Conference on Statistics 1960: Papers 9781442656680

Table of contents :
Foreword
Editors Preface
Contents
Historical Estimates of Internal Migration in Canada
The "Mass Society" and "Community" Analyses of the Social Present
Canadian Criminal Statistics
The Post-War Rise of the Crude Petroleum Industry in Canada
Salaries of Engineers and Scientists, 1951
The Distribution and Functions of Canadian Engineers and Scientists
The Structure and Growth of the Canadian Air Transport Industry
The Canadian Manufacturing Industry, 1900-1957

Citation preview

Canadian Political Science

Association

C O N F E R E N C E ON STATISTICS

1960

This page intentionally left blank

Canadian Political Science Association CONFERENCE ON STATISTICS 1960 Queen's University, Kingston, Canada

PAPERS Edited by

E. F. BEACH and J. C. WELDON

University of Toronto Press

Copyright, Canada, 1962,

by

University of Toronto P r e s s Printed in Canada

FOREWORD

In 1958 the Canadian Political Science Association established a Committee on Statistics to investigate ways and means of improving the facilities for research in the social sciences involving the use of statistics. Members of the Committee were G . Rosenbluth (Chairman), D. Hartle (Secretary), K . A . H . Buckley, M . C . Kemp, J . Porter, W. Smith, and M . C . Urquhart. The Conference on Statistics is one of the projects launched by this Committee. The group's discussions and inquiries suggested that statistical research in Canada would be encouraged and improved by the establishment of a forum for the presentation and discussion of findings. A canvass of the Association's members revealed wide­ spread interest in the project and a good potential supply of material. A subcommittee was therefore established to organize the conference, consisting of G . Rosenbluth (Chairman), N. Keyfitz, D. W. Slater, and J . C . Weldon. The conference was held in June, 1960, on the two days preced­ ing the Association's regular annual meeting. In view of the difficulties attending verbal presentation of statistical material, the papers were not read at the conference. They were reproduced and distributed to participants in A p r i l , and the meetings were devoted entirely to dis­ cussion. F o r each paper a prepared discussion by scheduled partici­ pants was followed by free discussion from the floor. Discussants and contributors included: H . G . J . Aitken, A . Asimakopulos, A . W. C u r r i e , W. R. Dymond, J . P. Francis, O. Hall, J . Hodgson, Y . Martin, S. J o May, G . McColm, H . McLeod, J . D. Pattison, H . Roseborough, and M . C . Urquhart. G. Rosenbluth Chairman Statistics Committee, 1959-60

v

This page intentionally left blank

EDITORS

1

PREFACE

There is no common theme to the eight papers of this volume. They represent the findings of the various students in their respective fields. Their publication here is the culmination of an experiment of the Statistics Committee of the C P . S . A . in arranging a conference to encourage and support such research in Canada. The papers are diverse not only in material but in method as well. The editors have attempted to impose only minimum standards of content, clarity, brevity, and language. Some papers have had very minor changes, some have been partly revised, and some have been wholly rewritten to take into account criticisms and comments of the discussants and other improvements. Thus, much of the mat­ e r i a l of the commentators has been incorporated in the papers as presented here. The usefulness of the commentaries as such being thereby reduced, the argument in favour of avoiding a confusing heterogeneity of content was sufficient to ensure their elimination from this volume.

E . F . Beach J . C . Weldon

vii

This page intentionally left blank

CONTENTS

FOREWORD

EDITORS

1

PREFACE

Historical Estimates of Internal Migration in Canada Kenneth Buckley, University of Saskatchewan

The "Mass Society" and "Community" Analyses of the Social Present Richard E . Du Wors, Robert Batson, Margaret Daffron, University of Saskatchewan

Canadian C r i m i n a l Statistics P . J . Giffen, University of Toronto

The Post-War Rise of the Crude Petroleum Industry in Canada E . J . Hanson, University of Alberta

Salaries of Engineers and Scientists, Gideon Rosenbluth, Queen s University

1951

1

The Distribution and Functions of Canadian Engineers and Scientists David N . Solomon, Agnes M . Fergusson, M c G i l l University ix

The Structure and Growth of the Canadian A i r Transport Industry K . W. Studnicki-Gizbert, Canada, Department of Transport

The Canadian Manufacturing Industry, 1900-57 T . R. Vout, Canada, Department of Trade and Commerce

x

217

295

C O N F E R E N C E ON STATISTICS

1960

PAPERS

This page intentionally left blank

HISTORICAL E S T I M A T E S O F I N T E R N A L MIGRATION IN C A N A D A *

Kenneth Buckley

The point of departure for any current investigation of population redistribution in Canada is the study "The Growth of Canadian Popula­ tion" by Nathan Keyfitz. (1) By applying life-table survival ratios to the population distributed by age and sex at each census date, Keyfitz provides systematic intercensal estimates of the natural increase and net migration of the national population aged 10 and over from 1851 to 1941. He also obtained intercensal estimates of net migration between provinces by age and sex from 1881 on. Thus the method yields a distribution by age and sex of net interprovincial migration although this detail is not included in the published paper. Keyfitz also estimated the net (international) migration of foreignborn and then, having already calculated the net migration of the total population 10 years of age and over, obtained the net migration of the Canadian-born as a residual. Since the age distribution of the foreignborn in Canada was not recorded by any census before 1921, he was obliged to distribute the foreign-born at earlier census dates on the basis of the age distribution in 1921. The age distributions at succes­ sive census dates obtained in this way were also assumed to apply to the Canadian-born reported in the earlier censuses of the United States. This assumption was supported by a comparison of the age and sex distributions of the Canadian-born in the United States which were reported in the United States censuses in 1910 and 1930 with the d i s t r i ­ butions of the foreign-born in Canada reported in the Canadian censuses in 1921 and 1931. The same life-table survival rates used to obtainnet migration of the total population were used to estimate as intercensal residuals the net migrations of the foreign-born to Canada and of the Canadian-born to the United States. This latter series was then com­ pared with the estimated net out-migration of Canadian-born as a test of the reasonableness of that series. In addition to these several estimates of net migrations and * The estimates presented in this paper are from a study of Canada's growth undertaken with the generous assistance of the Canadian Social Science Research Council. 1. Population Studies, vol. IV, no. 1, June, 1950, pp. 47-63. Hereafter cited as Keyfitz. 1 C P . S.A. Conference on Statistics, Printed i n Canada

I960, Papers

2

Kenneth Buckley

natural increase of provincial and national populations, Keyfitz also made estimates of total births during each pre-censal decade over the period 1851 to 1941 by applying "backward" survival ratios to children aged 0 to 9 at each census date. (In the calculation of the birth rates implicit in the census, these births are related to population at the end of the decade which avoids in some degree the problem of whether the children were born in Canada.) Since estimates of deaths per decade are implicit in the methods of the estimates and total immigration each decade is a matter of record, Keyfitz was able to construct a population balance sheet showing births, deaths, immigration and emigration (the residual) by decades since 1851. He assigns to these components of population change a "status intermediate between pure fact and pure speculation," but presents them because "it is essential to bring to light any possible anomalies. This applies especially to the births and deaths of the early decades." (pp. 56-62) This brief description of the results of the Keyfitz study is given here not only because they make much fuller use of the existing census data than any previous investigation and do so in an explicit and syste­ matic way, but because they are based upon the only 'method that will yield Canadian external and internal net migration estimates that are specific for age and sex. The use of census survival ratios is preferred to life-table survival ratios in a recent study in the United States because in "varying degree the disadvantages of life-table survival ratios are overcome by census survival ratios. . . . Most important of all, they partially overcome the effects of differential enumeration . . . "(2) But the use of census survival ratios can only be applied to a population which is entered solely by birth and left solely by death. While the native-born population of the United States may approximate to such a closed population, the structure of the native-born population resident in Canada at successive census dates has been greatly affected by outmigration. The total Canadian-born population resident at census dates in Canada and the United States taken as a single population would much more nearly satisfy the required assumption of a closed population, but the required age and sex distribution of the Canadian-born in Canada was not obtained-by the census before 1921 and the only age and sex distribution of the Canadian-born in the United States before 1930 is for the single year 1910, In addition to an arbitrary extrapolation of these required distributions there would be the problem of children born in the United States of Canadian-born parents. F o r these several reasons the use of life-table ratios would appear to be the only feasible method to apply to the Canadian population. 2. Everett S. Lee, Ann Ratner M i l l e r , C a r o l P„ Brainerd, Richard A . Easterlin, Redistribution and Economic Growth, (Phila­ delphia, 1957), vol. I. Hereafter Pennsylvania Study. ( F o r a comparison of the two methods, see pp. 25-7.)

Estimates of Internai Migration

3

In the Canadian study the series of English Life Tables was used to obtain the trend in past mortality. "The Canadian Life Tables were used . . . to obtain probabilities of survival for 5-year age groups, and the ratios of the Canadian to the English (age by age) for the average of 1931-41 were used as factors to modify the latter back to the earliest period. (Keyfitz, p. 49.) One might add to the doubts specifically raised by Keyfitz "about the appropriateness of the English Life Tables" by pointing to the marked differences in the degree of urbanization and industrialization in Canada and England throughout the century following 1851. Would the Swedish historical series - which has been regarded as the most reliable available - not have been more suitable for Canada in view of the greater similarity in the pace of socio-economic develop­ ments in the two countries? (For a discussion of the Swedish and English series in relation to the mortality experience of the United States see Simon Kuznets and Ernest Rubin, Immigration and the F o r e i g n - B o r n , N . B . E . R . Occasional Paper 46, pp. 66-7.) Keyfitz emphasizes the problem of differential enumeration and especially the under-enumeration of children 0-4 in the earlier censuses which results in "consistently heavy apparent in-migration of ages 10-14." (Keyfitz, p. 62.) In censuses since 1921 the apparent decennial survival ratios of the age 0-4 age group of native-born children consistently exceed unity which would suggest that under-enumeration of this age class is still characteristic of the census. (It could also reflect return migration of parents who emigrated with children 0 to 3 in the years immediately preceding a census.) Keyfitz does not attempt to estimate the net migration of persons under 10 on the grounds that "any independent estimate of birth rates for most of the intercensal periods would be a mere guess whose e r r o r could be larger than the amount of migration of those under 10 which it aimed at establishing." (Keyfitz, p. 50.) I am inclined to disagree. The records of registration of deaths as well as of births in Quebec and Ontario plus the fragmentary series for other regions of Canada repre­ sent a large but changing sample of the required totals. Jack Firestone has employed these provincial series to interpolate decennial estimates of births and deaths based on the census. He then constructed an annual balance sheet showing the major components of Canada's population growth since Confederation. (Canada s Economic Development, 1867¬ 1953 (London, 1938) His census benchmark estimates of births and deaths are considerably lower than the estimates made by Keyfitz. (3) 11

f

3. The greater bias in the estimate of births than in the esti­ mate of deaths is reflected in Firestone's estimates of net migration which were obtained as a residual. E . g . , his estimate of net outmigration, 1870 to 1900, of 174,000 is much lower than the estimate of 472,000 obtained by Keyfitz. Elsewhere I have commented on the source and possible degree of bias in Firestone's estimates. Cf. A m e r i c a n Economic Review, LXDC, vol. 59, June, 1959, pp. 431-3.

4

Kenneth Buckley

The problem of establishing firm benchmark estimates requires fur­ ther investigation. We have explored the use of the birth and death registrations of the Roman Catholic population of Quebec obtaining intercensal esti­ mates of net migration of this population by counties and the net urbanr u r a l movement from 1851 to 1881 and, for the total population of Quebec, to 1951. The results indicated severe but not insurmountable problems in matching areas for stocks and flows. The results also suggest that problems of differential enumeration of Roman Catholic births and deaths may be more serious than we had previously assumed. However, in spite of these problems registration records can yield a great deal of additional information. A s another illustra­ tion, the combination of registration records in eastern provinces and a quinquennial census in the West from 1881 (none was taken in 1896) provides a sufficient basis for quinquennial interpolations of the de­ cennial estimates of the components of national population growth and will also yield estimates of interprovincial migration for the same intervals. Even if the records of births and deaths were complete they would not give us migration by age and sex as do the Keyfitz estimates. However, the estimates based on survival ratios are biased by an in­ herent limitation. If actual deaths within an area are known and the total population at the beginning and the population aged 10 and over at the end of a given period are also known, the net migration of persons living at the beginning of the period can be calculated precisely. Even with perfect data the survival method could only approximate this result. It imputes to the area the deaths among all those who were living there at the beginning of the period whether they migrate or not. Therefore the method over-estimates net migration to the extent of the deaths among the out-migrants. And although, at the same time, the method does not count deaths to in-migrants at a l l and, hence, under-estimates net migration to that extent, the two opposing e r r o r s are not likely to be equal. Another limitation of the Keyfitz estimates of inter provincial migration results from the nature of the census record. It is i m ­ possible to distinguish the internal from the external component of net provincial migration. Estimates of net internal migration of native-born which can be developed on the basis of census records of the province of birth and province of residence will therefore comple­ ment the existing estimates. Moreover these are the only records that can provide information on the components of migration - that is, the volume of in-migration and out-migration and also upon the dis­ tance of migration or, at least, the origin of the migrants. F i v e of the many possible measures based upon province of birth data are presented here. A s a stock at a particular date the number of Canadian-born living in one province who were born in any other

Estimates of Internal Migration

5

province measures the net result upon the population of the province of past migrations of native-born modified by deaths. The relative contribution of each province to this result can also be determined. (A s i m i l a r analysis of the foreign-born by country or place of origin can also be developed.) The top panel of Table 1 shows the number of native-born in-migrants who were living in each province at each cen­ sus date since Confederation. They may have migrated in the recent or distant past and they may have migrated only once or many times and either directly from the province of birth or indirectly through another province or another country. The lower panel of the table shows the number of native outmigrants from each province who were living in another province at the census date. It is necessary to emphasize that we are dealing with native-born migrants living in Canada at each census and the total is net of out-migrants who have returned and are living in the province of birth at the census date. Table 2 shows the net interchange or net gain or loss of nativeborn population between each province and all other provinces at each census date. These measures, called birth-residence indexes, are obtained for each province by subtracting its own out-migrants living in other provinces from the native-born in-migrants living in the province. Intercensal changes in the totals of Tables 1 and 2 yield useful estimates of the components of the internal migration of the nativeborn population. Through these measures one comes as close as one possibly can on the basis of the existing census data to the actual inmigration, out-migration and net migration for each province and the distance and direction of these movements. Only the measure of net migration is shown here, but a l l three measures of migration must be interpreted in terms of the influence of mortality as well as the actual migrations of the native-born. Estimates based upon the survival technique are affected by deaths of persons who were migrants within the censal decade. Those based upon province of birth data are affected by deaths during the decade to persons who migrated at any time in the past. (4) In an unpublished manuscript Everett Lee describes succinctly the sources and direction of the biases in estimates of internal m i g r a ­ tion based upon province of birth data. "An estimate of net migration, derived by subtracting the measure of out-migration from the c o r r e s ­ ponding measure of in-migration, is subject to . . . less qualification since in-migration following out-migration or out-migration following in-migration cancels out, and because a l l in-migrants and a l l out4. F o r a full discussion of the interpretation of these and other measures based upon province of birth data see Pennsylvania Study, pp. 58-64.

Table 1 Province of Residence and Province of Birth of Native-Born Internal Migrants in Canada at Census Dates, 1871 to 1951 (hundreds of persons*) 1871

1881

1891

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

-

41 69 123 132 579 310

33 87 122 193 686 574

25 112 127 252 716 811

398

17 117 135 288 775 924 1,401 864 831

20 161 204 462 1,084 956 1,690 1,191 1,061

25 158 236 794 1,454 892 1,600 1,250 1,407

28 241 253 1,095 2,180 878 1,250 1,243 1,973

54 386 346 1,558 3,909 969 1,067 1,702 3,570

122

20

12

20

25

82

2,981

5,373

6,841

7,835

9,167

13,642

Province of Residence 40 79 88 472

• . Yukon and

Northwest

) )

206 ) 21 ) ) ) 28 202 (included with Sask. and Alta.) o ) )

678

Total *

1,302

2,101

418

Columns may not add to totals as a result of rounding to the nearest hundred.

Table 1 (Cont'd) (hundreds of persons*) 1871

1881

1891

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

58

67

91

140

173

170

186

268

95

144

185

189

323

430

523

557

976

Province of Birth Prince Edward Island. . . .

•

B r i t i s h Columbia . . . . . . . Yukon and Northwest Territories. • • • • • • • • • • Total

.

>

)

137

166

260

333

751

855

1,131

1,452

1,

542

1,581

2,151

75

323

886

1,433

2,966

3,302

3, 1 5 7

2,881

3,067

-

16

58

109

383

600

897

1,221

1,886

63

272

599

1,359

2,684

48

171

365

656

1,210

34

101

145

199

479

25

7

7

10

25

4

)

. /

) fifi DO )

1? J. o

1

5

) )

124 12

(included with Sask. and A ; Ita.) 678

*

897

106 587

4

1,302

2,101

2,981

5,373

6,841

Columns may not add to totals as a result of rounding to the nearest hundred.

429

517

72 433

7,835

9,167

13,642

Table 2 Birth-Residence Indexes of the Provinces of Canada at Census Dates, 1871 to 1951 (hundreds of persons*)

Prince Edward Island. . . .

1871

1881

1891

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

n. a. - 55 + 7 -345 + 397 n. a

- 17 - 75 + 17 -456 + 255 + 294

- 35 - 98 - 15 -558 -200 + 516

- 65 - 77 - 40 -603 -718 + 701

123 206 124 843 -2,191 + 541 +1,338 + 816 + 797

153 269 129 989 -2,218 + 356 + 1,419 +1,020 + 960

145 365 193 748 -1,704 5 + 1,000 + 885 + 1,261

158 316 263 - 485 701 342 110 + 587 +1,774

214 590 551 593 + 842 917 1,616 + 492 + 3,091

+

+

+

+

0

. •

) )

- '! n. a.

+ 193 + 27

+ 197

J

+ 416 + 386

1951 _

-

Yukon and Northwest (included with Sask. and Alta.)

5

5

13

* Columns do not always add precisely to zero because of rounding to nearest hundred, n.a.: data not available.

15

57

Estimates of Internal Migration

9

migrants, regardless of the state of birth, enter into either the i n migration or the out-migration measure. But whereas the measures of in-migration and out-migration (are) invariably too low, the derived measure of net migration may be either too high or too low, depending upon whether or not the deaths in other states to persons born in a particular state were greater or fewer than the deaths within the state born in other states, . . . regardless of the time of in-migration or outmigration." The nature of these biases may be clarified by an arithmetical illustration. Assume that in a particular province residents born out­ side the province increased from 1,000 to 1,152 from one census date to the next and that, of the original 1,000, 30 died and 10 migrated. Assume that, during the decade, of 200 in-migrants born in other provinces 5 died and 3 left the province before the next census. The measure of in-migration is 1,152 - 1,000 = 152 as a result of 200 i n migrants minus the 35 deaths and the out-migration of 13: that is, 200 - 35 - 13 = 152. The estimate of in-migration is biased by the deaths or subsequent out-migration of persons born in other provinces. The measure also misses the return migration of persons who were born in the province but who were living out of it at the first census date. F o r the measure of out-migration assume an intercensal change of persons born in the province and living in other provinces from 1,000 to 1,056. The estimate of out-migration is 56. Let us suppose that 24 of the original 1,000 died, that 16 returned to the province of birth during the intercensal period and that, of 100 actual p r o v i n c i a l ! / born out-migrants, 3 died and 1 returned to the province during the inter censal interval. The out-migration of 100 is reduced by the 27 deaths and the 17 returning migrants: that is, 100 - 27 - 17 = 56. To measure net migration for the province we subtract outmigration from in-migration: (200 - 35 - 13)

-

(100 - 27 - 17)

=

96

Re-arranging the terms we get: (200 - 100 + 17 - 13). - (35 - 27) » 96 or, (104)

-

(8) =

96

The actual net movement of all internal migrants during the interval, regardless of the province of birth, is 104. The difference in the r e ­ spective mortalities of the out-born and in-born population introduces an e r r o r of 8. Because deaths within the province of persons born in other provinces exceeded deaths in other provinces of persons born in the province, the estimate is too low. If this relation were r e ­ versed, the estimate would be too high. Knowing the difference in the size of the two relevant populations in specific cases, we can infer the probable direction and get a rough approximation of the extent of the bias.

Table 3 Net Internal Migration of Native-Born in Canada by Inter-Censal Intervals, 1871 to 1951 (hundreds of persons) 1871-81*

-

- 18 - 23 - 32 -102 -456 + 222

- 20 + 10 -111 -142 . . Yukon and Northwest

) )

-

- 41

-

*

1881-91

) )

+ 238 ) ) + 170

-

1891-1901

-

31 21 - 25 - 45 - 517 + 185 +

+ +

1901-11 -

57 129 84 - 240 -1,473 + 160

223 ) + 1,849 ) 189 + 411

-

-

116

1911-21

-

1921-31

1931-41

1941-51

13 48 70 + 263 + 1,003 - 338 -1,110

-

30 63 5 146 - 27 - 185 + 80

+ 8 - 96 - 64 + 241 + 514 -316 -418

+

204 163

-135 + 302

+

299 513

+

10

+

+

3

+

The first column does not add to zero because of incomplete data for 1871.

8

+

56 274 288 - 108 + 1,543 - 575 - 1,507

94 - 1,317

+

+

42

Table 3 (Cont'd) (rate per thousand native population)** 1871-81* 1881-91

-

P r i n c e Edward Island

- 5 + 4 - 9 - 11 )

B r i t i s h Columbia Yukon and Northwest

»

_ )

1891-1901

1901-11

1911-21

- 18 - 6 - 11 - 8 - 28 + 283

- 31 + 5 8 3 - 29 + 128

-

) + 355 ) + 371

+244 J

+743 + 308

+ + +

-853

+ 106

+ 242

(included with Sask. and Alta.)

59 29 26 14 76 71

34 13 1 7 1 57 23 86 75

1921-31 +

+ +

-

+

+

* The first column does not add to zero because of incomplete data for 1871. * * Excluding Canadian-born whose province of birth is not stated.

1931-41

1941-51

9 20 17 10 21 85 79 37 95

- 15 + 10 - 17 + 9 + 35 - 68 -176 - 62 + 116

- 60 - 48 - 62 - 3 + 45 -100 -230 - 15 + 197

76

+ 20

+ 231

12

Kenneth Buckley

The estimates of net internal migration of the native population, which are shown in absolute terms and, to facilitate comparisons, as rates per thousand in Table 3, differ conceptually from the estimates of interprovincial migration prepared by Keyfitz. His concept includes net internal migration and the share of the province in net external migration.- Since the census provides the place of birth of a l l residents in a province, we can estimate the net in-migration by provinces of persons born outside of Canada; but there is no basis to estimate the corresponding out-migration by provinces. (The United States census provides a breakdown of the Canadian-born in that country of F r e n c h and non-French origin but one can only guess the provinces of birth.) The estimates of net internal migration of the native-born adjusted for the in-migration of persons born outside Canada are compared with the Keyfitz estimates of net migration in Table 4. In spite of the dif­ ference in concept there is conformity between the two series. The seventy pairs of values differ in sign on seven occasions. Four of these are in Quebec and one in each of the Maritime provinces. In each case the adjusted estimates are positive while the Keyfitz estimates are negative which can be explained for the most part by the failure of the former to reflect the loss of native-born population to the United States and other countries abroad. A high degree of conformity in the movement of the two series is also evident: comparing upswings and downswings one finds movement in the same direction in 88 per cent of the changes. Tables 5 to 14 distribute the total native-born population to show the contribution of each province to its own population and to the nativeborn population of each other province. The upper panel of each table shows the number of Canadian residents born in the province, the num­ ber living in the province, the number living in other provinces (the out-migrants shown in Table 1) and the number of these living in each province. The lower panel of each table shows the number of nativeborn Canadians living in the province, those born in the province, those born in other provinces (the in-migrants of Table 1) and the province of their birth. F r o m these tables one can infer all that can be inferred f r o m the early censuses about the distance and direction of the internal immigrations of the native-born population. With one exception the data were obtained from the latest published census in which they were available. (The totals for 1911, for example, differ slightly from the totals published in the 1911 census because they were taken from the 1921 census which presented slightly altered but more accurate totals.) The birthplace of residents of Saskatchewan, Alberta, Yukon and the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s in 1901 are unpublished data secured from the Census Division, Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The totals shown apply to the present-day boundaries of Saskatchewan and A l b e r t a . A subsequent change in the boundary between Manitoba and the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s , introducing a slight redistribution of population between these two areas, does not warrant alteration of the figures shown.

Table 4 Comparison of Life Table Survival Estimates of Net Migration and Province of B i r t h Estimates Adjusted for In-Migrât ion of Foreign-Born, Canada, 1881 to 1941 (thousands of persons) 1881-1891

Prince Edward Island.

Manitoba

Yukon and Northwest

K: A:

K

A

- 1 4 - 4 3 -44 -132 -84 +52

- 5 - 3 - 12 - 5 - 68 +50

1891- 1901 K - 17 - 40 - 32 -121 -144 + 48

1901- 1911 K

A -

5 0 7 + 2 -138 + 48

) +21 + 68 + 70^ +42 ( ) + 58 + 57 +37 +49 (included with Sask. and Alta.)

+ + + + +

17 28 30 29 74 111 283) 218) 164

-

31

1911- 1921 K

A - 7 - 1 8 + 34 + 40 + 100 + 571 \ ( + 185 -

17

+ + +

K

A

14 37 25 99 46 24 78

+ + + + + +

1931- 1941

1921 -1931

3 1 3 27 132 13 64

+ -

A

9 70 43 10 129 10 5

+ + + -

K 1 11 3 87 210 22 24

2 + 2 - 13 - 32 + 75 - 41 -138

2 + 4 - 11 1 + 28 - 74 -192

- 35 + 72

- 75 + 37

0

0

+ 85 + 58

H

+ 82 54

+ 22 + 101

+ 17 + 89

-

-

-

-

4

2

Keyfitz estimates. Province of birth estimates adjusted for in-migration of the foreign-born.

1

A

9

14

Kenneth Buckley

The population bases used to calculate the rates of internal migration shown in Table 3 above are presented in Table 15. These are the average of the native-born populations in successive censuses who reported province of birth. It would have been preferable to calcu­ late rates of migration on the basis of the total native-born population in each province. This was not possible in the period prior to 1901 because the distribution of those whose birthplace was not stated between native- and foreign-born was not obtained by the early censuses. The provincial distribution of the "birthplace-not-stated" cate­ gories at each census date is given in Table 16. A recalculation of the rates of net migration on the basis of the total native-born and assuming as native-born all those for whom the distribution between native- and foreign-born was not given yielded rates that differed very little from those shown in Table 3. The larger population base made no difference at all in the rates for the five eastern provinces. It lowered the rate by one for Manitoba in two census intervals and for Alberta and B r i t i s h Columbia in one census interval after 1901. Only the T e r r i t o r i e s were affected by appreciable amounts. The largest of these were declines of twelve and fourteen in the intervals 1911 to 1921 and 1891 to 1901.

NOTE. Since this paper was circulated, Duncan McDougall has drawn to my attention in correspondence that Keyfitz apparently over­ looked a distribution of foreign-born by age and sex in 1911 available in folio at the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.

Tables

5-16

Native-Born Population in E a c h Province by Province of Residence and by Province of B i r t h

Table 5 Natives B o r n in Prince Edward Island by Province of Residence, and Natives Resident in Prince Edward Island by Province of Birth, 1881 to 1951 (hundreds of persons*) 1881

1891

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

1,010 952 58

1,061 994 67

1,056 965 91

1,034 894 140

1,015 842 173

997 827 170

1,084 898 186

1,170 902 268

16 27 6 7 2

17 27 5 8 2

25 27 7 9 4 2 3 12

29 24 9 9 9 15 18 25

39 29 8 12 11 24 25 25

32 28 10 17 10 23 24 28

40 31 17 25 9 18 21 25

57 41 28 71 8 13 20 29

1

a

a

a

a

Province of Residence of Persons Born in Prince Edward Island Total - Living in Prince Edward Island. . . - Living in other provinces

> ) Yukon and Northwest

2 a > ) 5 a (included with Sask. 2 and Alta.)

* Columns may not add up to the totals shown because of rounding to nearest hundred, a. Less than fifty persons.

Table 5 (Cont'd) (hundreds of persons*) 1881

1891

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

994 952 41

1,027 994 33

990 965 25

912 894 17

862 842 20

852 827 25

926 898 28

956 902 54

25 13 2 1 -

20 10 2 1 a

14 7 2 1 a

10 4 1 1 a a a a

11 5 1 2 a a a a

13 7 2 2 a 1 1 a

12 7 2 3 1 1 1 1

21 12 4 8 2 3 2 1

a

a

Province of B i r t h of Residents of P r i n c e Edward Island Total Canadian-born resident in B o r n in P r i n c e Edward Island . . .

-

Yukon and Northwest

* a.

-

) )

a

a

>

)

a

a a (included with Sask. and Alta.)

Columns may not add up to the totals shown because of rounding to nearest hundred, L e s s than fifty persons.

a

Table 6 Natives Born in Nova Scotia by Province of Residence, and Natives Resident in Nova Scotia by Province of Birth, 1871 to 1951 (hundreds of persons*) 1871

1881

1891

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

3,608 3,514 95

4,201 4,057 144

4,337 4,152 185

4,429 4,240 189

4,762 4,439 323

5,068 4,639 430

5,072 4,549 523

5,688 5,131 557

6,588 5,611 976

52 7 36 -

25 62 8 37 8

20 55 14 47 14

14 51 15 30 15 5 7 46

10 49 19 45 30 34 50 84

11 71 30 73 32 51 74 86

13 84 64 117 29 48 70 96

12 94 89 151 25 35 59 92

21 138 131 437 29 28 68 121

6

3

1

1

1

3

Province of Residence of Persons Born in Nova Scotia Total

- ) ) Yukon and Northwest

-

9 > a> ) ) 27 4 (included with Sask. and Alta.) a

9

* Columns may not add up to the totals shown because of rounding to nearest hundred, a. L e s s than fifty persons.

Table 6 (Cont'd) (hundreds of persons*) 1871

1881

1891

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

3,554 3,514 40

4,128 4,057 69

4,239 4,152 87

4,352 4,240 112

4,556 4,439 117

4,799 4,639 161

4,708 4,549 158

5,371 5,131 241

5,997 5,611 386

-

16 45 4 3

17 55 6 7 a

25 68 9 9 1

29 69 9 8 1 a a 1

39 82 17 15 1 1 2 3

32 79 19 18 2 3 3 3

40 100 31 38 9 9 7 6

57 145 47 83 12 16 12 15

a

a

a

a

a

Province of B i r t h of Residents of Nova Scotia Total - Canadian-born resident in

34 3 2 ) . . Yukon and Northwest Territories * a.

) ) ) ) )

) a)

-

! ) a> a ) ) a 1 a (included with Sask. and Alta.) a

1

Columns may not add up to the totals shown because of rounding to nearest hundred, L e s s than fifty persons.

Table 7 Natives B o r n in New Brunswick by Province of Residence, and Natives Resident in New Brunswick by Province of Birth, 1871 to 1951 (hundreds of persons*) 1871

1881

1891

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

2,458 2,385 72

2,883 2,776 106

3,006 2,869 137

3,171 3,005 166

3,453 3,193 260

3,789 3,456 333

4,030 3,601 429

4,631 4,115 517

5,495 4,598 897

34 10 29

13 45 13 28 3

10 55 15 28 7

7 68 21 23 8 2 4 28

4 69 32 28 16 19 29 62

5 82 50 46 18 28 40 63

7 79 115 79 17 27 38 65

7 100 171 110 15 21 32 61

12 145 273 320 17 16 36 76

4

2

1

1

1

2

Province of Residence of Persons B o r n in New Brunswick Total •,

) )

Yukon and Northwest

* a.

ft a

) )

4 4

) )

4 18 (included with Sask. and Alta.)

Columns may not add to the totals shown because of rounding to nearest hundred, L e s s than fifty persons.

Table 7 (Cont'd) (hundreds of persons*) 1871

1881

1891

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

2,464 2,385 79

2,900 2,776 123

2,992 2,869 122

3,132 3,005 127

3,328 3,193 135

3,660 3,456 204

3,837 3,601 236

4,368 4,115 253

4,944 4,598 346

52 24 2

27 62 31 3 a

27 55 36 3 a

27 51 43 6 a

24 49 53 7 a a a 1

29 71 86 14 1 1 1 1

28 84 102 15 2 2 2 1

30 94 93 24 4 4 3 2

41 138 112 36 5 6 4 4

Province of B i r t h of Residents of New Brunswick Total - Canadian-born residents in New Brunswick - B o r n in New Brunswick - B o r n in other provinces P r i n c e Edward Island Nova Scotia , Quebec Ontario , Manitoba , Saskatchewan Alberta B r i t i s h Columbia Yukon and Northwest Territories (

)

1

) )

a ) ) a

a ) ) a

a a

(included with Sask. and Alta.)

* Columns may not add to the totals shown because of rounding to nearest hundred, a. L e s s than fifty persons.

Table 8 Natives Born in Quebec by Province of Residence, and Natives Resident in Quebec by Province of Birth, 1871 to 1951 (hundreds of persons*) 1871

1881

1891

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

11,477 11,044 433

13,278 12,690 587

14,623 13,872 751

16,205 15,350 855

19,399 18,268 1,131

22,660 21,209 1,452

26,961 25,419 1,542

31,555 29,975 1,581

38,808 36,657 2,151

3 24 405

2 4 31 504 41

2 6 36 588 76

2 9 43 618 85 15 26 43

1 9 53 648 108 130 101 75

1 17 86 817 118 177 150 82

2 20 102 924 97 152 142 92

2 31 93 1,043 80 115 118 96

4 47 112 1,541 77 87 126 150

14

6

3

11

3

7

Province of Residence of Persons Born in Quebec Total

) )

Yukon and Northwest

, ) *) 4 (included with Sask. Alta.)

18 > 18 26 and }

* Columns may not add to the totals shown because of rounding to nearest hundred, a. L e s s than fifty persons.

Table 8 (Cont'd) (hundreds of persons*) 1871

1881

1891

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

11,132 11,044 88

12,822 12,690 132

14,065 13,872 193

15,602 15,350 252

18,556 18,268 288

21,671 21,209 462

26,213 25,419 794

31,070 29,975 1,095

38,215 36,657 1,558

6 10 70

6 8 13 104 a

5 14 15 155 2

7 15 21 203 3

9 19 32 219 4 2 1 2

8 30 50 353 9 4 4 3

10 64 115 551 24 12 10 8

17 89 171 702 44 34 22 14

28 131 273 929 72 55 34 34

1

a

a

2

3

Province of B i r t h of Residents of Quebec Total - Canadian-born residents of

P r i n c e Edward Island . . .

) )

Yukon and Northwest

) ) ) )

>

1 )

a

) )

! 1

) )

i 1

(included with Sask. and Alta.)

* Columns may not add to the totals shown because of rounding to nearest hundred, a. L e s s than fifty persons.

Table 9 Natives B o r n in Ontario by Province of Residence, and Native Residents of Ontario by Province of Birth, 1871 to 1951 (hundreds of persons*) 1871

1881

1891

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

11,388 11,313 75

14,680 14,356 323

17,287 16,401 886

19,281 17,848 1,433

22,323 19,357 2,966

25,055 21,754 3,302

27,946 24,789 3,157

31,238 28,357 2,881

36,443 33,376 3,067

2 2 70

1 3 3 104 191

1 7 3 155 466

1 9 6 203 676 160 123 236

1 8 7 219 731 962 575 455

2 15 14 353 672 1,050 689 504

2 18 15 551 566 865 592 545

3 38 24 702 450 629 490 542

8 83 36 929 379 454 464 698

20

7

4

3

4

15

Province of Residence of Persons B o r n in Ontario Total

- Living in other provinces . . . . P r i n c e Edward Island . . .

> )

Yukon and Northwest

*

5 )

136

16 117 (included with Sask. and Alta.)

Columns may not add up to the totals shown because of rounding to nearest hundred.

Table 9 (Cont'd) (hundreds of persons*) 1871

1881

1891

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

11,785 11,313 472

14,935 14,356 579

17,087 16,401 686

18,563 17,848 716

20,132 19,357 775

22,837 21,754 1,084

26,243 24,789 1,454

30,537 28,357 2,180

37,285 33,376 3,909

36 29 405

7 37 28 504 a

8 47 28 588 12

9 30 23 618 23

9 45 28 648 26 5 5 6

12 73 46 817 64 34 21 18

17 117 79 924 147 92 47 30

25 151 110 1,043 365 321 109 56

71 437 320 1,541 610 564 190 171

3

1

1

1

3

Province of B i r t h of Residents of Ontario Total - Canadian-born residents of

P r i n c e Edward Island . . .

) Alberta Yukon and Northwest

) > ) )

) 3

9

Ci

}

a

> )

2 > ) 2

8 4

(included with Sask. and Alta.)

* Columns may not add up to the totals shown because of rounding to nearest hundred, a. L e s s than fifty persons.

Table 10 Natives Born in Manitoba by Province of Residence, and Native Residents of Manitoba by Province of Birth, 1881 to 1951 (hundreds of persons*) 1881

1891

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

196 180 16

564 506 58

1,107 998 109

2,146 1,762 383

3,514 2,915 600

4, 635 3, 738 897

5,703 4,483 1,221

6,995 5,109 1,886

-

a a a 2 12

a 1 a 3 23 45 13 22

a 1 a 4 26 217 55 80

a 2 1 9 64 310 93 121

a 2 2 24 147 388 144 190

1 9 4 44 365 332 159 305

2 12 5 72 610 318 231 628

2

1

a

1

2

8

Province of Residence of Persons Born in Manitoba Total

1 •• Yukon and Northwest Territories * a.

>

ifi

]

36

J

8 (included with Sask. and Alta.)

Columns may not add up to the totals shown because of rounding to nearest hundred, L e s s than fifty persons.

Table 10

(Cont'd)

(hundreds of persons*) 1881

1891

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

490 180 310

1 ,080 506 574

1,809 998 811

2,687 1,762 924

3, 870 2, 915 956

4,631 3,738 892

5,361 4,483 878

6,078 5,109 969

2 8 3 41 191

2 14 7 76 466

4 15 8 85 676

10 30 16 108 731 18 5 4

11 32 18 118 672 77 15 10

10 29 17 97 566 134 25 13

9 25 15 80 450 245 37 17

8 29 17 77 379 361 56 40

3

2

1

1

2

Province of B i r t h of Residents of Manitoba Total - Canadian-born residents in

P r i n c e Edward Island

. .. • .

... Yukon and Northwest

)

) 8 ) 21 2 1 (included with Sa sk. and Alta.) 6

4

)

* Columns may not add up to the totals shown because of rounding to nearest hundred, a. L e s s than fifty persons.

Table 11 Natives B o r n in Saskatchewan by Province of Residence, and Native Residents of Saskatchewan by Province of Birth, 1901 to 1951 (hundreds of persons*) 1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

1,081 1,019 63

3,148 2,877 272

5,022 4,423 599

6,678 5,319 1,359

8,173 5,489 2,684

8 21 237 10

a a a 2 5 18 17 20

a 1 1 4 34 77 70 84

1 3 2 12 92 134 170 185

1 9 4 34 321 245 278 464

3 16 6 55 564 361 590 1,076

74

a

1

a

2

12

Province of Residence of Persons Born in Saskatchewan Total 657** 307 350

-

-1

Yukon and Northwest

* Columns may not add up to the total shown because of rounding to nearest hundred. * * Total born in the present area of Saskatchewan and Alberta, a. L e s s than fifty persons.

Table 11 (Cont'd) (hundreds of persons*) 1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

2,420 1,019 1,401

4,567 2,877 1,690

6,022 4,423 1,600

6,569 5,319 1,250

6,556 5,489 1,067

1

15 34 19 130 962 217 9 4

24 51 28 177 1,050 310 34 15

23 48 27 152 865 388 74 21

18 35 21 115 629 332 78 22

13 28 16 87 454 318 106 42

10

11

a

1

1

1

Province of B i r t h of Residents of Saskatchewan Total - Canadian-born residents in 547 307 # 240 2 5 2 15 160 45

# Yukon and Northwest

* Columns may not add up to the total shown because of rounding to nearest hundred. # The 307 includes some residents born in Alberta, a. L e s s than fifty persons.

Table 12 Natives Born in Alberta by Province of Residence, and Native Residents of Alberta by Province of Birth, 1901 to 1951 (hundreds of persons*) 1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

782 734 48

2,116 1,945 171

3,367 3,002 365

4,781 4,135 646

6,495 5,285 1,210

a a a 1 5 5 9 26

a 2 1 4 21 15 34 93

1 3 2 10 47 25 74 202

1 7 3 22 109 37 78 383

2 12 4 34 190 56 106 783

a

a

1

7

22

Province of Residence of Persons Born in Alberta Total - Alberta-born population - Living in Alberta - Living in other provinces see P r i n c e Edward Island Nova Scotia _ . , New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan B r i t i s h Columbia Yukon and Northwest Territories

m lable ^

* Columns may not add to the total shown because of rounding to nearest hundred, a. L e s s than fifty persons.

Table 12 (Cont'd) (hundreds of persons*) 1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

415 237 178

1,598 734 864

3,137 1,945 1,191

4,252 3,002 1,250

5,367 4,135 1,233

6,987 5,285 1,702

3 7 4 26 123 13

18 50 29 101 575 55 17 14

25 74 40 150 689 93 70 49

24 70 38 142 592 144 170 68

21 59 32 118 490 159 278 74

20 68 36 126 464 231 590 159

3

1

1

2

7

Province of B i r t h of Residents of Alberta Total Canadian-born residents in Alberta. . .

#*

2 Yukon and Northwest

* #* a.

Columns may not add to the total shown because of rounding to nearest hundred. The 237 includes some residents born in Saskatchewan, L e s s than fifty persons.

Table 13 Natives B o r n in B r i t i s h Columbia by Province of Residence, and Native Residents of B r i t i s h Columbia by Province of Birth, 1881 to 1951 (hundreds of persons*) 1881

1891

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

Province of Residence of Persons Born in B r i t i s h Columbia Total - B r i t i s h Columbia-born Living in B r i t i s h Columbia .

323 322 1

372 367 5

608 596 12

879 845 34

1,672 1,570 101

2,477 2,332 145

3,356 3,157 199

5,146 4,667 479

-

a 1 a 1 2 1

a a a 1 4 2 1 2

a 1 1 2 6 4 4 14

a 3 1 3 18 10 15 49

a 3 1 8 30 13 21 68

1 6 2 14 56 17 22 74

1 15 4 34 171 40 42 159

2

1

1

3

5

12

a a a a a Alberta Yukon and Northwest

. . .

) ) ) )

a

) ) ) )

) ! ) 1

* Columns may not add to the total shown because of rounding to nearest hundred, a. L e s s than fifty persons.

Table 13 (Cont'd) (hundreds of persons*) 1881

1891

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

350 322 29

569 367 202

994 596 398

1,676 845 831

2,631 1,570 1,061

3,738 2,332 1,407

5,130 3,157 1,973

8,237 4,667 3,570

a 4 4 4 16 a

5 27 18 26 117 8

12 46 28 43 236 22

25 84 62 75 455 80 20 26

25 86 63 82 504 121 84 93

28 96 65 92 545 190 185 202

25 92 61 96 542 305 464 383

29 121 76 150 698 628 1,076 783

5

3

3

4

9

Province of B i r t h of Residents of B r i t i s h Columbia Total - Canadian-born residents in

Yukon and Northwest ..

) ) ) )

a

) ) ) )

1

n

o

-

* Columns may not add to the total shown because of rounding to nearest hundred, a. L e s s than fifty persons.

Table 14 Natives B o r n in the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s by Province of Residence and Native Residents of the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s by Province of Birth, 1881 to 1951 (hundreds of persons*) 1881**

1891**

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

123 113 10

166 142 25

-

a a a 3 3 2 1 7 9

Province of Residence of Persons Born in the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s Total - Northwest T e r r i t o r y - b o r n L i v i n g in Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s .

582 518 66

609 595 13

70 59 10

95 70 25

87 80 7

105 98 7

-

a 1 a 1 2

--

64

8

a a a 1 3 3 11 3 5

a a a a 1 2 a 1 3

a a a 1 1 1 1 3

a a a 2

-

10 a * ** a.

2

-

-

-

a a 2 1 1 1 2 4

Columns may not add to the total shown because of rounding to nearest hundred. In 1881 and 1891 "Territories" includes the area which is now the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, L e s s than fifty persons.

Table 14 (Cont'd) (hundreds of persons*) 1881**

1891**

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

Province of B i r t h of Residents of the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s Total - Canadian-born residents in the 539

801

181

90

92

118

138

224

518 21

595 206

59 122

70 20

80 12

98 20

113 25

142 82

a a a 1 5 15

2 9 4 18 136 36

2 6 4 14 20 2

1 3 2 6 7 1 a a 1

a 1 1 3 4 a 1 a 1

a 1 1 11 3 1 a 1 2

a 1 1 3 4 2 2 7 5

a 3 2 7 15 8 12 22 12

B o r n in the Northwest

Nova Scotia

a

1

) )

n

A

74 2

* Columns may not add to the total shown because of rounding to nearest hundred. * * In 1881 and 1891 "Territories" includes the area which is now the provinces of Saskatchewan and A l b e r t a , a. L e s s than fifty persons.

Table 15 Average Native-born Population of the Provinces and Canada,* for Intercensal Periods from 1871 to 1951 (hundreds of persons**)

Canada

. . , ,

1871- 81

1881-91

1891-01

1901-11

1911-21

1921-31

1931-41

1941-51

31,859***

39,507

44,222

51,269

62,040

74,370

87,726

105,158

3,840 2,682 11,977 13,360

1,010 4,182 2,946 13,444 16,011 785

1,008 4,295 3,062 14,834 17,825 1,444

951 4,454 3,230 17,079 19,348 2,248 1,483 1,007 1,335

887 4,677 3,494 20,113 21,485 3,278 3,493 2,367 2,154

857 4,753 3,748 23,942 24,540 4,250 5,294 3,694 3,185

889 5,040 4,103 28,642 28,390 4,996 6,295 4,809 4,434

941 5,684 4,656 34,643 33,911 5,719 6,562 6,177 6,683

136

91

105

128

181

) ) Yukon and Northwest

ni c )

91b

781 459 (included with Sask. and Alta.)

* Excludes persons whose province of birth is not stated. * * Columns may not add to the totals shown because of rounding to the nearest hundred. * * * Average population for the four provinces covered by the census of 1871.

Table 16 Persons Whose Place of B i r t h is Not Stated, By Provinces, 1871 to 1941

Canada

1871**

1881**

1891**

1901***

1911***

1921***

1931***

1941***

1,828

6,334

3,491

13,374

24,235

20,128#

7,912

3,002

98 90 70 1,570

28 270 200 665 2,211 102

28 191 103 500 2,230 169

-

3 498 746 3,134 6,227 1,887 6,770 2,071 1,684

36 412 451 5,504 8,237 732 1,146 1,435 923

2 270 96 1,237 3,148 491 1,029 700 885

1 70 12 904 631 54 211 65 160

1,215

1,227

54

894

-

Yukon and Northwest

*

-

) )

9 10

7

^

l < ï f iO

1 U

-

-

2,460 351 316 236

112 751 (included with Sask. 10,011 and Alta, )

In the 1951 census, persons in the "place of birth not stated" category were distributed by Census Division, D . B . S., on the basis of other information given on their census returns. * * F i g u r e s shown include foreign-born as well as Canadian-born. * * * F i g u r e s include Canadian-born only. # Includes twenty-five members of the Royal Canadian Navy whose province of birth is not stated.

This page intentionally left blank

T H E "MASS S O C I E T Y " A N D " C O M M U N I T Y " A N A L Y S E S O F T H E SOCIAL P R E S E N T

Richard E . Du Wors Robert Batson Margaret Daffron

THE

PROBLEM

The b i b l i o g r a p h y of the " m a s s s o c i e t y " c o n t a i n s c o m m e n t by theologians, philosophers, s o c i a l scientists, l i t e r a r y c r i t i c s , journa­ l i s t s and by p r a c t i c a l l y anyone who w r i t e s anything about the s o c i a l p r e s e n t . (1) In these w r i t i n g s the m a s s s o c i e t y i s c o n d e m n e d , u s u a l l y ; p r a i s e d s e l d o m , and then o n l y i n the name of d e m o c r a c y . (2) The r e s e a r c h m e n and c o m m e n t a t o r s whose w o r k f o r m s t h i s b i b l i o g r a p h y find e a r l i e r and e a r l i e r s o u r c e s f r o m w h i c h the m a s s s o c i e t y i s s a i d to o r i g i n a t e . W i l l i a m F o o t e Whyte p r e f e r s de T o c q u e v i l l e s d e s c r i p ­ t i o n of the m a s s s o c i e t y as de T o c q u e v i l l e c o n c e i v e d it i n 1835(3); P r o f e s s o r D u W o r s s u g g e s t s that W i r t h ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the p r e s e n t m a s s m a n as w e l l as the d e s c r i p t i o n g i v e n by de T o c q u e v i l l e w e r e a n t i c i p a t e d by P l a t o i n h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of the d e m o c r a t i c m a n . (4) The d i f f i c u l t y w i t h a t t r i b u t i n g e a r l y s o u r c e s to the m a s s s o c i e t y f

1. See the l i s t of c o n t r i b u t o r s i n M a u r i c e S t e i n , A r t h u r J . V i d i c h , D a v i d M a n n i n g W h i t e , Identity and A n x i e t y ( G l e n c o e , 111. , 1960), pp. 13¬ 15. E v e n t h i s l i s t i s a s m a l l s a m p l e of the p r o f e s s i o n a l i n t e r e s t s of those who w r i t e about the m a s s s o c i e t y . 2. F o r a d i s t i n c t l y m i n o r i t y p o s i t i o n see, D a n i e l B e l l , The E n d of Ideology ( G l e n c o e , 111., 1960), chap. 1. We j o i n w i t h B e l l i n h i s m i n o r i t y p o s i t i o n and i n our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the m a s s s o c i e t y d e s p i t e the fact that he u s e s the s a m e method of i l l u s t r a t i o n and anecdote as those who b e w a i l the s o c i e t y of today. In t e r m s of s c h o l a r s h i p , B e l l ' s i s as w i d e - r a n g i n g and i m p r e s s i v e as any of his m e l a n c h o l y opponents. 3. A l e x i s de T o c q u e v i l l e , D e m o c r a c y i n A m e r i c a (New Y o r k . 1954), v o l . 1, p. 176 and pp. 4 5 1 - 2 . C i t e d by W . F . Whyte on a t e l e v i s i o n i n t e r v i e w s o m e y e a r s ago. 4. See B . Jowett, The D i a l o g u e s of P l a t o (4th ed. , O x f o r d : 1953), v o l . 2, pp. 426ff. , on the n a t u r e of d e m o c r a t i c m a n and s t a t e . One m a y note that t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n c o r r e s p o n d s s t r i k i n g l y to those of D u r k h e i m and o t h e r s on the r i s e and c o n d i t i o n of " a n o m i e . "

39 C P . S . A . Conference on S t a t i s t i c s , I960, Papers P r i n t e d i n Canada

40

R. E . Du Wors et al.

is that such thinking breaks the linkage of mass media, mass society, and mass culture. In much of the writing, and, we believe, in histori­ cally naive thinking, mass media is given as the cause for the appear­ ance of mass society and mass culture. The destruction of this linkage might raise serious problems for those of us holding strong democratic beliefs. Perhaps, we might think, the asserted mediocrity of our art and of our mass culture may arise, if it has arisen, from our democratic values. If democratic values gave rise to our alleged mediocrity in the arts, one would have to blame the democratic ideology for the vulgarization of literature, especially, and not the mass media. It would not be out of place to point out here, in any event, that all mechanical-electrical forms of communication are emotionally and ideologically neutral. It is not the media of public communication that finally matters, but the behaviour of the people controlling the media, the messages these people send via the mass media, and the reactions of the audiences to the messages sent. While we believe the confusion in historical ascription of sources and causes of the mass society should be pointed out, the chief goal in this research was not to trace possible historical sources of the mass society; neither was it to arrive at conclusions after reading a large percentage of the writings concerned with the mass society. Instead of these possible, and possibly fruitful, tasks, we wished to find some attribute of this mass society which could be established or rejected by empirical research. In the process of establishing or rejecting this attribute we could establish a closely defined, empirical and quantitative basis to make inferences about the possible referent to the concept "mass society." In other words, we wished to begin, at least, to get away from the method of illustration and anecdote that characterizes all the literature on mass society we have read. We asked, then, if there were phenomena, processes or events which we may use as a referent for the concept "mass society." The other possibilities that there were no such phenomena or that the phenomena considered must be subsumed under a different concept of society than that of a mass were also considered. F i r s t , one may point out that the simplest observation indicates there are phenomena to be explained. Neon lights and split levels are found in Boston, in New Orleans, in San Francisco, in Toronto, in Calgary, in Saskatoon, and in Halifax. The same coiffures are seen in P a r i s and Billings, Montana, and on the same day, if not the same hour, of the same week. Houses, dresses, dishes, coiffures, stilleto heels for women, narrow lapels for men's jackets, C o c a - C o l a and Singer sewing machines, I . B . M . and automobiles - these things are not gently diffused, but spread with explosive suddenness to any area where people are free to adopt them. Within the confines of this round planet, and perhaps soon beyond, the distribution of these

"Mass Society" and "Community" Analyses

41

items varies only in frequency from one part of the world to another. These items, one may postulate, are not to be considered as separate items, but as products of a process which spreads both the items and associated ideas with them. The ideas would include definitions of consumption, therefore investment, therefore the national good, and so on. A s readily established as these phenomena are, we wanted a more emotionally and socially significant range of phenomena with which to test hypotheses about the mass society; and in order to locate such phenomena we had first to state the attribute of the mass society we wished to establish or reject. After reading the literature, the one attribute of the alleged mass society we found most commonly discussed by the commentators was the attribute of uniformity. (5) The concepts of facelessness, of lump, of loss of individuality, of conformity, of the decline of the hero, of lock-stepped education, of mass production, mass sales, mass m a r ­ kets, of mass consumption, all indicate the same thing - the interchangeability of units. And units are interchangeable only as they are uniform. F o r purposes of sociology this statement of uniformity in the mass society may be stated as follows. Social units that were once clearly different in terms of sociological c r i t e r i a are now indistin­ guishable. That is to say, if one ignores literal differences of space and time because those differences are not pertinent to a sociological frame of reference, then the social units of today's world are losing, or have lost, the sociological "specifica differentia" that once set them apart from social units of a s i m i l a r classification. According to this view, present-day civilizations, cultures, nations, regions, cities, classes, communities, and persons - all to be considered as social units - are beginning to act more and to look more alike. A similarity of outlook and action has spread throughout the world as Western tech­ nology and its material products have spread. C o c a - C o l a is a weapon of American culture, the cultural purists have cried. A s the drinking of C o c a - C o l a spreads, the drinking behaviour throughout the world is Americanized, that is, standardized. 5. Plato refers to both variety and sameness in his concept of the democratic society. In a s i m i l a r way, mass culture is praised for its rich variation when one speaks of the wide range of books made possible by mass media press, and damned when one concentrates on the mechanical likeness of sin, sex, and sadism of the biggest sellers. That suburb and centre of cities in the United States are coming to look more alike than when New England meeting house, Hudson Valley p r i ­ vate home, and Pennsylvania Dutch architecture dominated their locales is generally accepted. A Canadian study emphasized this similarity of suburbs in Canada. Or so it was reported in the mass media. See also Bell, End of Ideology, p. 22 and pp. 24-5.

42

R. E . Du Wors et al.

This growth of uniformity is the most commonly given character­ istic of the mass society, but nowhere in that literature could we find even the beginnings of an attempt to establish some numerical index of a behaviour whose significance could be more readily assumed as soc­ ially significant than barbecue broiling and television-viewing. There are always those advocates of a general human nature that would claim that ranch house or igloo, thatch roof or house by Frank Lloyd Wright, are matters of no great consequence. Moreover, "uniformity of be­ haviour," as a concept, needs further explication. Any society to be a society requires important degrees of uniformity. If Boston of 1850 were not New York of 1850, it still seems reasonable to think that within Boston and New York, taken as social wholes, there was a high degree of uniformity. Boston and New York might be considered as duplications of pools of conformity, locally different in detail, but logically of the same category of social unit. They formed part of what Durkheim called a segmental society. E a c h segment of the society was uniform within itself while socially distinct from like seg­ ments of the society. Boston as a community in 1850 had social char­ acteristics distinguishable from New York although they were both in the category "community." The uniformity meant in the mass society, which turns out to be a society remarkably like Durkheim's "société organique," is the result of the segments losing their individuality, their identity. (6) Opposed to this view is that of those sociologists who believe that communities, regions, and other social groupings within the larger society of the United States have changed in some aspects, but they have persisted in their basic identities. And, in fact, such sociologists argue, groups and regions in the United States are persisting in their identities despite mass media and mass culture. (7) A committee of r u r a l sociologists put it this way in a discussion of status research: Making explicit the social unit or system not only delimits the population to be studied but also suggests the frame of reference or basis for evaluation. A n investigation of the basis of evalua­ tion necessarily focuses on the ethos of the social system. . . . The major challenge to the community point of view has been by those who maintain that the mass society is the chief determinant of stratification. 6. E m i l e Durkheim, The Division of Labor (Glencoe, 111., 1950, translated by George Simpson. 7. See the regionalists such as C . C . Z i m m e r m a n and R. E . Du Wors, Graphical Regional Sociology (Cambridge, Mass.: Phillips Book Store, 1952).

"Mass Society

11

and "Community ' Analyses 1

43

Basic assumptions of the community position are that rank is unitary and that the localistic value system is dominant. This may have been approximated in relatively isolated and stable r u r a l communities of yesterday; but mass communication has broken down the isolation of r u r a l people, and community bonds have been weakened by the rise of special-interest groups. In fact, the mass society might be characterized as an agglomerate of special-interest groups or publics, each having its own status hierarchy. The basis of evaluation is determined largely by sec­ ondary systems of economics and political power and by the mass media of communication. (8) The problem we set for ourselves, then, is clear. F i r s t , we wished to see if in fact there is a continual loss of individuality or of identity, among such social units as cities and regions. To do this we wished to see if we could find a numerical index to an intimate behaviour which would act as a barometer to that whole cluster of values which distinguish one social entity from another. We had at hand three things with which to work on our problem: a line of sociological thought focused by Z i m m e r m a n (9); field studies carried on in Maine by Professor Du Wors (10); and a specific sugges­ tion for proceeding, which we generalized, in a monograph by W. S. Thompson. (11) There were also, of course, statistical methods to use which, one can judge, we used or abused depending on the degree of caution one thinks proper to scholarship. The statistical methods used are, in fact, so central to this paper that we think of all but the final section as an essay in statistical inference.

T H E S O C I O L O G I C A L SOURCES F O R ANALYSIS O F T H E P R O B L E M The first thing we had to work with, a fundamental line of soc­ iological thought, was originally explored in order to define, then to establish, if possible, the e m p i r i c a l referent for the concept "com­ munity individuality. " Much later that work was widened to an 8. K . K . Kaufman, O. D. Duncan, N . G r o s s and W. H . Sewell, "Problems of Theory and Method in the Study of Social Stratification in Rural Society, " R u r a l Sociology, vol. 18 (1953), p. 18. 9. C . Zimmerman, The Changing Community (New York, 1938). 10. F o r the point of view and references, skeletal, see Richard E . Du Wors, "Persistence and Change in Local Values of Two New England Communities," R u r a l Sociology, vol. 17 (1953), p. 207. 11. Ratio of Children to Women, 1920 (Washington, 1931), pp. 70-1.

44

R. E . Du Wors et al.

attempt to define and establish what was meant by the individuality of any social unit. The names of Gumplowicz, Spencer, Durkheim, Cooley, Maclver, Esminger, W. S. Thompson and even W. F . Whyte are a l l associated with attempts to define the individuality of social systems or of social phenomena. Nevertheless, the man who made individuality of the unit central to sociological studies was Carle C . Z i m m e r m a n in the book, The Changing Community. The idea stressed by Z i m m e r m a n in com­ munity studies he carried out in the United States, Canada, and Siam is that communities have personalities. We did not like calling these social organizations community personalities because "personality" had connotations that seemed to distract from the effort to define community individuality; but if one puts the question Zimmerman raises in another form, one can travel farther along the way he opened. Gist and Halbert recently made the kind of statement the studies in Maine were designed to examine in 1939. No two cities are alike; each possesses peculiarities and traits that set it apart. Chicago and Cleveland are both manufacturing cities, and both are lake ports in the Middle West. New York and Boston are commercial and industrial cities, with s i m i l a r harbor facilities, s i m i l a r institutions, and s i m i l a r people. But Chicago and Cleveland each have many unique features. Like­ wise, Boston has an individuality that distinguishes it from New York. Their differences are as apparent as their likeness. (12) A s Professor Du Wors phrased the question it became: How does one define any social unit so that the definition indicates the social category to which the unit belongs and simultaneously dis­ tinguishes the social unit from a l l other units within that same cate­ gory? This question uses, of course, the simple but fundamental logic of classification in any field of study. It just does not seem to have been raised in some areas of sociological work. The question practically forces comparative studies of social units for an answer. And it means that studies such as Vidich and Benson's study of a 12. Noel P. Gist, L . A . Halbert, Urban Society, New York, 1959), p. 6. Consider also Durkheim's statement: "It is only the individual societies which are born, develop, and die that can be observed, and therefore have objective existence. . . . A group which succeeds an­ other is not simply a prolongation of the latter with some newly acquired characteristics; it is qualitatively different from it, having gained some properties and lost others. It constitutes a new individuality; and a l l these distinct individualities, being heterogeneous, cannot be juxtaposed in the same continuous series, and surely not in a single series." The Rules of Sociological Method (Glencoe, 111., 1938), p. 19.

"Mass Society" and "Community" Analyses

45

small community in a mass society and any other single community study are either sadly crippled or even worthless. (13) Such studies give us no way of distinguishing the community studied from all other units in the class community. In field research, if one studies a community s history over a long historical period, how does one know that it is the same com­ munity, that it has maintained individuality or identity, through the entire period? Or how does one know that this community has changed, that it, that its individuality or identity has changed? If surrounded by other communities, as the lesser communities within a metropolitan area, how is one to distinguish it spatially from other communities? How can the research person decide when a community first became a community? In other words, since process both logically and em­ pirically precedes structure, (a) what sociological process produces, maintains, or changes any unit structure known as a community; (b) when does it produce the community unit? Some of the literature of sociology helped us to set up ways of thinking about the question of social unit individuality. Spencer pointed out that when men interact over a period of time a new environment rises, unique in kind but still part of natural things. (14) Sumner agreed and added that each great historical group that arose out of this inter­ action process produced an ethos that gave it individuality, identity. (15) Cooley talked about the life themes that distinguished institutions functionally s i m i l a r . (16) W. I. Thomas wrote that each city was a unique behaviour-organizing complex. (17) More recently in The Organization Man Whyte refers to cities as each having separate souls based he, rather thoughtlessly, indicates on their economic advan­ tages. (18) (Could not such individualities be as much based on dis­ advantages?) But what, precisely, or more precisely, do these concepts of ethos and individuality mean? F r o m the field work done in Maine and from a consideration of the relevant literature in sociology we tried to answer that question and the related logical questions stated above in !

13. Arthur J . Vidich and Joseph Bensman, Small Town in Mass Society (Garden City, N. Y . , 1960). 14. Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Sociology (New York, 1896, vol. 1-1, pp. 11-14. 15. W. G . Sumner, Folkways (Boston, 1907), p. 36. 16. C . H . Cooley, Sociological Theory and Social Research (New York, 1930), pp. 319-20. 17. W. I. Thomas, "The Behaviour Pattern and the Situation," Papers and Proceedings, A m e r i c a n Sociological Society, vol. 22 (1928), p. 12. 18. W. H . Whyte, J r . , The Organization Man (Garden City, N . Y . , 1956), p. 370.

46

R. E . Du Wors et al.

the following way. Men acting together c a r r y on a process of evalua­ tive interaction. In this process of evaluating self and others, of evaluating situations, of evaluating means, ends, conditions and all that action requires before conscious decision is reached, certain definitions of situations are formed. (19) If these definitions are of recurring situations, the definitions become emotionally weighted. They are taught to the young. Lives within the group and the group itself are organized in terms of these emotionally weighted definitions. These definitions-cum-emotion are what is meant by ethos, by social values, by group personality. When acted on in situations recurring in the life of the social unit, again let us say the community, the defi­ nitions given in answer to such questions as: What babies are and are not legitimate? Who feeds a particular baby? Who educates him? F o r what? Whom may he m a r r y ? Who honours him? Who buries him? - such definitions give a group individuality, identity. Now be­ cause values identify a social unit, a change of values is a change of that unit. And if values persist within a group, then the group may be said to be unchanged as a social unit - although it may change as an economic or any other unit, etc. (20) One may make a methodological aside that the first duty in any empirical research is to identify its object and the persistence and change characteristic of that type of object. Now, then, what we mean by a social unit in this research is any person, at minimum, or group of persons, produced by and maintaining the process of evaluative interaction. The individuality of the social unit arises out of the products of that interaction - the particular social values that characterize the unit's way of defining situations. We can compare and contrast groups according to their evalua­ tions. These evaluations may differ (a) because the kinds of situations that are objects of evaluation differ, (b) because situations that quite legitimately or in abstract are seen as the same to an observer are evaluated differently by different groups. One does not have to be­ labour the first point. Obviously fire departments, school teachers, and bankers in their daily work concern themselves with different situations. 19. Herbert Blumer, "Sociological Analysis and the 'Variable,'" A m e r i c a n Sociological Review, vol. 21 (1956), p. 685. We do think, as Blumer feared, that he presumed too much in attributing the position he did to "all sociologists." In fact we would say very few explicitly announce that the defining of situations is the key social process. F o r further development of this idea of social process see Z i m m e r m a n and Du Wors, Graphical Regional Sociology, p. 5 and references within Blumer's paper. 20. Consider the Hutterites who adopt modern technology and marketing systems but remain a social organization of the same kind they were two hundred years ago.

" M a s s S o c i e t y " and " C o m m u n i t y " A n a l y s e s

47

The studies in Maine showed that two geographically and econ­ omically s i m i l a r communities differed in their evaluations of very similar situations. Those studies showed that different dominant values in each community affected the definitions of situations used in speci­ fic decisions guiding public and private behaviour. Church attending, town finances, including appropriating and debt financing, celebrating Memorial Day and the 4th of July, selling liquor, supporting public libraries and schools, and the like, varied between the towns as the values dominating each town varied. The Maine studies showed the dominant values were not simply stereotypes, that statements characterizing the communities as action wholes, as identities, were meaningful. That work showed that these dominant values entered into the definitions used by community sub­ systems (such as schools and business) as the members of the sub­ systems evaluated narrower situations within the wider values of the community. With the literature of social-unit individuality behind us and with field experience to confirm the e r r o r or wisdom of thinking in terms of social-unit identities, we decided to use that reading and experience to explore another set of problems. It is the process and results of this later exploring that will concern us in the rest of this paper. We assume as our starting point that the cities of the United States are social units; that is, they have or have had separate social identities. To make this more concrete: we are saying that in terms of a sociological frame of reference Boston is not New York, New York is not Chicago, and Chicago is not New Orleans nor San Francisco. W. S. Thompson has a statement on this whole issue which will move us directly to the next series of steps in our thinking. Unexplained Differences Between Cities Why should Baltimore have so many more children per 1,000 native white women (416) than St. Louis (308)? The data adduced above do not seem to fully account for these differences. Nor do they explain fully why St. Paul, Minn. , (369) should be so dif­ ferent from Kansas City, Mo. , (293) nor why Los Angeles (234) differs so much from Detroit (408). . . . A l l we can say now, however, is that there are individual mental differences between cities which result in different ratios of children to women in much the same way that personal differences between people in s i m i l a r surroundings result in some remaining celibate, some marrying and having no children, some marrying and having small families, and some marrying and having large families. In other words, cities like people have distinctive individualities. . . . A certain unexplained and perhaps unexplainable residuum of differences between communities as regards ratio of children

48

R. E . Du Wors et al. to women must be traced to these community individualities and allowed to rest there without further explanation at present. (21)

So much for the question of the assumption of city individuality which brings us to the wider question under attack. (22) We brought this thinking to focus in face of the continual and endless repetition in every type of literature from pornographic to theological that the United States is becoming a mass society; that communities are los­ ing their individualities; in fact, not only communities but all social units - the person, the community, the region, the nation are losing their identities. A m e r i c a is becoming one big society of interchange­ able parts. To test these changes of growing uniformity in the behaviour of communities and regions, we needed a meaningful index to test per­ sistence and change in these units. We decided to use Thompson's fertility rate as such an index.

THE FERTILITY RATE We have given the background of the thinking that explains why we were willing to consider cities and regions as social units. We should also explain what the use of fertility rates meant to us in this research project. We have mentioned that we wanted an index of intimate behaviour where private and social worlds stood revealed. We think the fertility rates of a group act as just such an index. The rates reflect accom21. Thompson, Ratio of Children to Women, 1920, pp. 70-1. 22. This point might be worth elaborating. W. S. Thompson points out on i b i d . , p. 46: "Pittsburgh, ranking 17 among cities of over 100,000 inhabitants in ratio of children to native women (392) and 10 in ratio of children to foreign-born women (869), makes an interesting comparison with San F r a n c i s c o , which is lowest in ratio of children to native white women (228) and also lowest in ratio of children to foreign-born white women (420).!' And on p. 48: "So far, then, as we can judge, the above comparisons indicate to some extent that Pitts­ burgh should have higher ratios of children to women than San F r a n ­ cisco, but giving due allowance to all the factors mentioned it s t i l l seems that we are forced to recognize some more intangible factors of environment than those already enumerated as very important elements in the situation. Indeed, the fact that a l l the west coast cities keep San F r a n c i s c o company with low ratios of children to women as compared with most of the other cities suggests that there are some common factors affecting the birth rates of these cities different from the fac­ tors determining the city birth rates in other parts of the country."

" M a s s S o c i e t y " and " C o m m u n i t y " A n a l y s e s

49

p l i s h e d b e h a v i o u r , and not b e h a v i o u r p r o m i s e d o r a l l e g e d on s c h e d u l e s and q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . S i n c e to keep o n e ' s s a n i t y one m u s t d i s t i n g u i s h r e f e r e n t and s y m b o l , one m a y add that these data a r e data of r e a l u n i t s , m o t h e r s and c h i l d r e n . It i s not u n r e a s o n a b l e to add that these data a l s o i n ­ v o l v e f a t h e r s and f a m i l i e s . F a m i l i e s m e a n n e i g h b o u r h o o d s , c o m ­ m u n i t i e s , r e g i o n s , and o t h e r g r o u p i n g s b a s e d on p r o c e s s u a l r e a l i t i e s . We c a n c l a r i f y o u r u s e s of these r a t e s by r e f e r r i n g to the d i s c u s ­ s i o n of r u r a l - u r b a n d i f f e r e n c e s i n f e r t i l i t y r a t e s . The sociological e x p l a n a t i o n s of these d i f f e r e n c e s i n r u r a l - u r b a n r a t e s have r e v o l v e d a r o u n d s u c h s o c i a l f a c t o r s as the p e r s i s t e n c e of o l d e r r e l i g i o u s v a l u e s i n r u r a l a r e a s , the u s e f u l n e s s of c h i l d r e n i n the o l d e r t e c h n o l o g i e s of f a r m i n g , the r u r a l r e s i s t a n c e to r a t i o n a l i s m as a way of l i f e , and so on. C i t i e s w e r e s h o w n to be s o c i a l c l u s t e r s i n i m i c a l to l a r g e f a m i l i e s , to be c o m m u n i t i e s d o m i n a t e d b y r a t i o n a l i s m , s o c i a l s t r i v i n g , and h e d o n i s m . O u r point i s that a w h o l e s o c i a l c o m p l e x was brought to b e a r i n e x p l a i n i n g r u r a l - u r b a n b i r t h d i f f e r e n t i a l s . (23) T h e r e f e r e n c e s to a c o m p l e x of s o c i a l f a c t o r s to e x p l a i n f e r t i l i t y r a t e s s e e m s quite r e a s o n a b l e to u s . S i n c e m o s t f a m i l i e s o p e r a t e on f i n i t e budgets, c h i l d r e n of the f a m i l y c o m p e t e f o r the e x p e n d i t u r e of t i m e , money, and effort of the f a m i l y . A n d s u c h e x p e n d i t u r e s a r e often p r e - d e f i n e d by the g r o u p o r c o m m u n i t y . We know that s o m e ethnic g r o u p s w i l l spend m o r e on h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , f o r e x a m p l e , than o t h e r s . C e r t a i n l y e x p e n d i t u r e s on s t a t u s s y m b o l s w h e r e the c h i l d h i m ­ s e l f i s not a status s y m b o l i s affected b y e x p e n d i t u r e s f o r c h i l d r e n . T h e l a r g e r c a r o r s e c o n d o r t h i r d o r f o u r t h o r fifth c h i l d i s a r e a l c h o i c e i n t h i s day and age. P e r h a p s one way o r the o t h e r t h e r e has a l w a y s b e e n s u c h c h o i c e s . C o n t i n e n c e m a y be a d i f f i c u l t c h o i c e , but it i s a c h o i c e . T h e f e r t i l i t y r a t e i s t a k e n as an i n d e x to i n t i m a t e b e h a v i o u r . x

23. C o m p a r e B l u m e r ' s s t a t e m e n t : " A b i r t h r a t e of a people s e e m s to be a v e r y s i m p l e and u n i t a r y m a t t e r . Y e t , i n t e r m s of what it e x p r e s s e s and s t a n d s f o r i n g r o u p a c t i v i t y it i s e x c e e d i n g l y c o m p l e x and d i v e r s i f i e d . We need c o n s i d e r o n l y the v a r i e t y of s o c i a l f a c t o r s that i m p i n g e on and affect the s e x act, e v e n though the s e x act i s o n l y one of the a c t i v i t i e s that set the b i r t h r a t e . T h e s e l f - c o n c e p t i o n s h e l d b y m e n and b y w o m e n , the c o n c e p t i o n s of f a m i l y l i f e , the v a l u e s p l a c e d on c h i l d r e n , a c c e s s i b i l i t y of m e n and w o m e n to e a c h o t h e r , p h y s i c a l a r r a n g e m e n t s i n the h o m e , the s a n c t i o n s g i v e n by e s t a b l i s h e d i n s t i t u ­ t i o n s , the code of m a n l i n e s s , the p r e s s u r e s f r o m r e l a t i v e s and n e i g h ­ b o r s , and i d e a s on what i s p r o p e r , c o n v e n i e n t and t o l e r a b l e i n the s e x act - t h e s e a r e a few of the o p e r a t i n g f a c t o r s i n the e x p e r i e n c e of the g r o u p that p l a y upon the s e x a c t . T h e y s u f f i c e to i n d i c a t e s o m e t h i n g of the c o m p l e x body of a c t u a l e x p e r i e n c e and p r a c t i c e that i s r e p r e ­ sented i n and e x p r e s s e d by the b i r t h r a t e of a h u m a n g r o u p . "

R. E . Du Wors et al.

50

And just as rural-urban differences in fertility rates have been ex­ plained in social, rather than in biological, terms, we assume with Thompson that fertility differentials from city to city have a social explanation. We assume that the fertility rates reflect differences in the desirability-undesirability evaluations of people. Further, these evaluations are not only intimate and private, as such evaluations on a farm would be, but these family evaluations also incorporate the dominant values of each city just as r u r a l family evaluations incorpor­ ate generally held r u r a l values. If the social complex is used to ex­ plain fertility rates, we would use fertility rates as clues to a whole social complex. Finally, we accepted the judgment of Durkheim on the use of such figures. He noted in The Rules of Sociological Method: Currents of opinion, with an intensity varying according to the time and place, impel certain groups either to more marriages, for example, or to more suicides, or to a higher or lower birth rate, etc. These currents are plainly social facts. At first sight they seem inseparable from the forms they take in indivi­ dual cases. But statistics furnish us with the means of isolating them. They are, in fact, represented with considerable exact­ ness by the rates of births, marriages, and suicides. . . . Since each of these figures contains all the individual cases i n d i s c r i m ­ inately, the individual circumstances which may have had a share in the production of the phenomenon are neutralized and, conse­ quently, do not contribute to its determination. The average, then, expresses a certain state of the group mind ("l'âme collective"). (24) Here is a last preliminary note. We took our lead from Thomp­ son and so we kept his list of cities to keep any additional disturbing element out, although we feel now that this was a needless precaution because one or two new fertility rates in seventy would have little numerical effect. The important thing is that if any communities should show mass society effects, it should be these mass centers. A s Arthur R. M . Lower wrote, metropolitan centres are places "where every activity flourishes, especially the higher ranges of cul­ ture, and where life's patterns are consciously fashioned and set." (25) But, in addition to cities as separate units, we examined the cities when clustered as regions. By a region here we mean, most precisely, the clustering of Thompson's cities on a regional basis. We did not compute and feed in r u r a l and lesser-town rates to our regional figures. A further explanation must be made of our particular fertility 24. 25.

p. 8. Canadians in the Making (Toronto, 1958), p. 17.

"Mass Society" and "Community" Analyses

51

rates. We might have used one fertility ratio made up of a l l the women 20-44 and a l l the children under 5 who appeared in the census data of any one of the cities. (26) We would then have had categories of women and children that included foreign-born, native, white, black, and that shade beloved by the knowledgeable, grey. A l l the people in such a fertility ratio c a r r y on in some degree the basic social process that results in a city identity. A l l such people in some degree are affected by the values they find in the city of census registration. But we had to face another argument. It could be argued that the values of the foreign-born led to the production of children at a rate other than that of native whites. Any results we obtained would mask the long run trends most likely to be revealed by the behaviour of the dominant groups in American cities, those of the native white population. It is these groups who have set local value patterns and who have been the longest exposed to American mass media.

THE

DATA

We wished, then, to use the ratios of native white women and their children in order to have women who had grown up under the in­ fluences of both dominant local values and of any values widely spread in the United States. But, as others before us have found out, native white women are not so easily come by. A look at the census tables shows the block between us and the data we wished. Our troubles, just as those of Thompson's, arose out of the violation of the principle of the excluded middle in the "Foreign or mixed parentage" category. It is most likely that those women listed as "Native white, 20-44, Foreign or mixed parentage" who bore child­ ren became Native Mothers. But while the women are listed under "Native white of foreign or mixed parentage," their children are either under "Native white of native parentage," or "Native white of foreign or mixed parentage" as the mothers married a "native" or "foreign" white man. 26. To stress the variations in city rates that seem due to local values, we also repeat here Thompson's observations on marriage rates on p. 60 of Ratio of Women to Children, 1920: "There are a few cities where the proportion of foreign-born white married women is somewhat out of line with the proportion of native white married women, but the correspondence between the proportions of native whites of native parentage and the native whites of foreign or mixed parentage is especially close, and shows that the social and economic forces at work among the older native population are speedily felt by the children of immigrants in most cities. . . . those who are not married when they arrive here (chiefly girls under 20), quickly feel the action of the same forces and tend to delay marriage to a slight extent."

R. E . Du Wors et al.

52

Figure 1 Specimen F o r m of the United States Census Bureau Tabulation of Age and Parentage Population - Maine T A B L E 7 - AGE, FOR THE S T A T E . * Native White Age

Native Parentage

Period

male

female

Foreign or Mixed Parentage male

female

Foreign-born White

male

female

A l l ages, number. . . Under 5 years *

Taken from Thirteenth Census of the United States, vol. 11, Population, 1910. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (Washington, 1913). Thompson went at this problem as follows: After careful consideration it was decided to allocate the children of mixed parentage to native and foreign-born women on the basis of the percentages of the persons of mixed parentage under 21 years of age having native and foreign-born mothers. . . . It is believed that the e r r o r s resulting from this method of allocation are not sufficient to affect the results materially when comparing native and foreign-born women and they are of very little signifi­ cance indeed in comparing different localities. (27)

His method could not be used with census reports of other years because the persons under 21 of mixed parentage were not given in later reports. At first, we simply took native whites. Then we worked with "native whites of native parentage." But in the latter we still had babies without mothers - a problem as difficult as the classical prob­ lem of babies without fathers. Then we made a perfectly gratuitous assumption. And it worked in the only tests we could apply to it. We decided to allocate 25 per cent of the babies listed under "Foreign or mixed parentage" to the "Native whites of native parentage." And we took a l l the females 20-44 27.

Ibid., p. 16.

Underlining ours.

" M a s s S o c i e t y " and " C o m m u n i t y " A n a l y s e s

53

from the "Native white of foreign or mixed parentage." We had then all women 20-44 and all the children 0-5 listed as native white, plus 25 per cent of the babies under 5 listed under "Foreign or mixed parentage." The assumption, which gave us most fruitful results, was de­ rived from a strictly "deuces-wild" kind of thinking. We assumed that in the category " F o r e i gn or mixed parentage, " 50 per cent of the marriages had partners both of whom were foreign. The other 50 per cent in the category, then, were mixed. We further assumed that 50 per cent of the babies belonged to foreign and 50 per cent to mixed parentage. Then we assumed that of the 50 per cent mixed, in one half of these parentages the female was foreign-born and in the other half of the instances she was native. Then in each instance we assumed these foreign and native females had respectively born 25 per cent of the total number of babies under the category "Foreign or mixed parentage." We took all the females in the native white category and arbi­ trarily awarded (or burdened) them with 25 per cent of the babies in the foreign or mixed column. We called our category "Native white mothers" to avoid confusing it with the census categories. We then checked these fertility rates against the only good standard we had, Thompson's for 1920. The amazingly close results tabulated in Table 1 gave us confidence on which to proceed. Table 1 Parameters of 1920 Fertility Rates for Cities of 100, 000- Population (fertility rates compiled by Thompson and by Du Wors, Batson & Daffron)

Author

Standard Deviation

Mean

Thompson

Du Wors, Batson and Daffron

355* S.E.

349

5.7

47.7 S.E.

51

4.08

Coefficient of Variation 13.4 S.E.

14.6

1.2

r

. 944

S . E . of Est.**

* On recheck of his figures, 341 as published. ** Standard E r r o r of Estimate. We have mentioned the cities used in this study. We followed Thompson's list strictly. We used a l l cities that had populations of over 100,000 in 1920. A s a matter of historical fact, a l l except one kept that minimum figure through 1950.

7.9

R. E . Du Wors et al.

54

HYPOTHESES Our assumptions and hypotheses are probably obvious by now. They are: (a) if one accepts uniformity of social behaviour as the key characteristic of the mass society, and (b) if one accepts the fertility rates constructed here as an index of the social behaviour of these cities and regions as social identities, and (c) if one accepts the co­ efficient of variation as a measure of uniformity, then (d) if a mass society has been growing in the United States, the coefficients of these fertility rates of cities and regional groupings will have been declining. In contrast, if these cities have resisted the standardization attributed to the mass society, these cities and their regions will maintain or increase the coefficients of variation of these fertility rates. Professor Edward Abramson suggested a further hypothesis: New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles are life style leaders and other cities follow them. CONCLUSIONS 1.

Testing the Hypotheses Using the Coefficient of Variation of the Cities.

Table 2 shows that the coefficients of variation for Thompson's cities decline from 1900. This decline, of course, means that the cities are more alike in the frequency of the production of children by native white mothers. We infer, then, the cities grow more uniform; that is to say, cities are losing their individualities, a less segmental, a more diffuse society has been growing. Table 2 Testing the City Hypotheses: Coefficients of Variation of Thompson's Cities for Census Years Indicated

YEAR 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1950

Number for which data were available

Coefficient of Variation

Standard E r r o r of Coefficient of Variation

66 68 50 68 68

21 22 16 15 14

1. 82 1. 88 1.60 1. 28 1. 20

47 (metropolitan areas) 17 cities

10

1.03

10

1. 7

"Mass Society" and "Community" Analyses

5o

We did not get far in any operations we could perform to test Professor Abramson's hypothesis. Perhaps we were not imaginative enough. Or perhaps the census intervals are too coarse to catch a quickly moving leadership. In any event, we could find no lead-lag relationship the hypothesis called for. 2.

The Regional Ordering of These Cities.

The regional hypotheses were stated in a form s i m i l a r to those for the cities: (a) if one clusters the cities into specified regional orders, and (b) if those clusterings are shown to be statistically sig­ nificant on analysis of variance, and (c) if one accepts the coefficient of variation established by using the mean of each regional grouping for each census year, then (d) if a mass society had been growing in the United States those coefficients of variation would have diminished from first to last census year. Conversely, if no such mass society had been growing in the United States, those regional coefficients of variation will hold steady or increase. The results in Table 3 showed that the level of significance var­ ied with the regional clustering used. Odum's classification showed the greatest stability of direction in the _d_ value. But all classifica­ tions showed a decline in the coefficient of variation from an early high in either 1910 or 1920 to 1950. We infer from a consideration of the levels of significance for the classification of Odum, the United States census, and Z i m m e r m a n and Du Wors that regional classifications of these cities even in 1950 are still statistically significant. And that statement should caution any who would make a small town and mass society study. The r e ­ gional complex, it would seem reasonable to think, still interposes itself between a community and alleged mass society social movements. In the census, the F e d e r a l Reserve Board, and Z i m m e r m a n and Du Wors, the coefficient of variation index shows very little change from the year 1920. This may be another caution that regional differ­ ences are settling down. But Odum's classification, which we think most accurate for city figures, does show a decline in amount of var­ iation and would support the mass society argument. It would seem reasonable to summarize these results by saying that clustering these cities by regions of the United States gives results showing a variance statistically significant; yet there is more uni­ formity shown from region to region in 1950 than in 1910 or 1920. It may be that regional cultures slow down this movement towards a generalized mass society. A FINAL NOTE Now let us go far beyond our data and their handling to ask what

R. E . Du Wors et al.

56

Table 3 Testing the Regional Hypotheses: Levels of Significance and Coefficients of Variation of the Specified Fertility Rates in Cities over 100,000 Population (1920) 1890 1.

Odum P

1900

n=6** .100

n=6 .001

9

-S.E. 19

n=9 .05

n=9 .005

10

S.E. 15

n=12 .050

n=12 . 100

10

S.E. 13

n=7 . 050

n=7 .005

5

S.E. 15

C . of V . * * *

2.

U.S. Census P C . of V .

3. F e d e r a l Reserve Board p C . of V .

4. Z i m m e r m a n and Du Wors p C . of V .

*

s . E . of

c .

of

v .

=

1.6

3.2

2.6

4.0

v

-

1910

1920

1930

1950#

n=5 .001

n=6 .005

n=6 .001

n=6 .001

1.6 16

.94 11

.94 11

.6 7

n=7 .001

n=9 .025

n=9 .100

n=8 .005

3.5 13

2.1 9

2.1 9

2.3 9

n=ll .001

n = 12 . 100

n=12 . 250

n = 10 . 100

3. 2 15

1.4 7

1. 2 6

1. 3 6

n=5 . 001

n=7 .010

n=7 . 100

n=5 . 001

1. 2 17

2. 7 10

2.4 9

2. 5 9

•

** n = number of regions in classification. C . of V . using the mean of each regional grouping. # Using forty-seven metropolitan areas. F o r the values of £ see Appendix Table I. this loss of community identity may mean to the person within the com­ munity that is losing its identity. F i r s t , on the asset side if one wishes to think in such terms, it means the loss of old and, it is usually assumed, narrow provincialisms. We say "usually assumed narrow provincialisms" because we are not sure but that in fact only a provincial may understand another provincial.

"Mass Society" and "Community" Analyses

57

If social understanding is based on Cooley's process of sympathetic i n ­ trospection, it would seem necessary to understand first one's self as a provincial in order to understand the other person who is a provincial. The man with ties to some place may understand a man with ties some place else. But can a man who has never known ties of place and time understand one who has known such ties? The growth of the mass society means further that personalities are more interchangeable from one part of the United States to another. This is not completely so. Regional differences exist in such matters as attitudes towards the Negro. The American Deep South still looks both insane and immoral to the culturally bound New Englander. And the old homes and towns of New England and Pennsylvania often look like something out of Edgar Allen Poe to the Corn Belt or Wheat Belt persons. Our index shows the persistence of regional influences. By and large though, it would seem safe to say that urban personalities move more and more easily from one city to another. The loss of local attachments (place-sentiments) also has liabili­ ties whose depths require long and subtle study. The loss of a sense of community identity means a loss of place-sentiments. That is another way of saying the person experiences a loss of the sense of a finite social space as the scene in which one lives out one's works and days. The expression used by a Bostonian of any class and pedigree to char­ acterize Worcester as "out in western Massachusetts" when Worcester is only fifty miles away may sound ludicrous to an outsider. The expression indicates that the Bostonian has a strong sense of social space. And to a person with such place-sentiments, life in that space makes sense. And it makes sense however strange the behaviour of barbarians, gentiles, auslanders, off-islanders, rusticators, and other people from strange far-off places. To be of a community means, among other things, holding the same place-sentiments held by other members of the community. These place-sentiments define a community. The community is here and not there. In a settled-down community there are no zones of transition to other communities. The social space is defined in a most finite sense. But with the loss of place-sentiments that identify a com­ munity, there is a loss of the sense of boundaries and the community space pushes out to a vague nothingness. The community does not end. It peters out. What is Hecuba to a man from Boston or he to Hecuba, to ask another of Hamlet's questions, since Hecuba is from Long Beach, California? And the man from Boston has never lived, loved, or been drunk in Long Beach. Similarly with the social time that gives meaning and rhythm to the provincial's days and nights and months and years. F o r Bostonians, as others, M a r c h 17th is Saint Patrick's Day. It is also the day to celebrate the Evacuation of Boston by the B r i t i s h . And who in Long

58

R. E . Du Wors et al.

Beach knows or cares about that? And who in Long Beach knows or cares why Boston closes stores and shops to celebrate A p r i l 19th and June 17th? And despite all efforts to make the meaning of the day apply to all war dead, May 30th is still the day in Boston in which to commemorate the C i v i l War dead. The loss of such emotionally-important times creates a grey year in which days, like cats at midnight, a l l look alike. Time and place become emotionally undifferentiated continua whose meanings blur and are gone. Perhaps no professor in a culture and personality course has stated the meaning of the loss of a sense of community-identity better than Thomas Mann did in The Magic Mountain. A man lives not only his personal life, as an individual, but also, consciously or unconsciously, the life of his epoch and his contemporaries. . A l l sorts of personal aims, ends, hopes, prospects, hover before the eyes of the individual, and out of these he derives the impulse to ambition and achievement. Now, if the life about him, if his own time seem, however outwardly stimulating, to be at bottom empty of such food for his aspira­ tions; if he privately recognize it to be hopeless, viewless, helpless, opposing only a hollow silence to all the questions man puts, consciously or unconsciously, yet somehow puts, as to the final, absolute, and abstract meaning in all his efforts and acti­ vities; then, in such a case, a certain laming of the personality is bound to occur. (28) One may finally note that in a long book whose theme is the sur­ vival of the person in the mass society, I. A . Richards saw one g r i m possibility: " . . . science in the absence of communal loyalties can only supply their lack of indoctrination in what will probably as (as the samples run so far) nationalistic myths. . . . " (29) But students of community values must point out that community loyalties are themselves objects of evaluation. Community loyalties may become community nightmares to American Negroes or Canadian Indians or to Hindus and Moslems caught in the "wrong" community in India or Pakistan. (30) Belief in the inherent superiority of either 28. The Magic Mountain (New York, 1955), p. 32. 29. Stein, Vidich, White, Identity and Anxiety, p. 390. 30. Consider the statement from India after the Jabalpur riots in the first week or ten days of February, 1961: "Jabalpur s grim reminder is that the communal poison has yet to be flushed out of our system where it has been too long. The past apparently is still with us and it poses a latest threat to national unity so long as we pretend that relations between two major communities do not need consciously to 1

" M a s s S o c i e t y " and " C o m m u n i t y " A n a l y s e s

59

large or small social forms may become social idolatry. Fishing villages cannot operate on the range of goods and evils of nations. Fishing villages have their potential evils and potential goods, and each village has its unique collection of evils and goods accomplished. In this debate on mass society and community we must recog­ nize without pretentious melancholy, without the big city's horror of the provinces, or of small-town correlations of city and sin, that vitality in mass society and in a l l the spatially lesser units of our social present is demanded if the potentialities of modern man are to be realized. And, as always, to risk the potentialities for the good in man we will have to risk his potentialities for evil. be improved. " Reported from the Times of India in the Christian Science Monitor, midwestern edition, February 11, 1961, p. 2. On the other hand, for much doleful wailing and doubtful scholar­ ship about 'alienation' and the mass society, see with Vidich and Bensman, Small Town in Mass Society, and Maurice R. Stein, The Eclipse of the Community (Princeton, N . J . , 1960).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS V e r y special thanks for help in this project should go to Professor Wendell Smith of Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. A basic suggestion he made got us away from the first and faulty proced­ ures we had used. Professor Norman Shklov of the University of Saskatchewan has also given the sort of assistance without which it is doubtful this work would have moved very far. It should also be noted that this paper is a radical revision, even reversal, of a short paper given before the American Sociological Society in Urbana, Illinois, in 1954.

60

APPENDIX

Table I Analysis of Variance by Regions 1900

1890 F

df 6

Zimmerman and Du Wors

F

df

3.9

6

.950

5.6

5

3.1

1.8

p