Generation Sociology

Generation as a Sociological Problem Author(s): David I. Kertzer Reviewed work(s): Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 9 (1983), pp.
125-149 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2946060 . Accessed: 13/01/2013 08:31
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Sun, 13 Jan 2013 08:31:46 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ann.Rev. Sociol. 1983. 9:125-49 ? 1983 byAnnualReviews reserved Copyright Inc. All rights
GENERATION AS A SOCIOLOGICAL PROBLEM

David I. Kertzer
BowdoinCollege,Brunswick, of Sociology& Anthropology, Department Maine 04011
INTRODUCTION
For manymillenia, in cultures aroundtheworld, ofgeneration theconcept in its societiesis reflected has prospered. Its privileged place in Western ofAfrica, in theBible,whilethemostdisparate societies Asia codification thegenerational and Australiahave incorporated conceptin theirnotions thattheidea ofgeneration ofthesocial order.It is no surprise shouldhave in use Western terms comeintoprominent sociology, just as so manyother from was havebeenpreempted It popularto scientific vocabulary. perhaps from also inevitable thatthistransformation folkto analytical usagewould occasion considerable The term'smulivocality, a conceptualconfusion. in populardiscourse, virtue becamea liability in science. In thisreview, I identify thesources ofconfusion in thesociological usage of "generation" as I examinethe recentliterature. Though othershave identified many problemswith the sociologicalusage of the generation strictures their have thusfarhad onlylimited concept, effect. The concept is important ofgeneration to future butprogress can sociological research, be madeifan acceptable ofgeneration definition is employed only and other usagesare abandoned. Here my focusis conceptualand methodological. I do not attempt a reviewof substantive comprehensive findings, thoughthe bibliography shouldbe usefulto thoseinterested in pursuing specific substantive interests.Alongwiththerecent sociological literature, I examine closelyrelated worksby social psychologists, I politicalscientists, and anthropologists. first ofmeanings to thegeneration identify thediversity attributed concept anddiscusstheintellectual to contemporary heritage bequeathed sociology. I examine ofthepastdozenyears, theliterature identifying areasofconcep0360-0572/83/08 15-0125$02.00
125
126
KERTZER
ofgeneral tualconfusion under a variety ofgeneration, topics:theconfusion and age; studiesofintergenerational transmission of values;intercohort, generational mobility; and the use of the generation conceptin studiesof I identify immigration. In thefinal section someareasfor future sociological research.
EARLIER USES OF GENERATION MultipleMeanings

Social scientists have traditionally lookedupon thediverse popularmeaningsof "generation" as an opportunity forextension of the termin social science, rather thanas a sourceofimprecision to be avoided.Troll (1970), forexample,listsfivedifferent and finds themall conceptsof generation, I place thesein four useful. herlistslightly, Altering categories: generation of kinship as a principle as cohort;generation as life descent;generation stage;and generation as historical period.These meanings are all foundin the sociologicalliterature; indeed,many sociologists simultaneously use morethanone. In its sense of kinshipdescent,the conceptof generation has a long in socialanthropology. tradition Unlikesociologists, socialanthropologists use it in referring not so much to parent-child relations as to the larger universe of kinship relations (Fox 1967; Baxter& Almagor 1978; Fortes 1974; Foner & Kertzer1978; Jackson1978; Kertzer1978; Legesse 1973; Needham1974;Stewart haveutilized thissenseofthe 1977).Demographers termin attempting to developmeasuresfor"lengthof generation." Here is in populationreplacement, the interest based on the reproduction of females (Preston1978; Krishnamoorthy 1980).1 The use of "generation" to denotecohortis widespread. Demographers in propagating also had considerable influence this usage, withthe term cohortonlyfully thisusage of generation replacing amongdemographers in the past decade (Jacobson1964). Here the "generation" refers to the succession ofpeoplemoving through theage strata, theyounger replacing theolderas all age together. This usage is widespread as beyondsociology in intellectual welland finds forexamfrequent expression history, where, ple, "literary generations" may succeed one anothereach 10 or 15 years notion ofgeneration has beenextended (Cowley1978).This cohort beyond thatof birth cohorts to applyto any successionthrough time,so thatwe of healthbehavior find reference to first, second,and third"generations" studies (Weaver1973;Farge 1977) or to marital "generations" (Hill 1977).
'For an extension ofthisnotion, usingmathematical techniques, to society-wide oscillations in value patterns, see Carlsson& Karlsson (1970). See also Levine (1977).
GENERATION
127
In its life-stage usage,we findsuch expressions as the "collegegenerain this tion." Sorokin'sdiscussionof generation can best be understood the conflict sense,forhe attributed between"younger and older generations" to the differential responseof people of different ages to the same events(1947:192-93). Eisenstadt's the de(1956) classic studycombined of generation. scentand life-stage meanings The use of "generation" to characterize thepeopleliving in a particular in sociology historical periodis less common thanin history, where books as TheGeneration bearing suchtitles of1914 (Wohl 1979)and The GeneratheGreatWar(Tannenbaum In thissense, tion Before 1976)are numerous. ofcohorts. "generation" covers a widerange itis thegreat However, though historical eventthatdefines such "generations," theyare often linkedin and youngadultsthought practice to thecohorts ofyouths to be particularlyinfluenced by such events. Varioususagesofthegeneration concept are commonly mixedtogether, Laslett's(1977) FamilyLife and Illicit Love in sometimes intentionally. of"generEarlierGenerations from thedescent and periodmeanings profits idea has greatpopularappeal (e.g. the ation." Moreover, the generation is thususedinmany ofthe1960s);theterm social "generation gap" concept forthemass market scientific books written (Cohen & Gans 1978; Franzblau 1971; Jones1980).
Mannheimand Ortega y Gasset2

in generational While the rootsof the current confusion studiescan be the proximate in the tracedback millenia, antecedents can be identified and JoseOrtegay Gasset. worksof Karl Mannheim workson generaMannhim's has heavily influenced writing sociological ofthegenealogical of"generation" and hisownconfounding tion, meaning in current with the cohortsense of the termcontinuesto be reflected research. Mannheimwrotethatthe "sociologicalphenomenon of generations is based on thebiological ofbirth ultimately rhythm and death"(1952: 290). Over time,a successionof waves of new individualsreach adulthood, withtheprevailing at thattime intocontact and remodeling coming culture what theyfind.This is what Mannheimmeantby "freshcontact."He but distinguished thesewaves withgenerations betweenthose identified within who shareda commonoutlookon the individuals such generations and thosewho did not. The former basis of theircommonexperience he labelled"generation units."
andOrtega 2Afuller discussion ofMannheim y Gasset's influence on generational studies in Kertzer may be found (1982).
128
KERTZER
Ortegay Gassetformulated a similar conceptofgeneration based on the notion thatpeoplebornat aboutthesametimegrowup sharing an historical periodthatshapes theirviews.Arguingthatgeneration "is the most important in history," conception that each generaOrtegay Gasset wrote tion has its "special mission,"thoughthis missionmightbe left"unachieved"(1933:15,19). Suchfollowers ofOrtegay Gassetas Marias(1968) have repudiated thekinship descentdefinition ofgeneration, championing thehistorical cohortmeaning alone. Once the conceptwas thuscut loose from its genealogical anchor, followers of Mannheim and Ortegay Gasset could claim thata new "generation" might appear as frequently as every year,depending on therapidity of changenew cohortsfaceas theycome of age in theirsociety (Rintala 1968; Berger1959)
Conceptual Clarification
The polysemous usage of generation came underattackby Ryder(1965), whoarguedforrestricting to itskinship generation descent There meaning. exists an unambiguous term-cohort-to refer to thesuccession ofindividuals whopass through a socialsystem, and there exists a similarly clearterm -life stage-to refer to a particular of the lifecourse.Processes segment of family transmission should not be confusedwithprocessesof cohort succession and social change. Ryder'sargument foundfavoramongdemographers, who have forthe mostpartembraced thecohort butit has notbeenheededby terminology, manyothersocial scientists (cf.Troll & Bengtson1979). Ironically, many of the sociologists who employ"generation" in the sense of cohortcite Ryder's article as their authority. Onlyslowly, too,is theuse of"generation effect" as a synonym for"cohort effect" dying out (Baltes 1968;Riley1973, 1976). Rileyet al (1972: 5), in one of themostinfluential workson age in sociology, reiterate Ryder'splea thatgeneration be restricted to itskinship reference. Generation, then,is a relational conceptbound to the realmof kinship and descent; it is notan appropriate toolfordividing societies into segments or populations intoaggregates.
GENERATION, COHORT, AND AGE as Cohorts Generations

The continued use of "generation" to refer to cohorteffects is apparent in muchoftheliterature (Markides1978).Faver(1981), for tests example, the of "generational hypothesis and life-cycle effects on women'scareerand family values,"usinga sampleofwomenaged 22 to 64. By a "generational effect" Faver meansa cohorteffect, an effect exerted upon people by life experiences attributable to the historical slice of timein whichtheyhave
GENERATION
129
lived.Faver does notlinkthiseffect with"generation" in thegenealogical senseof the term. have made similar use of "generation." Many politicalstudies Lipset& Ladd (1971) compared collegecohortsof the 1930s withthoseof thelate 1960sto determine ifthere werecohort differences in attraction to left-wing politics.They refer to thesecohortsas "generations" of collegestudents. Similarly, Claggett (1980) writes of the "generational model" of partisan allegiance, suggestingthat the "cross-sectional variation of partisan is a function ofthesaliency strength or relevance ofpartisan politics at the timewhen individuals are youngand malleable."As he describes it, "a generational effect explanation ascribesthe cross-sectional relationship to birth cohortsentering theelectorate withdifferent values on the variable, which thereafter do notchangeas thecohorts age." Tsukashima & Montero inanti-Semitism (1976),writing ofthedifference between younger and older American in comparing blacks,employ"generation" theseage groups.In seekingto distinguish between-cohort effects and aging (or life-course) as opposedto a "maturational" write ofa "generational" effect effects, they in questionconsistof those20-29, those effect. The three"generations" on thisthemeis provided 30-49, and those50 and above. A variation by in theAmerican a recent PoliticalScienceReviewinvolving the exchange "generational replacement hypothesis" (Born 1979; Alford & Hibbing 1981). Here it is arguedthatthe "generation" of AmericanCongressmen whowereelected for thefirst from timein 1966had characteristics different first electedbefore1966. the "generation" Weretheterm usedsimply as a popularsynonym for cohort "generation" the matter would not be of greatimportance. is thatwhen The problem use theterm inthissensethey authors often retain thenotion ofgenealogical relationships (Rosaldo 1980). In thisway independent variablesare confounded.For example,in a studyof the cohortof Parisianswho have in the past few years,Cribier(1981) beginsby experienced retirement the experience of the present"generation" withthat of the contrasting previous"generation," discussing differences betweenrecentretirees and theirparents.Yet he then shifts to a cohortmeaningof "generation," of one "generation" bornbetween1918 and 1927 and "the older writing bornbetween 1907and 1911."Similarly, in a study generation ofAmerican Masnick& Bane (1980) distinguish three"verydifferent families, generations"of adults,thosebornby 1920,thosebornbetween1920 and 1940, and thosebornsince 1940.In thesenseof cohorts thismakessense,but it in its soonbecomes clearthatMasnick& Bane are employing "generation" "thefamily senseas well,comparing oftoday'syoung genealogical patterns adultswiththatof their This is not acceptable, as a parents'generation." of thoseborn in the 1940s,for example,were born to largeproportion
130
KERTZER
for a lengthof genealogical parentsborn before1920. No justification of generation of 20 yearsis given,and the two meanings are generation confused. the readermay Faced withthecommondouble usage of "generation," in generational discussions. Rosow's (1978) notbe certain whatis denoted of how best to define cohortsis partially marred discussion by perceptive He writes that"Cohorteffects are a centralconcernin the thisproblem. I mean the typicalresponse analysisof generations. By cohorteffects, of members of variouscohortsto the same thing.Those in one patterns from members ofanother. So reactthesameway,butdifferently generation but different whenresponses to thesame phenomenon are similarwithin, between thisis a cohort effect" generations, (1978: 72). It is notat all clear are in thisusage (see below). A comparable probjust what"generations" is found who write of"generations" lemofdual meaning amonghistorians to particular in termsof particular cohortsand at the same time refer 1972). historical periodsas "generations" (Butterfield and the cohortmeanings of The perilsof confounding the genealogical articulated and have alreadybeen persuasively by Vinovskis "generation" Vinovskis from earlier strictures. (1977) faults the Elder,following Ryder's of residents of well-known studyby Greven(1970) on fourgenerations and by Hill and associates(1970) on colonial Andover,Massachusetts, offamily lifein Minnesota on thegrounds thattheydid three generations cohorts. notproperly between and birth generation distinguish genealogical thesestudies, as well as in Elder has pursuedthesame pointin critiquing & Lovejoy(Elder 1975, 1978b;Bengtson theworkofBengtson examining is & Lovejoy 1973). The majorproblem Elder and Vinovskis cite,in brief, is dividedon genealogical thatwhena population intovarious principles is substantial in age amongthevariousgenthere generations, overlapping To theextent thatthisis true, it is impossible to properly erations. characin termsof theircommoncharacteristics terizethe generations vis-A-vis to refer othergenerations. It is, in short, to themin cohort inappropriate of the same "generation" have lived through different terms;members historical periods.
as LifeStage Generation
In sociologicalstudiesinvolving between age, cohort, age, the distinction is now wellknownand guidesthemethodology ofmost and periodeffects differences between people of different ages research. We cannotattribute without whether thesedifferences to their life-course determining position steminsteadfromcohortcharacteristics. Riley (1973) and othershave fallaciescommonly foundin the social pointedout the methodological in thisregard, and thedevelopment of thesociological literature scientific The studyof age in recent yearshas been anchoredin thesedistinctions.
GENERATION
131
initspolysemous generational concept is anachronistic usage byencouragingfuzzy thinking aboutthese distinctions. By referring to a variety of from to cohort, to life to period, diverse processes, kinship descent, stage, itdiscourages thekind ofanalysis that is so necessary to research on age. Thisproblem is particularly evident when wereview studies that employ orparticular inthelife generation to characterize agestrata stages course. Basedlargely oncross-sectional data, andwritten interms of"generational differences" and"relations these aregenerally among generations," studies notin a position to distinguish between age and cohort effects and,more often attention to thisproblem. disturbingly, payscant ina study ofPolish Adamski (1980), workers, compared the values ofthe younger "generation" with those oftheolder "generation," distinguishing thesesimply by age. In finding thatthere were"significant differences the author us no meansof knowing between the generations," offers ortopermanent whether toattribute these differences tolife-course effects cohort Similar a number characteristics. problems plague ofstudies involvthebirth ofthe ingpolitical generations. Braungart (1974),whohashailed "sociology ofgenerations," tellsus that"The fastest growing generation was theage group the1900-1975 65 andover."He clearly during period hasinmind rather than either units orcohorts. agegroups, descent-defined Wheeler (1974),ina study ofGerman laborradicalism intheearlier part ofthis askswhether differences theunion leaders century, political among differences." He concludes that to"generational there was canbeattributed in fact between and radicalism, thisas a strong correlation youth taking of generational differences. and age evidence fortheimportance Cohort effects arenotdistinguished. In demographic similar ofagegroups studies identification with generations issometimes a recent found. Treas tothe"gener(1981)devotes study inthe anditsrelationship ational balance" United tosupport for the States, shemeans balance" therelative sizesofthepopuelderly. By"generational lation over age65 andtheworking-aged population ofages18-64, though she also refers to intrafamilial relations. WhileTreasdeals generational thenongenealogical intelligently with this issue, useof"generation" would In social-psychological besthavebeenavoided. studies, too,this usageof to proliferate. In a study of "generational "generation" continues differences" inwork & Ross(1978)contrast workorientations, Taveggia factory in relation erswhom intofour to a 1974 divide they age groups (defined 26 year 36-45years; and over45 years. under survey): old; 26-35years; for thenotion of"generation little find They gaps"inapplicable, relatively is evident inwork theagegroups. Ofcourse, difference orientation among havebeen hadthey found differences would hard such they puttoattribute them to life-course, factors. to cohort, as opposed ofcollege remain Studies students socialpsychologists, popular among
132
KERTZER
who have offered various"intergenerational" studieson thebasis of such work.Fitzgerald (1978) comparescollegefreshmen witha sampleof unrelated old folks to identify in perceptions differences of old peopleby the youngand old, and bymalesand females. He concludesthatevidence that thecollegestudents "inaccurately theolderadultsas dominant, perceived and veryaggressive" competitive, "a basis forconflict highlights between thegenerations...." A similar studywas conducted by Crockett & Press (1981), limited, however, to collegestudents who wereshownphotographs of elderly individuals. The mixture of the life-stage meaningof generation and the descentrelationship meaning is apparent. We are left notonlywiththequestion of whether thesedifferences haveanycohort basisbutalso withtheunjustified impression thataggregate differences between peopleat different stagesof the lifecoursecan be directly translated intoconclusions about relationshipsbetweenparentsand theirchildren. Similarproblems are raisedin Collette-Pratt's (1976) study usinga semantic differential techmeasuring niqueto investigate thedevaluation ofold age. Herethe"multi-generational sample" consistsof threenon-kin-related age groups:the youngadults (aged 18-29),themiddle-aged adults(30-59), and theolderadults(60 and over). Given thisusage of "generation," it is difficult to knowjust what couldbe meant bysuchmeasures as number of"intergenerational contacts" (relations between a 29 and 30 yearold?). Again,introducing generational in describing terminology age groupings adds nothing but confusion.
Mannheim's Legacy
The continued influence ofMannheim and to a lesser extent Ortega y Gasset in contemporary sociological usage of the generation conceptis clear. Indeed,Jansen (1975) has suggested thata "Generation Theory"(meaning by this a fullerdevelopment of Ortega y Gasset's ideas) is fundamental to sociology. Mannheim's use of the generational unithas been embraced in a variety of studies, use ofhis notionof the "fresh manymaking contact" each such unit makes with the societyat the time its membersreach maturity (Back 1976;Balswick1974;Lambert1972;Wuthnow 1976;Kriegel 1978). The Mannheimian is particularly perspective popularin studies of youthand youthmovements, though the imprecision of the generation conceptin thiscamp has not been without its critics(Smith1981). Perhaps the most prominent follower of Mannheimin contemporary sociology has beenVernBengtson, whohas published numerous papersin conjunction with a variety of colleaguesin this sphere.The confusion generated use ofthegeneration by Mannheim's in these conceptis evident works. At times in writing ofgenerations, refers to attitudes Bengtson held bygrandparents, and their parents, as in hisinteresting children, discussion
GENERATION
133
of theperceptions one generation has of another (Bengtson & Kuypers 1971). Atother times suchgenealogical generations areidentified andthen of"generations" into for transformed agegroupings that analysis need have noconnection tokinship descent atall(Bengtson & Lovejoy 1973; Bengtson 1975). In some papers "generation" is usedinthree distinct senses, ranging from discussions ofeight-year birth cohorts, toagegroups ("current youth to and current adultgenerations"), Mannheimian units generation ("the & Bengtson With beatgeneration") usedinso (Cutler 1974). "generation" is being is many different, analytically incompatible senses, what denoted sometimes as when & Troll(1978)cite"societal unclear, Bengtson generaindiscussing thethesis that tional similarities processes" parent-child may ofcommon than be theresult environment rather socializawithin-family tion. Through the1970s Bengtson hasattempted tomarry theMannheimian ofgeneration units as agents ofsocialchange with thedeveloping notion Attimes, ofagestratification etal 1972; Elder1975; field (Riley Riley 1976). with ofagehasbeen identified the sociology generational analysis (Bengtson & Cutler1976).However, theeffort has involved et al 1974;Bengtson ofgeneration-in insertion ofan additional variable-that addition to the ofcohort, life andaging. "Generafamiliar concepts course, age stratum, is distinguished from these as being tional "concerned analysis" concepts " with units" as agents such"generation with agegroups ofsocialchange, of self-consciously activeage-based beingcomposed groups (Laufer& & Starr Yetatthesame time Bengtson 1974; Bengtson 1975). "generation" is usedin thebroader sense ofcohort, socializacontrasting within-family tionprocesses leadto family that with "between homogeneity generation level"(Bengtson at a broader societal similarity 1975). Another ofgeneration as a keysociological notable champion principle, in theMannheimian hasbeenMarshall, in collaborafollowing tradition, Tindale. In an effort heralded as an advance tionwith theagebeyond of Rileyand associates, stratification too havecalledfor approach they intheform renewed focus ongeneration, ofa "generational conflict theory ofaging" & Marshall is (Tindale 1980).The claimis madethat a cohort "a statistical artifact" while "a generation is a sociological consistreality, ofa cohort, ofwhose ing significant members have proportions experienced . . ." (Marshall The "reality" ofgeneraprofound historical events 1980a). itis recognized tions when that hastobequestioned, does however, history series of chronologically notpresent itself as a simple distinct slicesbut as a variety ofoverlapping forces. thecoreofTindale rather Moreover, & in society Marshall's endemic conflict is due that thesis, among age strata in the to differential accessto wealth and power, is wellaccommodated model(Rileyet al 1972;Foner 1974,1975;Foner& age-stratification
134
KERTZER
Kertzer 1979).Introducing theconcept ofgeneration, in theabsence ofa specific argument linking age strata to parent-child relations, simply adds confusion. when Marshall Indeed, writes ofthepotential for "intergenerational tension" linked to therelative ofretired proportion individuals and in society, workers andwhen he speaks ofthecostsofold age assistance as being "borne bytheyounger heis notsystematically generation," using hisMannheimian definition ofgeneration butis returning to themultiple signification that hasbedevilled so many generational theorists. In writing economy," Marshall risks confusing twoimportant, yet distinct, properties ofeconomies-the oftransfer question ofresources from to chilparents dren, and that ofthecontinuous flow ofresources in a among age strata society (Marshall The analysis 1980b). of each of theseis important in sociological butthey study, can and must be distinguished. Of course sincethe 1960s muchhas beenwritten about"generational conflict" (earlier often expressed as the"generation gap"),andmost ofthis hasbeeninformed byMannheimian principles as well. Many haveprofited bythedualmeaning of"generation"-as parent-child relations andas life stage-tomove from freely discussion oftheonetodiscussion oftheother. For example, Laufer (1971)writes ofthe"present generation ofmiddleclassyouth" andofthe"parental while generation," thepopuladividing tion into "the andolder younger Butmost generations." ofthegenerational conflict whilemaking literature, reference to parent-child adrelations, dresses theissueof therelations between in different peoplefound age strata. ThusShimbori (1971)analyzes student radicals inJapan interms of intergenerational based ona Mannheimian conflict, definition ofgeneration. Feuer(1969)employs a similar usagein hisglobal ofyouth study movements. Generational inthis conflict sense is alsoexamined inrelation tothe paceofsocialchange byAbrams (1970)and Brent (1978). Generational conflict terminology has been employed in studies of successive cohorts certain fields ofendeavor, entering relating subsequent in those fields changes to theparticular characteristics ofsucceeding cohorts. Thus,LeVine (1968)wrote of"generational conflict andpolitics in Africa," distinguishing various "generations" of political leaders. Feuer (1974)extended hisearlier Mannheimian approach to youth movements andgenerational conflict tothestudy ofsuccessive "generations" ofscientists.
of "intergenerational reallocation of resources . . . as a feature of political
GENERATION AS DESCENT
I havefocused So far on theseveral extensions ofthegenealogical generationconcept that haveflourished in thesociological literature, the noting andimprecisions ambiguities that haveresulted. No review ofthe useofthe
GENERATION
135
of however, without consideration generation concept would be complete, in itsgenealogical, or descent generation howsociologists haveemployed Someofthesameproblems section afflict sense. discussed in theprevious to of a kinship-relational principle these studies as well,forapplication is fraught with analytical dangers. population-wide groupings ofvalue denoting descent include studies Applications of"generation" ofimmigration. ofsocialmobility, and studies transmission, studies
Socialization and Values

of tradition PARENTS AND CHILDREN Thereis a longsociological ofintervaluetransmission, employing theconcept studying parent-child Theresearch ofsuchstudies callsfor selecdesign generational continuity. oftwo-generation often bysex.Someof tionofa sample dyads, varying three into continuities anddisinquiring these studies include generations, and andparent, as well as between parent continuities between grandparent child. by locating 88 just suchan inquiry Aldous& Hill (1965) attempted within 100miles ofMinnetriads ofmarried couples living three-generation ofpeople whonotonly arememtherepresentativeness apolis. However, of livingmarried bers of threegenerations couplesbut also remain a serious in interpreting the remains question geographically localized, aged with a sample of53 women results. Kalish& Johnson (1972)began in an attempt to and mothers' mothers 14-29and located their mothers in values. to Theyfound suchdifferences identify generational differences both setsofadjacent be modest However, generations. andtocharacterize havea cohort-historical assume that these differences basisanddo not they ofa life-course, oraging basis. test the Simon & Gurevitch (1971) possibility ofultra-Orthodox Jews of 30 father-son and 30 suchdyads studied dyads urban bothin Israel,concluding thatvaluecongruity prevailed Arabs, theJews while considerable tension Arabfathers existed between among andsons.Skvoretz to & Kheoruenromne (1979)inquired intotheextent which transmit oftheir in children thevalues socialclassto their parents in Columbia, a study of fifth South and their parents gradestudents Carolina. Their inconclusive. ofwomen from results were Andin a study thenumber ofsiblings (1976)found that Pennsylvania, Johnson & Stokes this eachwoman had influenced thenumber of children she bore,with eldest amongwomen who werethemselves relationship beingstrongest daughters. In addition studies havealso inquired values, parent-child to studying thegenerations through as thechild proceeds into social relations between the ofadult adulthood. etal (1972)relate geographical proximity Wilkening inWisconsin ofinterfarm families to theextent children to their parents
136
KERTZER
generational contact, andtrace indistance changes andcontact toaging of thetwogenerations. However, areunable they to determine thenature of the cause-effect between relationship distance andcontact. Leonard (1980), a tradition following ofBritish family best sociology known from thework ofYoung& Willmott (1957),found continued closetiesbetween children and their in Walesevenafter parents children marry. The importance of studying justhowthese intergenerational relations as both change parents and children age together has recently beenstressed by Hess & Waring (1978). ofthe Many intergenerational studies ofvalue infact transmission do not link directly parents andtheir children at all. Rather, datafrom taking the "parental generation" andthegeneration oftheir children, they compare thecharacteristics ofthetwogroups. Suchstudies rest on shaky methodological for premises, tellus nothing they at all aboutvaluetransmission from parent to child.Moreover, sincegenerations thusdefined tendto include wideandoften overlapping age ranges, thedatamaynotevenbe usable for cohort analysis. Curiously, ofthese though many studies arebasedonsamples composed ofa particular ofyouths agegroup often (most college andtheir students) parents (and sometimes their is basedon treating grandparents), analysis each "generation" as an aggregate (Penn 1977).Wake & Sporakowski (1972)selected students aged14-23 andtheir parents, aged30-62, comparingtheattitudes ofeach"generation" toward support ofagedparents. The result tells us nothing about intrafamilial valuetransmission, yet as a study ofagedifferences inattitudes toward theelderly, theagegroupings ituses are overly broad.Keeley(1976) administered questionnaires to college students and their butanalyzes parents, thetwo"generations" as aggregates and,as is true with almost all suchstudies, provides no controls for between differentiating age and cohort effects. His claimthat"thecorpus ofanyculture must be relearned at leastthree times eachcentury" confuses whatis an intrafamilial socialization process with societal processes ofcohort succession that are continuous, as Ryder clearly pointed outyears ago. Payne etal (1973)gathered datafrom college students, their parents, and their grandparents to determine value differences between generations. toouse"generational" However, they rather groupings than linked triads intheir analysis. The weakness ofthis approach is underlined bythefact that these generations arenotfrom distinct with agestrata, parents ranging up to 69 years ofage,andthose ofthe"grandparental generation" being as young as 58. In a similar three-generation Antonucci etal (1979) study, compare all-female triads (daughter, mother, with grandmother) all-male triads. tooanalyze They their datainterms ofgenerational aggregates. They neither the explain narrow oftheparental agerange generation (39-50)nor
GENERATION
137
meanage(47.9)within range. Thomas this theseemingly impossibly high the two students andtheir parents, treating (1974)similarly sampled college He contends inaggregate differences tocohort effects. terms andattributing "Ifoneis toargue for theexistence ofa generation gap,itis necessary that between the within theyouth cohort than that there be more agreement But thisis nottrueifthegenealogical younger and oldergenerations." andthegeneration gapis usedto notion ofgeneration is tobe considered, inthe child parents andchildren. Every refer tostrained relations between from parents could have values sharply divergent those ofhisorher sample in valuesbetween difference thetwo without there being anyaggregate "generations." infact make noattempt Some ofintergenerational value relations studies or all. In at a study of"congrutosample from descent-related dyads triads data from Nelsen(1981) usessurvey encyofbelief acrossgenerations," birth thepopulation intofifteen-year 1944,1960,and 1973-8, dividing that Pines "tedium decreases with genercohorts. & Kafry (1981)conclude their on three "generaation"among women, basing study professional women tions"of women: collegestudents, professional preprofessional women professional (meanage = 66). The (meanage = 34),and retired In an unusual and life-course effects is complete. ofcohort confounding 52 seniors and 54 Thurnher et al selected school high approach, (1974) ofthe school who not of school seniors from that were parents parents high conclude the is a in their that students They generation gap myth, sample. Markides no dataon parent-child butagain Finally, "gaps"arepresented. in San Antonio older Mexican Americans etal (1981)havebeenstudying in thearea,to inquire into"perceptions of children living whohaveadult Thestudy so faris limited to theperceptions intergenerational relations." oftheolder people. of POLITICAL VALUE TRANSMISSION Throughout the1970s a number concept scientists andpolitical sociologists heralded the generation political into ofhowpolitical as providing new the classic values are problem insight in political and howchange attitudes takesplaceovertime. transmitted madeuseofactualparent-child attitudinal Hereagain, somestudies data, Thefamiliar confusion ofthe descent andthe while others didnot. meaning is commonly of"generation" found. cohort meaning insomeways Klecka In a discussion Rosow's (1978)critique, presaging on toomuch sicentists had"concentrated (1971)complained that political thatthe on 'generations.'" 'cohorts' and notenough By thishe meant into cohorts for not birth should bedivided analyequal-interval population onthe basisoftheir common should cohorts bedefined exposure sis;rather, their ofmost intense socializaevents tohistorical period political during in suchintervals toseewhether rather than define andtest tion. However,
138
KERTZER
fact these historical events hadledtomeaningful cohort differences, Klecka took datafrom survey 1952-68 andapplied ananalysis ofvariance todivide thepopulation intohomogeneous cohort groupings basedon their survey responses. Theresulting 15"generations" from 3 to8 years range inlength andshow little allthe differentiation, having ofbeing appearance arbitrarily drawn. Inanother often cited political generation study, Connell (1972)surveyed theevidence anddistinguished between twokinds ofgenerational comparisons: pair andgroup. Paircorrespondence refers tohomogeneity inpolitical attitudes between andtheir parents while children, group correspondence refers to suchhomogeneity whenthegeneration of parents and thatof children are compared as aggregates. Connell concluded thatin recent American history there hasbeenlowpaircorrespondence buthigh group correspondence between thegenerations, thatthe"olderand suggesting younger generations havedeveloped their inparallel" opinions rather than as a result of direct parental transmission. Friedman et al (1972) lend empirical support to Connell's viewin a study of Columbia University students and their parents, finding smallfamily "relatively effect upon political values." Onthe other hand, Abramson ina study (1972), ofBritish voters, accounts for onethird ofthevoters whowere notsupporters ofthe of their party socialclassby showing thatthey weresocioeconomically mobile individuals whocontinued to support theparty ofthesocialclass oftheir fathers (cf.Knoke1973). Eventhose scholars whoaremost conscious oftheanalytical distinction between thedescent andcohort ofgeneration meanings have been to prone confuse thetwo, orat least tobe unclear aboutwhat is intended meaning atanyparticular time. Jennings (1976)hascogently pointed outthefallacy ofequating these twomeanings ofgeneration, yetin their panelstudy of "twoagegenerations"-originally high school seniors andtheir parents& Niemi Jennings (1975)deal simultaneously with bothmeanings. They conclude that the life through course there is a "smoothing outofintergenerational antagonisms." Thisis clearly a conclusion basedon aggregated dataonthe andchild parent It could groups. beinterpreted incohort terms, butthen themethod ofdatacollection would be faulty, since thetechnique doesnotsample onthe basis ofcohort. It couldalsobeinterpreted interms of parent-child relations overthelifecourse, but theanalysis is based onlyon a comparison of "theaggregate in each generation changes on someof thepolitical orientations first in 1965."A similar tapped diffiin the workof Cutler, cultyis encountered another political scientist wellversed inthesociological In moving literature. "toward a generational conception of political socialization," Cutler (1975) calls forcohort but simultaneously analysis uses such concepts as "parent and child generations."
GENERATION
139
SocialMobility
Oneofthemost frequent usesofgeneration in contemporary sociology is in studies ofsocialor occupational mobility. Indeed, generation is a key in socialstratification concept research, referring to theprocess ofstatus and occupational transmission from parent to child(Sorokin 1947).Researchers areinterested inthenature andextent ofsuchtransmission, how thisprocess differs among different segments ofthesamesociety andbetween societies, as wellas howthetransmission process itself changes over time. While a substantive review ofthemobility literature is wellbeyond the scopeof thischapter (see Matras1980;Featherman 1981),someof the implications oftheuseofthegeneration concept inmobility studies should bementioned here. Ofparticular interest isthe between relationship generational birth groupings, and historical cohorts, change. Duncan(1966a,1966b) hasalready cogently expressed someofthepotential inthe pitfalls useofthe generation inthis concept sphere, cautioning against tobaseanalyses attempts ofchanges insocial stratification processes over time on surveys that collect dataon theoccupation ofmencurrently inthelabor force andtheoccupation oftheir fathers. Thefathers ofthese menare notrepresentative ofanypopulation in thepast,owing bothto differential fertility (someproduced moresonsthanothers and are thus overrepresented, while others produced no sonsand are thusnotrepresented at all) and to variability in parental age.As Duncan(1966b)con"Thetransformations cludes, (inthelabor that force) occur viaa succession ofcohorts for cannot, basic demographic beequated reasons, tothe product
between (a) collecting dataonthe lifetime mobility ofindividuals inone's sample and(b) addressing thematter ofhowchanges in thestratification system itself takeplacehistorically. One of theproblems mentioned by Duncanis thatthere is no neat correspondence between generational differences andagedifferences. Even where a limited birth cohort is selected, in parental variability agemaybe great andthespanofgrandparental ageswould overlap with theparents' ages.Thusifourinterest is inhowprocesses ofoccupational transmission overtime, change we couldnottakeas units"generational" groupings in thisway, selected in characterizing particularly grandparent-to-parent transmission. Thisis a problem that afflicts & Curtis' Goyder (1975)threegenerational US study, as wellas Gamier & Hazelrigg's of (1974)study Frenchmen in theperiod born 1918-41 andtheir fathers. Suchdatahave certain descriptive butthey usages, cannot be usedtostudy thehistorically stratification changing system.
of a procession of 'generations'." Thus it is important to distinguish
140
KERTZER
it time change over processes transmission To seehowintergenerational thetransmission inwhich periods historical limited to specify is necessary aggrethereby men aged20-64, together lumping took place.Forexample, historical differing in widely thelaborforce peoplewhoentered gating thechangtoinquire into itimpossible makes etal 1979), (Erikson periods to pay then, It is important, processes. ofmobility context inghistorical to periods historical specific relating to age groupings, attention careful In thisway,historical transmission. ofintergenerational patterns specific canbe determined cohorts ofsuccessive experience inthemobility changes & Hauser1978). (Featherman andtheir causesassessed toconitpreferable havefound scholars many approach, this Following birth use oflimited making terms, in intragenerational ceiveofmobility father's Duncan'sviewthat 1975).Thisis in linewith cohorts (Sorensen in point occupation be viewed as an origin more profitably may occupation intergenerational thanas a baseforcomputing thelifeofthesonrather & Hauser1972;Featherman (see also Duncanet al 1972;Sewell changes 1980;Kessin1971). 1976;Featherman & Carter to therelationship ofgeneration aspect problematical There is another ona limited birth even where wefocus for though, studies, toageinmobility 1981)(Britten year toa single caselimited themost extreme cohort-in If different birth cohorts. willbe from members theparents ofthesample sonwasaged15,weareasking the ofthe father when weaskthe occupation fathers at age 60. other at age 35 and for ofsomefathers theoccupation may andhowthese trajectories oflife-course thequestion with Weareleft occupato son,including father from transmission relate to occupational 1981). 1974,1981;Spenner (Mortimer tional aspirations inwomen's occupational interest there hasbeen growing In recent years by in earlier studies. has beenstudied Mobility ignored largely mobility, ownmothers, those oftheir with adultoccupations women's comparing father-daughter etal (1971)found DeJong husbands. andtheir fathers, their as father-son mobility. thesamepattern to follow mobility occupational over21 years in their whowere sample all females together lumped They in processes so thehistorical old and had everbeenin thelaborforce, Glenn etal (1974) study. than revealed bythe rather areconcealed question occupations, husbands' with their occupations women's fathers' compare upward that women greater experience belief thecommon against arguing attain"occupational thenmendo through marriage mobility through upward that greater finds women experience however, ment." Chase(1975), in terms between their of thedifference status and downward mobility, whoaremore likely than do men, husbands' occupations, fathers' andtheir encompassed fathers.' Chase'ssample to their similar tohaveoccupations with 22 to 61,so againwe areleft from wife's whose age ranged couples
GENERATION
141
thehistorical to theissueofwhether women's processes relating origins marital destination were a four-decade as this their over unchanged period, method that work ofthe implies. Finally, Rosenfeld (1978)finds the history woman's mother is morepredictive of heroccupational career thanthe ofherfather. Herethesample includes women occupation aged 30-44, further divided intofive-year bytheanalysis age groups. Differences beand daughters' mothers' are notconsidered. tween ages,however, ofsociological oneofthe workhorses ofimmigration isthe Certainly studies offirst, andthird Iftheprimary ofthe concept second, generations. theme American sociological literature hasbeenimmigrant assimilation, theprihasbeenanalyzed hasbeenin terms ofprogressive mary waythis lossof from andsocialdistinctiveness first to second cultural andfrom second to While third & Fishman these distinctions reflect generation (Nahirny 1965). ofmigrant this obviously important aspects study, usageofthegeneration is much more than most scholars haveacknowledged. concept problematic in thisusage: Five primary can be distinguished analytical problems to a brief was restricted (a) Unlessthemigration period, people sharing in fact to different historical thesamegenerational location belong perihistorical at their arrival andcoming different conditions ods,confronting from a society from theoneearlier that itself wasdifferent migrants had left. often with their andoccasionally three(b) Parents migrate children, In suchcaseswe areeither families left with generation migrate together. theanomalous and their case ofchildren to thesame parents belonging or with someimmigrants ofa certain considered "generation" age being first-generation (having no parents accompanying them) andothers ofthe sameagebeing considered with their second-generation (arriving parents). to thispoint, in age from to oc(c) Related immigrants range infancy Does itmake to lump sense these as members ofthe tagenarians. together samegeneration? Thecultural offoreign birth on the80-year-old imprint is entirely different from theimprint on theinfant. (d) Whatofthenot infrequent casesin which themigrant, resident forsometime in thenew is joinedbyhisor herparents? Does theyounger country, migrant shift from firstto second-generation migrant, or areboth parents andchildren members ofthesamegeneration? as we move thefirst (e) Finally, beyond all these initial aremagnified because are generation, problems marriages notnecessarily or ethnically "generation" homogeneous endogamous. Someofthese matters can be illustrated lookat someofthe bya brief recent literature. Lieberson the generational immigration (1973) extends ofmigrant ofnorthern intheUnited tothestudy blacks concept generation between inthe born and States, differentiating first-generation (those South)
Immigration
142
KERTZER
second-generation He urges (Northern-born). that scholars consider generinthis ation sense as well as ageinstudying the characteristics ofAmerican blacks. theuse ofgenerational However, terminology forthisbirthplace distinction risks confusion when creating what is ofinterest is thetransmissionofoccupation from father toson.In suchcasesitmay be unclear what is meant by "generational in occupational differences status" (Hogan& Featherman 1977:103).It would bemore prudent tosimply usesuch labels as "Southern-born," enabling theanlayst to relate this dichotomy to processesofgenerational transmission. Moore(1981)describes "second generation NewYorkJews" as a "cultural generation, nota chronological one."Thisis an admission ofthefact that themassofJewish arrived immigrants overa 33-year period (18811914).While shecontends that thesecond-generation members-presumborn ably over a period 1881tothemid-1930s-occupied from ranging "a similar in space,"thefailure point to differentiate cohorts mayleavethe reader skeptical. In a study ofPuerto Ricanmigrants, Rogler etal (1980) recognize the pitfall oflumping together as first generation individuals who inthe arrived United States as infants andthose whoarrived as adults. They conclude that analysts must the"fundamental recognize ofthe importance ageatarrival variable...."To this must beaddedtheimportance ofdistinguishing theperiod at arrival (Scourby 1980). Specialmention mustbe madeof thenumerous studies of Japanese for Americans, here wearedealing with a conception ofgeneration that has great meaning for the immigrants themselves, thedivision into Issei(immigrants), Nisei (their children), andSansei (children ofthe Nisei). Theclarity ofthisdistinction is facilitated that bythefact andparticuimmigration, female larly immigration, initially occurred over a short period (for women, 1907-24). Various havebeenmadeto characterize attempts thenature of assimilation across these generations (Connor 1974;Kiefer 1974; Montero & Tsukashima Montero 1977; Woodrum 1981; 1981). However, there isage thegenerations overlap among thus andtheimportance defined, ofgeneration versus cohort identity has notyetbeenfully homogeneity clarified.
THE FUTURE OF GENERATION IN SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

