Persistent racial inequality in employment, housing, and a wide range of other social domains has renewed interest in the possible role of discrimination. And yet, unlike in the pre–civil rights era, when racial prejudice and discrimination were overt and ...Read More

American Journal of Agricultural EconomicsVolume 66, Issue 5 p. 823-828 Invited Papers Session The Microdynamics of Farm Structural Change in North America: The Canadian Experience and Canada-U.S.A. Comparisons Philip Ehrensaft, Philip Ehrensaft professor of sociology Universitée du Quebec à Montréal a Ph.D. candidate, Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorPierre LaRamée, Pierre LaRaméeSearch for more papers by this authorRay D. Bollman, Ray D. Bollman research economist Statistics CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorFrederick H. Buttel, Frederick H. Buttel assistant professor of rural sociology Cornell UniversitySearch for more papers by this author Philip Ehrensaft, Philip Ehrensaft professor of sociology Universitée du Quebec à Montréal a Ph.D. candidate, Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorPierre LaRamée, Pierre LaRaméeSearch for more papers by this authorRay D. Bollman, Ray D. Bollman research economist Statistics CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorFrederick H. Buttel, Frederick H. Buttel assistant professor of rural sociology Cornell UniversitySearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 December 1984 https://doi.org/10.2307/1241007Citations: 15 AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume66, Issue5December 1984Pages 823-828 RelatedInformation

Journal Article Social Class and Agrarian Political Ideology: A Note on Determinants of Political Attitudes Among Full- and Part-Time Farmers Get access Frederick H. Buttel, Frederick H. Buttel Cornell University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Oscar W. Larson, III, Oscar W. Larson, III Cornell University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Craig K. Harris, Craig K. Harris Michigan State University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Sharon Powers Sharon Powers Michigan State University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Social Forces, Volume 61, Issue 1, September 1982, Pages 277–283, https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/61.1.277 Published: 01 September 1982

This study, intended largely as a replication of the research reported by John C. Leggett in his Class, Race, and Labor, is a methodological contribution to the measurement of class consciousness among American workers, and an analysis of the independent variables that explain variation in the class consciousness measure. The data for this research were collected during 1974 in a statewide Wisconsin sample. A conceptual analysis of class consciousness suggests four major levels of that consciousness: class identification, class action, militant egalitarianism, and capitalist change orientation. Attitudinal measures of these levels or stages of class consciousness are discussed and then combined into a Likert scale for purposes of empirical analysis. We then examine the gross and net effects of a variety of variables assumed to be causally related to working class consciousness: union membership, generation, skill level, family income, and size of place of residence. Methodological caveats regarding the applicability of cross-sectional investigations of the dynamic, dialectical process of the formation of working class consciousness are offered. Finally, the implications of these results for the literature on working class consciousness are discussed.

SummaryThere has been increasing recognition in recent years by rural sociologists that rural and urban environmental degradation have many interdependent causes and consequences. There is far less consensus, however, about the nature of these linkages between rural and urban environmental problems. An analysis of the existing literature indicates three major models of linkage which have discernible explicit or implicit roots in Durkheimian, Weberian, and Marxian sociologies. The three perspectives differ most generally in terms of their conceptualizations of the nature of man, society, and the major forces underlying social change, and more specifically with respect to the nature of the rural urban continuum, center‐periphery relations, and the course of national development. We argue that the classical theories of Durkheim, Weber, and Marx are faithfully reflected in, respectively, “socioeconomic dualism‐diffusion”, “internal colonialism”, and “uneven development” theories of rural‐urban interrelations and the linkages among various rural and urban environmental problems in the U.S. After briefly discussing the nature of rural environmental degradation in the U.S., we detail the major differences in approach among the three competing theories in accounting for increasingly severe environmental problems of the rural periphery. In doing so, the interdependence of rural and urban environmental degradation is emphasized. A summary portion of the paper discusses the distinctive epistemological roots of the three models and the meager prospects for synthesis. It is suggested that the most likely avenue for synthesis is between the “colonialism” and “uneven development” models, into a more general “class‐coercion‐conflict” perspective. We conclude by emphasizing the disparate implications of the three models for social policy to enhance both rural and urban environmental quality.RésuméCes dernières années, les sociologues ont reconnu de plus en plus que les problèmes de la dégradation de ľ environnement rural et de celle de ľ environnement urbain ont de nombreuses causes et conséquences interdépendantes. Le consensus est bien moindre, cependant, en ce qui concerne la nature des liens entre le problème de ľ environnement urbain et celui de ľ environnement rural. Une analyse de la littérature existante révèle trois modèles principaux des liaisons environnement rural/environnement urbain. On retrouve leurs racines, explicites ou implicites, dans les sociologues Durkheim, Weber, et Marx. D'une manière générale, ces trois perspectives différentes dans leur conceptualisation de la nature de ľ'homme, de la société, et des forces principales à la base du changement social. En particulier, elles se distinguent par leur conception de la nature du continuum ville‐campagne, des relations centre‐périphérie, et du cours di développement national. Nous montrons que les théories classiques du Durkheim, Weber, et Marx, sont reflétées fidélement dans les théories des interrelations villecampagne et des liaisons entre différent problèmes de ľ environnement social et urbain aux U.S.A., théories dites du «dualisme de la diffusion socio‐économique», du «colonialisme inteme», et du «développement inégal», respectivement. Après avoir rapidement discuté la nature de la dégradation du milieu rural aux U.S.A., nous présentons en detail les différences principales entre les trois théories en compétition, en ce qui concerne leurs explications respectives pour les problémes toujours plus sérieux de la périphérie rurale. Ce faisant, ľ accent est porté sur ľ interdépendence entre la dégradation des environnements rural et urbain. Une partie de ľ article discute en résumé les diverses racines épistémologiques des trois modèles et les maigres chances de synthese. On suggeste que la voie la plus probable pour une synthèse se trouve entre les modèles de «colonialisme» et de «développement inégal», conduisant à une perspective plus générale de «conflit de coertion de classe». Nous concluons en mettant ľ accent sur les conclusions disparates des trois modéles en ce qui concerne une politique sociale servant à améliorer simultanement la qualityé des environnements ruraux et urbains.ZusammenfassungIn den letzten Jahren wurde von ländlichen Soziologen zunehmend anerkannt, daß ländliche und städtdsche Umweltverschlechterung viele voneinander abhängige Gründe und Folgen hat. Es besteht jedoch weit weniger Übereinstimmung über die Natur dieser Verkettungen zwischen ländlichen und städtischen Umweltproblemen. Eine Analyse der bestehenden Literatur zeigt drei Hauptmodelle der Verkettung auf, welche erkennbar explizit oder implizit auf den Lehren von Durkheim, Weber und Marx beruhen. Die drei Perspektiven unterscheiden sich meist allgemein hinsichtlich ihrer Auffassungen von der Natur des Menschen, der Gesellschaft und den Hauptkraften, denen der soziale Wandel unterliegt und spezieller hinsichtlich der Natur des ländlich‐ städtischen Zusammenhanges, der Zentrum‐Peripherie‐Beziehungen und dem Gang der nationalen Entwicklung. Wir führen an, daß die klassischen Theorien von Durkheim, Weber und Marx getreu widergespiegelt werden in jeweiligen „sozioökonomischen Dualismus‐Verbreitungs‐”, „inneren Kolonialismus‐” und „ungleichmäßigen Entwicklungs‐” Theorien der ländlich‐städtischen Zwischenbeziehungen und der Verkettungen zwischen verschiedenen ländlichen und städtischen Umweltproblemen in den U.S. Nach kurzer Diskussion der Natur der ländlichen Umweltverschlechterung in den U.S., behandeln wir ausführlich die Hauptunterschiede zwischen den drei konkurrierenden Theorien hinsichtlich ihrem Erklärungsansatz für die zunehmenden ernsten Umweltprobleme der länd‐lichen Peripherie. Auf diese Weise wird die gegenseitige Abhängigkeit ländlicher und städtischer Umweltverschlechterung unterstrichen. Ein zusammenfassender Teil des Papiers diskutiert die besonderen erkenntnistheoretischen Ursprünge der drei Modelle und die kärglichen Aussichten für eine Synthese. Es wird vermutet, daß der wahrscheinlichste Weg zur Synthese zwischen den «Kolonialismus‐” und «ungleichmäßige Entwicklung‐“ Modellen in einer allgemeineren «Klassen‐Zwangsherrschaft‐Konflikt”‐Perspektive liegt. Wir schließen, indem wir die unvereinbaren Implikationen der drei Modelle für eine Sozialpolitik, die ländliche und städtische Umweltqualität gleichzeitig verbessern soil, unterstreichen.

This paper explores the impacts of political party identification and political ideology on two dimensions of mass environmental beliefs—awareness of environmental problems and support for environmental reform. We argue that while the environmental movement's mobilization of public awareness of environmental problems was essentially non-partisan, more recent movement efforts to achieve environmental reforms have taken a discernible “reform liberal” stance of advocating state regulation of the private sector. Neither political party identification nor political ideology has a substantial effect on awareness of environmental problems. Anti-laissez-faire political liberalism proves to be highly correlated with support for environmental reform, particularly among the middle class. Despite the major impact of political liberalism on support for environmental reform, there are no partisan differences in such support. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of the notion that political-ideological differences in support for environmental reform exist despite political parties.