The Lower-Class Value Stretch

The paper delineates two contradictory positions that are stated or implied in theoretical studies and in studies of juvenile gang delinquency and illegitimacy: (1) society is based upon.a common value system; and (2) society is based upon a class-differentiated value system. The concept of the lower-class value stretch is proposed as a way of resolving some of these contradictions and of better ulderstanding lower-class behavior. The lower-class value stretch. refers to the wider range of values, and the lower degree of commitment to these values, to be found withini the lower class. Data on level of aspiration studies and on illegitimacy in the Caribbean are presented to support the.idea that the value stretch is the major response of the lower class to its deprived situation. T h here are sharp disagreements about the nature of the values held by members of the lower class, and correspondingly, about whether a society is based upon a common value system, or a class-differentiated value system.1 Some writers assert that the basic values of a society are common to all social classes within that society, while others assert that the values differ from class to class. Similarly, in discussing problems such as illegitimacy and juvenile delinquency, some writers assert that the lower-class values that center about these phenomena are similar to the iniddle-class values, while others assert that the lower-class values differ from those of the middle class. In this paper I propose to delineate these contradictory points of view, as well as to suggest that through a consideration of what I will refer to as the lower-class value stretchi we can resolve some of the apparent contradictions. A Coninmon Valve Systcm. The assulmlptioln that a common value system underlies a system of stratification has been made by Parsons, as in his reference to "a single more or less integrated system of values" in any society.2 Merton has also assumed that a society is based upoln a common value system: "It is . . . only because behavior is typically oriented toward the basic values of the society *Revision of a paper read at tlle annual meetings of the Eastern Sociological Society, April 1961. Although they do not necessarily agree with what I am saying, I gratefully acknowledge the help I received in writing this paper from Reinhard Bendix, Oswald Hall, George C. Homans, Everett C. Hughes, Frank E. Jones, Sally Snyder, Katherine Spencer, and Marvin B. Sussman. Talcott Parsons was especially helpful and encouraging. In addition, an unrestricted research grant from the Social Research Foundation provided the assistance needed to bring this paper to completion. 1 One could illuminate the discussion about a common or a class-differentiated value system by focusing upon any class rather than just the lower class. For example, do members of the upper class share the general values of society, or do they hold values unique to themselves? Indeed, the whole question of the parallels betweeni the upper class and lower class deserves a good deal more attention. Deviations from the conventional standards of society are said to occur in both of thein. And there are some related and interesting findings in small group research that both low-ranking and high-ranking members of a group have greater leeway, in certain respects, to deviate from the norms of the group: See John W. Thibaut and Harold H. Kelley, The Social Psychology of Groitps (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959), pp. 250-251; George C. Homans, The Human Group (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1950), p. 144; Henry W. Riecken and George C. Homiians, "Psychological Aspects of Social Structure," in Gardner Lindzey, ed., Handbook of S'ocial Psychology, Vol. II (Cambridge, Mass.: Addison.Wesley, 1954), pp. 793-794. For an excellent discussion of the subject, which I first read after writing the above, see George C. Homans, Social Behavior: Its Elementary Formis (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961), pp. 336-358 et passion. 2 Talcott Parsons, "General Theory in Sociology," in Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom, Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., editors, Sociology Today (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1959), p. 8. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.57 on Thu, 08 Sep 2016 06:04:08 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms