, more attention to work, better workmanship, and less spoilage. The spirit of work is better when everything about the workman is orderly and running smoothly, according to a well-planned schedule.[19]

Labor-saving machinery may make for better pay for the workers who remain, but there is much evidence that the continued introduction of industrial devices to replace human labor has caused a great deal of unemployment and with it a train of unfortunate effects on the attitudes of the unemployed .[20] In the unskilled and semi-skilled trades, these changes have been most interesting. The development of dredgers and loaders, for instance, has replaced the unskilled ditch-diggers by a few skilled workers, truck drivers, and much machinery, and has thrown thousands of common laborers out of work. In certain long-established skilled trades where there have been strong unions, the opposition to labor-saving devices has become acute. Goodrich's study, The Miner's Freedom (1925), is an excellent picture of what is happening in certain areas of the soft-coal industry. He points out that the shift to labor-saving machinery is an inevitable outcome of modern engineering linked with capitalistic profit-seeking motives, but he reveals also that changes are made gradually and despite long-standing miners' traditions (culture patterns). The union opposition to such short-cuts to production arises out of the inertia of habit, the feeling of "rights" to certain methods of production, and the whole in-group attitude of the miners toward their work.

Nevertheless these alterations are taking place in many once well-unionized industries. `'Whether this will ultimately weaken the labor organizations and lead to their replacement by individual bargaining or some

( 341) form of company union, no one knows. The changes are going on with little clear thought of modifications in the life organization and attitudes of workers. The new devices have been adopted to a large extent in nonunion fields. Where strong unions have existed, old practices will die hard and new ones be introduced slowly. Without doubt the mechanization of labor is going on at a tremendous rate and with consequences of importance in the final disintegration of skilled trades and a further disappearance of age-long handicraft techniques. As the spinning jenny, power loom and steam-engine changed spinning and weaving, so finally industrial mechanization has reached into the last reserves of personal skill. Only in certain types of work still dependent on personal control, such as railroading and the building trades, do unions remain strong and effective. Wherever machine process can replace human skill, it is bound to do so. Human beings will have to accommodate themselves to these changes.

"A hopeful characteristic of the unskilled miner is his ready surrender to discipline," remarked one coal operator. This is the typical viewpoint of the employing class concerned with profit-making. And the various devices mentioned above— rewards, posters, pace- setting, time studies, bonuses, and simplification processes— put a premium upon docility and obedience to superiors in management. What this will mean ultimately to possible labor organizations or to the personality of the workers, no one can predict.

Along with labor-saving devices, and all the psychological tricks of the personnel managers to secure more production and more contentment from laborers, the company union has been one way to cut under the traditions and controls of the trade union proper. By organizing the workers in factories into groups with representatives who meet the management, with schemes of profit-sharing, grievance committees, and the like, employers hope to improve labor conditions, avoid strikes, and increase production. We have no satisfactory data on the behavior changes which accompany these organizations. But likely enough the contention is sound that foreign-born and ignorant rural laborers who seek factory employment take to this arrangement better than the skilled groups who have trade-union traditions. The trade unions have opposed company unions whenever their own territory has been threatened, but they seem little concerned with their development in fields of labor which are unskilled or semi-skilled and which were never the object of trade-union organizers. More rabid in attitude

( 342) than the American Federation of Labor toward company unions, are the communistic labor organizations. An I. W. W. paper made this comment about the Standard Oil Company's plan of company organization:

Standard Oil has inaugurated in these plants what it is pleased to call "The Republic of Labor." This is supposed to give the employees some say in matters of wages through shop representatives . . . . These two [ wage I cuts, in addition to the hiring of new men, has caused the delegates to say, "The `Republic' is a joke." . . . This is the way of Capitalism generally. Whenever it appropriates the ideals of democracy, it makes a joke of them.[21]

The trend toward mechanization still continues, and without reference to personality changes in laborers or managers. Face to face with the crisis of continuation of profits, the employers through their control of the engineering technology are continuing to improve production. What this means for the workers is indicated by the disappearance of skilled trades, the fact that fewer workers are needed in many industries, and a consequent loss of morale on the part of those out of work. Ultimately these changes may bring changes in the birth-rate of the laboring classes. If cheap labor is no longer necessary, there may result a definite practice of limiting the population among the laboring classes as there already has been among the capitalist employers, the managerial forces, and the technical professions. But such alterations depend, in turn, upon new alterations in the social attitudes of large numbers of less intelligent groups of workers toward birth control, toward marriage, and toward religion.

The whole labor situation illustrates very neatly the effect of cultural factors, crises, and personal-social conditioning upon the development of new behavior patterns in individuals. Machine production is definitely a part of our culture, but so are trade unions in many fields of labor. These inevitably come into sharp conflict in the problem of union contracts on working conditions, hours and wages; and these, in turn, reflect back upon the individual worker. Moreover, machine production implies steadiness in work, docility, loss of independence. On the other hand, it means money wages, freedom from considerable responsibility, and in many industries, doubtless, a considerable regularization of employment. While the worker is stripped of his personal relations to his product, he is also freed from obligations of many sorts, and left with more leisure than ever before in

( 343) the history of mankind. Automobiles, newspapers, magazines, cheap books, radios, commercialized recreation, even additional educational opportunities for those who wish them, are at hand to make up the emotional balance lost with the disappearance of personal interest in one's product and pride in one's personal skill in production. The whole mechanization of life has made man more objective, more punctual, more thrifty, more externalized; it has put a premium on extroverted activities and considerably affected art and recreation. On the other hand, it has not freed men from day-dreaming, or from other associations and behavior of autistic nature. Religion, both formal and informal, continues to affect a balance. And the mystery of "BIG BUSINESS," "BIG CITIES," "BIG NATIONS," "UNIVERSAL EDUCATION" always intrigues our imagination. Fashions, fads, crowd behavior, and other forms of collectivism are perhaps an offset to a certain earlier individualism in the worker whose life was once integrated around his family, his neighborhood, and a skilled occupation.

c. The Professional Classes.— In economic status the professional groups stand between the laboring classes and the employers. These groups comprise doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, research scientists, and ministers. As a rule these groups feel themselves more akin to the capitalist group than to the laborers. Their previous training and occupations throw them into more intimate contact with the capitalist class. Consequently they tend to accept the standards of the latter in preference to the ideology of the labor groups, especially those which have radical economic-political implications. Some of the professions have much more class consciousness than others. Certain ones have very definite codes of behavior, some of which are actually embodied in law. Others are loosely organized and, while they possess traditions of sorts, they are not highly institutionalized.

(i) The Medical Profession.— The doctor belongs to the most definitely institutionalized professional group of all. He must undergo, first of all, a very rigid and extended technical preparation, which is highly standardized the country over. Secondly, the American Medical Association, with which are affiliated various state and local associations, constitutes a type of professional union or guild. This organization has a definite code of ethics and rigid rules which it attempts to enforce. The association is a completely closed corporation. Members are admitted only upon completion of standard medical courses and the procurement of a license to practice granted by the various states. The association fosters legislation favor-

( 344) able to itself. By influencing public opinion and legal measures it attempts to drive out quackery, pseudo-medicine, and the sale of nostrums. All healing arts not within the limits of medicine and surgery are taboo.

On the economic side the theory of individual competition is in vogue. To enforce this competition, there exist definite folkways. Open advertising for practice is opposed, as are assisting in illegal operations or giving advice which is legally or even socially taboo. In recent years efforts have been made to break down the individualistic attitudes among doctors and to "socialize" the profession. But the development of demonstration and free clinics by such organizations as the Milbank and Rosenwald Foundations are frowned upon and openly opposed by the profession. So, too, the spread of further functions of public health medicine meets vigorous resistance. Most members of the association do not seem particularly enthusiastic over these newer developments. Subsidized medicine and "State Medicine" are attacked as paternalistic or socialistic. Such activities threaten prevalent vested interests in medicine and surgery. Public clinics and public health organizations produce competition where it is least wanted. The whole issue was clearly focused in the case of Dr. Louis E. Schmidt, who as head of the Public Health Institute in Cook County, Illinois, had given medical service at about one-third less than customary cost to considerable numbers of people of the lower income groups. Dr. Schmidt was ousted from the Chicago Medical Society and was about to be dropped from the American Medical Association. He thus defended his activities:

We cannot make all doctors rich by forming a trade union . . . . Ours is a profession, not a trade . . . . The time will come when both the profession and the public will be better served. If we organize to bring the cost of hospital, laboratory, and medical care within the purse of all that great majority of our people known as the middle classes, all reputable, capable physicians will prosper greatly. Such a plan will take the business of meeting the health problems of these people with small incomes away from the quacks, charlatans, and patent medicine vendors, who now prey upon a public which has no other place to turn. The millions of dollars now given to these disreputable quacks will then be given to medical men. Honest, ethical physicians will be treating these thousands of sick people, because the cost of that treatment will be lowered, and because we shall find the means, by ethical advertising, to lead them away from the quacks and to our profession.

He pointed out that the Illinois Social Hygiene League, of which he is president and chief medical officer, is a charitable institution which gives

(345) free treatments to the poor. But the Society opposed his connection with an organization offering service at low costs to people of small incomes. He continued:

Through our connections with the Public Health Institute we have been able to increase our efficiency many-fold . . . . Must I stop work because the Public Health Institution, through its lay trustees, advertises the perils of venereal disease? I cannot do it. I ask that you councilors of the Chicago Medical Society recognize my position as ethical and that you here and now launch the movement which will bring the great art of medicine within the reach of the masses.[22]

The militant attitude of the Chicago Medical Society was displayed when it dropped Dr. Schmidt without permitting him a full trial before the whole organization. This particular episode illustrates both conflict within a closed corporation itself in an effort to maintain or to alter ancient formulas, and the relation of such an organization to other groups in the community. But such controversies are bound to arouse public opinion. If community opinion insists upon alterations in practice, ultimately new attitudes will ensue, just as, by analogy, public opinion about capitalist monopolies has changed in the last half-century. Modifications in institutional form bring changes in the habits and attitudes of persons working within the framework. In the medical profession particularly, the force of tradition remains very strong, yet the individualistic values, if opinion continues to insist, will finally give way.

(ii) The Legal Profession. The lawyers also have their associations. These attempt to set up standards of preparation, to establish codes of professional conduct, and to influence the laws which control these codes. Today the lawyer must pass a state bar examination before he can practice, but the law, for the most part, has little else to say about his preparation. Possible disbarment for illegal practice is a threat against malpractice. The present efforts to purge the legal profession of the "shyster" who chases after ambulances illustrate the professional pressure exerted on certain members of the group by fellow-members.

As the doctor out of his training develops a particular manner of viewing human life and disease, so the legal practitioner takes on the manners of

( 346) his profession. His mind tends to run to the forms and practices of the law of the past. He views the universe through his particular set of ideas, attitudes, and occupational habits. The judge on the bench, moreover, often develops views distinctly different from those of the corporation or criminal lawyer who pleads a case before him. This is abundantly illustrated by the criticisms of criminal lawyers found in Judge Cavanaugh's book, The Criminal and His Allies. Judge Cavanaugh lays upon the practicing lawyers in our courts much blame for delays and evasions in criminal justice.

The legal profession has played a distinctive rôle in our political life. Doctors or ministers seldom get into our legislative halls. The lawyer is directly concerned with the legal formulations which make up so much of present social control, and inevitably he comes closer to many other phases of our group life today than do doctors or engineers. Customarily he soon develops attitudes of superiority and importance that affect the direction his personality takes. To him the law seems the bulwark of the political state, the economic order, and the public morals. The legally-trained person inclines toward conservatism and caution. He is suspicious of rapid change and tends to rest his thinking rather upon precedent than upon promises of future improvement.

(iii) The Engineering Profession.— The engineers lack the social solidarity of the doctors and lawyers. The type of their work is more diffuse, and newer upon the economic horizon. They are much more directly dependent upon the captains of industry for their support. Yet both the state and the economic needs demand of the engineers certain professional codes and practices. For instance, building codes, laws providing for safety-devices in industry, and the economic demands for suitable materials and construction, all force standardized forms upon the engineers, aside from the merely technical problems involved.

Like the members of other groups, the engineer, with his severe training in the material sciences, develops distinctive attitudes toward his work. He is inclined to be mechanistic, analytical, and extremely objective. But more interesting than this is the fact that his close connection with the capitalist system gives him distinctly the employers' views toward labor, wealth, and the profit-seeking motivation. He leans toward conservatism in economic and political theory. He is apt to look upon common labor as he does upon the material used in construction. In his incisive analysis, The Engineers and the Price System (1921), Veblen gives an intensely

( 347) interesting account of the attitudes customarily found in the engineer.

(iv) The Teaching Profession.— Teachers are not so well organized as are the doctors, lawyers, and engineers. From kindergarten through university they are, in large part, employees of the state and are subject to regulations of a somewhat different sort than are other groups. Even teachers connected with privately endowed institutions cannot escape from the folkways laid down about their work. If formerly teachers constituted a guild not only for instruction but for determination of policy and for general administrative control, this power has now been lost, at least in the United States. The teacher today, whether of university, college, high school, or elementary school, has no such independent status in the community as has the doctor, lawyer, or engineer.

It is true that there exist organizations such as the National Educational Association and the affiliated state associations, which try to foster a spirit of professionalism among teachers, but they have never become a serious threat to the general system of control. The American Association of University Professors, quite restricted in its membership and function, has had but little direct effect upon administrative policies. Only in rare cases has it influenced public opinion and, through this means, the administration of colleges and universities. With few exceptions the more purely labor organizations, like teachers' unions, are not regarded favorably by the teachers themselves. The teachers of this country have developed little class consciousness. As J. E. Kirkpatrick remarked in The American College and Its Rulers (1927), "American teachers are more like a mass of unorganized laborers than a self-respecting and responsible guild or profession." They develop no attitudes of the superiority of their calling as a profession. The public confirms their low opinion of themselves by continuing to regard the teacher as an inferior person. The teacher is not so important in the economic-political life of our time as the successful business man, lawyer, doctor, or engineer. Most teachers feel a sense of inferiority in the presence of a man successful in business or in one of the professions. This may not be true of men famous for research or writing or in educational administration, but it is not to be denied that the usual run of teachers from elementary school to university develop a sense of inferiority in the face of culture standards which emphasize monetary success, business acumen, and "go-getting" attitudes and habits. Some, it is true, may compensate by flight into the alleged superiorities of learning,

( 348) but at heart most of these persons feel themselves a little outside the pale of the primarily successful of this world.

The situation is at its worst among the elementary school teachers. Here the rather inadequate training and the rapid turnover in positions due to marriage and mobility make it difficult for the teachers to develop any common attitudes looking toward professional organization. Either by the direct pressure of quasi-legal rulings, or by direct or indirect dismissal, attempts of teachers to affiliate with the American Federation of Labor are blocked. In the end this simply means that the teacher is considered an unorganized laborer working in a system of individual bargaining. Whereas in medicine, law, and engineering, the members of the profession determine in large measure their own standards of fitness, the community or the legal authorities— boards of trustees and superintendents, for the most part— determine the standards of teaching proficiency. There are certain minima set down in law as preparation for elementary and high school teachers, and other essentials are established by custom and precedent in colleges and universities. But aside from these few social controls, the economic security of teachers rests absolutely with the employers.

All school authorities demand that their teachers conform to the manners and mores of the community. Communities under the political domination of Protestant churches pay much attention to the religious affiliations of prospective teachers. Where the Catholics have considerable influence, they demand that teachers of their faith be given places in the school system. In many communities Jews are tacitly denied places as teachers.

C. A., who had already made a good reputation as a scientist, at the completion of his doctorate was under consideration by a department chairman for a good position in a large middle-western university. When it was discovered that C. A. was Jewish, he was immediately denied further consideration. The department chairman had no prejudice against Jews, but he had learned that he could never get any Jew, no matter how able, accepted by the dean, president, and board of regents. After a few years teaching in mediocre institutions, C. A. went into administrative work for a Jewish social agency.

Such cases could be multiplied by the hundreds. Not only religious but political affiliations are taken into account. Socialists are not successful in breaking into our higher educational institutions, and if they get into

( 349) elementary or high school work and are discovered, they are usually removed. The taboo against socialists in educational institutions is universal in this country— a fact which educated Europeans are often at a loss to understand.

In the absence of any effective organization of teachers to secure for themselves a voice in determining the conditions of their employment, community taboos of various kinds are enforced by the school authorities. Where dancing is forbidden by community standards, teachers are not permitted to dance. Of course this is also true of smoking, bobbing Hair, wearing short skirts, and the like. In a small village along the seacoast of North Carolina, in addition to the usual stipulations about certification, etc., the teacher must agree to the following:

I promise to take a vital interest in all phases of Sunday-school work, donating of my time, service, and money without stint for the uplift and benefit of the community.

I promise to abstain from all dancing, immodest dressing, and any other conduct unbecoming a teacher and a lady.

I promise not to go out with any young men except in so far as it may be necessary to stimulate Sunday-school work.

I promise not to fall in love, to become engaged or secretly married.

I promise not to encourage or tolerate the least familiarity on the part of any of my boy pupils.

I promise to sleep at least eight hours a night, to eat carefully, and to take every precaution to keep in the best of health and spirits, in order that I may be better able to render efficient service to my pupils.

I promise to remember that I owe a duty to the townspeople who are paying me my wages, that I owe respect to the school board and the superintendent that hired me, and that I shall consider myself at all times the willing servant of the school board and the townspeople.[23]

While this is perhaps an extreme case, there are hundreds of places where identical restrictions are insisted upon even though they are not fixed in the written contract. There is throughout a great hangover of the theological tradition of the past. The teacher is to be the repressive moral and religious caretaker of the children under leis care. This attitude I!, 'I'll prevalent in higher as in elementary education. The writer knows of a number of cases where by supervised dances, parties, and other extra-

(350) -curricular activities, high school teachers and principals have attempted to inject some positive devices into socially and morally disintegrated schools, only to be stopped by the entrenched school boards backed up by conservative public opinion. The high school students of a certain small town often escaped into larger nearby towns for public dances, and in general there was notoriously a good deal of loose conduct among them. The principal attempted to convince the school board of the need for some supervised recreation for the high school boys and girls to offset these practices. The leading school trustee was obdurate. "I danced when I was young and I know how bad it is. So long as I am president of this school board I am against dancing in this community," was his only comment.

This community control reaches into the very subject matter of teaching. The taboo on the teaching of biological evolution is still prevalent in large areas of our country. Not many centuries ago a leading church put pressure upon men of science for teaching what was considered "false doctrine" concerning the planets. Today some communities repeat the process of repression. Now they wish to repress the teaching of the natural history of man. The following quotations show how a shift of content may occur with no essential alteration in the standpoint of the conservative elements in control of education. The first section quotes part of the charge against Galileo in 1633; the second is a part of the indictment against Scopes in 1925.

Whereas, you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galileo of Florence, aged seventy years, were denounced in 1615 to the Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by many— namely, that the sun is immovable in the centre of the world and that the earth moves and also with a diurnal motion; also for having pupils whom you instructed in the same opinions; also for maintaining a correspondence with some German mathematicians; also for publishing certain letters on the solar spots in which you developed the same doctrine as truth; also for answering the objections which were continually produced from the Holy Scriptures by glozing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning; and whereas thereupon was produced a copy of a writing in form of a letter confessedly written by you to a person formerly your pupil, in which, following the hypothesis of Copernicus you include several prepositions contrary to the true sense and authority of the Holy Scripture.

Therefore, this holy tribunal, being desirous of providing against the disorder and mischief thence proceeding and increasing to the detriment of the holy faith, etc., etc.

The proposition that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable from

(351) its place is absurd philosophically, false and formally heretical because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scriptures.

The proposition that the earth is not the centre of the world nor immovable but that it moves also with a diurnal motion is also absurd philosophically considered, at least, erroneous in faith

— — — — 

That John Thomas Scopes, heretofore on the 24th day of April, 1925, did unlawfully teach in the public schools of Rhea County, Tennessee, which said public schools are supported in part and in whole by public school fund of the state, certain theory and theories that deny the story of the Divine Creation of Man as taught in the Bible, and did teach instead thereof that man has descended from a lower order of animals, he, the said John Thomas Scopes being at the time, and prior thereto, a teacher in the public schools of Rhea County, Tennessee, aforesaid, against the peace and dignity of the state.

