Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
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.
American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Sociological Review.
http://www.jstor.org
Two distinct meanings emerge from a review of the literature on consensus: agreement,
and co-orientation.Using the second meaning, a conceptual definition of degree of con-
sensus is formulatedwhich is based on a social system model, rather than on individual
system models.Drawing upon earlierresearch,two operationaldefinitionsof this model are
proposed.Finally, a set of propositionsrelate degree of consensusin a group to the type
of coordinationwhich occurs between membersof the group.
32
simply similarity of response. It has there- necessary to ask respondents questions such
fore a double meaning: either that both par- as: "How would the average person think
ties agree with the symbolic statement X, that the averagepersonwill have answered?"
or that both disagree. For the purposes of Perhaps a less awkward approach to the
this paper, however, we will take agreement higher levels of consensus would be a ques-
to have a single meaning: that both parties tion such as: "Now pretend you are the
endorse the statement X. Since we wish to average person in this community. How
talk about conscious agreement and shared would he answer the question? How would
experience, it is important to avoid mere he think that you have answered it?" This
similarity of response in our conception of form or its equivalent might facilitate gath-
consensus. For example, one reason that re- ering of what is admittedly an intricate and
spondents do not agree with a given state- (for the respondent) confusing type of in-
ment may be that they do not understandit, formation.
i.e. it is not meaningful to them. Yet if the Introducing the third level of mutuality,
majority respondedin this way, scoring mere realization, generates a property space with
similarity of response in the way Laing does eight cells as follows.
would indicate consensus exists, which is far The difficulty of visualizing a profile such
from our intention. For convenience, we will as (R M A)-a majority of the group agree,
retain Laing's notation of (R U A), and so but a majority misunderstandsthat there is
on. It should be noted, however, that the D, agreement, yet a majority realize that there
which in Laing's usage stands for disagree- is misunderstanding-makes it necessary to
ment, will mean non-agreement in this dis- adopt an artifice. Suppose we divide the
cussion. group, at random, into two subgroups, and
There is monolithic consensus if the ma- then consider the responses of the majority
jority agrees and understands that there is in each sub-group, as if each were consider-
agreement; there is pluralistic ignorance if ing the responsesof the other. Using this de-
the majority agrees but thinks that there is vice, the profile becomes similar to the Laing
disagreement; there is dissensus if the ma- model, but consideringtwo majorities, rather
jority does not agree and understands that than two persons. Then (R M A) becomes:
they do not agree. And there is false con- Subgroup 1 (R M A M R) Subgroup 2, a
sensus if the majority does not agree and majority in each group agrees but a majority
thinks that they agree. This example uses in each misunderstands that there is agree-
only the first two levels of mutuality. If the ment, i.e., a majority in each sub-group
third level is added, that of realization, the thinks that a majority in the other sub-group
table becomes eight-fold and the conceptual does not agree, yet, a majority in each sub-
and operational difficulty of the approach is group realizes that it is misunderstoodby the
increasedgreatly. other sub-group. (F U A U F) is the situa-
Conceptually it is very difficult to con- tion in which the majority is in agreement,
ceive of partial consensus, say of the type understandsthat there is agreement,but fails
(R M D)-realization of misunderstanding to realize that it is understood.That is to say
about not agreeing. Operationallyit becomes the majority is unaware that others are
were derived. Except for those hypotheses the higher orders of co-orientation. This
that are related to Mead's notion of a "com- comparisonallows a critical test of the inter-
mon universe of discourse," the relationship actionist theory against the common sense
between the hypotheses and Mead's theory is point of view. If the higher orders of co-
not always clear. Even if the empirical find- orientationpredict the degree of coordination
ings had been unambiguous, it might not better than simple agreement, the interac-
have been clear that Mead's theory had been tionist theory of consensus will have been
supported. given very strong support.
If we use the definitions and hypotheses The last section of this paper is con-
concerning consensus that were discussed cerned with two other possible applications
above, a different approach to the interpre- of the model of consensus discussed here.
tation of Stryker's findings is suggested. The first, which will be dealt with only
Since these hypotheses are more closely re- briefly, is the problem of leadership, the sec-
lated to the fundamental postulates in ond, of social integration. Newcomb and
Mead's theory, less ambiguous findings others have found that leaders are somewhat
might ensue. Two hypotheses provide such a more perceptive of followers'views than vice
test. First, for those issues which are directly versa.28This finding follows from the postu-
related to problemsof coordination,the more late above: the greater the need for coordi-
precise the coordinationthat is required, the nation, the greater the consensus. In the case
greater the consensus. For example, on the of leaders, the situation is asymmetric: it is
issue of permissiveness in child-rearing, one the leader more often than the follower who
would hypothesize that there would be more faces problems of coordination. (The fol-
consensusbetween spouses than between the lower must coordinate his actions only with
parents and the grandparents (since more one leader, but the leader must coordinate
coordinationis requiredbetween the spouses, his actions with all of the followers.) There-
who actually have the job of child-raising, fore we would expect Newcomb's findings on
than the grandparents,who look on from a the superior perceived consensus of leaders.
distance.) The study of the representative process
This hypothesis relates amount of con- is a particularly interesting area for the
sensus to type of relationship, and follows study of consensual structures in leader-
directly from Mead's theory. Since type of follower relationships. The degree of con-
relationshipis a variable in Stryker's design, sensus between the representative and his
this hypothesis could be tested by classifying constituency might turn out to be an ex-
the issues and the status relationships with tremely strategic variable in explaining the
respect to their inter-relation.This classifica- behavior of the representative.We can visu-
tion would obviously have to be made by in- alize situations in which the higher orders of
dependent raters who have no knowledge of co-orientationare used routinely by the rep-
the actual findings. resentative. For example, in planning his
A second hypothesis would allow a more campaign strategy, the representative will
refined testing of Mead's theory. The pro- wish to select issues, and positions on these
position that consensus varies with degree of issues, which will improve his chances of
coordination is not unique to Mead but is winning the election. In order to do this, he
shared by others interested in consensus. must not only visualize the opinions of his
What is unique to the interactionist frame- constituency with some accuracy (first level
work is the insistence on the existence and co-orientation), but also perceive what
importance of the higher orders of co-orien- groups in his constituency think his position
tation. The common-sensedefinition of con- on these issues is (second level co-orienta-
sensus is in terms of agreement. From this tion), so that the representative, by his
point of view, the more that coordination is choice of issues and position, can correct
required by a relationship, the more agree- them in order to win.29 We would also ex-
ment there will be. From our discussion of 28 Newcomb, "An Approach to the Study of
the interactionist view of consensus, how- Communicative Acts," op. cit.
ever, we can postulate an alternative hy- 29 This example was suggested to me by Janet
pothesis: agreement is less important than Chewning.
Pluralisticconsensus(R U D U R) Socialcleavage:
(R U A) withingroups,but
(F M D M F) betweengroups.
FIGURE 1.
The model of consensus used here sug- is agreement between the two groups. Im-
gests, however, that the dimension of social plicit in his discussion is the suggestion that
integration is more complex than the simple there is understanding of agreement on the
continuum suggested by Klapp's remarks. Negro side, but misunderstanding on the
At the negative pole, a possible alternative to white side. Thus he says:
the state of social anomie is the condition of
cleavage. Looking at the views of the popu- The writer has observed,however,that the
averagewhite man, particularlyin the South,
lation as a whole, it might seem that indi- does not feel quite convincedof the Negro's
viduals' estimations of the others' views are acquiescense.In several conversationsthe
no better than chance. However, if the popu- same white person in the same breath has
lation is partitioned by the right variable, assuredme on the one handthat the Negroes
are perfectly satisfied in their position and
e.g., Moslems and Hindus in pre-partition would not like to be treated as equals, and
India, the level of consensus is very high on the other hand that the only thing these
within the sub-groupsand very low between Negroes long for is to be like white people
them. Thus what might look like a state of and marrytheir daughters.30
anomie to the outside observer could be re- Using Laing's notation, the profile of inter-
interpreted to show that a split of the larger group mutuality on this issue, with the white
social group into two or more smaller social persons on the left, would probably be
groups has occurred; the larger group has (F M A U R), that is, agreementon the issue
distintegrated, but there is high social inte- of marital and sexual segregation, with in-
gration in the new groups it has spawned. correct attribution on the white side (note
At the positive pole of integration, there
is also a consensual structure alternative to 30 Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma,
New
complete consensus. In a highly integrated York: Harper, 1944, p. 64.
ORGANIZATIONS AS SEMILATTICES *
MoRRs F. FRIEDELL
University of Michigan
Semilattices, partial orderings in which every two elements have a least upper bound, are
proposed to model structures of complex organizations. They are a generalization of trees,
and may be more suitable for representing organizations which lack unity of command or
of informal relations. Control of conflict provides a rationale for the model. It is shown how
semilattices can represent structures of administrative units as well as structures of indi-
viduals; consequences of consistency between these two levels of structure are investigated.
The model also yields a framework within which the development of an organization's struc-
ture may be examined. An illustrative application is given, using data from Street Corner
Society.