organization has consequences for other social structures in which any individual participates. (2) Thus, the initial agency of exposure and sequential socialization is not necessarily the work organization.

The broad organization of hypothetical relations then consists of (a) a taxonomy of social contexts (loci), for each of which there are (b) actions and norms that are appropriate, under the assumptions of a functionally integrated industrial society, and (c) the agencies of exposure at various points in the socialization sequence. The assumption of functional integration does not preclude multiple bases of status in a social system; it leaves open the question of their coherence and integration, as Singer suggests (Chapter 14).

Social Contexts of Commitment

Three major contexts can be distinguished with respect to the loci of commitment; and each can be further subdivided into a variable number of subcontexts:

I. The Work Place: Action patterns specific to a job and to the organization of that job. The subcontexts are:

A. Workers and Machines: The pattern of interaction between human and nonhuman disposable resources as they are typically utilized in a process of factory production.

B. Division of Labor: The specialized, sometimes hierarchical system of interdependence, resulting from either the dilution of previous skills or the creation of new skill Gestalten, in the flow of production. C. Authority: The alternative systems of communication and coordination, including the alternative bases of legitimation.

II. Market System: The extensity and purity of a generalized medium of exchange. The subcontexts are:

A. Labor Market: Including managerial and professional labor, as well as the different levels of skill.

B. Commodity Market: Including capital and producers' goods, as well as consumers' goods.

III. Social Structure: The institutional order of society, and particularly major functional complexes, their associated norms and concrete groups, and also various common orientations and integrative norms. The subcontexts

are:

A. Kinship: The patterns of reciprocities and strains between family and

economy.

B. Stratification: Competing patterns of invidious social differentiation and the individual's equitable position therein. Unions, occupational groups, and education as aspects of stratification.

C. Political System: Patterns of political loyalty and participation resulting from the structural position of the state as the focus of national integration and identity and the ultimate enforcement agency for social codes.

D. Common Orientations: Minimum levels of cognitive consensus, acquiescence in a normative order, and minimal consensus on ultimate values.

Agencies of Exposure

With respect to the agencies of exposure to new kinds of social action, the analysis distinguishes (a) precommitment or predisposing agencies and processes, (b) transitional phenomena, and (c) the ways in which internalization is effected and maintained.

Predisposing agencies include those elements in the premodern sectors of an underdeveloped area that facilitate the acts and norms appropriate to the social behavior systems characteristic of integrated industrial societies. For example, a stratification system that is at least normatively open-class, with institutionalized modes of status achievement— such as traditional Chinese society-presumably would encourage ready acceptance of the comparable norms applicable to an industrial labor force.8

Transitional phenomena refer primarily to the agencies and processes of adult socialization, which is a neglected area of investigation with regard to the many changes in the position of adults in industrial societies. Adult socialization is of critical significance in the transformation of socioeconomic systems, for without it, new social patterns could be neither self-generated nor self-maintained. The process of socialization clearly involves both cognitive and affective elements.10 These are, of course, analytical distinctions, since there is no human action without affect or, at some level, cognition. Nevertheless the distinction is important, as the agencies of major relevance may differ with respect to the two elements. Cognitive learning often takes place in predominantly formal and impersonal social relations, but the internali

8 Marion J. Levy, Jr., "Contrasting Factors in the Modernization of China and Japan," Economic Development and Cultural Change, 2:167 (October 1953).

• The significance of adult socialization is related to recent interest in “reference group" phenomena. See Peter M. Blau, "Social Mobility and Interpersonal Relations," American Sociological Review, 21:290-295 (June 1956); Everett E. Hagen, op. cit.

10 See Talcott Parsons and James Olds, "The Mechanism of Personality Functioning with Special Reference to Socialization," in Talcott Parsons and Robert F. Bales, Family, Socialization and Interaction Process (Glencoe: Free Press, 1955), Chapter 4.

zation of norms always involves strongly affective relations and thus something approximating the specifications for "primary" groups. The family may turn out to be as crucial for socialization of the adult as for that of the child, both by way of adult interaction and, especially, by way of children in a transitional situation.

For maintenance of commitment it is assumed, at least in the locus under discussion, that the transition has been completed. But just as there is an important range of phenomena involving adult socialization (contrary to prominent Freudian and neo-Freudian conceptions), the socialized or committed individual will not necessarily remain so unless the learned actions and ideas and the believed values are more or less consistently buttressed by a system of rewards and expectations. The maintenance processes relevant here are presumably most effective when the transition is no longer segmental and partial (e.g., in a new kind of employment), and when all other individual involvements (as consumer, city dweller, father, citizen, etc.) actually or potentially help maintain the specific commitment. This is one implication of the conception of a functionally integrated industrial system.

Interdependence and Expanding Commitment

Functional interdependence) implies that the various loci of commitment (work place, market, family, community) constitute potential agencies of socialization for intrinsically relevant actions and norms, and also, theoretically, for any or all others. The order of our classification of social contexts implies a sort of order of expanding commitment.11 However, other sequences are both theoretically possible and empirically observable, at both societal and individual levels. For example, rapid urban growth may occur without substantial industrialization,12 and individuals may join labor unions while remaining peasant proprietors and living in small villages. The kind of conceptual apparatus used here would permit an empirical typology of action and commitment sequences, their frequency, and determinants, but we do not offer such a typology. The taxonomy of contexts, actions, and agencies is here restricted to partial or segmental sequences, which are noted fairly systematically.

11 This is related to MacIver's analysis of the "dynamic assessment." See Robert M. MacIver, Social Causation (Boston: Ginn and Co., 1942), pp. 291–350.

12 Kingsley Davis and Ana Casis, "Urbanization in Latin America," Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 24:2-22, 43-45 (April 1946); Moore, Industrialization and Labor, p. 263.

2 THE WORK PLACE

Arnold S. Feldman
Wilbert E. Moore

In Part I of this volume we try to specify the patterns of working and living to which commitment is required if economic development is to be pursued. It is assumed that certain actions and norms are required for sustained economic development; and that, although the margin of error may be uncomfortably large, knowledge is sufficient for specifying the character of these actions and norms. It must be admitted that these assumptions are quite optimistic.

Any attempt of this kind is largely dependent on historical and current knowledge of highly industrialized societies. This dependence introduces the possibility of an ethnocentric bias,1 a charge made in several later chapters, but here effort is made to minimize the potential bias and distortion from these sources. First, limited parts of the social system (the individual loci) are analyzed seriatim, a procedure that hopefully discourages excessively broad generalizations. Second, the processes of change considered to be most immediately relevant to each of the loci of commitment are much more limited than the total number of processes commonly designated by the term "economic development." This chapter deals with the place of work and its corresponding process, industrialization, somewhat narrowly conceived.

INDUSTRIALIZATION AND THE FACTORY

Industrialization is defined as one aspect of economic development: the development of a factory system of production. So defined, indus1 On the applicability of "Western" developmental patterns and sequences to newly developing areas see Kingsley Davis, "The Controversial Future of the Underdeveloped Areas" in Paul K. Hatt, ed., World Population and Future Resources (New York: American Book Co., 1952), pp. 14–24; International Social Science Bulletin, 4:243-339 (1952); Wilbert E. Moore, Industrialization and Labor (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1951); Irene B. Taeuber, "The Future of Transitional Areas" in Hatt, op. cit., pp. 25-38, and "Population Increase and Manpower Utilization in Imperial Japan" in Modernization Programs in Relation to Human Resources and Population Problems (New York: Milbank Memorial Fund, 1950), pp. 121-141; Irene B. Taeuber and Edwin G. Beal, "The Dynamics of Population in Japan" in Demographic Studies of Selected Areas of Rapid Growth (New York: Milbank Memorial Fund, 1944), pp. 2, 11-15, 19-21, 26, 32-34.

trialization is more limited in scope than the growth of the secondary or manufacturing industry per se. Our concern is with the acts and norms required for effective factory labor.

The Factory as System and as Situation

Industrial sociologists typically conceive of the factory as a self-contained and complete social system,2 a point of view aptly labeled “plant sociology" by Kerr and Fisher.3 In this conception of the factory there is an intriguing, if paradoxical, combination of breadth and narrowness, which creates a dilemma for the analysis of commitment to factory labor. The breadth of the conception is a consequence of the important empirical discovery that many previously unsuspected relationships exist within the factory. The narrowness of the conception is a consequence of the plant sociologists' insistence on including all these relations and "interactions" under the rubric of work relations in order to support their view of the factory as a self-contained social system."

The dilemma comes about in the following manner. First, any analysis of the factory as a place of work and thus as a place where commitment occurs must take cognizance of the empirical evidence. Many relations not intrinsic to the work roles of the participants do exist within the factory, and this fact is at least equally relevant for the analysis of factory work in newly developing areas. Thus, the thinking of plant sociologists suggests that commitment to factory labor is only partly commitment to certain forms of work. It follows that a great deal of what the new factory worker must commit himself to in the factory cannot be derived directly from job specifications.

Second, the plant sociologists' conception of the factory as a complete and single social system means that place of work and the factory are perceived as different labels for a single phenomenon, since all the

2 Conrad M. Arensberg and Geoffrey Tootell, "Plant Sociology: Real Discoveries and New Problems" in Mirra Komarovsky, ed., Common Frontiers of the Social Sciences (Glencoe: Free Press, 1957), pp. 312-315; Clark Kerr and Lloyd H. Fisher, "Plant Sociology: The Elite and the Aborigines" in Komarovsky, op. cit., pp. 302-305; William F. Whyte, Money and Motivation (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1955), p. 218.

8 Kerr and Fisher, op. cit., p. 285.

♦ Arensberg and Tootell, op. cit., pp. 317, 320-321, 328-333; Elton Mayo, The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization (Boston: Harvard Graduate School of Business, 1933), pp. 55–121; F. J. Roethlisberger and W. J. Dickson, Management and the Worker (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940), pp. 493–510.

" Arensberg and Tootell, op. cit., pp. 333-337; Kerr and Fisher, op. cit., pp. 302–305.