¹ Jennings, M. K. and Niemi, R. G., “Family Structure and the Transmission of Political Values,” American Political Science Review, 62 (1968), 169–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Compare with LeVine, R. A., “The Role of the Family in Authority Systems,” Behavioral Science, 5 (1960), 291–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar, where the role of family in a segmentary political system appears to be more significant.

² Hyman, Herbert, Political Socialization (New York, 1959Google Scholar).

³ Remmers, H. H. and Radler, D. H., The American Teenager (Indianapolis, 1957Google Scholar).

⁴ Patrick, J. H., “Political Socialization of American Youth: A Review of Research with Implications for Secondary School Social Studies,” High School Curriculum Center in Government (Bloomington, Ind., 1967Google Scholar), mimeo; Dawson, R. E., “Political Socialization” in Robinson, J. A., ed., Political Science Annual (Indianapolis, 1966), 1–84Google Scholar; and an inventory by Dennis, J., A Survey and Bibliography of Contemporary Research on Political Learning and Socialization, Occasional Paper #8 (University of Wisconsin, Center for Cognitive Learning, 1967Google Scholar).

⁵ For this notion see Easton, D., A Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York, 1965), p. 31Google Scholar; Easton, D., “Political Science,” New International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (New York, 1968Google Scholar).

⁶ For the equilibrium approach see Easton, D., The Political System (New York, 1953Google Scholar) chap, XI; “Limits of the Equilibrium Model in Social Research,” Behavioral Science, 1 (1956), 96–104; and A Framework for Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1965).

⁷ See, for example, Downs, A., An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York, 1957Google Scholar).

⁸ In his Political Socialization.

⁹ Wahlke, J.et al., The Legislative System (New York, 1962Google Scholar), especially chap. 4; Prewitt, K., “Political Socialization and Leadership Selection,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 361 (1965), 96–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Prewitt, K.et al., “Political Socialization and Political Roles,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 30 (1966–1967), 569–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kornberg, A. and Thomas, N., “The Political Socialization of National Legislative Elites in the United States and Canada,” Journal of Politics, 27 (1965), 761–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ See Greenstein, F., Children and Politics (New Haven, 1965Google Scholar); Jennings and Niemi, “Family Structure”; Remmers and Radler, The American Teenager; Froman, L. A. and Skipper, J. K., “An Approach to the Learning of Party Identification,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 27 (1963), 473–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ Such as Greenstein, Children and Politics, esp. 158–9; Pye, L. W., Politics, Personality and Nation Building (New Haven, 1962Google Scholar); Inkeles, A., “Social Change and Social Character: The Role of Parental Mediation,” Journal of Social Issues, 11 (1955), 12–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Pinner, F. A., “Student Trade-Unionism in France, Belgium and Holland: Anticipatory Socialization and Role-Seeking,” Sociology of Education, 37 (1964), 177–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² See my “Limits of the Equilibrium Model in Social Research.”

¹³ Child, I. L., “Socialization,” in Lindzey, G., ed., Handbook of Social Psychology (Cambridge, Mass., 1954), 655.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Aberle, D. F., “Culture and Socialization,” in Hsu, F. L. K., ed., Psychological Anthropology: Approaches to Culture and Personality (Homewood, Ill., 1961), pp. 381–99, 387.Google Scholar

¹⁵ LeVine, R. A., “Political Socialization and Culture Image,” in Geertz, C. ed., Old Societies and New States (New York, 1963), 280.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Brim, O. Jr., and Wheeler, S., Socialization after Childhood (New York, 1966Google Scholar).

¹⁷ Wolfenstein, M. and Kliman, G., eds., Children and the Death of a President (Garden City, NY, 1965), xxi.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Hyman, Political Stabilization, 17, italics in original.

¹⁹ Almond, G., “Introduction: A Functional Approach to Comparative Politics,” in Almond, G. and Coleman, J. S., eds., The Politics of Developing Areas (Princeton, 1960), 27.Google Scholar

²⁰ Sigel, R., “Assumptions about the Learning of Political Values,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 361 (1965), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ Eckstein, H., “A Perspective on Comparative Politics, Past and Present,” in Eckstein, H. and Apter, D., eds., Comparative Politics (New York, 1963), 26.Google Scholar

²² See Easton, D., ed., Varieties of Political Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1966Google Scholar), chap. 1, in which the point is made that innovative theory in a discipline frequently results from the migration of ideas from other disciplines.

²³ We cannot undertake here a thorough and rounded analysis of other shortcomings of functional theory, as applied to political science. Fortunately this is not essential in any event. The journals are filled with numerous, distinguished critiques. For one definitive evaluation of the inherent weaknesses of functional perspectives as a unique mode of analysis and its unavoidability as a simple, expected premise of all scientific research, see Davis, K., “The Myth of Functional Analysis as a Special Method in Sociology and Anthropology,” American Sociological Review, 24 (1959), 757–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ Levy, M. J., The Structure of Society (Princeton, 1952), 187.Google Scholar

²⁵ In Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston, 1966) G. A. Almond and G. B. Powell, Jr., explicitly adopt functionalism for political analysis. But even though they do employ the notion of “functions” extensively it would seem to be used so broadly as to lose most of whatever special systematic analytic significance it might have had. Indeed functionalism gradually seems to be overpowered by the categories of systems analysis (inputs-outputs) with which it becomes oddly intertwined. Functionalism seems to recede to the theoretically unobtrusive position it must normally hold in all scientific social research (see Davis, “The Myth of Functional Analysis”). Hence in their book Almond and Powell are able to employ socialization in a way that permits them to transcend the system-maintaining limitations hitherto implicit in a pristine functional analysis (see pp. 29–30, 121, 163).

²⁶ See Glaser, N. and Moynihan, D. P., Beyond the Melting Pot (Cambridge, Mass., 1963Google Scholar).

²⁷ Almond, G. A. and Verba, S., The Civic Culture (Princeton, 1963), 372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The authors also speak of the “strain toward homogeneity” among the various roles an individual plays (327).

²⁸ Ibid., 327.

²⁹ Ibid., 34–5, italics added.

³⁰ The suspicion of unreliability has since been strongly reinforced by an as yet unpublished piece of research by R. G. Niemi, Department of Political Science, Rochester University.

³¹ “Family experiences do play a role in the formation of political attitudes, but the role may not be central; the gap between the family and the polity may be so wide that other social experiences, especially in social situation closer in time and in structure to the political system, may play a larger role.” Almond and Verba, The Civic Culture, 373.

³² Ibid.., 482.

³³ Ibid.

³⁴ See the extensive writings of T. W. Adorno, M. Horkheimer, and E. Fromm.

³⁵ Eckstein, H., Division and Cohesion in Democracy (Princeton, 1966), 234.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid., 240–1.

³⁷ Ibid., 239.

³⁸ For a further study of the impact of subjective heterogeneity see Stoetzel, J., Without the Chrysanthemum and the Sword (New York, 1955Google Scholar). See also Verba, S., “The Comparative Study of Socialization,” a paper prepared for delivery at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, 1964.Google Scholar

³⁹ Inkeles, “Social Change and Social Character,” 22.

⁴⁰ Kuhlen, R. G., The Psychology of Adolescent Development (New York, 1952Google Scholar).

⁴¹ Flacks, R., “The Liberated Generation: An Exploration of the Roots of Student Protest,” Journal of Social Issues, 23 (1967), 52–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴² Pinner, “Student Trade-Unionism.”

⁴³ Zolberg, A., Creating Political Order: The Party-States of West Africa (Chicago, 1966Google Scholar).

⁴⁴ Inkeles, “Social Change and Social Character,” 12, paraphrasing Margaret Mead.

⁴⁵ Wallace, A. F. C., Culture and Personality (New York, 1961CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

⁴⁶ See Porter, John, The Vertical Mosaic (Toronto, 1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

⁴⁷ See Glaser and Moynihan, Beyond the Melting Pot.

⁴⁸ See a forthcoming book by D. Easton and J. Dennis, Children in the Political System: Roots of Political Legitimacy (McGraw-Hill).