Villages, Cities, and Total Institutions

Author(s): George A. Hillery, Jr.

Source: American Sociological Review , Oct., 1963, Vol. 28, No. 5 (Oct., 1963), pp. 779-791
Published by: American Sociological Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2089915

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2089915?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to American Sociological Review

This content downloaded from

134.36.250.1 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 20:27:43 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VILLAGES, CITIES, AND TOTAL INSTITUTIONS *

GEORGE A. HILLERY, JR.

University of Kentucky

To equate prisons and mental institutions with folk villages and cities under the heading
"community" is to imply an demonstrated relationship. The nature of the relationship is
examined through the use of models constructed from case studies. Cities and folk villages
provide a general model, labeled the "vill." Goffman's concept of total institution is used in
developing a model for prisons and mental asylums. Differences between the models are
almost always qualitative. The vill is integrated around three foci: space, cooperation, and
family. The total institution contrasts with each focus; it is a system in which a bureaucratic
staff compells a localized collectivity of inmates to act for certain ends. If vills are identified
as communities and if community is to have distinctive meaning, total institutions are not
communities.

re " OMMUNITY" has become an omnibus
identifiable type that stands in contrast to
word. The full spectrum of its mean-
ings embraces a motley assortment
of concepts and qualitatively different
phenomena. As important cases in point,
prisons, mental institutions, folk villages and
cities have had the community label affixed
to them with varying but persistent fre-
quency.' The thesis proposed here is that
* A revised and expanded version of a paper read
before the annual meeting of the American Socio-
logical Association, Washington, D.C., August,
1962. Appreciation is expressed to numerous col-
leagues, especially Eugene B. Gallagher, John H.
Mabry, William T. Query, and Basil J. Sherlock,
for their helpful criticisms, and to William Query
for providing the opportunity for making certain
observations at the Veterans Administration Hos-
pital, Lexington, Kentucky.
1 The term "community" has been extensively
used to describe total institutions. Among the
sources used in this study (see footnote 5 below),
Jones et al., Sykes, and Clemmer have designated as
communities the total institutions they studied.
Treatment of the prison as a community may be
found in: Frank Tannenbaum, Crime and the Com-
munity, Boston: Ginn and Co., 1938, pp. 324-338
et passim; Norman S. Hayner and Ellis Ash, "The
Prison as a Community," American Sociological Re-
view, 5 (August, 1940), pp. 577-583; R. M. Mac-
Iver and Charles H. Page, Society: An Introductory
Analysis, New York: Rinehart, 1949, p. 10; Mar-
shall B. Clinard, Sociology of Deviant Behavior,
New York: Rinehart, 1957, p. 513; Richard A.
Cloward, et al., Theoretical Studies in Social Organ-
ization of the Prison, New York: Social Science Re-
search Council, Pamphlet 15, March 1960, esp. pp.
71-73, 131-132; Edwin H. Sutherland, Principles of
Criminology, revised by Donald R. Cressey, 6th edi-
tion, Chicago: J. B. Lippincott, 1960, Ch. 24; and
Stanton Wheeler, "Socialization in Correctional
Communities," American Sociological Review, 26
(October, 1961) pp. 697-712.
Examples of accounts in which the mental asylum
779
prisons and mental institutions represent an
another identifiable type represented by folk
villages and cities.
My intention is not to define community,
but to describe systematically a collection of
human groupings most often called commu-
nity. This description will provide a clearer
understanding of at least two general types
of social groupings. The first type is conven-
tionally studied as communities. The second
type is more profitably viewed under the
theory of complex organizations.
METHOD
The method employed is described in some
detail elsewhere.2 Essentially, it consists of
is treated as a community are: Howard Rowland,
"Segregated Communities and Mental Health," in
Forest Ray Moulton (ed.), Mental Health, Lan-
caster, Pa.: The Science Press, Publication of the
American Association for the Advancement of Sci-
ence, No. 9, 1939, pp. 263-268; J. Bateman and H.
Dunham, "The State Mental Hospital as a Spe-
cialized Community Experience," American Journal
of Psychiatry, 105 (December, 1948), pp. 445-448;
Robert N. Rapoport and Rhona Sofer Rapoport,
"Democratization and Authority in a Therapeutic
Community," Behavioral Science, 2 (April, 1957),
pp. 128-133.
An important exception to this tendency is pro-
vided by Robert Sommer and Humphry Osmond,
"The Schizophrenic No-Society," Psychiatry, 25
(August, 1962), pp. 244-255. Their conclusions re-
garding the mental hospital as a community are
the same as those of this paper (in this connection,
see also footnote 37). However, these authors use
a fundamentally different approach and are speak-
ing primarily of schizophrenic patients in long-stay
wards.
2 George A. Hillery, Jr., "The Folk Village: A
Comparative Analysis," Rural Sociology, 26 (De-
cember, 1961), pp. 335-353, and "A Critique of Se-

This content downloaded from

134.36.250.1 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 20:27:43 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 780 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
comparing relatively complete and extensive
case studies drawn mainly from sociological
and anthropological literature. By means of
this comparison, a list was compiled of traits
or components common to all cases. The com-
ponents were organized into successive sys-
tems of classification which finally produced
Table 1. Ten folk villages were analyzed,3
five cities,4 two prisons and three mental
institutions.5 Each folk village is in a differ-
lected Community Concepts," Social Forces, 37
(March, 1959) pp. 236-242.
3 The data used in studying the folk village and
in constructing the model of the folk village were
gathered exclusively from the sources listed in Hil-
lery, "The Folk Village," op. cit., pp. 338-339n.
4 The following were the only sources used for the
case studies of cities: Morton H. Fried, Fabric of
Chinese Society: A Study of the Social Life of a
Chinese County Seat, New York: Praeger, 1953;
Harlan W. Gilmore, "The Old New Orleans and the
New: A Case for Ecology," American Sociological
Review, 9 (August, 1944), pp. 385-394; Asel T.
Hansen, "The Economy of a Latin American City,"
in E. B. Reuter (ed.), Race and Culture Contacts,
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1934, pp. 124-141;
George A. Hillery, Jr., "The Presence of Community
Among Urban Negroes: A Case Study of a Selected
Area in New Orleans," unpublished master's thesis,
Louisiana State University, 1951; George A. Hillery,
Jr., "The Presence of Community Among New Or-
leans Negroes: A Case Study of a Selected Area,"
The Proceedings of the Louisiana Academy of Sci-
ence, 15 (August, 1952), pp. 72-84; George A. Hil-
lery, Jr., "The Negro in New Orleans: A Demo-
graphic Analysis," unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Louisiana State University, 1954; George A. Hillery,
Jr., "The Negro in New Orleans: A Functional
Analysis of Demographic Data," American Socio-
logical Review, 22 (April, 1957), pp. 183-188;
Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, Middle-
town: A Study in Modern American Culture, New
York: Harcourt, Brace, 1929; Robert S. Lynd and
Helen Merrell Lynd, Middletown in Transition: A
Study in Cultural Conflicts, New York: Harcourt,
Brace, 1937; Horace Miner, The Primitive City of
Timbuctoo, Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1953, Memoirs of the American Philosophical So-
ciety, Vol. 32; Robert Redfield, The Folk Culture
of Yucatan, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1941.
5 Data used for the case studies of prisons and
mental asylums were gathered exclusively from the
following sources: Ivan Belknap, Human Problems
of a State Mental Hospital, New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1956; William Caudill, The Psychiatric Hos-
pital as a Small Society, Cambridge: Harvard Uni-
versity Press, 1958; Donald Clemmer, The Prison
Community, New York: Rinehart, 1958; Maxwell
Jones, A. Baker, Thomas Freeman, Julius Merry,
B. A. Pomryn, Joseph Sandler, Joy Tuxford, The
Therapeutic Community: A New Treatment
This content downloaded from
134.36.250.1 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 20:27:43 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ent culture, as are four of the cities (two are
in the United States, though in different re-
gions). The prisons and mental institutions
are limited to Europe and America.6
The case studies were used to construct
models. The models are not ideal types in
the usual sense, since emphasis is placed on
accuracy of description instead of logical
closure. Note especially that each component
of each model is found in all of the case
studies employed in the analysis. For this
reason, the models are more accurately
termed "empirical abstractions." A model
was constructed for folk villages,7 another
for cities, and a third for prisons and mental
institutions.
Each model consists of two parts: an in-
troductory statement and a list of compo-
nents.8 The introductory statement is an ab-
Method in Psychiatry, New York: Basic Books,
1953; Gresham M. Sykes, The Society of Captives:
A Study of a Maximum Security Prison, Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1958.
Sellin's account of Rasphuis (Thorsten Sellin, Pi-
oneering in Penology, Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1944) could have been added
to these five, but unfortunately this account lacked
sufficient information for several of the components
of the model shown in Table 1. The missing infor-
mation pertains to personal contact, social proc-
esses, ethnocentrism, and awareness.
6 The question of sampling and representativeness
is raised at this point. Since there is no assurance
that a sampling of the literature would provide a
representative picture of any of the phenomena
considered here, the writer attempted to gain as
maximum a range of variation as possible. Thus,
instead of trying to represent the fluctuation found
in the respective universes, one strives for a picture
which includes merely the range of possible varia-
tion (or a significant segment of the range). For
folk villages and cities, a cross-cultural comparison
was employed. For total institutions, where data did
not permit a cross-cultural comparison, an effort
was made to select systems with wide variation in
emphasis on both treatment and custody.
A comparative analysis, such as is provided here,
is a time-consuming process (see Hillery, "The Folk
Village," op. cit., pp. 340-342). Thus, emphasis is
placed on the minimum number of cases adequate
to the task. Continuing investigation of 22 addi-
tional vills and ten additional custodial systems
confirms the contention that the cases selected here
are adequate.
7 Hillery, "The Folk Village," op. cit.
8 This procedure essentially follows the recom-
mendations of Conrad Arensberg: -"Nowadays it is
clear that a model rather than a definition serves to
represent the complex variables of a complex situa-
tion, thing, or process. . . . Definitions are too shal-
low and too full of verbal traps; summaries of
 VILLAGES, CITIES AND TOTAL INSTITUTIONS 781
breviated form of what is usually considered
a definition. Such a statement is given for
each model as the model is developed in dis-
cussion. A more detailed picture is provided
by the list of components in Table 1. The
model presented first is common to both folk
villages and cities.
VILLAGE AND CITY
The ten folk villages and the five cities
share several elementary characteristics.
First, the basic social processes of coopera-
tion, competition, and conflict are found in
both types, with cooperation apparently most
characteristic. The inhabitants are also aware
of the systems as entities and are ethno-
centric about them. Both villages and cities
have existed for at least a generation and
often for hundreds of years. Spatially, both
are considered to be units by their inhabit-
ants (though the parts are not necessarily
contiguous). Finally, the boundaries of all 15
systems are vague in that they are conflicting,
partly lacking, unstable, or in that the in-
habitants are uncertain of them.
These constants indicate that the two
types of systems are related. Interestingly,
the differences indicate the same thing, for
all of the differences between these folk
villages and cities can be shown to be varia-
tions on certain continua such that one sys-
tem cannot be qualitatively distinguished
from the other; they differ only in degree.
In other words, the differences between these
systems are variations of certain qualities
both types of systems share; in no case
among these 15 can evidence be found that
cities systematically display qualities that
folk villages do not have, or vice versa.
The variations cluster around three focal
components: locality, family, and coopera-
tion. Each of these foci represents a distinct
continuum along which the folk villages and
the cities can be placed. Further, each of the
continua also serves as a focus for other traits
that may be regarded as functional conse-
quences of the foci.
Folk villages and cities both display eco-
logical centralization in the form of a nucleus
propositions are too slow and piecemeal, and cum-
bersome." Conrad Arensberg "American Communi-
ties," American Anthropologist, 57 (December,
1955), p. 1145.
This content downloaded from
134.36.250.1 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 20:27:43 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
around which various services are spatially
clustered (though the nucleus is not always
in the geographic center). But cities show
a higher degree of spatial differentiation. At
the most, the villages had a market place, a
town square, residential areas, and fields. The
cities had all of these (if the hinterland is
substituted for the fields) in addition to fur-
ther ecological segregation in the market and
residential areas. Segregation was even more
elaborate in the larger cities.
Folk villages and cities function as a base
of operations for the routinized activities of
their members,9 and movements from this
base are both localistic and cosmopolitan.10
Mobility in the villages is generally low.
Most villagers are native to the village or its
immediate vicinity, whereas the city is com-
posed more frequently of non-natives. A
sample of residents in one of the cities, for
example, revealed that 75 per cent had been
born elsewhere.
There is a basic shift in the emphasis on
the remaining two foci, family and coopera-
tion, depending on whether one is considering
the city or the village. In folk villages, the
family is the basic unit of organization.
Practically no member is without some kin-
ship ties within the village. Cooperation, in
the form of mutual aid, takes place mainly
among families rather than individuals. The
family is the basic economic, stratification,
and socialization unit and the basis on which
government, religion, and recreation operate.
Interaction in folk villages is largely personal
and direct, based on the premise that every-
one knows the kinship affiliation of everyone
else (or at least this condition is approxi-
mated). The solidarity of folk villages thus
stems from a proliferation of similar units
and is that which Durkheim termed "mecha-
nical."
Folk villages may therefore be regarded as
localized systems of cooperating families.
Cooperation, as mutual aid, functions chiefly
through the medium of family units. In cities,
interaction is more impersonal and anony-
mity is significant. Cooperation is segmental
9Talcott Parsons, The Social System, Glencoe,
Ill.: The Free Press, 1951, p. 91.
10 Carle C. Zimmerman, The Changing Commu-
munity, New York: Harper, 1938; Robert K. Mer-
ton, Social Theory and Social Structure, rev. ed.,
Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1957, Ch. X.
 782 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
and proceeds much more frequently among
individuals than among families. The content
of cooperation is limited, as is the means of
securing the assent of the other party to
the agreement, the degree of risk, and the
societal interest.'1 In other words, contracts
supercede mutual aid. Most persons, how-
ever, are tied to the "contractors" by familial
(i.e., non-contractual) ties. Cities may thus
be regarded as localized systems integrated
by contracts and families.
As a consequence of the limited nature of
cooperation and its emancipation from the
family, the city is able to operate through
universalistic norms. It is also able to func-
tion effectively with larger populations.
These conditions make possible an extensive
division of labor and thus the type of solidar-
ity Durkheim termed organic.
Although the foregoing approach is in the
tradition of the folk-urban continuum 12
11 Cf. the discussion of contracts in Talcott Par-
sons, Structure and Process in Modern Societies,
Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1960, p. 145. Further,
in terms of the distinctions made here, it is apparent
that Maine's concepts of status and contract are
generally applicable. See Henry J. S. Maine, Ancient
Law, New York: Holt, 1884, 5th ed., pp. 163-65.
Note, however, that status cooperation varies inde-
pendently of the strength of the family system, if
status cooperation is assumed (as it is here) to be
synonymous with institutionalized mutual aid.
Issues pertinent to the general topic of coopera-
tion are raised in Irving Louis Horowitz, "Con-
sensus, Conflict and Cooperation: A Sociological
Inventory," Social Forces, 41 (December, 1962), pp.
177-188.
12 For earlier studies in this area, see Howard
Becker, Through Values to Social Interpretation,
Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1950, Ch. 5.
Most work has probably been done by Redfield. Cf.
especially, Redfield, The Folk Culture of Yucatan,
op. cit., and Robert Redfield, "The Folk Society,"
The American Journal of Sociology, 52 (January,
1947), pp. 293-308. Probably the most comprehen-
sive criticism of Redfield's work is found in Horace
Miner, "The Folk-Urban Continuum," American
Sociological Review, 17 (October, 1952), pp. 529-
537.
Two important recent developments have been
provided by Gideon Sjoberg, The Preindustrial City,
Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1960; and Eshref
Shevky and Wendell Bell, Social Area Analysis,
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1955; see also
George A. Theodorson (ed.), Studies in Human
Ecology, Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson, 1961, Part
II, Sec. B. The work of Shevky and Bell appears
to offer independent substantiation (in cities) for
the three foci of vills. These authors find that the
most parsimonious description of large cities can be
This content downloaded from
134.36.250.1 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 20:27:43 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
there are important differences. (1) The
theory is based directly on existing social
systems rather than on ideal types and is
thus more rigorously limited to a particular
set of data. Ideal types as frames of refer-
ence apply only partly to actual systems.
Admittedly, the present approach sacrifices
some generality, but the empirical referents
are kept more clearly in view. It should also
be noted, as I have tried to show elsewhere,'3
that the two approaches are supplemental
rather than contradictory. (2) The descrip-
tion is systematic: the traits and their varia-
tions are found as described in all ten folk
villages and all five cities. (3) The descrip-
tion is cross-cultural, involving 11 cultures.'4
(4) There is no assumption of historical evo-
lution or of universality. The extent to which
these patterns are applicable to other times
and places requires further examination. (5)
Both the constants and variables can be de-
scribed as representing two sub-types of a
more general type. It is on this general type
that the remainder of this paper is based.
The problem remains of finding a name for
the type. The term "community" is difficult
to use at present, no matter how rigidly de-
fined, because the meanings now assigned to
it by others are vague or conflicting. One of
the reasons for this confusion is that there is
a confusion of objects subsumed under the
term. Not only may we ask what is a com-
munity but also what is not a community. A
term is needed which will refer to both folk
villages and cities and to nothing else. The
general term offered here is "vill." It has
the virtue of already existing in the English
language, and its meaning can be extended to
include both cities and villages (literally, it
refers to a township or division of a hun-
dred). More important, it is used so seldom
that it can be restricted in the severe manner
proposed. (A summary description of the vill
is provided in Table 1.)
obtained by the use of three indexes: (1) Social
rank, which in effect shows the degree to which the
division of labor is organic and thus contractual,
(2) urbanization, which is a measure of the extent
to which the family surrenders its dominance and
relinquishes its functions to other institutions, and
(3) segregation, which indicates the degree to which
space becomes allocated to specialized uses.
13 Hillery, "The Folk Village," op. cit., p. 353.
14 It is submitted that these three differences make
at least some progress toward answering Miner's
criticisms. See Miner, op. cit.
 VILLAGES, CITIES AND TOTAL INSTITUTIONS 783

TABLE 1. COMPONENTS FOR A MODEL OF THE VILL AND A MODEL OF THE TOTAL INSTITUTION

Vill Total Institution

Component (Folk Village and City) (Prison and Mental Asylum)

1.0 Interaction

1.1 Personal Interaction varied from an emphasis Both direct and indirect interaction
contact on direct interaction (in folk villages) operated in a system-wide network of
to less of such an emphasis (in cities); contacts. Staff were isolated from in-
practically everyone knew everyone mates and various inmates were iso-
else (folk villages) or strangers could lated from others.
be integral parts (cities).

1.2 Social Cooperation was most in evidence, A basic hostility (conflict) existed be-
processes though competition and conflict were tween staff and inmates; contractual
also described. cooperation was found among staff;
both mutual aid and conflict occurred
among inmates, though neither was
institutionalized.

2.0 Space

2.1 Spatial Space in folk villages was integrated Space was integrated according to the
integration politically or by common recognition custodial or treatment goals of staff in
(mechanically) or both; in cities, inte- reference to inmates.
gration was political, economic, and
organic.

2.2 Spatial Ecological centralization occurred in No common pattern was visible.

patterning both types.

2.3 Boundaries Boundaries were vague. Boundaries were "pathologically" sharp

and were part of and symbolic of
staff's control over inmates.

3.0 Activities

3.1 Base of Vills were bases of operations for both Staff did not necessarily use the total
operations localistic and cosmopolitan activities. system as a base of operations in either
sense; inmates used the system in both
senses, but only with staff's permission.

3.2 Mobility Mobility varied from low in folk vil- Though generally high, the degree of
ages to high in cities. mobility varied for staff. Inmates
passed through three discrete stages of
mobility: admission, confinement or
residence, and discharge. Residence
was a period of sharply limited mo-
bility: territorially, horizontally, and
vertically.

3.3 Continuance All cities were more than a century Two of the five systems were more
old; six of the ten villages were more than a century old.
than a century old and two of the re-
mainder might also be included with
the majority.

4.0 Sentiment

4.1 Ethnocentrism All vills revealed ethnocentric values Ethnocentrism was not a general senti-
directed toward parts of the system ment in all of the systems; all systems
and the system as a whole (complete revealed hostility between staff and
data not given in two studies). inmates.

4.2 Awareness Inhabitants of both types of vills Both staff and inmates were aware of
showed that they were aware of the the total systems as an entity, though
vill as a whole (with the exception of the degree of awareness was sharply
infants). reduced among a minority of inmates
in some systems.

This content downloaded from

134.36.250.1 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 20:27:43 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 784 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

TABLE 1-Continued

Vill Total Institution

Component (Folk Village and City) (Prison and Mental Asylum)

4.3 Solidarity Mechanical solidarity was more devel- Mechanical solidarity occurred
oped in folk villages and organic soli- among inmates, organic solidarity oc-
darity was more developed in cities, curred among staff, and antagonism
though each type displayed some evi- or absence of solidarity appeared be-
dence of both forms. tween staff and inmates.
5.0 Institutions

5.1.1 Family Family ties were found for most resi- None of the inmates lived with their
dents of all vills. families in the system, and family con-
nections in the system were generally
absent among the staff.

5.1.2 Maintenance No comparable institutions. Each system had or was associated

with institutionalized practices of re-
cruitment, custody, treatment, and
discharge of inmates.

5.2 Economics Economic institutions occupied a dom- Staff positions constituted occupations
inant place in the social systems of in service industries. Total systems,
vills, whether the economics concerned however, were not necessarily organ-
primary production (folk villages) or ized for economic ends and were sel-
secondary production, distribution, dom economically profitable.
and service industries (cities).

5.3 Religion All vills had religious and magical in- Religion was only of minor interest to
stitutions and beliefs. the investigators of custodial systems
and apparently of minor importance.

5.4 Cooperation Mutual aid characterized economic and Staff cooperation was contractual and
other institutional behavior in folk heavily institutionalized. Inmate co-
villages; contract superceded mutual operation, when it occurred, was mut-
aid in cities. ual aid and was not institutionalized.
Cooperation was supplanted by staff
dominance in staff-inmate relations.

5.5 Government Increased specialization occurred in Government was highly specialized.

governmental activities in cities as con- Four of the five systems relied on
trasted with folk villages. power rather than authority and all
employed force in regulating inmates.

5.6 Stratification Stratification was always dependent in Stratification was based primarily on
part on family ties; cities added power and authority accompanied by
achievement and possessions (though a caste-like split between staff and in-
some folk villages had these also). mates. Family ties were irrelevant.
5.7 Socialization Socialization was achieved both in Socialization was directed toward the
families and formal schools. inmates by both staff and inmates.

5.8 Recreation Feasts and festivals, games and music Only games were consistently men-
were institutionalized and occurred at tioned, though music, feasts, and fes-
least in part through cooperative tivals can probably be inferred. Some
activities. of these activities occurred in spite of
staff proscription.

Source: See footnotes 3-5.

The vill may be described as a localized
system integrated around families and coop-
eration. This description is used as the "in-
troductory statement" for the model. As is
apparent, the statement is a composite of
those previously offered for folk villages and
cities. Localization refers to the quality of
being located in only one place outside of
which the system has no identity. For ex-
ample, factories, schools, etc., may in prac-
tice operate in more than one place. The
vill is a system in two respects: ecologically
and socially. Most persons are attached to
the vill at least in part because they are

This content downloaded from

134.36.250.1 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 20:27:43 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VILLAGES, CITIES AND TOTAL INSTITUTIONS 785

family members. Folk villages rely almost
exclusively on this type of social organiza-
tion, whereas cities supplement familial at-
tachments by contractual relations. Coopera-
tion occurs in vills in terms of mutual aid (in
folk villages) and in terms of contracts (in
cities).
PRISONS AND MENTAL INSTITUTIONS
The model of prisons and mental institu-
tions follows Erving Goffman's theory of to-
tal institutions. Goffman has developed the
nature must be understood if the structure
and function of these systems are to be
grasped.
As is true of both models developed in this
paper, the model for the total institution per-
tains to all of its case studies. This statement
means that every component described in the
trait list is found in each of the five custodial
systems and that the introductory statement
of the model, given above, refers to all five
cases.
A COMPARISON OF MODELS

thesis that prisons, mental asylums and other

The general nature of the models must be
types of organizations (such as orphan asy-
stressed. We are working with simplified pic-
lums, army barracks, and monasteries) 15
tures, obtained by seeking only traits com-
have so much in common that to understand
mon to a number of phenomena. Within a
any one of these types, one must look at the
given model, a more detailed picture can be
others. The method employed for vills has
attained by describing any sub-type.18 Such
been used to construct a model of total insti-
diversity is not the present concern. The
tutions as a test of the usefulness of Goff-
question at hand is, what can be done with
man's thesis.16 Here, the test is applied only
these general models that will help to throw
to prisons and mental institutions. Table I
more light on phenomena that have been
compares the components of a model of these
called community? The reader must distin-
total institutions with the components of a
guish between what may happen in a given
model of vills. Because a confusion in term-
vill or total institution and what is found in
inology may develop when discussing the in-
these types as types, i.e., generally and sys-
stitutions contained in total institutions, this
tematically. What is important to an under-
type of social grouping will also be called a
standing on a specific level is often irrevelant
custodial system.
to an understanding on a more general level.
The total institution possesses qualities
The nature of the research in which total
contrasting with each of the foci of the vill.
institutions were studied facilitates a com-
As the "introductory statement" for its model,
parison of total institutions to vills, rather
the total institution may be described as a
than vice versa. Cities and total institutions
system in which a bureaucratic staff compels
were compared to folk villages in an attempt
a localized collectivity to act for certain ends.
to test the hypothesis that the three systems
The localized collectivity is the population of
represent the same kind of population
inmates, whether these be patients or pris-
(though testing was on a qualitative rather
oners. Between inmates and staff, there is a
than a quantitative basis). The hypothesis
basic and essentially antagonistic split 17 that
cannot be rejected for cities, but it must be
permeates the entire total institution, and its
rejected for total institutions.
15 Erving Goffman, Asylums, Garden City, N.Y.: Three traits reveal no essential differences
Doubleday, 1961, pp. 4-5. See also his "Character- between vills and custodial systems: Per-
istics of Total Institutions," in Symposium on Pre- sonal contact, awareness, and continuance
ventive and Social Psychiatry, Washington, D.C.; (see Table 1 for a description of these com-
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 1957, pp.
ponents). They are the only traits among
43-84.
16 Goffman did not attempt to test his thesis. In- the 19 to be discussed which are not quali-
stead, he developed and illustrated it. tatively dissimilar when the two types of
17 This split may sometimes be obscured, as in systems are compared. Note especially that
the case of prison trustees or paid patient labor
these three traits are not foci of the vill.
(although the latter was not described in the
studies used in this paper). The point is that even
It is to the foci that attention is now turned.
in such apparent exceptions, the staff-inmate dis-
tinction is maintained, e.g., the trusty is a prisoner, 18See, e.g., Sjoberg, The Preindustrial City, op.
not a free man. cit.

This content downloaded from

134.36.250.1 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 20:27:43 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 786 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

Localization. The localized nature of the the total institution may or may not use the
vill contrasts strongly with that of the cus- system as a base of operations. The system
todial system. Most apparent is the presence may be and often is one of the places to
of sharp boundaries around total institutions, which staff travel from their homes (of
whereas the boundaries around vills are course, they may live within the system, but
vague (including those of the walled city of not necessarily). Inmates on the other hand,
Ch'u). In custodial systems, the staff sets remain inside the boundaries of the system.
sharp limits beyond which none of the in- They will not cross the boundaries should
mates may go unless given special permis- staff choose not to permit them; thus they
sion.'9 do not use the system as a base of operations
The spatial patterning of each of the 15 in the same way that inhabitants of vills
vills displayed a process of ecological cen- employ the vill.
tralization of various institutionalized serv- Mobility in folk villages is generally low,
ices. Total institutions segregate staff and in- that in cities higher, whether this mobility
mates to some degree, but centralization was is territorial, vertical, or horizontal. This
not a common practice. No one would main- description applies to the general populations
tain, of course, that custodial systems could of vills, not to any single segment of popula-
not centralize their activities. The various tion. In custodial systems, the staff generally
prisons modeled after the panopticon stand exhibits each of the three types of mobility
as classic examples, and one of the cases to a high degree. Inmates, on the other hand,
studied (Sykes' Trenton Prison) 20 ap- experience three separate periods of mobility
proached some of these features. But cen- with reference to the system: as adults, each
tralization did not play an important part inmate is "recruited" into the system, held
in most of the total institutions discussed in custody, and discharged. All inmates (ex-
here. cept those who die) necessarily experience
The dissimilarity in spatial patterns can these phases, and thus one cannot speak of
be attributed to the different methods of high or low mobility from the point of view
spatial integration employed in each system. of the inmate. The mobility of vill members
The vills integrate their space by economic is qualitatively different, this applies not
and political means and according to the type only to the spatial aspect of the system but
of solidarity in the subtypes. That is, folk to group membership and status structure
villages are relatively mechanical in their as well.
use of space, whereas cities integrate their Thus, a major difference between total in-
space in part organically by allotting differ-stitutions and vills is that vills occupy some
ent portions to different status groups. Cus- particular space, and this localization per-
todial systems, on the other hand, integrate tains equally to all members, while custodial
their space on the basis of the various needs systems are localized only in part, in refer-
of the staff. Prison space is oriented prima- ence to the inmates. They may or may not
rily around needs of custody whereas mental be localized in reference to staff. In addition,
institutions employ space more frequently the localization comes about through the
for treatment purposes. dominance of staff. A comparable operation
The different nature of the localization ofof forces is not observed in vills.21
custodial systems and vills is further evi-
dent when activities are examined. Vills are 21 Although the manor or plantation may seem an
bases of operations for all their members, exception, two considerations must be made: (1)
whereas custodial systems are consistently Neither the manor nor the plantation has yet been
analyzed to ascertain whether either is a vill, and
localized only for the inmates. The staff of (2) at least in some forms of the manor, localiza-
tion exists not because of the lord's dominance but
19Prison road gangs or the extended trial visit because of the accretion of custom, to which the
home of mental patients would be cases in point. Aslord is bound no less than the villein. Cf. Henry
J. S. Maine, Village Communities in the East and
long as the inmate is a member of the total institu-
tion, such "boundary crossings" are permitted onlyWest, New York: Holt, 1889, Lect. IV, pp. 131-71
at staff discretion. and George C. Homans, English Villagers of the
20 All references to vills and total institutions are Thirteenth Century, Cambridge: Harvard Univer-
those given in footnotes 3-5, unless otherwise cited. sity Press, 1941.

This content downloaded from

134.36.250.1 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 20:27:43 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VILLAGES, CITIES AND TOTAL INSTITUTIONS 787

Cooperation and conflict. These two sys- Of course, cooperation does occur in cus-
tems differ sharply according to the position todial systems, but as noted below in the
which the processes of cooperation and con- discussion of sentiments, it occurs primarily
flict occupy in their respective social struc- within the opposing factions rather than be-
tures. Cooperation is institutionalized 22 in tween them. Jones' account of Belmont is
vills in the forms of contract (in cities) and instructive in this connection since the staff
mutual aid (in folk villages). Conflict is very places special stress on friendliness and help-
much in evidence in both types of vills but fulness towards inmates. Yet even at Bel-
is not always institutionalized.23 In the pres- mont the inmates frequently express hostility
ent custodial systems, on the other hand, con- toward staff and the staff-inmate distinction
flict is institutionalized in that an organiza- is clearly institutionalized.
tion of norms is employed by the staff to The two types of systems differ markedly
control hostile or potentially hostile inmates. in their sentiments. Ethnocentrism is as con-
The institution is characterized by a basic spicuously absent in total institutions as it is
split dividing the system into at least two present in vills. Admittedly, all vills do not
discrete parts: the controllers and the con- display equal degrees of ethnocentrism, and
trolled. Various adjustments are made to this data are not available for two of the vills
conflict, but these are technically forms of used in this study (Timbuctoo and Ch'u).
accommodation rather than cooperation. The But even in these vills, the people stay, and
distinction rests in the prior history of con- their stay is not contingent upon the use of
flict or its expectation in the case of accom- force. The closest approach to ethnocentrism
modation, whereas neither mutual aid nor recorded in the prisons were the "center
contract presuppose hostility. Admittedly, men" described by Sykes, i.e., prisoners who
prolonged accommodation may develop true identified with staff. But such loyalty is re-
cooperation in individual cases, but such ex- garded as treason by the inmates and thus is
ceptions do not result in a suspension of the not typical of prisoners. In mental hospitals,
rule: staff cannot afford to ignore the po- the patients display ambivalence at best,
tential hostility of inmates as a class.24 such as positive feelings toward the program
together with hostility toward the doctors. In
22 Concerning the institutionalization of social
processes, see Hillery, "A Critique of Selected Com-
fact, a manifest function of staff usually
munity Concepts," op. cit., fn. 7. consists of minimizing consequences of in-
23 Interesting theoretical possibilities are raised mate hostility.
when some forms of games, i.e., competitive types, Solidarity in vills may be regarded as a
are treated as if they were institutionalized forms of
function of the relationship between degrees
conflict.
24 An important point is raised by institutional of heterogeneity and types of cooperation.
dependency. Of course, there are persons who be- Thus, folk villagers cooperate according to
come better adjusted to and even prefer institu- norms of status (mutual aid) and by means
tional life to the "outside" (although the sources do of the basic similarity of social units. Divi-
not clearly indicate the presence of such cases in
the five custodial systems considered here). These
sion of labor based upon heterogeneous roles,
persons accommodate to the conflict by accepting a though universal, is minimal. In the city,
subordinate position. Should total institutions so solidarity occurs through the operation of
change as to facilitate such an accommodation, the contracts in a social environment of extensive
basic custodial orientation might well be drastically
heterogeneity. The heterogeneity is mainly
altered. This last point cannot be discussed at
greater length because of space considerations, but the result of a division of labor which in
it should at least be noted that we do not contend turn functions by means of contractual ties.
that custodial systems necessarily have to be or- Solidarity, where it exists in total institu-
ganized in the manner depicted here. These five sys- tions, is found within the two opposing fac-
tems are so organized, and they appear to be repre-
tions, not between them. Interestingly, the
sentative to some extent of other custodial systems.
It is conceivable, however, that they are historical solidarity in staff is organic, that in inmates
peculiarities. mechanical. But the line between the factions
For an interesting account of the extent to which is one of antagonism rather than solidarity.
accommodation can develop, see Joseph C. Moule- Of the custodial systems comprising the
dous, "Organizational Goals and Structural Change:
A Study of the Organization of a Prison Social Sys-
model, the English hospital (Belmont) prob-
tem," Social Forces, 41 (March, 1963), pp. 283-290. ably does most to modify this antagonism.

This content downloaded from

134.36.250.1 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 20:27:43 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
788 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
Yet antagonism is very much in evidence
even there.
The family. Of each of the three foci of
vills-space, cooperation, and family--it is
probably the family that provides the sharp-
est contrast when compared with total insti-
tutions. Although there is variation between
cities and folk villages in the position of
families in the vills' structure, the family is
always present and always involves a ma-
jority of the members in each system. Fam-
ilies, however, are at best incidental to the
functioning of total institutions. True, Bel-
knap notes that the ward attendants at
Southern hospital were relatives and even
maintained family members in certain posi-
tions in the system through several genera-
tions. (Rasphuis also at one time apparently
had a work supervisor whose family was part
of the prison staff.) But these attendants
were in the minority, even at Southern, and
the other total institutions functioned equally presence, i.e., their custody. At the very
well without such kinship ties. Conceivably,
inmates could exist as family members in the
the system. More important, none of the in-
mates lived with their families in the total
institutions under consideration.25
25 There are indications that family systems can
be integrated more fully into total institutions than tem. Treatment in prisons tends to occur
was true for the five systems studied in this paper. only as it contributes to custodial require-
Caudill's analysis of tsukisoi is one case in point. ments. In mental institutions, treatment is
Tsukisoi are attendants in Japanese mental institu-
tions who assume a role relationship with patients
corresponding to that of a mother to her child in
the general culture. See William Caudill, "Around
the Clock Patient Care in Japanese Psychiatric
Hospitals: The Role of the Tsukisoi," American
Sociological Review, 26 (April, 1961), pp. 204-214.
Even Caudill's work, however, shows clearly that it
is the individual patient who is being treated and
not his family. The families may help the total
institution, but if they do, they do so with the
permission (or sufferance) of the staff. This point
leads to another: The presence or absence of the
family in custodial systems is not as important as
the structure of the power relationships within the
system.
Bowen provides an interesting case wherein entire
family units are studied within the confines of a
mental institution. See Murray Bowen, "A Family
Concept of Schizophrenia," in Don D. Jackson
(ed.), The Etiology of Schizophrenia, New York:
Basic Books, 1960, pp. 346-372. Even if such a
condition was common to a significant proportion
of systems which would otherwise be total institu-
tions, one would then only be required to state that
families were not necessarily parts of total institu-
tions. However, not only is this type of treatment
in its early stages (only four father-mother-patient
This content downloaded from
134.36.250.1 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 20:27:43 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The family fulfills certain requirements
that must be met if vills are to continue
in operation, not the least of which is the
provision of new "recruits" in the form of
children. These requirements are satisfied
in an entirely different manner in total in-
stitutions, and with them other requirements
are fulfilled which are peculiar to these
types of system. The fulfillment of such re-
quirements takes place through what may
be called "institutions of maintenance."
These are recruitment, custody, treatment,
and discharge: (1) Recruitment may not
be a direct part of the custodial system at
all, as when new members are received from
the courts through legal processes. But the
custodial system is nonetheless entirely de-
pendent on the institution of recruitment
for new members. (2) Once the inmates are
within the boundaries of the system, meas-
ures must be taken to insure their continued
minimum, the custodial task consists of
warnings that failure to adhere to the in-
stitutional demands means either confine-
ment or discharge. At the most it means
death. (3) Whether the inmate receives
treatment depends on the nature of the sys-
apt to be more fully developed as a spe-
cialized goal. (4) Finally, there is always
some procedure whereby most of the in-
mates are discharged (even if this "dis-
charge" is by means of execution).
In the institutions of maintenance, a
complex of practices is encountered which
are as foreign to the vill as the family is
to the custodial system. But vills and cus-
todial systems differ not only in that one
has the family and the other does not.
Rather, they differ in that vills are struc-
tured in reference to the family and cus-
todial systems are structured in reference
to an entirely different set of institutional-
ized practices, the institutions of mainte-
nance.
The remaining institutions 26 found in the
model of vills may be treated in reference
families were completely involved) but enough in-
formation is not provided to permit a systematic
comparison with the models offered in this paper.
26 See footnote 22.
 VILLAGES, CITIES AND TOTAL INSTITUTIONS 789

to the manner in which they Even revolve around

more important, the qualitative differ-
the three foci of space, family, encesand coopera-
are between the total institution and
tion. In custodial systems the same institu- the focal components of the vills: space,
tions (if present at all) function according family, and cooperation. Spatial use is con-
to requirements stemming from staff dom- trolled in a sharply different manner in vills
inance over inmates. Industries, if any exist, than in custodial systems. The family is ab-
are operated because of the dictates of the sent among the inmates of total institutions
staff (and staff is, basically, operating be- and is generally absent among the staff.
cause of the dictates of the larger society), Finally, cooperation occurs within the staff
not because of any economic needs of the and inmate segments of custodial systems
inmates. A similar description may be ap- rather than between them. The chief impli-
plied to religion. Governmental institutions cation is clear: if vills are identified as com-
operate in reference to the institutions of munity and if community is to have any
maintenance, and these institutions in turn distinctive meaning, then total institutions
exist as a consequence of the staff-inmate are not communities.28
split. If the total institution is not a vill, then
"Stratification" is similarly oriented what is it? In one sense, it is something
around the opposing factions, and in this in its own right, as Goffman's theory indi-
same sense "stratification" is a "caste" sys- cates. Goffman maintains that the key fact
tem-though the absence of the family of total institutions is the handling of many
renders the term "stratification" metaphor- human needs by the bureaucratic organiza-
ical according to prevalent theories. And tion of whole blocks of people.29 From this
most attempts at socialization take place trait he develops several consequences: (1)
both because of staff dictates and in terms staff and inmates are separated by an antag-
of the dichotomy which these dictates pro- onistic split; (2) the work-payment struc-
duce. Thus, the inmates have their own ture is incompatible with the work-payment
system of socialization, but the institution structure of the larger [American] society;
revolves largely around the structure and (3) the total institution is incompatible
function of staff.27 Institutionalized recrea- with the family; and (4) the staff attempts
tion is largely organized by the staff-or pro-to dominate the inmates.30 The analysis pre-
hibited by them. (The success of these sented here supports these hypotheses com-
efforts is variable, however.) pletely. The major qualification is that it
has been applied only to prisons and mental
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS hospitals. More research is needed on other
kinds of groups which Goffman proposes as
If one takes as a standard of comparison the same type (see supra).
the differences between the folk village and In a more general sense, the total institu-
the city, then the total institution differs tion may be studied as a complex organiza-
more from the vills than the vills differ be- tion.31 The implication of this position may
tween one another. All differences between
folk villages and cities are differences of de- 28 Whether there are any other types of group
gree and may be expressed by means of con- that could be classified as vills remains to be dem-
onstrated. For some preliminary remarks on this
tinua. Differences between the vill and the possibility, see Hillery, "A Critique of Selected
custodial system, however, are almost always Community Concepts," op. cit.
qualitative. Only in three of 19 comparisons 29 Goffman, Asylums, op. cit., p. 6.
30 Ibid., p. xiii. Strictly speaking, none of the
could one argue a quantitative difference.
total institutions controlled the total life of their
inmates. Conceivably, all of these organizations
27 Such adjustments are thus consequences of thecould have proceeded further in this direction than
staff-inmate split. The same argument could be they did, e.g., all prisoners could have been kept in
made for homosexual liaisons (which might be solitary confinement, or (moving closer to the total
called pseudo-families) and kangaroo courts (thoughcontrol) all inmates could have been kept tractable
no kangaroo courts were mentioned in the cases).through constant sedation. Goffman's term "total
Such things occur as reactions to staff controls. institution" would be more applicable to an ideal
Note that these latter types of adjustment do nottype than to the model presented here.
systematically appear in total institutions. 31 Cf. Amitai Etzioni, Complex Organizations: A

This content downloaded from

134.36.250.1 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 20:27:43 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 790 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

be suggested by a brief allusion to Parsons' value of regarding them as complex organi-

theory of organizations. First, according to zations.
the defining characteristic of an organiza- No one should infer that comparisons be-
tion, "primacy of orientation to the attain- tween vills and total institutions are not
ment of a specific goal," 32 total institutions fruitful, but in order for any comparisons to
-come within this taxonomic sphere. Second, be valid, the differences must be recognized.
the approach agrees with Parsons' general A thing is never truly understood until some-
theoretical scheme, particularly in that he thing is known of what it is not.37
implicitly separates organizations from com- The distinction also points up new em-
munities.33 phases for research. Of course, one emphasis
The distinction between vills and total in- would involve the empirical relation of other
stitutions is useful in several ways. From a groups to these or new models. Neighbor-
critical point of view, the distinction ques- hoods and natural areas come readily to
tions the identification of these systems that mind, as do the numerous suggestions of
characterizes both classic and modern litera- Goffman. Another emphasis stems from the
ture.34 Because of the wide variety of mean- finding that the family is apparently crucial
ings in the term "community," 35 this state- to the operation of vills but not to total in-
ment will strike various readers differently. stitutions. Studies are needed not only of the
For those who already limit community in family, per se, but of the manner in which
effect to vills, the distinction may appear families function in vills. Instances of paring
obvious. But the fact that total institutions family functions to their minimum are there-
have been included in the term attests to the fore very important, thus the significance
failure of others to recognize the differ- of the kibbutz and similar types of system.
ences.36 Reference to correctional or thera- From a functional point of view, the dis-
peutic communities may represent an effort tinction indicates the value of tracing the
to call attention to the pervasiveness of these consequences of system goals. The functions
kinds of social organizations. But this raises of specialized ends for total institutions have
too many questions about both concepts. No already been noted. Vills, on the other hand,
matter how attractive it may have been to lack such direction. They appear to be
relate these systems in terms of the rela- simply the consequences of families attempt-
tively wide satisfaction of needs, the find- ing to make their living in close proximity
ings of this paper reveal that the way in to each other. Although families may follow

which needs are satisfied is more important. specialized ends within vills, the folk village
Thus, whatever value there may once have shows that this is not necessarily the case,
and thus specialized ends are not necessary
been in referring to total institutions as com-
to vills. Further research along these lines,
munities is now outweighed by the greater
particularly in community power structure,
should do much to answer questions concern-
Sociological Reader, New York: Holt, Rinehart and
ing goal-oriented behavior of group mem-
Winston, 1961.
32Parsons, Structure and Process in Modern So-bers.
cities, op. cit., p. 17. A further value of such a distinction is,
33Ibid., page 16 and Chs. 1, 2, and 8, generally.of course, taxonomic. And the value of a
34 See footnote 1.
5 See George A. Hillery, Jr., "Definitions of taxonomy, especially one with inductive as
Community: Areas of Agreement," Rural Sociology, well as deductive roots, is found in a more
20 (June, 1955), pp. 111-123. adequate perception of variables and thus
36Not every student of total institutions seeks to their conceptual and even experimental con-
describe them as communities, but there is a re-
trol.
luctance to distinguish the concepts-a reluctance
no doubt prompted by the vagueness of community
theory. Even Taft, for example, who recognizes 37The work of Sommer and Osmond, op. cit.,
that there are differences in this respect, still capitu- makes this same point for the distinction between
lates to custom and speaks of a "normal" and a prisons and mental institutions, one with which I,
"prison" community, with the implication that the of course, concur. The argument here is that,
prison is essentially the same kind of thing as a whereas there are differences on one level, there are
community. See Donald R. Taft, Criminology, 3rd important similarities on another. Perhaps asylums
ed., New York: The Macmillan Co., 1956, p. 488. are to prisons as folk villages are to cities.

This content downloaded from

134.36.250.1 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 20:27:43 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 LOCATING LEADERS IN COMMUNITIES 791

Equally important are the linkages which
the models provide between theories at vary-
ing levels of abstraction, linkages which
could be only briefly alluded to in this
paper.38 The models allow one to trace the
connection between specific human group-
ings and the place they occupy in more gen-
eral sociological theory, whether that place
is formal organizational theory, on the one
hand, or urban and rural sociology on the
other.
Finally, with the qualitative differences
indicated here, an opening wedge is pro-
vided for clarifying one of the knottier
lems in community theory: the distinction
between community and non-community.
The implication is strong that the distinc-
tion is between systems designed to attain
specific goals and those which have no such
purposes, whose goals are at best diffuse.39
38 For a more explicit development of one aspect
of one of such linkages, see Hillery, "The Folk
Village," op. cit., p. 353.
39 A similar conclusion has also been reached by
Edward 0. Moe, "Consulting with a Community
System: A Case Study," The Journal of Social Is-
sues, 25, No. a (1959), pp. 28-35. See also the com-
Of course, this separation provides only one
set of conceptual boundaries; there are un-
doubtedly more. For example, the high de-
gree of institutionalization of vills suggests
that communities can be described as highly
structured systems with diffuse goals. But
here we raise more questions than can be
treated adequately in this paper, questions
concerning level of communal organization,
comprehensiveness of the concept of com-
munity, and so on. The evidence considered
pertains primarily to a distinction on the
basis of goals. Such a distinction avoids the
prob-
arbitrariness inherent in many definitions of
community,40 since the differences depend
not on definitions but on collections of prop-
erties common to a number of groups. Con-
cern with the appearance of groups has been
uppermost in this discussion-which groups
look alike and which are different. For only
with the aid of systematic description can
adequate explanations be obtained.
ments by Roland L. Warren, The Community in
America, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963, p. 49.
40 Cf. Hillery, "Definitions of Community," op.
cit.

LOCATING LEADERS IN LOCAL COMMUNITIES:

A COMPARISON OF SOME ALTERNATIVE
APPROACHES *

LINTON C. FREEMAN, THOMAS J. FARARO, WARNER BLOOMBERG, JR., AND

MORRIS H. SUNSHINE
Syracuse University t

This is a comparison of several approaches to the problem of locating leaders in a single

community. Decision-making, voluntary activity, reputation, and position are compared, and
a new index-organizational participation-is introduced. These procedures do not converge
on a single set of leaders. Some overlap is evident, however, and the patterns of overlap
suggest that three distinct "types" of leaders are present. These are called: (1) Institutional
Leaders, (2) Effectors, and (3) Activists. Each of these types plays a distinct role in
leadership activity.

M OST investigators would probably
agree that leadership refers to fectively
a com- prevent) a change in the lives of a
plex process whereby a relatively
small number of individuals in a collectivity
* Support for this study was provided by a grant
from the Fund for Adult Education to the Univer-
sity College of Syracuse University.
t In September, 1963, Warner Bloomberg, Jr.,
behave in such a way that they effect (or ef-
relatively large number. But agreement on
theoretical details of the leadership process
or on how it is to be studied is another mat-
ter. Much of the recent literature on com-
joined the faculty of the Department of Urban Af-
fairs, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee.

This content downloaded from

134.36.250.1 on Fri, 10 Nov 2023 20:27:43 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms