Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:43:35.668Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Notes on the Study of the Promotion Findinging in ‘The American Soldier’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

John R. Urry
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes Critiques
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , May 1971 , pp. 133 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Archives Européenes de Sociology 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* Merton, Robert K. and Rossi, Alice, Contributions to the Theory of Reference Group Behaviour, in Merton, R. K., Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe, The Free Press, 1957)Google Scholar; Davis, J. A., A Formal Interpretation of the Theory of Relative Deprivation, Sociometry, XXII (1959), 280–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stouffer, S. A. et al. , The American Soldier: Adjustment during army life (Princeton, Princeton U.P., 1965), vol. IGoogle Scholar; Barry, B., The Roots of Social Injustice, Oxford Review, III (1966), 33–46Google Scholar; Runciman, W. G., Relative Deprivation and Social Justice (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966)Google Scholar.

(1) Stouffer, et al. , op. cit. vol. I, p. 251Google Scholar.— For a critique of The American Soldier in general and of the notion of relative deprivation in particular, see Glazer, N., ‘The American Soldier’ as Science: Can sociology fulfil its ambitions? Commentary, V (1949), 487–496Google Scholar.

(2) Stouffer, ibid.

(3) Ibid. p. 256.

(4) Stouffer, , op. cit. pp. 254–258Google Scholar.

(5) The latter point is refuted by the fact that the morale in the AC was among the highest in the whole army; see Stouffer, op. cit. p. 253Google Scholar and chap. VII.

(6) See Merton, and Rossi, , op. cit. pp. 225–280, 236–241Google Scholar.

(7) Ibid. p. 237.

(8) See Bahry, , op. cit. p. 37Google Scholar.

(9) Runciman, , op. cit. p. 18Google Scholar.

(10) See Barry, , op. cit. p. 38Google Scholar.

(11) Runciman, , op. cit. p. 19Google Scholar.

(12) Thus of those with some high school or grade education who had been promoted, 58 % in the MP and 30 % in the AC thought that a soldier with ability had a very good chance of promotion.

(13) Barry, , op. cit. p. 39Google Scholar.

(14) See ibid. p. 39; on the nature of this curvilinear relationship see Merton, and Rossi, , op. cit. p. 236Google Scholar; and Runciman, , op. cit. p. 20Google Scholar.

(15) See Runciman, , op. cit. p. 10Google Scholar.

(16) See Davis, loc. cit.

(17) Ibid. p. 292.

(18) See fn. 5.

(19) Davis, , op. cit. p. 282Google Scholar.

(20) Ibid. p. 284.

(21) Barry, , op. cit. p. 43Google Scholar.

(22) Again see fn. 5.

(23) Barry, , op. cit. p. 46Google Scholar.

(24) This was argued in a private communication to the author.

(25) Barry, , op. cit. p. 44Google Scholar.

(26) See ibid. p. 45.

(27) See Blau, P. M., Exchange and Power in Social Life (New York, Wiley, 1964), p. 160Google Scholar; and Homans, G. C., Social Behaviour: its elementary forms (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961), p. 270Google Scholar.