While someprogress hasbeenmadein introducing precision intotheuse of thegeneration in sociology overthe past decade,the term concept continues to be employed in a polysemous manner to sow guaranteed Theconfounding confusion. ofgeneration as a principle ofdescent relationwith ship related toageandhistorical time concepts instudies hasresulted aremethodologically that flawed andhasimpeded thedevelopment ofthe
GENERATION
143
ofgeneration within thesociology ofage.The relationship study between andcohort is ofgreat generation (as we havedefined it),aging, processes importance. Butthis canonly be addressed relationship productively once ofconcepts is resolved. theconfusion As Elder(1978a,1978b; Bennett & Elder1979)has cogently argued, wedo haveofintergenerational what studies are"strikingly relations ahisIf relations torical." between generations are to be seenas historically andthese arelinked tolarger events changing, changes taking placeinthe it is crucial that isolate society, howthese analysis historical events actually Insofar affect as age,or life people. is presumed tobe an important stage, theabsolute andrelative variable, ages(Hammel 1983)oftheindividuals the context mustalso be considered. affected historical by Elder has proposed theuse of "generational as a deviceforintroducing cohorts" greater into In this precision generational studies. individuals method, ofa certain limited birth cohort aretaken as thefocus, with these individuals ina similar their life various historical passing through environment. stages Their rather than treated as a single oldergeneration, parents, and being hence from mixing together different aregrouped people cohorts, byyear into Thisallows ofbirth cohorts." us tolookat relationships "generational that between andchildren have an identifiable both historical parents locus inusing andspecifiable torefer agecharacteristics. to However, generation a superfamilial arecreated. other is grouping, problems concerns Among fact the that where mother andfather areofdifferent with ageswearefaced theanalytically choiceofeither uncomfortable them in different placing or disregarding generational theage ofoneparent. groupings Thescopeoffuture generational studies maybe somewhat restricted by theconcept torelations ofkinship limiting ofgeneration Butsuch descent. restrictions donot entail limitation ofsubstantive any ortheoretical inquiry; a more entail rather, use ofconcepts. they precise Where doesthefuture ofgenerational research lie?Generational prowill remain cesses ofgreat tosociology, importance for areatthe heart they ofthe social metabolism. Studies ofsocial value change, transmission, social andthe mobility, cultural andsocial ofimmigrants integration must allcope with generational relations. Whatis crucial to thefuture ofsuchstudy, isthat the though, generational inspecific processes befirmly placed historicalcontexts-i.e. inconjunction that be analyzed with theconcepts they of cohort, age,andhistorical period. in conjunction Examining generation withage opensup a research that be obscured where agenda areused may and generation age,cohort, to be ofgreatest interchangeably. Theissues likely interest on the depend theoretical orientation oftheresearcher. From a sociobiological viewpoint, tosociety, relations arecentral for generational underlie they thetransmissionofgenes, toaffect a process thestructure ofsociety thought itself. No
144
KERTZER
sociobiological calculuswould be completewithout the inclusion of variables depicting bothgenerational and age relationships amongindividuals, forthe reproductive "value" of any individualis a function of both kin relatedness and age. Froma Marxianviewpoint, ofcourse,themechanism oftransmission of class position is of greatinterest, as are changesin such processes in conjunction withchangesat thesocietallevel.Such transmissionprocesses mustbe studied in a way sensitive historically, to how macrosocietal changesaffect the transmission of statusfromparentto child. In the traditional Americansociologicalperspectives connectedwith socialorganization and socialpsychology, theliberation ofgeneration from its age-boundconnotations offers the opportunity to place parent-child relations in a morecomprehensive perspective, one linked to thedeveloping ofage. It mayseemparadoxical sociology thatgeneration can profitably be studiedin the sociologyof age only afterit has been divestedof its age connotations. Yet whilegeneration mustbe viewedas conceptually distinct from age, generational processesand age relations are intricately related. Relations between parents and their children, forexample, changeas both and children parents age. The studyoftheserelations and their changesbothoverthelifecourseand through historical time-is just beginning to be undertaken systematically (Rossi 1980; Hagestad 1981). Withthe increasein longevity (Troll 1980;Plath 1980) and withthenewcomplexities in American introduced society by increased divorceand remarriage (Furstenberg 1981;Fox & Inazu 1982),theneedforclearanalysis ofgeneration in studiesof American is all the morepressing. society I advocatea rolefortheconceptofgeneration morerestricted thanthat championed by manyothersocial scientists, but a role thatis nonetheless important. Not all adult-youth conflict can be portrayed in terms ofgenerationalstruggle, butthisrestriction us to distinguish permits between those thatare relatedto parent-child aspectsofsuch conflict relations and those that are linkedto largersocietalprocessestied to the age stratification system. we cannot Similarly, broadly speakofintergenerational valuecontinuity butmustdistinguish between thetransmission ofvaluesfrom parent to child and the society-level processesof social reproduction. With the issues connectedto the lifecourse and age openingup of new research stratification none of these old researchquestionsneed be perspective, distinctions abandoned; rather, adoptionoftheanalytical herein suggested shouldprovehelpful in building on past workin theseareas.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
For theirhelpful comments on an earlierdraft of thisreviewI am most to Glen Elder,David Featherman, grateful Anne Foner,Craig McEwen,
GENERATION
145
and and MatildaWhiteRiley.I wouldalso liketo thankAaron Weissman staff fortheiraid in of the Bowdoin College library the othermembers down neededmaterials. tracking
Literature Cited V. L., Starr, P. 1970.Ritesde passage:The con- Bengtson, J. M. 1975. Contrast Abrams, in industrial A generational flict ofgenerations society. and consensus: analysis J. Contemp. Hist. 5:1:175-90 of youthin the 1970s. In Youth: The Abramson, P. R. 1972.Intergenerational soSeventy-Fourth Yearbook of the NationalSociety for theStudyof Educacial mobility and partisan choice. Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 66:1291-94 tion,Part 1,ed. R. J.Havighurst, P. H. Adamski,W. W. 1980. The lifeorientations Dreyer, pp. 224-66. Chicago: Univ. oftheyounger and oldergenerations of Chicago Press Bengtson, V. L., Troll,L. E. 1978.Youthand Poles. Int.J. Polit.Educ. 3:255-69 Aldous, J., Hill, R. 1965. Social cohesion, their Feedbackand intergenerparents: lineage type, and intergenerational ational influencein socialization. In ChildInfluences in Maritaland Family transmission. Soc. Forces43:471-82 Interaction, ed. R. M. Lerner,G. B. J.R., Hibbing, J.R. 1981.Comment Alford, on Born.Am.Polit.Sci. Rev. 75:159-62 Spanier. pp. 215-40. NY: Academic. 360 pp. Antonucci,T., Gillett,N., Hoyer, F. W. S. K., Elder,G. H. Jr.1979.Womin three Bennett, 1979. Values and self-esteem en's work in the familyeconomy:A generationsof men and women. J. studyof depression hardshipin womGerontol. 34:3:415-22 en's lives.J. Fam. Hist. 4:153-76 Back, K. W. 1976. Personalcharacteristics and social behavior: Theory and Berger,B. M. 1959. How long is a generaIn HandbookofAging method. and the tion?Brit.J Sociol. 10:10-23 Born,R. 1979.Generational replacement and Social Sciences, ed. H. Binstock,E. the growth of incumbentreelection Shanas, pp. 403-31. NY: Van Nostrand.684 pp. margins intheU.S. House. Am.Pol Sci. Rev. 73:811-17 Balswick,J. 1974. The Jesuspeople moveR. G. 1974.The sociology ment:A generational interpretation. J. Braungart, ofgenSoc. Iss. 30:23-42 erationsand studentpolitics:A comand crossand generaBaltes,P. B. 1968. Longitudinal parisonofthefunctionalist sectionalsequencesin the studyof age tionalunitmodels.J.Soc. Iss. 30:31-54 specialization, coland generationeffects. Hum. Devel. Brent, S. 1978.Individual 11:145-71 lectiveadaptationand rate of environU. 1978. Intromentalchange.Hum. Devel. 21:21-33 Baxter,P. T. W., Almagor, duction.In Age, Generation and Time, Britten, N. 1981.Modelsofintergenerational class mobility: ed. P. T. W. Baxter,U. Almagor,pp. Findingsfromthe Na1-35. NY: St. Martin'sPress. 276 pp. tional Surveyof Health and DevelopV. L. 1975.Generation Bengtson, and family ment.Brit.J. Sociol. 32:224-38 effectsin value socialization. Am. Butterfield, H. 1972. The Discontinuities beSociol. Rev. 40:358-71 tween the Generationsin History. V. L., Cutler, Univ. Press Bengtson, N. E. 1976.GeneraCambridge: Cambridge relations: Carlsson,G., Karlsson, K. 1970. Age, cotions and intergenerational horts and thegeneration ofgenerations. on age groupsand social Perspectives Am. Sociol. Rev. 35:710-18 change.See Back 1976,pp. 130-59 V. L., Furlong, M. J.,Laufer, R. S. Chase, I. D. 1975. A comparison of men's Bengtson, of 1974.Time,aging, and thecontinuity and women's intergenerational mobility social structure: in the United States.Am. Sociol. Rev. Themesand issues in 40:483-505 generational analysis.J. Soc. Iss. 30: W. 1980.The lifecycleand genera2:1-30 Claggett, V. L., Kuypers, of J.A. 1971.Genertional models of the development Bengtson, ationaldifferences and thedevelopmenSoc. Sci. Q. 60:643-50 partisanship. tal stake.AgingHum. Devel. 2:249-60 Cohen, S. Z., Gans, B. M. 1978. The Other V. L., Lovejoy,M. C. 1973. ValGeneration Gap: The Middle-Aged and Bengtson, their AgingParents.Chicago: Follett and social structure: ues, personality, An intergenerational analysis. Am. Collette-Pratt, C. 1976. Attitudinal predicBehav.Sci. 16:880-912 torsofdevaluation ofold age in a multi-
146
KERTZER
England,France and Sweden. Brit.J. Sociol. 3:415-41 Farge,E. J. 1977. A review of findings from 'three generations' of Chicano health care behavior.Soc. Sd. Q. 58:407-11 Faver,C. A. 1981.Women, careers, and family: Generational and life-cycle effects on achievement orientation. J.Fam. Iss. 2:91-112 Featherman, D. L. 1980.Schooling and occupationalcareers: Constancy and change in worldlysuccess. In Constancy and Changein Human Development, ed. 0. G. Brim,Jr.,J. Kagan, pp. 675-738. MA: HarvardUniv. Press Cambridge, D. L. 1981.Social stratification Featherman, and mobility: Two decades of cumulativesocial science.Am. Behav.Sci. 24: 364-85 D. L., Carter, Featherman, T. M. 1976.Discontinuities in schooling and thesocioeconomiclife cycle. In Schoolingand Achievement in AmericanSociety,ed. W. H. Sewell,R. M. Hauser,D. L. Featherman, pp. 133-60. NY: Academic. 535 pp. D. L., Hauser,R. M. 1978. OpFeatherman, portunity and Change. NY: Academic. 572 pp. Feuer, L. S. 1969. The Conflict of Generations.NY: Basic. 543 pp. Feuer,L. S. 1974. Einsteinand the GenerationsofScience. NY: Basic J.M. 1978.Actualand perceived Fitzgerald, sex and generational differences in interpersonal style: Structural and quantitativeissues.J. Gerontol. 33:394-401 Foner, A. 1974. Age stratification and age in political conflict life. Am.Sociol.Rev. 39:187-96 Foner,A. 1975.Age in society: Structure and change.Am. Behav.Sci. 19:144-66 Foner,A., Kertzer,D. I. 1978. Transitions overthelifecourse:lessons from age-set societies. Am.J. Sociol. 83:5:1081-1104 Foner,A., Kertzer, D. I. 1979.Intrinsic and extrinsic sourcesofchangeinlife course transitions.In Aging from Birth to Death: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. M. R. Riley,pp. 121-36. Boulder, CO: Westview.196 pp. M. 1974.The first Fortes, born.J. ChildPsychol.Psychiatr. 15:81-104 Fox, G. L., Inazu, J. K. 1982.The influence of mother's marital historyon the mother-daughter in black relationship and whitehouseholds.J. Marr. Fam. 44:143-53 Fox, R. 1967. Kinshipand Marriage.Baltimore:Penguin Franzblau,R. N. 1971. The Middle Generation.NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
generational sample. J. Gerontol.31: 2:193-97 R. W. 1972.Political Connell, socialization in the American family: The evidencereexamined.Publ. Opin. Q. 36:323-33 Connor,J. W. 1974. Value continuities and changein three generations ofJapanese Americans. Ethos 2:232-64 Cowley,M. 1978.AndI Worked at the Writer'sTrade. NY: Viking.276 pp. Cribier,F. 1981. Changingretirement patterns: The experience ofa cohort ofParisiansalariedworkers. Ageing and Society1:51-71 W. H., Press, A. N. 1981.RelationCrockett, ships among generations. In The DynamicsofAging, ed. F. J.Berghorn, D. E. Schafer, pp. 267-88. Boulder:Westview Press Cutler,N. E. 1975. Toward a generational of politicalsocialization. conception In NewDirections inPolitical Socialization, ed. D. C. Schwartz, S. K. Schwartz, pp. 254-88. NY: Free Press N. E.,Cutler, V. L. 1974.Age and Bengtson, political alienation: Maturation, generationand periodeffects. Ann.Am.Acad. Polit.Soc. Sci. 415:160-75 DeJong,P. Y., Brawer,M. J.,Robin, S. S. 1971. Patternsof femaleintergenerational mobility. Am. Sociol. Rev. 36: 1033-42 Duncan,0. D. 1966a.Occupation trends and of net mobility patterns in the United States.Demography 3:1-18 Duncan, 0. D. 1966b.Methodological issues in theanalysis ofsocialmobility. In Social Structure and Mobility inEconomic ed. N. J. Smelser, Development, S. M. Lipset, pp. 51-97. Chicago: Aldine. 399 pp. Duncan, 0. D., Featherman, D. L., Duncan, B. 1972. SocioeconomicBackground and Achievement. NY: SeminarPress. 284 pp. S. N. 1956. From Generation Eisenstadt, to Generation. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. 357 pp. Elder,G. H. Jr.1975.Age differentiation and the life course. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 1: 165-90 Elder,G. H. Jr.1978a.Approaches to social changeand the family. Am. J. Sociol. 84:S1-S38 Elder,G. H. Jr. 1978b.Familyhistory and thelifecourse.In Transitions, ed. T. K. Hareven, pp. 17-64. NY: Academic. 304 pp. Erikson, J.H., Portocarero, R., Goldthorpe, L. 1979. Intergenerational class mobilityin three Western Europeansocieties:
GENERATION
147
M. K., Niemi,R. 1975.Continuity R. Jennings, Friedman, L. N., Gold, A. R., Christie, A gap: In1972.Dissecting thegeneration and changein politicalorientations: longitudinal studyof two generations. and intrafamilial simitergenerational laritiesand differences. Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 69:1316-35 Publ. Opin. Q. Johnson, N. E., Stokes,C. S. 1976. Family 36:334-46 F. F., Jr.1981.Remarriage size in successive generations:The and Furstenberg, relations.In Aging: intergenerational effects of birthorder,intergenerational changein lifestyle, and familial satisfacand Changein theFamily,ed. Stability R. W. Fogel etal, pp. 115-42.NY: Acation.Demography 13:175-87 L. Y. 1980. Great AmerJones, Expectations: demic.341 pp. L. E. 1974. Fatherica and the BabyBoomGeneration. NY: Gamier,M., Hazelrigg, in France: Coward,McCann & Geoghegan to-son mobility occupational A. Evidencefrom the 1960s.Am.J.Sociol. Kalish, R. A., Johnson, I. 1972. Value in three similarities and differences gen80:478-502 Glenn,N. D., Ross, A. A., Tully,J.C. 1974. erationsof women.J. Marr. Fam. 34: 49-54 mobility Patternsof intergenerational in tension: of females through marriage. Am. Keeley, B. J. 1976. Generations Intergenerational differences and contiSociol. Rev. 39:683-99 in religion nuity and religion-related beGoyder,J. C., Curtis,J. E. 1975. A threehavior.Rev. Relig. Res. 17:221-31 in ocgenerational approachto trends cupational mobility.Am. J. Sociol. Kertzer, D. I. 1978. Theoreticaldevelopmentsin the studyof age-groupsys81:129-38 P. J.Jr.1970.FourGenerations: tems.Am. Ethnol. 5:2:368-74 PopGreven, and age in ulation, Land, and Familyin Colonial Kertzer,D. I. 1982. Generation In Aging life course perspective. from Andover.Ithaca: CornellUniv. Press. 329 pp. Birthto Death: Sociotemporal Perspecand promtives, ed. M. W. Riley,R. P. Abeles,M. Hagestad,G. 0. 1981. Problems ofintergenisesinthesocialpsychology S. Teitelbaum, pp. 27-50. Boulder: Westview erational relations. See Furstenberg 1981,pp. 11-46 Kiefer, C. W. 1974. Changing Cultures, Changing Lives: The Ethnographic Hammel,E. A. 1983. Age in the Fortesian In AgeandAnthropological coordinates. Studyof ThreeGenerations ofJapanese Americans. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Theory,ed. D. I. Kertzer,J. Keith. Ithaca: CornellUniv.Press.Forthcom- Klecka, W. R. 1971. Applying politicalgenofpolitical ing erations to thestudy behavior: A cohortanalysis.Publ. Opin. Q. J. M. 1978.Parentand Hess, B. B., Waring, child in laterlife:Rethinking the rela35:358-73 occupationship.See Bengtson& Starr 1975, Knoke, D. 1973. Intergenerational pp. 241-73 tional mobility and the politicalparty in Three preferences of Americanmen. Am. J. Hill, R. 1970. FamilyDevelopment Generations. Sociol. 78:1448-68 Cambridge:Schenkman. 424 pp. Kriegel, A. 1978. Generationaldifference: of an idea. Daedalus 107: and family develThe history Hill,R. 1977.Social theory 23-38 opment.In The Family Life Cycle in Societies, ed. J.Cuisenier, pp. Krishnamoorthy, European S. 1980. A note on the 9-38. The Hague: Mouton of generation. Genus 36:167-71 length D. L. 1977. Ra- Lambert, T. A. 1972. Generations and Hogan, D. P., Featherman, cial stratification and socioeconomic ofgenerations change:Towarda theory as a forcein historical change in the American north and process. Youth south.Am. J. Sociol. 83:100-26 and Society4:1:21-45 M. 1978.Ambivalence and thelast- Laslett,P. 1977. FamilyLife and IllictLove Jackson, in convention born:birth-order in Earlier Generations.Cambridge: position Man 13:341-61 Univ. Press. 270 pp. and myth. Cambridge P. H. 1964. Cohort survivalfor Laufer,R. W. 1971. Sourcesof generational Jacobson, since 1840. MilbankMem. consciousnessand conflict. Ann. Am. generations Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 395:80-94 Fund Q. 42:36-53 R. S., Bengtson, V. L. 1974.GeneraN. 1975. Generation Johan- Laufer, Theory. Jansen, and social stratification: on nesburg: McGraw-Hill.129 pp. tions, aging, M. K. 1976.The variable of of generational nature the development units. Jennings, conflict:Some examples J. Soc. Iss. 30(3):181-205 generational from WestGermany. Comp.Pol Stud. Legesse, A. 1973. Gada. NY: Free Press. 340 pp. 9:171-88
148
KERTZER
Leonard, D. 1980. Sex and Generation: A Nahirny, V. C., Fishman, J.A. 1965.AmeriStudyofCourtship and Weddings. Loncan immigrant groups: ethnic identificadon: Tavistock tion and the problemof generations. Levine,D. 1977.Family Formation in an Age Sociol. Rev. 13:311-26 of NascentCapitalism. NY: Academic Needham, R. 1974 (1966). Age, category, and descent. In Remarks and InvenLeVine,V. T. 1968.Generational conflict and tions,pp. 72-108. London: Tavistock in Africa: A paradigm. politics CivilisaNelsen, H. M. 1981. Life withoutafterlife: tions 18:399-418 towardcongruency ofbelief acrossgenS. 1973. Generational Lieberson, differences erations. J. Sc. Stud. Relig. 20:109-18 among blacks in the north. Am. J. Ortega y Gasset, J. 1933. The Modern Sociol. 79:550-65 Theme.NY: Norton Lipset,S. M., Ladd, E. C. 1971.CollegegenD. A., Stewart, T. R. erations-from the1930'sto the1960's. Payne, S., Summers, 1973. Value differences across three Publ. Int. 25:99-113 generations. Sociometry 36:20-30 Mannheim, K. 1952.The problem ofgenerations. In Essays on the Sociologyof Penn, J. R. 1977. Measuringintergenerational value differences. Soc. Sci. Q. Knowledge, pp. 276-320. NY: Oxford 58:2:293-301 Univ. Press. 319 pp. D. 1981.The Experience of Marias, J. 1968. Generations: the concept. Pines,A., Kafry, tediumin threegenerations of profesInt.Encycl.Soc. Sci. 6:88-92 sional women.Sex Roles 7:117-34 K. S. 1978.Disentangling Markides, generational and life-cycle on value Plath, D. W. 1980. Long Engagements: effects in ModernJapan. Stanford: Maturity differences. Soc. Sci. Q. 59:2:390-93 Stanford Univ. Press Markides,K. S., Costley, D. S., Rodriguez, In The L. 1981. Perceptionsof intergenera- Preston,S. H. 1978. Introduction. Effects ofInfantand ChildMortality on tionalrelations and psychological wellFertility, ed. S. H. Preston.pp. 1-18. being among elderlyMexican AmeriNY: Academic cans: A causal model. Int. J. Aging Riley,M. W. 1973.Agingand cohort succesHum. Devel. 13:43-52 sion: interpretations and misinterpretaMarshall,V. W. 1980a. Stateof the art lections.Publ. Opin. Q. 37:35-49 ture:The sociology of aging.Presented M. W. 1976. Age stratain social sysat Ann. Meet. Can. Assoc. Gerontol., Riley, tems.See Back 1976,pp. 189-217 Saskatoon Riley,M. W., Johnson, M., Foner,A. 1972. Marshall,V. W. 1980b.Social toleration of Aging and Society.Volume Three: A Soaging:sociological and social retheory ciology ofAge Stratification. NY: Russponse to populationaging.Presented sell Sage Foundation.652 pp. at IX Int.Conf.Soc. Gerontol., Quebec Rintala,M. 1968. Politicalgenerations. Int. City,Canada Encycl.Soc. Sd. 6:92-96 Masnick,G. S., Bane, M. J. 1980. The Na- Rogler,L. H., Cooney,R. S., Ortiz,V. 1980. tion'sFamilies: 1960-1990.Boston:AuIntergenerational changein ethnic idenburnHouse tityin the Puerto Rican family.Int. Matras, J.1980.Comparative socialmobility. Migr.Rev. 14:193-214 Ann. Rev. Soc. 6:401-31 Rosaldo, R. 1980. Ilongot Headhunting, D. 1981.The Japanese Montero, Americans: 1883-1974. Stanford:StanfordUniv. of assimilation Changing patterns over Press three generations. Am. Sociol. Rev. Rosenfeld, R. A. 1978.Women'sintergenera46:829-39 tionalmobility. Am.Soc. Rev. 43:36-46 Montero, D., Tsukashima, R. 1977. Assimi- Rosow, I. 1978. What is a cohortand why? lation and educational achievement: Hum. Devel. 21:65-75 The case ofthesecondgeneration Japa- Rossi, A. S. 1980. Agingand parenthood in nese Americans. Sociol. Q. 18:490-503 themiddleyears.In Life-Span DevelopMoore, D. D. 1981. At Home in America: ment and Behavior, ed. P. B. Baltes,0. SecondGeneration Jews. New York NY: G. Brim, 3:137-205.NY: Academic Jr., ColumbiaUniv. Press Ryder,N. B. 1965. The cohortas a concept J.T. 1974.Intergenerational Mortimer, occuin the study of social change. Am. Am. J. Sociol. 79: pationalmovement. Sociol. Rev. 30:843-61 1278-99 Scourby, A. 1980. Three generationsof J.T. 1981.Comment on Kenneth Mortimer, GreekAmericans: A study in ethnicity. Spenner'sOccupations, role characterRev. 14:43-52 Int.Migr. istics, and intergenerational transmis- Sewell,W. H., Hauser,R. M. 1972. Causes sion. Sociol. WorkOccup. 8:113-17 and consequences of higher education:
GENERATION
Models of the status attainment process. Am. J. Agric.Econ. 54:851-61 M. 1971. Studentradicals in JaShimbori, pan. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sd. 395:150-58 Simon,R. J.,Gurevitch, M. 1971. Some intergenerational comparisons in twoethnic communities in Israel. Hum. Org. 30:79-87 J. V., Kheoruenromne, Skvoretz, U. 1979. Someevidence thevaluehyconcerning pothesis of intergenerational status transmission: A research note.Soc. Sci. Res. 8:172-83 D. M. 1981. New Movements Smith, in the Sociologyof Youth. Brit.J. Sociol. 32: 239-51 A. B. 1975.The structure Sorensen, ofintragenerational Am. Sociol. Rev. mobility. 40:456-71 Sorokin,P. A. 1947. Society,Culture,and Personality. NY: Harper K. I. 1981.Occupations, Spenner, rolecharacteristics, and intergenerational transmission. Sociol. Work Occup. 8:89-112 F. H. 1977. Fundamentals Stewart, of AgeGroupSystems. NY: Academic E. R. 1976. 1900: The GeneraTannenbaum, tion Before theGreatWar.GardenCity: AnchorPress T. C., Ross, B. 1978.Generational Taveggia, differences inworkorientations: Fact or fiction? Pac. Sociol. Rev. 21:331-49 Thomas,L. E. 1974. Generational discontinuityin beliefs:an exploration of the generation gap. J. Soc. Iss. 30:1-22 Thurnher, M., Spence,D., Lowenthal, M. F. 1974. Value confluence and behavioral in intergenerational conflict relations. J. Marr. Fam. 36:308-19 Tindale,J.A., Marshall,V. W. 1980.A generational-conflict forgeronperspective tology.In Agingin Canada, ed. V. W. Marshall, pp. 43-50. Ontario: Fitzhenry & Whiteside Treas,J. 1981. The greatAmericanfertility debate:Generational balance and sup-
149
port of the aged. Gerontologist 21:98103 Troll,L. E. 1970.Issuesinthestudy ofgenerations.Aging Hum. Devel. 1:3:199-218 Troll,L. E. 1980. Grandparenting. In Aging in the1980s.Psycho logical Issues,ed. L. W. Poon, pp. 475-81. Washington DC: Am. Psychol.Assoc. Troll,L. E., Bengtson, V. 1979.Generations in thefamily. In Contemporary Theories abouttheFamily,ed. W. R. Burret al, 1:127-61. NY: Free Press Tsukashima, R., Montero, D. 1976.The contact hypothesis: Social and economic contactand generational in the changes study of black anti-semitism. Soc. Forces 55:149-65 M. A. 1977.Fromhousehold Vinovskis, size to thelifecourse:someobservations on recent trendsin familyhistory.Am. Behav. Sci. 21(2):263-87 Wake, S. B., Sporakowski, M. J. 1972. An intergenerational comparisonof attitudes towardsupporting aged parents. J. Marr.Fam. 34:42-48 Weaver, J. L. 1973. Mexican American healthcare behavior:A criticalreview oftheliterature. Soc. Sci. Q. 54:85-102 Wheeler, R. F. 1974. Germanlabor and the A problem Comintern: of generations? J. Soc. Hist. 7:304-21 Wilkening, E. A., Guerrero, S., Ginsberg, S. 1972. Distance and intergenerational ties of farm familes.Sociol. Q. 13: 383-96 Wohl, R. 1979. The Generation of 1914. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press. 307 pp. Woodrum, E. 1981. An assessment of Japanese Americanassimilation, pluralism, and subordination.Am. J. Sociol. 87:157-69 R. 1976. Recentpatterns Wuthnow, ofsecularization:A problemof generations? Am. Sociol Rev. 41:850-67 Young, M., Willmott, P. 1957. Familyand Kinshipin East London. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. 232 pp.

Generation Sociology

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Generation Sociology

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Generation as a Sociological Problem Author(s): David I. Kertzer Reviewed work(s): Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 9 (1983), pp.

GENERATION AS A SOCIOLOGICAL PROBLEM

EARLIER USES OF GENERATION MultipleMeanings

Mannheimand Ortega y Gasset2

GENERATION, COHORT, AND AGE as Cohorts Generations

Socialization and Values

of a procession of 'generations'." Thus it is important to distinguish

THE FUTURE OF GENERATION IN SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen