Individual and Group Values
| Date | 01 May 1967 |
| Published date | 01 May 1967 |
| Author | Robin M. Williams |
| DOI | 10.1177/000271626737100102 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
20
Individual
and
Group
Values
By
ROBIN
M.
WILLIAMS,
JR.
Robin
M.
Williams,
Jr.,
Ph.D.,
Ithaca,
New
York,
is
Professor
of
Sociology
at
Cornell
University.
He
was
with
the
Research
Branch,
United
States
War
Department,
1942-1946,
and
served
in
the
European
Theatre
of
Operations,
1943-1945.
He
has
been
a
member
of
the
Scientific
Advisory
Board,
United
States
Air
Force,
and
a
consultant
to
the
Welfare
Administration.
He
is
currently
a
member
of
the
National
Advisory
Mental
Health
Council.
He
is
author
of
The
Reduction
of
Intergroup
Tensions
(
1947
),
coauthor
of
the
first
and
second
volumes
of
The
American
Soldier
(
1949
),
author
of
American
Society
(
1951,
1960
),
coeditor
of
Schools
in
Transition
(
1954
),
coauthor
of
What
College
Students
Think
(
1960
),
and
author
of
Strangers
Next
Door
(
1964
).
ABSTRACT:
Because
values,
defined
as
generalized
criteria
of
desirability,
are
deeply
involved
in
all
of
the
specialized
areas
treated
in
this
volume,
much
of
the
needed
analysis
is
implicit
in
other
articles.
There
remains
a
need
to
render
explicit
the
first-order
tasks
for
making
data
on
values
a
viable
part
of
societal
self-awareness
and
self-direction,
in
an
age
of
Great
Societies.
Values
are
important
causal
compo-
nents
in
individual
conduct
and
in
the
functioning
of
social
systems.
To
develop
adequate
indicators
for
the
needed
analysis
will
require
major
efforts
and
much
ingenuity.
Yet
practicable
methods
already
are
available
for
the
systematic
empirical
study
of
values.
Because
of
the
lack
in
the
past
of
standardized
measures
and
comprehensive
reporting,
the
existing
data
are
scanty,
fragmentary,
and
diffuse.
Yet
cau-
tious
and
imaginative
use
of
existing
information
has
added
to
our
knowledge
of
distinctive
value
patterns
in
the
United
States,
and
some
illuminating
comparisons
have been
made
with
other
societies.
Better
data
and
more
explicit
analysis
of
value
problems
will
enhance
effectiveness
of
goal-achievement,
widen
the
scope
of
awareness
in
decision-making,
and
provide
enhanced
capacities
for
sensing
limits
and
hazards
in
current
societal
trends
and
policies.
That
new
problems
thereby
will
be
created
is
inevitable,
and
not
undesirable.
21
I T
is
striking
that
the
social
diagnoses
of
our
times
that
have
attracted
the
widest
popular
attention
and
acclaim
are
interpretations
only
loosely
con-
nected
with
any
systematic
analysis
of
&dquo;hard&dquo;
data.
Are
Americans
today
more
&dquo;other-directed&dquo;
than
in
the
1890’s?
Where
is
the
unequivocal
evi-
dence ?
Is
our
society
being
deadened
by
overconformity-or
is
it
disinte-
grating
through
lack
of
consensus
and
commitment?
Is
the
Organization
Man
of
the
1960’s
more
stereotyped
than
the
businessmen
of
the
1920’s?
Are
the
urban
middle
classes
today
more
pre-
occupied
with
&dquo;status-seeking&dquo;
than
the
newly
rich
of
the
Gilded
Age
or
the
respectable
small-town
citizens
of
the
age
of
Babbitt?
Have
the
contempo-
rary
American
people
lost
humane
sensi-
tivity
in
an
urban
world
hurrying
on
under
the
awareness
of
genocide,
hydro-
gen
bombs,
and
technologically
ad-
vanced
surveillance
and
brutality
in
a
thousand
forms?
Where
is
the
evi-
dence ?
Yet
confident
assertions
abound.
Many
observers
of
the
national
soci-
ety
suggest
that
the
intensity
of
com-
mitment
to
particular
values
and
beliefs
has
diminished.
It
is
said
that
exposure
to
a
vast
variety
of
experiences
reduces
exclusive
beliefs,
and
absolute
commit-
ments.’
Is
there
systematic
evidence
of
changes
in
commitment?
If
change
in
this
respect
has
taken
place,
does
it
really
mean
an
important
change
in
such
behavior
as
paying
taxes,
answer-
ing
the
call
of
the
military
draft,
abiding
by
marriage
and
familial
norms,
defending
political
principles,
and
so
on?
In
our
view,
the
presently
avail-
able
data
on
the
alleged
value
changes
are
very
far
from
satisfactory-yet
the
allegations
in
question
bear
on
the
very
foundations
of
societal
survival.
&dquo;Ethnocentric&dquo;
values
are
not
all
of
one
piece,
and
it
is
essential
to
make
distinctions
concerning
both
content
and
&dquo;formal&dquo;
properties
(intensity,
rigidity,
differentiation,
explicitness).
If
succes-
sive
studies,
using
a
large
battery
of
comparable
indicators,
show
a
reduction
in
conventionalized,
simple,
rigid,
dog-
matic
evaluations
and
stereotypes
of
racial,
ethnic,
and
religious
groupings,
it
will
be
important
to
know
the
extent
t
to
which
the
apparent
reduction
in
&dquo;prejudice&dquo;
is
paralleled
by
growth
in
more
complex
and
intellectualized
invidious
evaluations.2
2
Knowledge,
beliefs,
and
values
evolved
out
of
psychiatric
and
social
science
research
and
experience
have
been
in-
fluential
to
an
appreciable
degree
in
a
limited
shift
away
from
punishment
and
custody
toward
treatment
and
rehabili-
tation.3
3
Periodic
sample
studies
of
values
relevant
to
this
area
would
be
highly
useful
in
evaluating
national
and
state
and
local
policies
and
practices.
Currently
it
is
difficult
to
gauge
the
extent
to
which
an
&dquo;apprehensive
con-
cern&dquo;
with
leisure
4 extends
outside
a
few
limited
circles
of
intellectuals
and
publicists.
Certainly,
however,
the
complex
and
changing
evaluations
of
1
Cf.
this
statement:
"It
is
becoming
rare
to
value
any
belief
more
than
life.
To
be
willing
to
die
for
a
belief
means
to
be
un-
able
to
conceive
of
an
acceptable
life
outside
the
framework
of
that
belief.
The
pluralistic
and
heterogeneous
quality
of
present-day
ex-
perience
undermines
such
exclusive
beliefs"
(Allen
Wheelis,
"The
Quest
for
Identity,"
in
Bernard
Rosenberg
[ed.],
Analyses
of
Con-
temporary
Society
[New
York:
Thomas
Y.
Crowell
Company,
1966],
p.
21).
2
Melville
Jacobs,
Pattern
in
Cultural
An-
thropology
(Homewood,
Ill.:
Dorsey
Press,
1964),
p.
293.
3
There
is
evidence
that
in
some
organiza-
tions
the
belief-value
systems
influence
both
individual
conduct
and
the
main
patterns
of
behavior
of
whole
organizations.
Cf.
David
Street,
Robert D.
Vinter,
and
Charles
Perrow,
Organization
for
Treatment:
A
Comparative
Study
of
Institutions
for
Delinquents
(New
York:
Fress
Press,
1966),
p.
vi.
4
Paul
Hollander,
"Leisure
as
an
American
and
Soviet
Value,"
Social
Problems,
Vol.
14
(Fall
1966),
pp.
179-188.
To continue reading
Request your trial