American Functionalist Sociologists on the Institution of Education

L. B. Zelmanov

One of the social consequences of the contemporary scientific and technological revolution consists in a change in the social role of education, in its value and significance for the progressive development of society.

The scientific and technological revolution is accompanied by a new social division of labor. If, before the industrial revolution of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the overwhelming majority of the economically active population was concentrated in agriculture, and if, as a result of the industrial revolution, labor power shifted into manufacturing industry, then, in the course of the scientific and technological revolution, according to forecasts, by the end of the twentieth century in the economically most developed countries less than 5% of all workers will remain in agriculture, about 10% will be employed in industry, and the rest of the economically active population will be concentrated in science and education, in administration and transport, in trade and social services.* The scientific and technological revolution is creating an enormous need for mental labor; there is an expanded reproduction of personnel of the highest qualification for

* See: A. Arab-Ogly, “On the Social Consequences of the Scientific and Technological Revolution,” in: The Scientific and Technological Revolution and Social Progress. Moscow: Mysl, 1966, pp. 7–8.

• spheres of production, administration, science, culture, and services. This, in turn, leads to a broad development of education. Science, technology, and education are becoming the leading sphere of human activity; education, as a specific social institution, is acquiring new functions and becoming one of the indicators of national wealth. In this connection, expenditures on education are growing substantially throughout the world. In 1950 they amounted to 34 billion dollars, and in 1967 to almost 100 billion dollars¹.

The successes in the field of public education in the socialist countries stand out with particular clarity. In the USSR in the 1966/67 academic year, 73.6 million people, or more than one third of the country’s population (not counting preschool-age children)², were covered by various forms of instruction. Over ten years the number of students in the Soviet Union increased more than twofold: in the 1957/58 academic year 2,099 thousand people studied in higher educational institutions; in 1967/68, 4,300 thousand people. Per 100 thousand of population in the 1962/63 academic year there were 19,313 students in the USSR, 19,085 in Czechoslovakia, 16,502 in England, 15,435 in the FRG, and 17,777 in France³.

The number of students is also growing substantially in the most developed capitalist country—the United States of America. Thus, expenditures on education in the USA during the years of the Johnson administration increased from 700 million dollars to 3.8 billion dollars⁴. At the beginning of the 1967/68 academic year, the system of public education in the USA encompassed about 60 million people, namely: 57 million students and approximately 3 million teaching and administrative personnel⁵.

And yet there is every reason to speak of a crisis of education in capitalist countries. The quantitative growth in the number of those enrolled in schools and higher educational institutions in capitalist countries does not remove, but deepens, the crisis of education, caused by the unequal access to education of different strata of society. The gap between the developed imperialist and the new developing countries is becoming sharper. Seven hundred million adolescents on the planet are illiterate. Imperialism is to blame for the fact that the overwhelming majority of children in colonial countries do not have access to education. “The consequences—

the countries of colonialism in Africa is 80–85 percent illiteracy of the population”⁶. The countries in which two-thirds of humanity live spend no more than 10% of worldwide expenditures on education.

The crisis of an unjust system of education manifests itself in a specific way in the United States. In connection with the exponential development of science, there is a rapid increase in the number of scientific workers. In the United States the number of scientific personnel doubles in 10 years, in Western Europe in 15, and in the USSR in 7 years⁷. Since personnel for science are trained by higher education, university admissions have grown significantly, which has led to a partial democratization of higher education in the capitalist countries.

If the needs of machine production in the nineteenth century forced the capitalists to introduce universal primary education, then automation and the rapid growth of science are forcing the ruling circles of the developed capitalist countries to open access to higher education somewhat for the most gifted children of workers and people from the middle strata. Nevertheless, the contradiction remains between the need for qualified personnel and the unjust system of access to higher education. In the United States the average unemployment figure in 1966 was 3.9%. Yet at the same time there is an acute shortage of teachers. In New York State alone 15,000 teachers are lacking, which amounts to 10% of the total number of teaching vacancies⁸. Unequal access to education, racial discrimination, the growing expense of higher education, the militarization of universities—this is far from a complete list of the contradictions of the system of public education in the United States. The lag behind the USSR in the training of engineers and the launch by the Soviet Union in 1957 of the world’s first artificial Earth satellite had a sobering effect on the ruling circles of the United States, who had boastfully overestimated the merits of American education and underestimated the successes of the Soviet system of education. However, the efforts undertaken to modernize and develop the educational system in the United States could not eliminate its fundamental defects, since in a class society education is likewise class-based. One may agree with the conclusion of N. Gauser, who noted that “despite the growth in the number of students, the education system

...of early and professional training, based on class privileges, was always slowly adapted to new conditions, giving rise to widespread dissatisfaction”^10).

Problems of higher education and the changing place of the institution of education in the social system are attracting the attention of representatives of applied and theoretical sociology in the USA. In bourgeois sociology there has even appeared an independent branch—the sociology of education. This article examines certain questions of education discussed in American sociology.

The empirical orientation of American sociology is expressed in the choice of research problems in the sociology of education. Every year dozens of books and hundreds of articles are published devoted to the study of choice of specialty, students’ plans, relations within the collective, the student family, students’ values, and so on. For example, in the journal of the American Sociological Association, American Sociological Review, articles have been published such as “Level of Education and Potential Income” (June 1956), “Male Sexual Aggression in the University Dormitory” (February 1957), “Origin, Status, and Higher Education” (October 1963), “Social Status, College Plans, and Interest in Academic Advancement” (December 1963), “Neighborhood Context and Plans for Entering College” (April 1966), and “Higher Education, Religion, and Women’s Ideas about Family Size” (August 1966)^11).

In James Davis’s book The Great Aspiration: The Plans of American College Seniors^12), the demographic characteristics, future plans, and self-assessments of 33,982 graduates who completed, in June 1961, 135 American colleges are described. The sample included 3% Negroes from small towns and 60% men. Although 83% of all those surveyed were worthy of further study and 77% wanted to continue studying, only 20% continued their studies with the aim of obtaining an academic degree. From this a fair conclusion is drawn that the delay in entering higher—

^10) H. Gausner. “The Scientific-Technological Revolution and Its Social Consequences.” World Economy and International Relations, 1969, No. 7, p. 134.

^11) Let us name only a few books on problems of education: J. Maclendon. The Social Foundations of Education. New York, 1966, p. 382; F. Foster. Education and Social Change in Ghana. Chicago, 1966, p. 322; A. Reiss (ed.). Schools in a Changing Society. New York, 1966, p. 224; D. Goste n. The School in Modern Society. Chicago, 1965, p. 173.

^12) See: J. Davis. The Great Aspiration: The Plans of American College Seniors. Chicago, 1964, p. 310 (in English).

school is characteristic of the American system of education and is a social problem, while only a rickety bridge has been laid between college and high school. Nevertheless, the author asserts that “American colleges and universities have achieved enormous successes”⁹.

In general, it should be emphasized that American sociologists often touch on the nodal problems of education. Nevertheless, an acute discussion is taking place between Marxist sociologists and American “Sovietologists” around the problem of access to higher education and the criteria for admission to higher educational institutions in the USSR and the United States. Well-argued works by D. N. Prikhodko, in particular, are devoted to criticizing the anti-communist attacks by American sociologists.¹⁰

Of considerable interest is the theoretical analysis of the institution of education contained in the works of representatives of the structural-functional school of American sociology. Structural functionalists seek to define the place of education as a special institution in the social system; they also describe the functions of education and examine particular applied questions of training specialists in higher education.

In a number of works by the leading theorist of the American structural functionalists, T. Parsons (born in 1901), the basic idea is carried through: the functional necessity of the institution of education is determined by its contribution to the process of socialization. Another prominent representative of sociological functionalism, R. K. Merton (born in 1910), carried out an empirical analysis of a wide range of problems connected with the training of the medical profession.

The initial theoretical ideas for the analysis of the institution of education are set forth in T. Parsons’s complex and contradictory scheme of the structure and functions of the social system. From the standpoint of the subjectivist-idealist theory of “social action,” Parsons considers three equal systems: personality, the social system, and culture. Social psychology is called upon to study personality; sociology investigates the social system; and culture is described by cultural anthropology.¹¹

Society is represented as a complex system, at various levels of which¹² there are different institutions (subsystems of the social system as a whole) and different processes take place. The laws of social development find no place in the structural-functionalist analysis of society.

The basic ideas of the structural-functionalist approach to the social system were set out by Parsons in the books The Social System (1951), Structure and Process in Modern Societies (1960), Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives (1966), Sociological Theory and Modern Society (1967), as well as in numerous articles.

T. Parsons uses certain ideas of cybernetics and the general theory of systems to construct a complex model of society. In particular, he believes that the social system is homeostatic, i.e., that a stable equilibrium is maintained within it. As a declared opponent of Marxism, Parsons states that the present state of sociological theory does not permit the creation of a general theory of social change, and that its task should be the description of processes in the social system. The sources of change, according to Parsons, are technological innovations, science, and changes in cultural values¹³. Even among American sociologists Parsons has been called a conservative who justifies America’s social order. In the many empirical studies of the social system, according to Parsons, equilibrium is maintained and the status quo is preserved; a disturbed equilibrium is restored again; revolutions are followed by counterrevolutions; the degeneration of the revolutionary movement takes place¹⁴.

Parsons’s approach to the problem of social development is not consistent with the well-known facts of world history, which is an arena of class struggle and social revolutions leading to the replacement of socio-economic formations; the schema of the American functionalist cannot withstand criticism from the standpoint of the Marxist theory of social revolutions and social progress.

Specifying changes in cultural values as the main source of changes in the social system, Parsons speaks of changes in interests, motives of individual behavior, value orientations, and expectations. Thus, he believes that the basis

altering the components that constitute subjective factors, although he admits that “there is one or two internal variables of the source of movements toward change in social systems”¹⁵. Motives, expectations, and values change in the process of internalization and socialization (the assimilation by the “actor” of the values, social roles, and norms of society). It is precisely in these processes that the institution of education, along with the family, is called upon to play a decisive role.

Parsons contrasts the dynamic analysis of the social system and its subsystems with the structural (static) analysis of social institutions. It should be noted here that the scheme of the basic social institutions in Parsons’s theory changed repeatedly.

Thus, initially he proclaimed kinship, occupation, power, and religion to be the basic institutions of society. More recently, Parsons has included among the social institutions out of which the structure of society is composed such regulating mechanisms as the market, money, as well as law, communication based on language, and science. Speaking of the development of society at its initial stages, Parsons writes in one of his latest works: “Four features of human society at the level of culture and social organization were cited as having universal and fundamental significance as prerequisites for sociocultural development: technology, the organization of kinship based on the prohibition of incest (blood-mixing—A. Z.), communication based on the presence of language, and religion”¹⁶. At the level of social structure, from the point of view of the American functionalist, stratification, a system of laws, a bureaucratic organization for the achievement of collective goals (the state), monetary and market systems, as well as democratic association with elected leadership and equal membership (Parsons calls the management of joint-stock companies such—A. Z.) acquire particular significance. This is only one of the vivid examples of subjectivism in the construction of the structure of the social system and of the apologetic orientation of Parsons’s theoretical constructions.

In the variants of social structure listed above, Parsons makes no mention of the institution of education. Indeed, the American sociologist does not include education among the most important—

— their social institutions. But it should be borne in mind that the process of socialization is the most important in the system of social processes, and here education also appears.

In characterizing the stages of the life cycle of the personality (the personality is one of the three subsystems in the theory of “social action,” along with culture and society), Parsons, in the book Social Structure and Personality, describes the stage of childhood and, in this connection, analyzes in detail the structure of the school and its role in society. The school structure is characterized in terms of the socio-psychological interaction of pupil and teacher. At the same time, special emphasis is placed on the role of the woman teacher in the child’s sexual development, which reveals the strong influence of the ideas of S. Freud on Parsons’s theory. In accordance with the Freudian tradition of psychoanalysis, Parsons writes of the child’s attraction to this alter, of the child’s confused desires, etc.²¹)

Parsons sees the significance of the school in the fact that it develops children’s moral and intellectual abilities and thereby prepares them to perform the social roles of adults. Thus, in assessing the role of the school, Parsons proceeds from the general subjective premises of his theory.

The problem of education is also considered by Parsons in connection with an analysis of changes in American society. He illustrates the process of change in American society with the example of medical education in the USA.²²) Education as a social institution for the transmission of culture from generation to generation is generally present in T. Parsons’s abstract model of society.

The Marxist approach to education is connected with the fact that this social institution performs the functions of socialization of the personality and of social mobility.²³) Education presupposes training and upbringing in their unity. In this connection, the definition of education given by D. N. Prikhodko seems correct: “It is a socially conditioned process of transmitting and assimilating a certain body of knowledge and social qualities, pursuing the aim of forming a definite social type of personality.”²⁴)

²¹) See: T. Parsons, Social Structure and Personality, New York, 1964, pp. 5, 6 (in English).

²²) See: T. Parsons, Structure and Process in Modern Societies, Glencoe, 1960, pp. 280–293 (in English).

²³) On the function of social mobility, see: M. N. Rutkevich, “Education in the USSR as a Factor of Social Mobility,” in: Sociology and Ideology, Moscow, Nauka, 1969, pp. 91–100.

²⁴) D. N. Prikhodko, “Education as a Sociological Category,” Materials of the Scientific Conference of Young Scholars of the Universities of Tomsk, vol. 2, Humanities Section, Tomsk, 1968, p. 212.

However, the sociological category of “education” should be approached not only as a process, but also as a social institution, since education is not exhausted by the transmission and assimilation of knowledge. Education as a social institution includes the material base of instruction and upbringing (premises, equipment) and the cadres of teachers, as well as educational authorities (the Ministry of Education, higher education, departments of public education in the Soviets of Working People’s Deputies, etc.).

In the Soviet Union the institution of education has a complex structure, comprising three principal subsystems: preschool upbringing, school education, and higher education (the latter also includes the training of scientific workers with academic degrees, although this function is also performed by various subdivisions of the USSR Academy of Sciences, which is part of another social institution—namely, science).

In socialist society education is democratic to the highest degree; it is free of charge in most socialist countries and accessible in practice to everyone who possesses the appropriate abilities. In bourgeois countries there are barriers on the path to education that are difficult to overcome: high tuition fees, the absence of a broad state scholarship system, racial and religious discrimination. Thus, the system of education is a derivative of the social order of a given society. In the system of education one should distinguish the goal, the means, the object, and the subject of education.

This set of problems does not receive sufficient attention in the works of functionalist sociologists on the sociology of education. Let us refer, by way of example, to Neal Gross’s article “The Sociology of Education.”^25

It is characteristic that the institution of education is considered here after politics and law, while among the institutions, besides those named, the compilers of the book Sociology Today include religion, the family, science, and medicine.^26 Having noted that the process of socialization takes place not only in the family but also at school, N. Gross, an adherent of structural-functional analysis in sociology, analyzes the structure of the classroom as a system, the external environment of the school, education as a profession and a career.

^25 See: Sociology Today. Problems and Prospects, ed. by R. Merton et al. Moscow: Progress, 1965, pp. 167–183. On the sociology of education see also: Robert F. Faris (ed.), Handbook of Modern Sociology. Chicago, 1964 (in English).

^26 See: Sociology Today, Section II, “Social Institutions.”

Without ignoring the social composition of the school, the author nevertheless brings to the fore the psychological problems of interaction between teachers and pupils. He believes that the relationship between teacher and pupil is the most essential among the phenomena with which the sociology of education is concerned. Gross correctly notes that “the structure of the group is connected with the children’s social-class affiliation”¹⁷.

He proposes, in full accordance with the methodology of structural functionalism, to study the influence of various variables on the social structure and behavior of pupils. In particular, among the variables he notes the influence of religious and ethnic values. Although N. Gross calls for not exaggerating the role of social-class affiliation, remaining on the positions of realism, he rightly observes: “Academic achievement, level of aspirations, participation in extracurricular activity, dropout rate, for example, all depend on the child’s social-class affiliation”¹⁸.

It should be especially noted that the sphere of the sociology of education is not exhausted by the problems of those being taught. American sociologists propose studying teachers’ values, their role orientation, motives for choosing the profession, and so on.

A detailed study of the professional training of the medical student was undertaken by a group of functionalist sociologists headed by Columbia University professor Robert K. Merton. In the monograph The Student Physician, which sets forth the results of the work of the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia University¹⁹, empirical questions are investigated: what are the motives for choosing the profession of physician, under whose influence does the medical student choose a narrow specialization, how does he relate to the choice of future patients, and so forth. It is not difficult to observe that the study is dominated by socio-psychological issues, which cannot be ignored in any concrete sociological investigation of motives of behavior.

At the same time, the authors studied the moral values of future physicians, relationships within the student collective, and specific questions of medical training. The methods of collecting primary information were a panel survey of medical-school students, the completion of observation protocols, and the keeping of sociological diaries.

A number of articles in the book The Student-Physician describe the motives that guided applicants who decided to enter medical school (as medical institutes are called in the United States), the admission process itself, the development of professional self-awareness, tendencies toward specialization, and contacts with patients. In the introductory article to the book, R. Merton poses the following questions: how can knowledge be made an effective part of the training of the medical student; how does the limited duration of study affect the curriculum; what is the role of the social environment in the emergence and control of diseases, and what is the significance of the social sciences in understanding this environment. He also notes the role of the scientific method for a more rational analysis of the educational process²⁰.

It is characteristic that in this empirical study the problem of the caste character of medical education in the United States is completely ignored, although it is well known that obtaining a medical education is very expensive, and that the profession of physician is a privileged one, since a certified physician receives very large fees.

From the standpoint of posing and solving certain problems of education, the articles of functionalist sociologists in periodicals are of interest. They discuss various problems of education in general and of higher education in particular within the framework of a conceptual scheme whose main content is drawn from the theoretical works of T. Parsons. In most articles on the sociology of higher education, the class position of American sociologists is clearly visible: they attempt to shield bourgeois values from criticism and to strengthen them. In many articles excessive emphasis is placed on the problem of students’ sexual behavior.

Let us consider, for example, the content of the article “Sociology for Higher Education,” which is devoted to the problems of the political upbringing of students in American colleges and institutes²¹. In the setting of an acute ideological struggle between the Marxist and bourgeois worldviews, American students are being provided with immunity against the ideas of Marxism, and are being strengthened in their commitment to the progressiveness of the ideals of American society. A special role in this connection is assigned to sociology.

What problems, then, should the American student learn to understand? In the author’s opinion, the student should be acquainted with the human—

integral problems, methods of the social sciences. Students must be informed of the problems of the individual and of social institutions, such as marriage, commerce, industry, agriculture, government, religion.” The student must know that cooperation and mutual understanding are necessary for communal life, that all human life is group life, that in the social world there operate forces of interaction, associations, accommodations, attitudes, etc.

As can be seen, the set of categories and problems of bourgeois sociology that the American student is offered for study does not rise above the level of the ordinary consciousness of the bourgeois. What a contrast with the categories and laws of historical materialism and scientific communism that a student studies at a Soviet higher educational institution!

On the whole, publications on the sociology of education are dominated by a conservative spirit; the acute class problems of education are bypassed.

However, Marxist sociologists in the United States of America sharply criticize the conservatism of university education and the militarization of science in institutions of higher learning. As an example of criticism of the crisis state of higher education in the USA, we cite Bettina Aptheker’s article “Types of Crises in Higher Education,” published in the journal of American Communists Political Affairs in October 1967 and later reprinted by the journal DE-68.^33

Using numerous examples, the author proves that American universities and colleges “are controlled by large and the most reactionary agricultural, industrial, and banking interests”;^34 B. Aptheker shows that the crisis of American education is multifaceted and includes the quality and content of education, its accessibility for young people, and the political orientation of education. She comes to the conclusion that “the crisis is a direct result of big business and government control over the educational system.”^35

Thus, in the 1966 fiscal year, 93 universities and colleges carried out research orders for the Pentagon, including Johns Hopkins University in the amount of 50 million 393 thousand dollars, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—47 million 308 thousand dollars, and Columbia University—16 million 203 thousand dollars.

^32 Ibid., p. 40.
^33 B. Aptheker. Types of Crises in Higher Education, DE-68, No. 1, 1968, Prague, pp. 13–16.
^34 Ibid., p. 13.
^35 Ibid., p. 13.

One of the manifestations of the crisis of higher education in the United States is the penetration of the CIA into universities, a fact that became known comparatively recently. One cannot but agree with the author’s conclusion that U.S. institutions of higher learning have become ideological and technological centers of the Cold War, as a result of which their political independence has been lost and the content and quality of education have been distorted³⁶.

In conclusion, B. Aptheker criticizes higher education in the United States for its caste-bound character. “On the whole, higher education in the United States is a privilege of the more well-to-do strata of society”—this conclusion is confirmed by many facts. Thus, of the 6 million college students, only 200,000 are Black, and the majority of these 200,000 study in colleges in the South of the country. If 40% of all U.S. families have incomes of less than 6,000 dollars a year, then 80.5% of students come from families with incomes of more than 6,000 dollars a year³⁷. Thus, the function of social advancement (mobility) is performed by higher education only in relation to the privileged strata of society.

A fundamentally different situation exists in the USSR. A study of the social composition of the intelligentsia at large industrial enterprises in the Urals showed that 43% of the total number of engineers and technical workers came from the working class, 28.6% from the peasantry, and 28.4% from employees³⁸; that is, the social origin of the intelligentsia reflects the class structure of our society.

True, in recent years, in connection with the operation of the academic criterion in admission to higher educational institutions, the share of the children of employees and, above all, of the intelligentsia is somewhat higher than their share in the social structure of Soviet society. The measures being taken—in particular, the creation of preparatory faculties for the children of workers and peasants—will help correct the disproportion that has emerged.

Thus, the mobility function of education is distinctly class-based and operates in socialist and bourgeois society in directly opposite directions.

A detailed analysis of the institution of education is carried out by American sociologists in a number of monographic studies, whose analysis lies beyond the scope of this article.

To sum up, let us emphasize that the growth of the prestige of education, quantitative and qualitative changes in the education system, and the importance of the social functions of higher education compel Ameri—

³⁶ Ibid., p. 15.
³⁷ Ibid., pp. 15–16.
³⁸ See: Sociology and Ideology, p. 98.

• [[unclear: beginning of sentence]] sociologists to single out the sociology of education as an independent field of research, and to include the institution of education among the most important social institutions.

• The study of education is conducted from class-limited positions, which inevitably leads to praise of the American system of education. At the same time, voices are being heard that criticize the American system of education from liberal positions.

The initial methodological principles for analyzing the institution of education lead to a one-sided emphasis on such problems as motives of behavior, the values by which the student is guided in his behavior, sexual behavior, and moral norms. The psychologism of bourgeois sociology manifests itself in a specific way in the sociology of education.

In the study of applied questions of education, as well as in research methodology, there are rational elements that it is important to comprehend critically and to borrow when studying the problems of higher education in our country.

The tendency of proponents of structural-functional analysis in sociology to regard the institution of education as an important element of the social system as a whole deserves attention.

1. See: R. G. Mackay, The World Crisis in Education. “IUS–68. Journal of the International Union of Students for Democratization and Reform of Education,” 1968, No. 1, p. 20. (In English.) ↩

2. See: The Country of the Soviets in 50 Years. A Collection of Statistical Materials. Moscow, “Statistika,” 1967, p. 273. ↩

3. See: Social Studies, issue 2, Moscow, “Nauka,” 1968, p. 187. ↩

4. J. World Economy and International Relations, 1969, No. 7, p. 29. ↩

5. UNESCO News, May 1969, p. 10. ↩

6. Accusatory Act against Imperialism, journal Problems of Peace and Socialism, 1969, no. 7, p. 32. ↩

7. See: G. M. Dobrov, Science on Science. Kiev, “Naukova dumka,” 1966, p. 93. ↩

8. R. Tibold (ed.), Social Policy for America in the 1970s. New York, 1968, pp. 38, 78 (in English). ↩

9. Ibid., p. 238. ↩

10. See: D. N. Prikhodko, “Some Social Questions of the American System of Higher Education,” Proceedings of the Tomsk Polytechnic Institute named after S. M. Kirov, No. 181, Tomsk, 1967; idem, “A Critique of Anti-Communism on Certain Social Questions of the Soviet System of Higher Education.” Manuscript of a candidate dissertation. Tomsk, 1968. ↩

11. The term “cultural anthropology” in Soviet literature corresponds to the term “ethnography.” ↩

12. Parsons distinguishes four levels of organization of the social system: the levels of adaptation, integration, goal attainment, and pattern maintenance. ↩

13. See: T. Parsons, The Social System. Glencoe, 1951, pp. 500, 535 (in English). ↩

14. Ibid., pp. 525–532. ↩

15. Ibid., p. 493. ↩

16. T. Parsons. “Evolutionary Universals in Society,” American Sociological Review, vol. 29, no. 2, June 1964, pp. 356–357 (in English). ↩

17. Ibid., p. 171. ↩

18. Ibid., p. 173. ↩

19. See The Student-Physician: Introductory Studies in the Sociology of Medical Education, ed. R. Merton, G. Reader, P. Kendall. Cambridge, Mass., 1957 (in English). ↩

20. Ibid., pp. 34–35. ↩

21. See: journal Sociology and Social Research, vol. 14, no. 1, October–November 1959 (in English). ↩