Both of these quotations reveal, on the part of the dominant authorities, fear of the change in the ideas and mores which may result from the alleged heretical teachings.

No subject is more taboo in this country than that of sex. Not only is the personal conduct of teachers and students carefully guarded by authorities, but the discussion of sex problems as a part of the curriculum is frowned upon or else definitely tabooed. Cases of this are apparent everywhere. A short time ago a middle-western university dismissed several professors because they attempted to make a study of current sex practices and of opinions on changing sex mores among the students.

Similar inhibitions exist to prevent discussion of economic and political problems. Instances might be cited where pressure has been brought upon professors for too frank discussion of taxation of corporations powerful in particular states, or for attempting to treat objectively current political problems. Wherever there is crisis or conflict of opinion, there are difficulties for the teacher if he essays to treat these matters frankly and scientifically. It is quite proper for students of economics to write theses exposing the inner workings of the financial system of the Fuggers in the sixteenth century, but to treat problems of contemporary life may lead to external pressure. There is no doubt, as Sumner once wrote, that if physics or chemistry came into conflict with present-day mores, we would develop an orthodoxy about them as truly as we have about matters of politics or economics.

( 352)

The situation is such that only those teachers succeed who conform to the community or institutional folkways. Teachers almost universally are docile, timid, and conservative; and comply readily with their employers' wishes. It is not surprising that teachers feel inferior, and that they are recruited from persons lacking in forcefulness and courage. The situation is changing in the more alert communities and institutions of higher learning, but for the country as a whole the teaching profession reflects rather than leads the community standards. The conservative theological and economic-political forces dominate the school organization and the teachers remain for the most part without any significant group organization or class consciousness.

The picture, however, is not altogether a dark one. With the development of newer techniques of teaching, with the rise of faith in a possible contribution of the social sciences and the humanities to contemporary life, there will develop a greater degree of tolerance. Whether we shall arrive at the universal faith of those who hope that the school, through its teachers, may come to lead the way in social change, it is impossible to say. Certainly if this day comes, the personality of the instructors will be profoundly altered. If social engineering should take a place with material engineering, a distinct alteration in the life organization of teachers will be in evidence.

v. The Ministerial Profession.— Theoretically, the Christian point of view is that of submissiveness, altruism and social service. Like all religions, Christianity makes an appeal on the autistic emotional side of personality. It has always tended to deal in absolutes. The result was that the ministers, in spite of their officially submissive attitudes, actually developed attitudes of superiority and authority. Since they represented "The Truth," they might speak with authority on questions of religious belief and of private and public morals. Attitudes of dominance inevitably became prominent in their patterns of conduct. When interdenominational rivalry was more common than it is now, when churches struggled among themselves for converts and disputed fiercely about doctrinal differences, the attitudes of superiority and authority found expression in these controversies. Today, when aside from the more divergent Protestant sects, there is little such rivalry, these attitudes are directed toward other objects.

Absolutism, the sense of superiority, even conscious submission to authoritarian dogmas of any group, tend to breed a kind of fanaticism.

( 353) There seems to be an over-emphasis on certain values. Now all occupational egocentrism runs to exactly this sort of thing, but in religion it looms very large since religious belief occupies such a distinctive place in the formation of human personality. Among the distinctive values of religion is the linking of moral conduct with religious faith. "The New Life" is put on, as the "Old Life" of sin is cast off. Formerly this fanaticism of values found its expression in interchurch rivalry, when each church imagined its set of. ethico-religious values to be supreme. Today this naïve vanity has virtually disappeared.

At the present time the sense of solidarity among the churches, especially the Protestant organizations, is stronger than it was formerly. It finds expression in ministerial associations, in various rapprochements among the major church institutions which look to concerted action on social-moral issues, such as the suppression of prostitution, dancing, the use of tobacco and drugs, and prohibition of the liquor traffic. Where once the energies of the churches and their leaders were consumed in theological disputations, today there is considerable unification against alleged social evils of all sorts. There is a drive against sin in general and against the "ignorance" and paganism in attitude and habit displayed by nonbelievers. In some parts of the country there is a concerted effort to control the teaching of science, especially the theories of biological evolution. Elsewhere the church opposes new views on marriage, divorce, and industry, and everywhere it has sought to dominate the schools in these controversies.

As a result of these new directions of attention the ministers of our country have assumed a type of leadership which has done much to enhance their own sense of importance in the communities in which they live. While economically they are much underpaid, partly because of the continuity of Christian notions of the virtues of poverty, their authoritarian position in the field of private and public morals has greatly strengthened their egocentric attitudes. Their concern with contemporary life depends on various factors— traditions of liberalism or conservatism in the church institutions themselves, development of independence of thought on the part of leaders, and differences in the stress laid upon emotional and intellectual attitudes as factors in control of social life, including religious behavior.

The liberal-conservative conflict among ecclesiastics has wide implica-

( 354) -tions for social values and for individual development. Nearly every major church today has a modernist-fundamentalist split of some sort. With the decay of interdenominational rivalry noted above, the liberals of all churches— Catholic, Protestant and Jewish— are in many respects more closely allied to one another in attitudes and ideas than they are to the conservatives of their own particular organizations. Similarly the conservative members of these various churches have more in common with one another than they have with the modernistic members of their own faiths.

The first of these controversies has to do with matters of theology. To the liberals dogma reflects the cultural changes which are going on outside and inside the church. The coming of higher criticism of the Scriptures, the development of modern science, the rise of capitalistic industry, stimulate a critical examination of dogma, and an attempt is made to recast the theology of the church into new frameworks to fit the changed life and newer points of view. Liberal pastors develop a tolerance of new ideas and institutions. They attempt to interest their congregations in modern social problems: Conservatives, on the other hand, fall back upon authority of scripture and earlier theologians. They fear the new, and build up antagonistic attitudes toward anything which threatens the status quo. Not only in dogma, but in attitudes toward present social maladjustments, the liberals attempt to recast the church. Some conservatives insist that the church has no concern with this world. Others attempt to attack social problems, but only through the fiat of repressive laws and precepts. The liberals may join in this attempt, but many of them feel that education, rather than repression, is a more satisfactory means of accomplishing purposeful change. On the whole, the church has been conservative in its attitudes toward industrial problems. A few ministers such as Walter Raushenbush, Harry F. Ward, and John Paul Jones have been semi-socialistic. Others, less radical, have yet emphasized the need of church action to alleviate poverty and to overcome the industrial maladjustments which affect the great mass of workers.

Thus in the ministerial groups the find sharp individual differences in attitudes and habits. It is true that medical men differ in their opinions as to the place of general practitioners and specialists, in regard to public health programs, and so on. Likewise engineers and teachers have varying standards and divergent viewpoints among themselves. But among all of

( 355) the professional groups, the ministers undoubtedly differ most markedly among themselves concerning the place of emotional and intellectual attitudes and concerning the direction in which the church should move in the modern world. A part of the present disintegration of the church is thus accounted for. In the present complex world, with its rapidity of change, it is difficult for an institution which deals in supernatural values and in essentially emotional attitudes toward ethical conduct, to find a satisfactory common point of departure. In spite of these divergences, however, so far as the ministers themselves are concerned, they develop a certain esprit de corps. They take on certain professional attitudes common to all of them, just as do other occupational groups.

B. Nature of Occupational Egocentrism.

We have now reviewed the major economic groupings and noted some of the effects of these groupings upon personality. Occupations set up certain standard ways of behavior which affect the entire life organization of the individual. The workman, the doctor, the lawyer, the employer, the engineer, the teacher, and the minister— each develops certain egocentric notions about the importance of his occupation. Definite attitudes and habits are laid down from which they can not escape.

Habit is thus the enormous fly-wheel of society, its most precious conservative agent. It alone is what keeps us all within the bounds of ordinance, and saves the children of fortune from the envious uprisings of the poor. It alone prevents the hardest and most repulsive walks of life from being deserted by those brought up to tread therein. It keeps the fisherman and the deck-hand at sea through the winter; it holds the miner in his darkness, and nails the countryman to his log-cabin and his lonely farm through all the months of snow; it protects us from invasion by the natives of the desert and the frozen zone. It dooms us all to fight out the battle of life upon the lines of our nurture or our early choice, and to make the best of a pursuit that disagrees, because there is no other for which we are fitted, and it is too late to begin again. It keeps different social strata from mixing. Already at the age of twenty-five you see the professional mannerism settling down on the young commercial traveller, on the young doctor, on the young minister, oil the counsellor-at-law. You see the little lines of cleavage running through the character, the tricks of thought, the prejudices, the ways of the "shop," in a word, from which the man can by-and-by no more escape than his coat-sleeve can suddenly fall into a new set of folds. On the whole, it is best he should not escape. It is well for the world that

(356) in most of us, by the age of thirty, the character has set like plaster, and wilt never soften again.[24]

These lines of cleavage between the occupations we may designate, following Bogardus, as forms of "occupational distance." This means "the degree of sympathetic understanding existing between the members of any two occupations." There are two kinds of occupational distance: vertical and horizontal. The former indicates the differences in prestige accorded by cultural norms to members of various occupations; the latter indicates the lack of sympathetic understanding between occupations of similar or near-similar status because of the differences in background and training of the members of the two occupations. Bogardus devised a scoring scheme for measuring in terms of social distance the reactions of people to various occupations. In one study among 861 college students, it was found that persons preparing for teaching and the ministry "reacted against motion picture actors, vaudeville actors and jazz musicians, on the ground that these occupations were socially detrimental." In contrast, commerce and dentistry students reacted to these same occupations favorably because they "add zest to life." Thus, vertical distances between occupations are related to the prestige and social status which occupations possess among persons outside the particular groups. As Bogardus points out, there is a kind of occupational mobility which affects the status of occupations. For example, aviation seems to be rising, whereas it may be true that acting is declining slightly in the scale of prestige.

Differences in training, in knowledge, in methods of work, produce horizontal occupational distance. Thus doctors and lawyers are horizontally separated.

Their [doctors' l professional bearing notably is quiet and thoughtful . . . . Their patients are not ordinarily in a mood or attitude to be able to weigh properly a doctor's words. Speech is therefore dangerous, and the doctor discreetly abstains from talk or uses it quite sparingly. A grave manner is almost as essential to a physician as to an undertaker. People do not like to have their ills dealt with lightly. The doctor theretore gains prestige by the mysteriousness of his silent gravity. Lawyers, to the contrary, live their lives in words.

It is only when lawyers and doctors get into the same social circles that this difference in their arts creates conflict between them . . . . As professions they

(357) have little contact. As human beings in society they meet and because their professions have become their very natures, and are such different natures, they understand each other with difficulty. The doctor is incensed by the noisy manners of the lawyer; this is most trying to the physician's reserved dignity. If he cannot maintain silent contempt, he may with cynical disgust bestow the appellation of "windbag" upon the verbose advocate, of which the latter, if not unaware of the owlish fluff of the medical man, is self-satisfiedly tolerant.

For geniality also the doctor is more agreeably known. His profession idealizes gentle, kindly demeanor. He soothes his patients. All the arts of pleasantness are appurtenant to the practice of his skills . . . . It is not by these wiles that the lawyer gains his professional ends. His truer part is mandatory, aggressive, disputative.[25]

Mr. Briggs goes on to say that lawyers tend to be conventional in their maintenance of legal and customary morality. Doctors, in contrast, are likely to be more tolerant of persons whose moral conduct differs from the cultural norms.

The lawyer's work touches public life at many points. His occupation leads him into many divergent phases of economic, political, and social activities. He has contacts with business men, engineers, lawmakers, and the organized community life. He is more closely affiliated with particular groups than is the physician or surgeon. There are labor union attorneys, corporation lawyers, criminal lawyers, and so on. The doctor, for the most part, inclines to be individualistic. He works largely alone. He seldom attaches himself directly to any single economic group.

It is thus apparent that horizontal distance is made by the relations of occupations to other groups as well as by the relations of the group members with each other. Vertical distance is created by the wider, cultural-social scale of occupations considered in themselves. Horizontal distance is made by contacts of similar or near-similar occupations with each other outside their specialities and by their social relations with still other groups.

Occupational distance, both vertical and horizontal, is partly explained by culture differences. A profession and an unskilled occupation are especially different in preparatory requirements, in educational standards, in vocabulary, and in mental vision. The occupations can be arranged on a scale of increasing complexity of culture traits. Occupational distance varies directly with the com-

( 358) -plexity of the culture traits of the respective occupations. The more complex the culture traits of an occupation the greater the vertical distance between itself and the occupations with less complex cultures.

Occupational distance partially depends on the differences in the functional activity of the respective occupations. The dentist, for example, is engaged in a more individualistic occupation than is the minister. He is dealing with individual welfare chiefly, and only indirectly with public affairs. The minister has a larger percentage of public welfare contacts daily. Each develops a unique set of occupational attitudes and values. Occupational distance varies according to the differences between the sets of occupational attitudes of the given occupations.[26]

Definite intra-occupational distances also are noticeable. The skilled workman looks down upon the semi-skilled or unskilled. The college professor tends to be superior to the high school instructor, who, in turn, looks with some disdain upon the elementary school teacher. The corporation lawyer despises the labor union attorney. And so it is in every occupational grouping.

The existence of a scale of occupational social prestige often produces restlessness and uneasiness. A man unsuccessful in one vocation may seek another, in order to improve both his economic and his social status. Thus the shift in occupations from one generation to another, particularly in the attempt to win a better economic status, is clear evidence of the influence of vertical occupational distance in determining our vocational choices.

We have examined in this and the previous chapter certain aspects of secondary group contacts as they affect personality. In the modern world of rapid travel and communication, of increased division of labor, of ever-expanding machine techniques, of universal education and increased leisure, new culture patterns of all sorts are being constructed. We are too much within this process itself to understand fully what is happening. It is doubtful if any of us in the midst of it can view it with complete objectivity; it is all too much a part of us. Yet, without doubt, marked modifications in personality organization are going on under these situations. In fact, such alterations are the psychological counterpart of these very social-cultural changes. New definitions of person-to-person relations arc arising. New codes of group interaction are appearing. There is a distinct shift away from primary groups and their standards of social control. These imply

( 359) for the individual the existence of new attitudes, habits, and values. Just what these are in all detail we can not say, but in our discussions of leadership, myth-making, prejudice, crowd behavior, and public opinion we shall examine some of these new formulations as they are exposed in personality.

We must again emphasize, however, that it is our group contacts that largely determine the direction of our personality development. Founded upon biological mechanisms reaching back for their beginnings and form into animal ancestry, our life organization is largely fixed for us, in content and direction, by the nature and function of the primary and secondary groups with which we come into contact. Granted that we begin as mechanisms with physiological needs and bodily tensions, these mechanisms are conditional by our personal-social and cultural fields. And with changes in the form and content of our cultural fields, the directions of these physiological processes are necessarily modified.

CLASS ASSIGNMENTS

A. Further Reading: Source Book for Social Psychology, Chapter XV, nos. 98, 99, pp. 384-87.

B. Questions and Exercises.

1. Discuss questions and exercises for assignment in Source Book, Chapter XV, nos. 1-8, p. 413.

2. What changes in personality have been produced in the workman by the introduction of machine production?

3. Are such changes all bad? Discuss.

4. How do conflicts between employers and laborers reveal the nature of ingroup out-group relations? Cite illustrations.

5. Why have the teachers such a poor sense of social solidarity?

6. What is occupational distance? Illustrate.

C. Topics for Class Reports and Longer Written Papers.

1. Report on relation of capitalism to religious formulations. (Cf. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism; Babson, Religion and Business; and Siegfried, America Comes of Age.)

2. Study of current business ethics. (Cf. Calkins, Business roc Civilizer; Williams, Principles of Social Psychology; Veblen, Theory of Business Enterprise; Sombart, Quintessence of Capitalism.)

3. Relation of engineers and technicians to capitalistic economic order. (Cf. Veblen, Engineers and the Price System.

4. The rise of sex antagonism in occupations and professions. (Cf. Survey

(360) Graphic, Dec. 1926; Pruette, Women and Leisure; Goodsell, Problems of the Family, Chapter XVII.)

5. Study of influence of occupation on social attitudes in case of farmers. (Cf. Smith, "The Rural Mind: A Study in Occupational Attitude," American Journal of Sociology, 1927, vol. XXXII, p. 771-86; Zimmerman and Black, "The Marketing Attitudes of Minnesota Farmers," University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin, no. 45, December, 1926; Zimmerman, "Types of Farmers' Attitudes," Social Forces, 1927, vol. V, pp. 591-96.)

6. Report on Howard, The Labor Spy, for techniques to control laborers at work.

7. Report on Taussig, Inventors and Money Makers, for the relation of inventors to business men.

8. The Attitudes of the Medical Profession Toward Campaigns for Public Health and Reduced Cost of Medical Care.

9. Report on Chase, Men and Machines, for discussion of effects of machine production on modern life.

10. Report on Williams, What's On the Workers' Mind, as a study of laborer psychology.

11. Report on Tead, Human Nature and Management, for study of interrelations of psychology and industrial leadership.

Notes

  1. Quoted from J. A. Fitch's description in F. S. Chapin, Introduction to Social Economy, 1917, p. 195. Courtesy of The Century Company.
  2. T. Veblen, The Theory of Business Enterprise, 1920, pp. 308, 309, 310. Courtesy of Chas. Scribner's Sons. (Italics not Veblen's.)
  3. From Introduction to Social Ethics, by J. M. Mecklin, p. 354. Copyright, 1920, by Harcourt Brace and Company, Inc.
  4. H. Marot, Creative Impulse in Industry, 1918, p. 7-8. Courtesy of E. P. Dutton Company.
  5. Cf. W. L. MacKenzie King, Industry and Humanity, 1918, for a treatment of the place of fear in industrial relations.
  6. R. W. Babson, Religion and Business, pp. 97, 99. Copyright 1921 by The Macmillan Company. Reprinted by permission.
  7. J. M. Williams, Principles of Social Psychology, 1922, pp. 75-76. Published by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
  8. F. T. Carlton, "The Industrial Crisis,"' New Republic, 1921, vol. XXV, p. 287.
  9. From a statement made during a labor crisis by President J. E. Edgerton of The National Association of Manufacturers. Quoted in the Portland (Ore.) Telegram, Jan. t9, 192;.
  10. Quoted in Commercial and Financial Chronicle, vol. CXIII, Nov. 19, 1921, p. 2151.
  11. Ibid., p. 2151.
  12. From C. Goodrich, The Miner's Freedom, 1925, p. 56. Courtesy of Marshall Jones Company.
  13. H. R. Baldwin in System, 1921, vol. XL, p. 176.
  14. I. P. Brunt in Factory, 1921, Vol. XXVII, p. 36.
  15. D. M. Perrill in Factory, 1921, vol. XXVII, p. 616.
  16. C, L, Pool in System, vol. XL, Aug., 1921.
  17. F. Holton, "Why We're Glad We Moved to the Country," Factory, Not. XXVII, 1921, pp. 49-51.
  18. C. B. Tyson in Factory, vol. XXVII, 1921, pp. 47-48.
  19. H. S. Firestone, "Why We Invested $7,000,000 in Simplification," Factory, 1921, vol. XXVII, 739-43.
  20. Cf. Survey Graphic, April 1, 1929, for series of articles on unemployment in America brought on by changes in industrial technology.
  21. From Industrial Unionist, vol. I, Oct. 25, 1921.
  22. Quoted by F. Babcock, "Shall Doctors' Fees be Lowered?" Nation, vol. CXXVIII, 1929, p. 502. The Public Health Institute, operated as a corporation without profits, treats cases of venereal disease. The lay board is made up of men of wealth and prestige in Chicago.
  23. Quoted by T. Minehan, "The Teacher Goes Job-Hunting," Nation, 1927, vol CXXIV, p. 606.
  24. W. James, Principles of Psychology, 1890, vol. I, p. 121. courtesy of Henry Holt and Company.
  25. A. E. Briggs, "Social Distance Between Lawyers and Doctors," Sociology and Social Research, 1928 vol. XIII, pp. 160-61. The writer of the article is an attorney. He describes general differences. Individual doctors and lawyers vary among themselves in many of the traits.
  26. E. S. Bogardus, "Occupational Distance," Sociology and Social Research, 1928, Vol. XIII, pp. 77, 78.

Valid HTML 4.01 Strict Valid CSS2