(1) We will limit ourselves here to citing the principal sources to be used for a comparative analysis of these societies: — Bendix, Reinhold and Lipset, Seymour (eds.), Class, Status and Power (Glencoe, Free Press, 1953)Google Scholar; Rose, Arnold (ed.), The Institutions of Advanced Societies (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1958)Google Scholar; Dahrendorf, Ralf, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1959)Google Scholar; European Journal of Sociology, I: 2 (1960)Google Scholar [issue entitled « A la recherche des classes perdues »]; Mack, Raymond, Freeman, Linton and Yellin, Seymour, Social Mobility, Thirty Years of Research and Theory (Syracuse, Syracuse University Press, 1957)Google Scholar; Lipset, Seymour and Bendix, Reinhold, Social Mobility in Industrial Society (Berkeley University of California Press, 1959)Google Scholar; Glass, David V. (ed.), Social Mobility in Britain (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1954)Google Scholar. — For the American case, on which we have concentrated, cf. Gordon, Milton, Social Class in American Sociology (Durham, N. C., Duke University Press, 1958)Google Scholar; Kahl, Joseph, The American Class Structure (New York, Rinehart, 1959)Google Scholar; Mayer, Kurt B., Class and Society (New York, Random House, 1955)Google Scholar; Barber, Bernard, Social Stratification (New York, Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1957).Google Scholar

(2) We are using the concept of class in a broadly Weberian sense, that is, as an economically based stratum that entails common life chances and life styles. We are using the concept of status more loosely to refer to the location of the individual in a prestige system. We are aware of the debate on the precise meaning of these concepts but we do not wish to enter into the argument here. For a recent discussion of the contemporary applicability of these concepts cf. Dahrendorf, , op. cit.Google Scholar On the applicability of the concept of class to Communist societies cf. Djilas, Milovan, The New Class (New York, Praeger, 1957)Google Scholar. For an instructive discussion of the impact of mobility aspirations on traditional pre-industrial societies cf. Lerner, Daniel, The Passing of Traditional Society (Glencoe, Free Press, 1958).Google Scholar

(3) Parsons speaks of looseness, also of vagueness and indefiniteness of the class structure. Cf. Parsons, Talcott, “An Analytical Approach to Social Stratification” in Essays in Social Theory, Pure and Applied (Glencoe, Free Press, 1949), pp. 182 and 183Google Scholar, and, “A Revised Analytical Approach to the Theory Social Stratification”, in Bendix, and Lipset, (eds.), op. cit., pp. 106 and 122.Google Scholar

(4) Cf. Barber, , op. cit. pp. 19–49Google Scholar. The problems for research on class which result from the multi-dimensionality of class criteria can be best seen in the work of W. Lloyd Warner and his associates in the five volumes of the “Yankee City Series” (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1941–1959)Google Scholar. Also, cf. the procedural handbook put out by this group of researchers — Warner, W. Lloyd, Meeker, Marchia and Eells, Kenneth, Social Class in America (Chicago, Scientific Research Associates, 1949).Google Scholar

(5) There is much discussion of embourgeoisement by political observers, journalists, etc., in England, France and Germany. For a critical and sober appraisal on the English case, cf. Lockwood, David, “The ‘New Working Class’,” in European Journal of Sociology, I (1960), 248–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(6) Durkheim, Émile, Suicide (Glencoe, Free Press, 1951), pp. 246, 247, 257, 258.Google Scholar

(7) Merton, Robert K., Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe, Ill., Free Press, 1957Google Scholar—revised and enlarged edition), chapters IV and V. Cf. also Lystad, Mary, “Social Mobility among Selected Groups of Schizophrenic Patients”, ASR, XXII (1957), 288–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gibbs, Jack and Martin, Walter, “A Theory of Status Integration and Its Relationship to Suicide”, ASR, XXVIII (1958), 140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Powell, Elwin, “Occupation, Status, and Suicide: Toward a Redefinition of Anomie”, ASR, XXIII (1958), 131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gibbs, Jack and Martin, Walter, “On Status Integration and Suicide Rates in Tulsa”, ASR, XXIV (1959), 392–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Porterfield, Austin and Gibbs, Jack, “Occupational Prestige and Social Mobility of Suicides in New Zealand”, AJS, LXVI (1960), 147–152Google Scholar; Matza, David and Sykes, Gresham, “Juvenile Delinquency and Subterranean Values”, ASR, XXVI (1961), 712–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reiss, Albert Jr., and Rhodes, Albert, “The Distribution of Juvenile Delinquency in the Social Class Structure”, ASR, XXVI (1961), 720–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jackson, Elton, “Status Consistency and Symptoms of Stress”, ASR, XXVII (1962), 469–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robins, Lee, Gyman, Harry and O'Neal, Patricia, “The Interaction of Social Class and Deviant behavior,” ASR, XXVI (1962), 480–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Breed, Warren, “Occupational Mobility and Suicide”, ASR, XXVIII (1963), 179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kleinen, Robert and Parker, Seymour, “Goal-Striving, Social Status and Mental Disorder: A Research Review”, ASR, XXVIII (1963), 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(8) Cf. Lenski, Gerhard, “Status Crystallization: A Non-Vertical Dimension of Social Status”, ASR, XIX (1954), 12–18Google Scholar; Lenski, Gerhard, “Social Participation and Status Crystallization”, ASR, XXI (1956), 458–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goffman, Irwin, “Status Consistency and Preference for Change in Power Distribution”, ASR, XXII (1957), 275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Landecker, Werner, “Class Crystallization and Its Urban Pattern”, Social Research, XXVII (1960), 308–320Google Scholar; Murphy, Raymond and Morris, Richard, “Occupational Situs, Subjective Class Identification, and Political Affiliation”, ASR, XXVI (1961), 383–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hodge, Robert, “The Status Consistency of Occupational Groups”, ASR, XXVII (1962), 336–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Landecker, Werner, “Class Crystallization and Class Consciousness”, ASR, XXVIII (1963), 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(9) Cf. Mauss, Marcel, Sociologie et anthropologie (Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1960)Google Scholar, passim. A classic statement of the social-psychological aspects of class is, of course, Halbwachs, Maurice, The Psychology of Social Class (Glencoe, Free Press, 1958)Google Scholar, but it does not contain a comprehensive approach to the question of mobility. For an interesting discussion of personality as it relates to economic change, cf. Bensman, Joseph and Vidich, Arthur, “Business Cycles, Class and Personality”, Psychoanalysis and the Psychoanalytic Review, XLIX (1962), 30–52.Google Scholar

(10) On the latter, cf. Lenski, , loc. cit. (1954)Google Scholar, and Landecker, , loc. cit. (1960 and 1963).Google Scholar

(11) Again, cf. the cited works of W. Lloyd Warner for discrepancies in the assignment of individuals through class criteria. Also cf. Lipset, and Bendix, , op. cit., p. 42ff.Google Scholar

(12) Cf. Cooley, Charles, Human Nature and the Social Order (New York, Scribner's, 1902)Google Scholar, esp. chap, V–VI; Mead, George Herbert, Mind, Self and Society (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1934), esp. chap. III.Google Scholar

(13) On status and personality cf. Gerth, Hans and Mills, C. Wright, Character and Social Structure (New York, Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1953), p. 315fGoogle Scholar; on transformation of identity cf. Strauss, Anselm, Mirrors and Masks (Glencoe, Free Press, 1959). p. 89ffGoogle Scholar; on problems of identity in mass society generally cf. Stein, Maurice, Vidich, Arthur and White, David (eds.), Identity and Anxiety (Glencoe, Free Press, 1960), esp. p. 17ff.Google Scholar

(14) Cf. again references cited in Footnote 7; also, Sullivan, H. S., “Modern Conceptions of Psychiatry”, Psychiatry, III (1940), pp. 111 sq.Google Scholar

(15) Riesman, David, The Lonely Crowd (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1950)Google Scholar; Gehlen, Arnold, Die Seele im technischen Zeitalter (Hamburg, Rowohlt, 1957).Google Scholar

(16) In this connection cf. the discussion of the functional changes in the American family in Talcott Parsons and Bales, Robert, Family, Socialization and Interaction Process (Glencoe, Ill., Free Press, 1955).Google Scholar

(17) On some aspects of “privatization” cf. Luckmann, Thomas, Das Problem der Religion in der modernen Gesellschaft (Freiburg, Rombach, 1963).Google Scholar

(18) On the inter-generational problem cf. Eisenstadt, S. N., From Generation to Generation (Glencoe, Free Press, 1956).Google Scholar

(19) On the reinterpretation of past identity cf. Berger, Peter, Invitation to Sociology—A Humanistic Perspective (Garden City, N. Y., Doubleday-Anchor, 1963), p. 54 sqq.Google Scholar

(20) For a general discussion of anticipatory socialization cf. Merton, Robert, op. cit., chap, VIII and IX, and especially pp. 265–269 and 293.Google Scholar

(21) One likely consequence is “over-conformity” to middle-class patterns (or, rather, their stereotypes). On the reasons of “overconformity” more generally, cf. Merton, Robert, op. cit., p. 182.Google Scholar

(22) Cf. Schutz, Alfred, Collected Papers, I—The Problem of Social Reality (The Hague, Nijhoff, 1962), p. 67 sqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(23) Cf. Blau, Zena, Old Age: A Study of Change in StatusGoogle Scholar, unpublished doctoral dissertation in sociology, Columbia University, as discussed by Merton, , op. cit. p. 188 sq.Google Scholar

(24) Cf. Mills, C. Wright, White Collar, (New York, Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 259ffGoogle Scholar; Whyte, William, The Organization Man (Garden City, N. Y., Doubleday-Anchor, 1957), p. 3ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. also Wyllie, Irwin, The Self-Made Man in America (New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press, 1954)Google Scholar; Merton, Robert, op. cit. pp. 166–170Google Scholar; Wohl, R. Richard, “The ‘Rags to Riches’Story: An Episode of Secular Idealism”, in Bendix and Lipset (eds.), op. cit. pp. 388–395.Google Scholar

(25) As already Tocqueville observed, “The American Ministers of the Gospel do not attempt to draw or fix all the thoughts of man upon the life to come […] It is often difficult to ascertain from their discourses whether the principal object of religion is to procure eternal felicity in the other world or prosperity in this”. For more recent evidence, cf. Schneider, Louis and Dornbusch, Sanford, Popular Religion: Inspirational Books in America (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1958).Google Scholar

(26) These remarks might be taken as a specific application of Marx's classic concept of the “fetishism of commodities”. However, we would emphasize that what we have called the “sacramentalism of consumption” is not just a phenomenon of capitalism, but of industrialism and industrial societies in general.

(27) Cf. Hyman, Herbert, “The Value Systems of Different Classes: A Social Psychological Contribution to the Analysis of Stratification”, in Bendix and Lipset (eds.), op. cit. pp. 426–442Google Scholar; Rosen, Bernard, “Family Structure and Achievement Motivation”, ASR, XXVI (1961), 574–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crockett, Harry Jr., “The Achievement Motive and Differential Mobility in the United States”, ASR, XXVII (1962), 191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Simpson, Richard, “Parental Influence, Anticipatory Socialization, and Social Mobility”, ASR, XXVII (1962), 517–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kohn, Melvin, “Social Class and Parent-Child Relationships: An Interpretation”, AJS, LXVIII (1963), 471–480.Google Scholar

(28) Cf. Lipset, and Bendix, (eds.), op. cit.Google Scholar; Rogoff, Natalie, Recent Trends in Occupational Mobility (Glencoe, Free Press, 1953).Google Scholar

(29) For a general typology of adaptation to anomic conditions, cf. Merton, Robert K., op. cit. p. 139 sqq.Google Scholar

(30) Cf. Bell, Daniel (ed.), The New American Right (New York, Criterion Books, 1955)Google Scholar, Cf. especially chapter 1, “Status Politics and New Anxieties”, by Bell.

(31) Cf. Goffman, Erving, The presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Garden City, N. Y., Doubleday-Anchor, 1959)Google Scholar, esp. on “impression management”, p. 208Google Scholar sqq.; ibid., Asylmus (Garden City, N. Y., Doubleday-Anchor, 1961)Google Scholar, esp. on “ways of making out”, p. 171ffGoogle Scholar.; ibid., Encounters (Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 1961)Google Scholar, specifically the piece on “role distance”, p. 85Google Scholar sqq. Also cf. Stein, Maurice, The Eclipse of Community (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1960), p. 199Google Scholar sqq. — and, passim, the works of Stephen Potter.

(32) For one of the best discussions of these compensatory mechanisms cf. Vidich, Arthur and Bensman, Joseph, Small Town in Mass Society (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1958), p. 285 sqq.Google Scholar

(33) Cf. Larrabee, Eric and Meyersohn, Rolf (eds,), Mass Leisure (Glencoe, Ill., Free Press, 1958).Google Scholar

(34) Cf. Whyte, William, op. cit. p. 155ff.Google Scholar