Sons of the Establishment: Elite Youth in Panama and Costa Rica. by Daniel GoldrichReview by: John BiesanzSocial Forces, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Jun., 1967), p. 606Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2575935 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 04:46

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 support@jstor.org.

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.25 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 04:46:29 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

606 SOCIAL FORCES

favorable to high aspirations and achievement for all their pupils regardless of individual social origins. This social compositional effect has more than once been demonstrated, most recently in Coleman's massive study of equality of educa- tional opportunity. The book explains the finding rather in terms of the self-confidence developed in a homogeneous, secure environment.

What of religious behavior? Catholic school graduates are more observant, more informed about doctrine, more doctrinally orthodox and more supportive of church organizations than public school Catholics. But the differences are small on the average, and the average conceals the fact that they are very small unless parochial schooling is reinforced by a devout family. Re- ligious family and school in combination are strongly formative of a devout adult. Together they have a "multiplier" effect, larger than the sum of its parts.

There is a similar "multiplier" effect if a young person attends not just parochial school, or just a Catholic college, but both; and this effect occurs even without family reinforcement. Graduates of 16 years' Catholic schooling are not only devout; they are by far the most civil libertarian, the most tolerant toward other minorities, the most desirous of ecumenism, and the least religiously extreme of all Catholics. It is not clear that this liberalism stems directly from campus or classroom. Perhaps, the authors suggest, these college grad- uates are "plugged in" to a Catholic communica- tions network which keeps them abreast of change in the church and disposed to support it.

Since it is the high SES families who send their children to parochial school in largest pro- portion, Greeley and Rossi expect growing afflu- ence to increase the demand. The high SES par- ents, however, are also most insistent on superior educational quality. What if financial limitations make it difficult for Catholic schools to compete in quality with the non-Catholic schools available to the upper-middle classes? It may in fact be difficult for them to meet this new competition without large infusions of governmental aid; there- fore we can expect that the debate over federal aid to religious education will continue and in- tensify.

Greeley and Rossi believe the parochial school system not only will, but should survive. Their intermittently polemic tone need not disturb those who feel otherwise since the data them- selves do not provide very strong support for either side of the argument. There is little evidence here that the future strength of the American Catholic Church depends on the continued existence of the parochial schools. And there is little evi- dence that the attendance of some Catholic chil- dren at a separate school system does damage to the American consensus. If we are concerned about the bad consequences for the nation of

segregated schools, we need to worry far more about de facto race and social-class segregation in the public schools.

LEILA SUSSMANN Tuf ts University

SONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT: ELITE YOUTH IN PANAMA AND COSTA RICA. By Daniel Goldrich. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1966. 139 pp. Tables. $2.50. Paper.

Sons of the Establishment is based entirely on a comparison of the results of a questionnaire answered in 1962 by 72 students in a Costa Rican Catholic boys' high school and by 87 Panamanian students in 1961 and 91 in 1962 in a similar school.

The analysis is made in terms of legitimacy, ''a measure of the support a citizen accords the political system," and politization, "a continuum of individual political awareness and personal in- volvement in the world of politics and govern- ment." Costa Rica and Panama were selected be- cause they present contrasting examples of rela- tively high and low legitimacy.

Although Goldrich refers to these upper and upper-middle-class students as the probable in- heritors of the establishment, he asserts that "data are not available concerning the extent to which the national political elites are derived from grad- uates of these schools." A spot check I made in Panama early in 1967, however, reveals that more Panamanian presidents have been graduates of public than of private (including Catholic) high schools. Jose Antonio Remon, president and president-maker for a decade in the forties and fifties, was one of several presidents who grad- uated from the public Instituto Nacional, a hot seat of political activity, perhaps the most bullet- riddled building in Panama.

In Costa Rica as well as in the Panama public high school, students are much more involved in politics as students than are youngsters attending Catholic schools; and, although public-school stu- dents are lower on the socio-economic scale, they are also more mobile and fully as likely to assume important political posts. It seems unfortunate that these students were ignored.

The volume is well written, and the comparative approach is worthwhile and suggestive. There is little evidence, however, that the author has spent time in the countries involved or read much of the available literature. There is no control group. There are neither interviews nor case studies. The 26-month interval between questionnaires in Panama was too short a period to be of much sig- nificance in indicating social change, and the group answering was completely new. The appendix con- tains no bibliography.

JOHN BIESANZ Wayne State University

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.25 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 04:46:29 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions