sociological trends in the south

Sociological Trends in the SouthAuthor(s): L. L. BernardSource: Social Forces, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Oct., 1948 - May, 1949), pp. 12-19Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2572453 .

Accessed: 10/06/2014 04:56

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

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

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.19 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 04:56:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2572453?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


12 SOCIAL FORCES

SOCIOLOGICAL TRENDS IN THE SOUTH*

L. L. BERNARD

Pennsylvania State College

TN THIS paper I shall approach my subject along three separate lines. First, I shall review briefly some previous contributions

I have made on the subject of southern sociology.' Second, I shall present various statistical summa- ries of trends in academic sociology extending over a period of some forty years.2 These will consti- tute the body of my present paper and will provide the framework from which I trust some conclusions may be drawn with reference to the direc- tion which sociology has been taking in this period of forty years. In the third part of this paper I shall venture some nonquantitative observations and opinions regarding the factors which have conditioned the establishment and growth of sociology in the South and that are still influencing its development in this southern region.

I

In various published studies in the history of sociology which I have made I have pointed out the fact that the early history of sociology in this country was closely connected with the life and problems of the South. The old South was much more cosmopolitan than the North and kept up a broad intellectual contact with Europe which was rather unique for its time. The North also had intellectual contacts with Europe, but they were for the most part more academically specialized. We know of Longfellow's, Ticknor's, and James Russell Lowell's literary excursions into northern, southern, and central Europe, of the specialized interests of Washington Irving, of Prescott and John Lothrop Motley in major phases of European history, and of a host of young American artists who went to Europe for training in antebellum days. There were also the European travels and interpretations of Bayard Taylor, President Felton of Harvard, Horace Binney Wallace, Jacob Abbott, and many others, who sought in the first half of the nineteenth century to interpret to adolescent

America the richer and more adult traditions of the old world. Some of the ablest and more flexible- minded democrats of Europe, including Joseph Priestley, Dupont de Nemours, Thomas Cooper, Franz Lieber, and the Grimkes, had migrated to America and brought a precious gift of culture from a none too tolerant foreign environment. A sur- prisingly large number of these bearers of gifts from the barbarian (European) successors of the Greeks had been encouraged and befriended by Thomas Jefferson, the greatest of the Americans.

We too sent visitors to Europe. Those who went from the North were, as already stated, largely academically minded and were not much contaminated by the sociological enlightenment of the eighteenth century philosophy. Even the universal genius of Benjamin Franklin was not greatly affected by radical French thought. But Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and John Taylor, through personal contacts and reading, caught the spirit of the democratic theories of John Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Voltaire, Helvetius, and D'Holbach and incorporated them into our own democratic thought and institutions.3 The great mind of Thomas Jefferson was able to ingest and digest the whole of this European liberal contribution and he applied it to the theory and practice of government, to education, and even to economic, ecclesiastical and social policy. As I have said in a former paper, Thomas Jefferson is entitled to be regarded as the first great American sociologist,4 although he produced no sociological system and did not lay claim to the title here assigned to him. It remained for two other southerners, one a Mis- sissippi and the other a Virginia planter-Henry Hughes5 and George Fitzhugh6-to introduce the term sociology to the general southern reading

* Read before the eleventh annual meeting of the

Southern Sociological Society, Knoxville, Tennessce, April 16, 1948.

1 See Social Forces, XV: 154-174, and XVI: 1-12. 2 See American Journzal of Sociology, XV: 164-213,

XXIII: 491-515, and L: 534-48.

I Sce for example, Paul M. Spurlin, Montesquieu in A miierica, 1760-1801 Louisiana State University Press, 1940).

4 L. L. Bernard, "The Historic Pattern of Sociology in the South," Social Forces, XVI: 1-12 (October 1937).

6L. L. Bernard, "Henry Hughes, First American Sociologist," loc. cit., XV: 154-174 (December 1936).

6 Harvev Wish, George Fitzhugh (Louisiana State University Press, 1938).



SOCIOLOGICAL TRENDS IN THE SOUTH 13

public, both publishing in 1854. Fitzhugh's Sociology for the South was not a treatise in sociology, but a group of essays in the new field of "Social Science" thinking exploited in this and other countries.7 But Henry Hughes' Treatise on Sociology: Theoretical and Practical was the first published attempt in the world to present a system- atic integral exposition of the conditions of social adjustment using the term sociology in the major title to the work. 8

In this work Henry Hughes combined the teach- ings of the "Social Science" advocates of the Fourierian doctrines with those of Comte-whom he probably had seen in Paris-as a background for the refutation of the Free Labor system of the laissez faire economists, and applied the whole of his resulting theory of society to a justification of the American slavery system. We should certainly not regard this as an adequate approach to sociological theory at the present time. But it was a respectable beginning for the period in which it was written. The emphasis here is upon the fact that it was southern and that it was the most forthright American attempt of its time to develop a general social policy based on a background of sociological theory. Even the discussions of Henry C. Carey in his monumental work on Principles of Social Scienice, published in three volumes in 1858-9, offers nothing more illuminat- ing on social policy guided by sociological theory. Carey's treatise impliedly supported the free labor system, offered little to offset its evils, and concen- trated on a policy of increasing national wealth, if not national welfare, through the development of a protective system. Both of these treatises are unilateral in their major emphases, and are so different in points of view that it is difficult to com- pare them. But it is possible to say that the work of Henry Hughes shows more clearly the impact of the sociological approach than does that of Carey, which has a strong economic outlook.

I think it is quite clear from these facts that sociology is, historically considered, more largely than not a product of our American South. Immedi- ately the question must present itself as to why, with such a visible initial advantage, the South has not kept its lead in sociology. In the remainder

of this paper I shall attempt to throw some light upon this subject, while at the same time I endeavor to offer some indications of the tendencies and present achievements of sociology in the South. Of course everyone knows of the economic condition the South was left in following the war of 1861-65 and of the consequent lag in development suffered by its educational institutions due to poverty. Perhaps we are not as keenly aware of the political and social conservatism, due in part to this poverty and even more to racial and cultural conflicts, which has helped retard free sociological analysis and planning in the South for more than two generations. But we are becoming more frankly cognizant of this condition, thanks to recent demonstrations in Washington and else- where, and to the enlightening analyses of such publicists as Howard W. Odum, Stetson Kennedy, Margaret Halsey, and others. 9

II

Some twenty years ago I pointed out in a paper before the Southwestern Sociological Society'0 the fact that the second academic listing of sociology in the United States was at the University of Arkansas in 1881. The first was, as you know, at Yale in 1872-73, when William Graham Sumner gave up one of the three terms of his course on Political and Social Science to a discussion of Spencer's Principles of Sociology. The effort at Arkansas was even less ambitious, because it was only a course of lectures on the Spencerian system of sociology, probably presented by the teacher of Moral or Political Philosophy. The subject did not appear regularly in the curriculum of the Uni- versity of Arkansas until 1901. Meanwhile, other southern institutions were introducing sociology into their curricula. Trinity College of North Carolina (now Duke University) offered a course on sociology around 1890 under the instruction of its president, a former student with Professor Gid- dings, himself a man of some distinction in the field

See L. L. and Jessie Bernard, Origins of American

Sociology (New York: T. Y. Crowell Co., 1943), especially the early chapters.

8 In Comte's System of Positive Polity the term

sociology appears in the subtitle.

9Howard W. Odum, The Way of the South (New York: Macmillan, 1947) and Race and Rumors of Race (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1943); Stetson Kennedy, Southern Exposure, (New York: Doubleday, 1946); Margaret Halsey, Color Blind (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1946).

10 L. L. Bernard, "Some Historical and Recent Trends in Sociology in the United States," South- western Political and Social Science Quarterly, IX: 264-293.



14 SOCIAL FORCES

of sociology, Dr. John Franklin Crowell. Atlanta University, *Hope College, West Virginia Uni- *versity, and the Woman's College of Maryland introduced the subject in 1897. Wofford College followed in 1899. Central University of Kentucky added sociology in 1900. Leland University of New Orleans and Tulane University of the same city and the University of Arkansas listed courses in 1901. Hampton Institute of Virginia and Millsaps College had courses in 1902. Louisiana State University and Wake Forest College followed in 1903. My records show only one new listing in 1904, that of the University of Chattanooga. But the Universities of Oklahoma and South Carolina added courses in 1905, and the University of Flor- ida and Western Maryland College followed in 1906. By 1910 five other southern institutions had introduced sociology. After that year the growth of sociology in the South was more rapid, the larger universities now introducing the subject and giving it increasing attention.

A few general remarks about the early growth of sociology in the South may be made in connec- tion with these statistics. For example, the records are not complete and the growth was much more favorable than these data show. For instance, only 28 institutions are covered by the statistics and three of these made no report on the date of the establishment of the subject. It is possible that a fuller knowledge of the dates of the introduction of sociology into southern educational institutions might modify the obvious inductions from the data which we now possess. But as the known facts now stand, it is apparent that sociology was first accepted by the smaller institutions of the South and by the Negro colleges. The reason for the Negro interest is, I think, sufficiently evident in the fact that a minority group was trying honestly to understand the social situation in which it found itself. At present it is possible only to speculate on the causes of the slow introduction of sociology into the larger southern institutions, but this slowness may have been due in part to the fact that the politics which determined their educational policies was not too anxious to diffuse an understanding of social conditions in the South, that there longer than in the North sociology con- tinued to be confused with socialism and other radical ideologies, and that the South was especially intent upon economic recovery and as a consequence developed economics at the expense of the other social sciences.

On this last point I have some specific data drawn from my report on "The Teaching of Soci- ology in Southern Colleges and Universities," in 1917.1" In this year, in 139 institutions of all classes, 251 courses in sociology, 438 in economics, and 239 in political science or government were listed. Of the 139 institutions, 39 listed no courses in sociology, 20 none in economics, and 51 none in political science or government. Taking sociology listings as the base, economics had an index rating of 172, political science of 96 and history of 391, based on the number of courses listed. Thus sociology was considered only a little more than one-half as important as economics and only one- fourth as desirable educationally as history. The fact that it outranked political science is to be explained in part by the inclusion of several Negro and women's colleges in these statistics, both of which gave more attention to sociology than to political science or even economics. If these colleges should be eliminated, sociology would rank lowest of the four subjects here indicated in number of courses listed for white male and coeducational institutions, and listings in economics would about double those for sociology, while listings in history would approximate nearly five times as great. The lower than expected listings of political science courses can be explained mainly in terms of the fact that the South a generation ago still took its politics traditionally and "politically" rather than scientifically, as it still does to some extent. Consequently political theory was better represented in historical than in theoretical and practical courses. Also, the comparatively rural character of the South of that time had not stimu- lated southern scholars to a deep interest in their concrete problems of government.

An analysis of 35 southern institutions affording comparable data for 1947-48 gave the following results with regard to offerings in the social sciences and history. These 35 selected institutions listed 683 courses in sociology, 677 in economics, 547 in political science, and 991 in history. It may seem surprising that more courses were offered by these institutions in sociology than in either economics or political sicence and almost two-thirds as many as in history. This exhibit reveals a marked increase in the relative status of sociology as con- trasted with that shown by the 1917 figures, gath- ered thirty years earlier. Since the institutions

11 See American Journal of Sociology, XXIII: 491- 515 (Jan. 1918).




analyzed in 1948 were not completely identical with those covered in 1917 there may be some bias in the sample in favor of sociology, but this is partly if not wholly corrected by the fact that a somewhat larger proportion of major institutions was included in the 1947-48 figures. If there is any bias it probably comes from the inclusion of seven women's colleges and three Negro institutions in the data for the later date, which is a slightly larger number than were included in 1917.

Breaking down the 35 institutions into distinc- tive classes of institutions, we find that 23 general educational institutions providing comparable information on the point give 477 courses to sociology, 549 to economics, 451 to political science or government, and 741 to history. These are the institutions least favorable to sociology in a com- parative sense, and yet they are much more favorable to sociology relatively than the total undifferentiated sample of 1917, the index figures being: sociology 100, economics 115 as compared with 172 in 1917, political science 95 as compared with 96, and history 155 in contrast to 391 for 1917. If we take the undifferentiated sample of 1947-48 as a whole the index figures run: sociology 100, economics 99, political science 80, and history 145. Perhaps it would be somewhat premature to predict from these data that in another thirty years sociology will occupy the place of the leading social science in southern colleges and universities and that it will take a position in advance of history itself in an age in which current knowledge about society based on the analysis of universally repre- sentative data which may be employed for pur- poses of foresight may make a larger intellectual appeal than knowledge about the past which con- tributes chiefly to hindsight and emotional recall of past events.

Perhaps the curriculum makers of Fisk, Hamp- ton, and Tuskegee had something like this in mind when together they listed in 1947-48 a total of 59 courses in sociology, 33 in economics, 11 in political science, and 43 in history. Slightly different con- siderations, such as vocational preferences and general cultural interests, may account for the preference for sociology over the other social sciences in the seven women's colleges for which com-

parable data were obtainable. These seven insti-

tutions-Agnes Scott, Alabama College for

Women, Florida State College, Newcomb, North Carolina College for Women, Sweet Briar, and

Winthrop-together listed 111 courses in sociology,

71 in economics, 61 in political science, and 155 in history. Reducing these figures to index numbers we have sociology 100, economics 64, political science 55, and history 140. It thus appears that history is almost as popular with the women's colleges as in the coeducational institutions, while economics and political science lag far behind. Can it be that southern women are not yet alert to political problems, or do they believe that their solution is to be found in sociology rather than in political theory?

The growth of southern interest in sociology in the last thirty or forty years may be shown more directly than by a comparison of the listings of courses in the social sciences and in history. My 1909 study of the teaching of sociology in the United States'2 was based on data drawn from a total of 75 southern institutions along with a larger number from the other sections of the country. Four full-time and 84 part-time teachers taught a total of 152 courses. Each institution offered approximately an average of two courses, and there were only four full-time teachers of sociology in all of these 75 institutions, repfesenting the pick of the South. Almost exclusively, men trained in economics, political science, history, philosophy, education, psychology, or Bible conducted the work in sociology at that time. By 1917, when 139 southern institutions were placed under analy- ysis,13 251 courses in sociology were listed, which appears on the face of the figures to indicate a decline in the average number of courses offered in each institution. But it must be remembered that the 1917 study was made entirely from college catalogs instead of from data provided by ques- tionnaire and, as a consequence, many more of the smaller colleges than were embraced in the 1909 study were included. Presumably, these smaller institutions carried a smaller average number of courses and several of them-39 of them, to be exact-listed no courses in sociology at that time. Consequently, the 100 institutions carrying courses in sociology listed a total of 251 courses, or an average of two and one-half courses to the institution. This was a gain of 25 percent in the eight years intervening between the two studies, and probably even a greater gain when we remember that more small institutions were carried in the

12 American Journal of Sociology, XV: 164-213 (September 1909).

13American Jowunal of Sociology, XXHI: 491- 515 (January 1918).



16 SOCIAL FORCES

100 cases studied in 1917 than in the 75 analyzed in 1909.

By the period 1945 -48, when 62 separate southern institutions were analyzed, the number of teachers and courses in sociology had increased greatly. Data as to the number of instructors in sociology were available for only 30 of these 62 institutions, since that data were taken from catalogs and not from questionnaires. But these 30 institutions showed a total of 125 full-time and 16 part-time teachers, or an average of between four and five instructors in sociology to the institution. These teachers handled 701 courses, or somewhere between four and one-half and five and one-half courses to the instructor. In the 62 institutions a total of 1107 sociology courses were listed, or an average of almost 18 courses to the institution. In a period of approximately thirty years, or roughly speaking, one generation, the average number of courses to the institution had risen from approximately 2.5 to approximately 18. And in less than forty years the average number of instructors in sociology had grown from considerably less than one to nearly five. The teachers of sociology in the 1945 -48 period were mostly trained in sociology and they taught for the most part in departments designated as sociology.

This last statement is substantiated by a comparison of departmental data collected in the earlier and the later studies. Comparable data regarding departmental designation and control were obtainable from the four studies here sum- marized. Of the 62 institutions studied in 1945 -48, a total of 46 listed separate departments of sociology and 14 others included the term sociology in some combination with other subjects in the departmental title, that of sociology and economics still being the most common alliance. Only two institutions out of the total of 62 listed sociology in a department which did not bear the name sociology in any form. It was not possible to obtain data for comparison of early and later prac- tices with respect to department titles for all of the 62 southern institutions covered by the two 1945 and 1948 studies. But such information was available for comparison from 48 of these institutions. In the two earlier studies (1909 and/or 1917) only three departments bore the unitary title sociology, 17 carried a mixed title, in which sociology was a constituent by name, and 28 departmental titles did not mention the word sociology. In contrast with this distribution of

deparmental titles the 1945 and/or 1948 studies showed 34 of the 48 departments-nearly three- fourths of them-with the single title of sociology. Thirteen other departments included the term sociology along with the name of one or more other disciplines, and only one department excluded the term sociology from the departmental title. This isolated example was Fisk University, which lists 39 courses in sociology as against 16 in economics, 7 in political science, and 18 in history. However, the title here is not as unfair to sociology as might appear at first sight; the departmental title in this case is Social Science and probably represents an ideal of unifying the efforts of all the social sciences under the leadership of sociology. In any case the growing autonomy of sociology in the South is sufficiently evidenced by the fact that in approx- mately one generation the unitary claims of sociology to independent status were multiplied 34 times.

The development toward an independent status of sociology was most marked in the general coeducational instututions; 27 out of 32 institutions for which comparable data were available had become independent by 1945-48 and only five retained mixed titles. A generation earlier not one of these departments had independent status, 14 had mixed titles, and 18 did not mention sociology in the title. Of the women's colleges providing data, only one- third had given sociology independent status by 1945-48, although, as has already been indicated, sociology dominates the teaching of the social sciences in these colleges for women. Much the same situation obtains in the colleges and uni- verisities for Negroes, although these institutions were among the first to introduce sociology into southern curricula. A completer sample might result in changing our conclusions regarding the administrative status of sociology in some of these special types of southern educational institutions.

III

The data just presented argue favorably for a biright future for sociology in the South, as well as in other parts of the nation. Human society, especially in the United States, has reached the stage of collective self-consciousness. It is in the process of evaluating itself, of analyzing its prob- lerps, and it has begun to plan for a better realization of its approved goals-indeed to project new and bettter objectives for its future development. While no social science can be denied the possi-




bility of making contributions to these processes, sociology is particularly fitted by its nature to give guidance to these self-conscious methods of collective improvement. The things that are necessary to enable sociology to perform these functions and to assume leadership in social planning and social realization are: (1) that it should have an able and devoted personnel, (2) that it should have adequate tools with which to work, and (3) that it should have opportunity and freedom with which to perform its indicated functions. I trust that the fact that I am myself a southerner by birth and upbringing and sympathy and that I have taught in three of the South's universities and in one of its colleges will justify me in making some frank and friendly observations on these three points.

In looking over the list of the past presidents of the American Sociological Society I observe that seven out of its nearly thirty-five presidents were born in the South. The fact that approximately one-fifth of these presidents claim the South as their birthplace and origin would seem to indicate that the South makes its proportional contribution to the brains of the Nation. But only three of these presidents were elected to the post from the South. Less than ten percent of these presidents were elected while members of southern universities. Nor was any one of these presidents from the South elected to the post until about three- fifths of the history of the American Sociological Society had run its course. Thus the achievement of southern sociology is clearly not equal to the South's contribution of human ability to the sociological profession. Within the last few years the South has made a somewhat better showing in the matter of presidents elected from southern universities, but it still lags far behind in its predict- able quota. It seems important to look into the causes of this lag in the recognition of southern sociologists for the chief post of honor in the profession.

Let me say at once that I do not think that any intentional discrimination operated against southern sociologists. The cause of the lag must be sought in other; and less direct circumstances. Nor could any one seriously urge that the South does not produce its full share of natural ability when compared with other sections of the country. The fact that men have been imported from other sections to fill many of the most important sociological positions in the Soutih does not support any

such hypothesis. Important sociological positions in the North and West are also held by sociologists of southern birth, although the number of this group is proportionately smaller than the number of similar migrants to the South. Such interchange of positions is in itself a healthful sign. It is only in an extreme form that it becomes significant of some sort of unhealthful condition. At the mo- ment I can think of very few southern born sociologists who head up the most important departments of sociology in the South. Apparently the heads of the South's most distinguished departments of sociology are more often than not imported from abroad. It is, however, encouraging to note that the'heads of the two most active and productive departments of sociology in the South are southern born, although not southern trained. I welcome this fact, not from any sectional partisan motive, but because of its potential encouragement of southern sociologists to remain and work in the South. One of these heads is in a white State university and the other is in a Negro university supported primarily by northern funds. It can scarcely be doubted that there are other sociologists of southern origin now in the North whose distinction would clearly warrant their holding similar positions in the South. Why, then, are they not in these positions?

I do not raise this question in any invidious sense. I thi'nk that the men from other sections of the country who head departments of sociology in the South are able and efficient. My question is not intended to disparage the persons or services of these men, but to lead up to an explanation of why able men who know and love the South as their native land are in other parts of the country instead of in their own native regions; why, for example, of seven presidents of the American Sociological Society who were born in the South, only three were elected to their positions from the South. Perhaps I should attempt to answer the last question first. Possibly the answer may be indicated by the simple statement that the chance of attaining national distinction as a sociologist are much greater outside the South than in the South. This is not so obviously true today as it was half a generation ago, but it is still painfully true. I am of course aware that the two departments mentioned above as having achieved marked distinction for their work under the leadership of two native southern men, one white and the other Negro, rank high as departments when compared



18 SOCIAL FORCES

with departments anywhere. This is true even though, or perhaps largely because of the fact that, much of their achievement has been earned with the aid of northern rather than southern funds.

The fact that the chances of achieving sociological distinction in the South are less favorable than in the North has itself to be explained. It seems to go back on the one hand to the relative poverty of the South and on the other hand to certain collective handicaps to sociological research and teaching. These latter handicaps are sufficiently serious anywhere in such a sensitive subject as sociology, but they are perhaps considerably intensified in the South, owing to the peculiar psycho-social conditions existing there.

I think I do not need to prove the existence of institutional poverty in the South. The South is richer now than it was formerly and it is corre- spondingly more generous with its cultural institutions. But the cost of living for professional men in the South has long been curiously high for a conspicuously rural region. Great departments of sociology cannot be built without adequate funds with which to finance research, to draw the ablest sociologists to plan and execute sociological pro- grams, and to train the future teachers of sociology in the region. Most prospective teachers of sociology in the South have gone north for their specialized training; and this has been true of almost all of the Negro teachers, thus drawing off a large part of the potential graduate clientele of southern departments of sociology. Only one institution in the South trains college teachers of sociology to an extent that is comparable to the work of the better northern universities. Only a handful of southern sociologists have that freedom from teaching and paper reading and administrative drudgery which would enable them to compete nationally in research production and publication, and these men almost without exception are given their freedom by the national government or by northern foundations. By contrast, the large departments in leading northern universities have salaries adequate to their needs, funds for research, and help with the drudgery of their work which enable them to be productive in the way a university professor should be. Only thus can a sociologist raise himself above the level of the routine teacher into the role of creative shcolarship.

However, not all the hindrances to sociological distinction in the South arise from regional financial limitations. In all parts of the country harassed

university executives like to hire "safe" men in sociology. This all too frequently means second and third rate men or conscious "trimmers." In the North this perennial caution has mainly to do with radical economic ideas. Universities must not bite the hands that feed them. Similar cau-. tiousness is inevitable in the South also, but here there are further complications. Race, cultural and theological conflicts often impose additional censorship in the South. It is not only that personal race contacts pre-supposing the erasing of legal and social barriers must not be exploited-a- prohibition which is not now as strong as it once was-but certain subjects are not open for free and objective investigation by white sociologists in institutions depending on public funds for support. In two southern universities where I once taught I was quietly passed over for regional committees which obviously pertained to my department and men from English and biology were appointed by the administration instead. My only offense seemed to be that I had stated in written publications that the best evidence of tests showed no marked difference in the intellectual capacities of the several races.

Only too often does the relatively conservative atmosphere of the South result in the selection of conservative candidates for positions in sociology, and this sometimes means the appointment of personnel which is not only conservative, but also obtuse to the appeal of a better social order or even cynical about the possibility of its achievement. If the candidate happens to be none of these things, but able and conscientious regarding his larger social obligations, he frequently learns to be cautious in the face of danger from the outside. Insecurity of tenure, such as we have re- cently observed at the University of Texas, resulting in the migration of several able teachers to northern institutions, or the earlier political attacks upon teachers of sociology at the University of Mississippi, have been all too common in the South. My predecessor at the University of Florida was driven out by political pressures in spite of his marked ability and the desire of the administration to save him. My successor in the same institution suffered a like fate, but with less publicity. The former was southern born, the latter a northern man, who later became a nationally known sociologist through his service in a northern institution where his scientific convictions were not a handicap to him.



STRATIFICATION IN A LATIN AMERICAN CITY 19

But I do not wish to overemphasize this difficulty of political and social repression which some southern sociologists may not have encountered person- ally. Happily it seems to be growing less in many parts of the South and may in time disappear. The economic pressures and ideological intolerances are perhaps much more serious and there is less hope of solving that problem successfully. Yet, sociology does grow in the South, as the data I have presented earlier in this paper abundantly demonstrate, and this fact is full of heartening promise for the future. There are many wise sociological leaders in the academic South. They have already done much for a better understanding of the social problems

of the South and for their solution. They are certain to do much more in the future. We must rejoice that although southern institutions would not or could not always retain the services of all of their good men, they were able to contribute some of them to other parts of the country and to import other good men from abroad. What the South needs most of all, I think, from its sociologists is a broad and bold sociological vision and leadership to which it may apply generously the task of research to cause the vision and leadership to bear fruit in the production of an American civilization as progressive as its present economic development.

STRATIFICATION IN A LATIN AMERICAN CITY

HARRY B. HAWTHORN AND AUDREY ENGLE HAWTHORN.

University of British Columbia

INTRODUCTION

T 1JHE authors lived in Sucre from October 1941 to April 1942, with a fellowship granted by the Institute of Human Relations, Yale

University, for the purpose of making a community study. Letters of introduction to townspeople brought a generous response in the form of hospi- tality and provision of information. Travelling to study the city was regarded as a very under- standable thing by the inhabitants, who were pround of its long history and of its present. In a community of wide divergences the role of parti- cipant observer was limited, and two assistants gave part-time serviccs in covering cultural areas not available to the authors. The authors rcceived partial acceptance in some sections of the population which, on grounds which will be set out below, are denoted as middle and upper class. They had little contact with the urban lower class and the Indians, outside of business relationships. The hostility, fear, and suspicion widely felt among these latter groups in regard to their middle and upper class was generally directed towards the foreigners who associated with them.

In the search for convenient social groupings, the authors had in readiness the concept of status stratification, which they had considered in advance would be the most fruitful way of sorting out the data of this community and its culture.

In the course of the study they fitted this concept to the facts of observed behavior and material possessions, of attitude and belief obtained from direct interviews, of the social philosophy and sociology produced by the University of San Fran- cisco Xavier in Sucre, and by Sucrensian novelists and scientific societies. In classifying facts and individuals, it was not found convenient to think of sub-classes, although fuller investigation might have suggested this. The three-class scheme was found most useful for the urban data, from which the Inidians, who form at various times between five and ten percent of the city's population, are omitted.' Should they be included, as might be the case for communities where a greater proportion of them are resident or in the process of transition to mestizo culture, four classes, a class and caste system, or a subdivision of the lower class would be necessary. In the final analysis, the lines of demarcation between the social classes are arbitrarily drawn, although the ranking of individuals is often a sharply defined reality.2 The

1 According to the 1930 Census, Indians formed 12.09 per cent of the city's population. The authors consider this too high for 1942, and suggest that it included a number who had assimilated far enough to be closer to the mestizo classification, and here included as lower class.

2 Gunnar Myrdal: An Amiierican Dilemma (New York: 1944). Myrdal suggests that the class order in



sociological trends in the south

Documents