The Lower Class, Status Frustration and Social Disorganization

The status-frustration hypothesis is the most widely used sociological explanation of lower class social disorganization. Some reasons for the prominence of this interpretation are discussed. The theory's plausibility hinges, in large part, on the validity of certain assumptions concerning the social-psychological characteristics of lower class persons. An analysis of empirical studies indicates that these assumptions have little basis in fact. The inadequacy of empirical support for the status-frustration hypothesis is traced to the tendency of the literature to obscure the actual characteristics of the lower class. An alternate theoretical framework is presented in which economic deprivation is treated as the independent variable. It is felt that this scheme more adequately accounts for the facts of lower class social disorganization, since material deprivation is the basic problem of the lower class, not status deprivation. T he lower class' has the highest rates of various indices of social disorganization. This has been established by a number of empirical investigations. The highest rates of mental disturbance including most forms of neuroses and psychoses are found in the lower class.2 The most severe forms of psychoses are concentrated in this range of tlhe population.3 Unskilled laborers and the unemployed have one of the highest suicide rates4 anld the highest rate of homicide.5 * This paper is based in part on Jack L. Roach's unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, "Economic Deprivation and Lower-Class Behavior," State University of New York at Buffalo, February, 1964. Valuable counsel, particularly on the theoretical framework, was provided by Llewellyn Z. Gross. 1 By lozuer class we mean the lowest socioeconomic level which is characterized by unskilled occupation and a grammar school education. This range of the population might also be termed the "poverty group" in view of the close association of these attributes with economic deprivation. Cf., Economic Report of the President: Ananaal Report of the Council of Economtic Advisors (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1964), pp. 62-66; "Limited Educational Attainment: Extent and Consequences," Health, Edutcation, and Welfare Indicators (April 1962), p. 5. 2 August Hollinigshead and Frederick Redlich, Social Class and Mental Illtess (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958) ; Charles C. Hughes et al.; People of Cove and Woodlot (New York: Basic Books, 1960); Raymond G. Hunt, "Sociocultural Factors in Mental Disorders," Behavioral Science, 4 (April 1959), pp. 96-106; Edward A. Rundquist and Raymond F. Sletto, Personality in the Depression (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1936), p. 366; William H. Sewell, "Social Class and Childhood Personality," Socionietry, 64 (August 1961), p. 350. 3 Robert E. Clark, "Psychoses, Income, and Occupational Prestige," in Rein-hard Bendix and Seymour Lipset (eds.), Class, Status antd Power (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1953), pp. 333-340; Robert M. Frumkin, "Occupation and the Major Mental Disorders," in Arnold Rose (ed.), M11e;nital Health and Mental Disorder (New York: V. W. Norton Co., 1955), pp. 136-160; Robert J. Kleieer and Seymiour Parker, "Goal-striving, Social Status, and Mental Disorder," American Sociological Review, 28 (April 1963), pp. 189-203; Leo Srole et al., Mental Health iit the Metropolis (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962). 4Elwin H. Powell, "Occupation, Status, and Suicide; Toward a Redefinition of Anomie," Amwerican Sociological Review, 23 (April 1958), pp. 131-139. This work summarizes similar findiilgs from a number of other studies. See also Jack P. Gibbs, "Suicide," in Robert Merton and Robert Nisbet (eds.), Contemn-porary Social PTroblewls (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1961), p. 244; Warren Breed, "Occupational Mobility and Suicide," Amnericaw Sociological Review, 28 (April 1963), pp. 179-188. 5 Gerhard J. Falk, "Status Differences and the Frustration Aggression Hypothesis," The Interniational Journal of Social Psychiatry, 5 (Winter 1959), pp. 214-222; Robert C. Bensing and Oliver This content downloaded from 157.55.39.243 on Wed, 05 Oct 2016 04:50:05 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms