Encyclopedia of SociologyVol._1

CLINICAL SOCIOLOGY

the earliest known proposal using the words ‘‘clinical sociology’’ was by Milton C. Winternitz (1885–

1959), a physician who was dean of the Yale School of Medicine from 1920 through 1935. At least as early as 1929, Winternitz began developing a plan to establish a department of clinical sociology within Yale’s medical school. Winternitz wanted each medical student to have a chance to analyze cases based on a medical specialty as well as a specialty in clinical sociology.

Winternitz vigorously sought financial support for his proposal from the Rosenwald Fund, but he was unable to obtain the necessary funds for a department of clinical sociology. He did note, however, the success of a course in the medical school’s section on public health that was based on the clinical sociology plan.

The first course using the words ‘‘clinical sociology’’ in the title was taught by Ernest W. Burgess

(1886–1966) at the University of Chicago. Burgess taught the course in 1928 and then offered it twice in 1929. During these years, the course was considered to be a ‘‘special’’ course and did not appear in the university’s catalog. Burgess offered the clinical sociology course, as a regular course, five times from 1931 through 1933. The course continued to be listed in the catalog for the next several years but was not taught after 1933.

The University of Chicago catalogs did not include a description of the clincal sociology course, but the course always was listed under the social pathology grouping. All courses in this section dealt with topics such as criminality, punishment, criminal law, organized crime, and personal disorganization. Several of the students enrolled in these first clinical sociology courses were placed in child guidance clinics. Clarence E. Glick, for instance, was the staff sociologist at Chicago’s Lower North Side Child Guidance Clinic and Leonard Cottrell was the clinical sociologist at the South Side Child Guidance Clinic.

Two other universities offered clinical courses in the l930s—Tulane University in Louisiana and New York University. The Tulane University course was designed to give students the opportunity to learn about behavior problems and social therapy by conferences and fieldwork in a child guidance clinic. Louis Wirth (1897–1952), a full-time faculty member and director of the New Orleans Child

Guidance Clinic, was scheduled to teach the course

in the spring of 1930. Wirth was unable to teach the course because he accepted a one-year Social

Science Research Council Fellowship to work in Europe. The course was taught in his absence, but the university’s course information does not identify the professor who took Wirth’s place.

When Wirth returned to the United States in 1931, he joined the faculty of the University of

Chicago. In the spring of 1932 he taught a ‘‘minor’’ course in clinical sociology but by then he no longer was working with child guidance clinics.

New York University also offered clinical sociology courses in the early 1930s. Harvey Warren Zorbaugh (1896–1965) was a faculty member there in the School of Education which provided undergraduate and graduate preparation for visiting teachers, educational counselors, clinicians, social workers, and school guidance administrators. The major focus of the program was the solution of educational problems and other social dilemmas.

Zorbaugh, along with Agnes Conklin, offered

‘‘Seminar in Clinical Practice’’ in 1930. The course was intended to qualify students as counselors or advisers to deal with behavioral difficulties in schools. From 1931 through 1933 the clinical practice course was called ‘‘Seminar in Clinical Sociology.’’ The course was one of the highest numbered courses in educational sociology and was offered both terms of each year. The course was open to graduate students who were writing theses or engaged in research projects in the fields of educational guidance and social work.

Zorbaugh, author of The Gold Coast and the Slum: A Sociological Study of Chicago’s Near North Side, had been involved with clinics at least since

1924. That was the year Zorbaugh and Clifford

Shaw organized two sociological clinics in Chica- go—the Lower North and South Side Child Guidance Clinics. Zorbaugh was associate director of the Lower North Side Child Guidance Clinic in 1925.

Zorbaugh was a founder, in 1928, of the Clinic for the Social Adjustment of the Gifted at New York University. He was director of this clinic at its inception and was actively involved in its work for over fifteen years. The clinic was for intellectually gifted and talented preadolescents. The clinic gave graduate students the opportunity to have supervised experiences in teaching, clinical diagnosing and treating of children with behavioral problems.

324

CLINICAL SOCIOLOGY

During the 1953–54 academic year, Alvin W.

Gouldner (1920–1980) was teaching in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Antioch College in Ohio. Before joining the faculty, Gouldner had been a university teacher for four years and then worked, for one year, as a consultant to

Standard Oil of New Jersey.

Gouldner offered ‘‘Foundations of Clinical

Sociology’’ at Antioch. The course was taught at the highest undergraduate level, and students who enrolled in the course were expected to have completed the department’s course in social pathology. The college bulletin provided the following description of the course:

A sociological counterpart to clinical psychology with the group as the unit of diagnosis and therapy. Emphasis on developing skills useful in the diagnosis and therapy of group tenstions. Principles of functional analysis, group dynamics, and organizational and small group analysis examined and applied to case histories. Representative research in the area assessed.

The term ‘‘clinical sociology’’ first appears in print . The first known published linking of the words clinical and sociology was in 1930 when Milton C. Winternitz, a pathologist and dean of the

Yale Medical School, wanted to establish a department of clinical sociology. After working on the idea at least as early as 1929, he wrote about it in a report to the president of the Yale Medical School and the report was published in the 1930 Yale

University Bulletin. That same year saw the publication of a speech Winternitz had given at the dedication of the University of Chicago’s new social science building. The speech also mentioned clinical sociology.

Abraham Flexner, a prominent critic of medical education and director of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, mentioned clinical sociology in 1930 in his Universities: American, English, German. Flexner did not approve of the Institute of Human Relations that Winternitz was establishing at Yale. In the pages of criticism devoted to the institute, Flexner briefly mentioned clinical sociology: ‘‘Only one apparent novelty is proposed: a professor of clinical sociology’’ (Flexner 1930).

Winternitz continued to write about the value of clinical sociology until 1936 when his last report

as dean was filed. One of Winternitz’s (1932) most forceful statements in support of the field was the contemporary-sounding statement that appeared in his 1930–1931 annual report:

The field for clinical sociology does not seem by any means to be confined to medicine. Within the year it has become more and more evident that a similar development may well be the means of bringing about aid so sorely needed to change the basis of court action in relation to crime. . .

Not only in medicine and in law, but probably in many other fields of activity, the broad preparation of the clinical sociologist is essential. . .

The first discussion of clinical sociology by a sociologist was Louis Wirth’s 1931 article, ‘‘Clinical Sociology,’’ in The American Journal of Sociology. Wirth wrote at length about the possibility of sociologists working in child development clinics, though he did not specifically mention his own clinical work in New Orleans. Wirth wrote ‘‘it may not be an exaggeration of the facts to speak of the genesis of a new division of sociology in the form of clinical sociology’’ (Wirth 1930).

In 1931, Wirth also wrote a career development pamphlet, which stated:

The various activities that have grown up around child-guidance clinics, penal and correctional institutions, the courts, police systems, and similar facilities designed to deal with problems of misconduct have increasingly turned to sociologists to become members of their professional staffs (Wirth 1931).

Wirth ‘‘urged (sociology students) to become specialists in one of the major divisions of sociology, such as social psychology, urban sociology. . .

or clinical sociology’’ (Wirth 1931).

In 1931, Saul Alinsky was a University of Chicago student who was enrolled in Burgess’s clinical sociology course. Three years later, Alinsky’s article, ‘‘A Sociological Technique in Clinical Criminology,’’ appeared in the Proceedings of the SixtyFourth Annual Congress of the American Prison Association. Alinsky, best known now for his work in community organizing, was, in 1934, a staff sociologist and member of the classification board of the Illinois State Penitentiary.

325

CLINICAL SOCIOLOGY

In 1944 the first formal definition of clinical sociology appeared in H.P. Fairchild’s Dictionary of Sociology. Alfred McClung Lee, the author of that definition, was known as one of the founders of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, the

Association for Humanist Sociology, and the Sociological Practice Association. Lee later used the word ‘‘clinical’’ in the title of two articles—his 1945 ‘‘Analysis of Propaganda: A Clinical Summary’’ and the 1955 article ‘‘The Clinical Study of Society.’’

Also appearing in 1944 was Edward McDonagh’s ‘‘An Approach to Clinical Sociology.’’ McDonagh had read Lee’s definition of clinical sociology but had not seen Wirth’s 1931 article. McDonagh, in his Sociology and Social Research article, proposed establishing social research clinics that had ‘‘a group way of studying and solving problems’’

(McDonagh 1944).

In 1946 George Edmund Haynes’s ‘‘Clinical

Methods in Interracial and Intercultural Relations’’ appeared in The Journal of Educational Sociology. Haynes was a cofounder of the National Urban

League (1910) and the first African American to hold a U.S. government subcabinet post. His 1946 article, written while he was executive secretary of the Department of Race Relations at the Federal

Council of the Churches of Christ in America, discussed the department’s urban clinics. The clinics were designed to deal with interracial tensions and conflicts by developing limited, concrete programs of action.

Contemporary contributions . While publications mentioning clinical sociology appeared at least every few years after the 1930s, the number of publications increased substantially after the founding of the Clinical Sociology Association in 1978.

The association, now called the Sociological Practice Association, made publications a high priority. Individuals were encouraged to publish and identify their work as clinical sociology, and the association established publication possibilities for its members. The Clinical Sociology Review and the theme journal Sociological Practice were published by the association beginning in the early 1980s. These annual journals were replaced in the 1990’s by Sociological Practice: A Journal of Clinical and Applied Sociology, a quarterly publication.

The Sociological Practice Association has had a central role in the development of American

clinical sociology. The association helped make available the world’s most extensive collection of teaching, research, and intervention literature under the label of clinical sociology and it introduced the only clinical sociology certification process.

The Sociological Practice Association’s rigorous certification process for clinical sociologists is available at the Ph.D. and M.A. levels. The Ph.D.- level process was adopted in l983 and certification was first awarded in 1984. The association began to offer M.A.-level certification in 1986. Successful candidates at both the doctoral and master’s level are awarded the same designation—C.C.S. (Certi-

fied Clinical Sociologist).

Experienced clinical sociologists are encouraged to apply for certification. which is given for intervention work (assessing and changing social systems). As part of the application process, a candidate is required to identify her or his area of specialization (e.g., community, family counseling) and level of intervention (e.g., organization, individual). The certification process requires membership in the Sociological Practice Association, documentation of appropriate education and supervised training, documentation of interdisciplinary training, essays about ethics and theory, and a demonstration before peers and a reviewing committee.

The Sociological Practice Association, along with the Society for Applied Sociology, also has put in place a Commission on Applied and Clinical

Sociology. The commission has set standards for the accreditation of clinical and applied sociology programs at the baccalaureate level and intends to do the same for graduate programs.

CLINICAL SOCIOLOGY AND

SOCIOLOGICAL PRACTICE

The practical sociology of the l890s and early

1900s is now referred to as sociological practice. This general term sociological practice involves two areas, clinical sociology and applied sociology. Clinical sociology emphasizes hands-on intervention while applied sociology emphasizes research for practical purposes. Both specialties require different kinds of specialized training.

Some sociological practitioners are ‘‘clinical’’ in that they only or primarily do intervention

326

CLINICAL SOCIOLOGY

work; others are ‘‘applied’’ in that they only or primarily conduct research that is of practical interest. Some practitioners do both. Clinical sociologists, for instance, may conduct research before beginning an intervention project to assess the existing state of affairs, during an intervention (e.g., to study the process of adaptation), and/or after the completion of the intervention to evaluate the outcome of that intervention. For some clinical sociologists, the research activity is an important part of their own clinical work. These sociologists have appropriate research training and look for opportunities to conduct research.

Other clinical sociologists prefer to concentrate on the interventions and leave any research to other team members. Those clinical sociologists who decide not to engage in research may have research skills but prefer to conduct interventions, may not have enough expertise in the conduct of research, or may know that other team members have more expertise in research.

THEORIES, METHODS, AND

INTERVENTION STRATEGIES

Clinical sociologists are expected to have education and training in at least one area in addition to sociology. This means that not only are clinical sociologists exposed to the range of theories (e.g., symbolic interaction, structural-functionalism, conflict, social exchange) and quantitative and qualitative research methods generally taught in sociology programs, but they also have additional influences from outside of their own programs. The result is that clinical sociologists integrate and use a broad range of theoretical and methodological approaches.

Clinical sociologists use existing theory to formulate models that will be helpful in identifying and understanding problems and also to identify strategies to reduce or solve these problems. Clinical sociologists also have shown that practice can have an influence on existing theories and help in the development of new ones.

While clinical sociologists use a wide variety of research methods and techniques (e.g., participatory action research, geographic information systems, focus group analysis, surveys), they probably are best known for their case studies. Case studies involve systematically assembling and analyzing

detailed, in-depth information about a person, place, event, or group. This methodological approach involves many data-gathering techniques such as document analysis, life histories, in-depth interviews, and participant observation.

Clinical sociologists who have been in the field for ten or twenty years probably learned about intervention strategies primarily through courses and workshops given outside of sociology departments as well as through their work and community experiences. Clinical sociologists who have more recently entered the field also may have learned intervention techniques as part of their sociology programs. These sociology programs might include courses, for instance, on focus groups, mediation, or administration, as well as require supervised residencies or internships.

CLINICAL SOCIOLOGY IN

INTERNATIONAL SETTINGS

Clinical sociology is as old as the field of sociology and its roots are found in many parts of the world. The clinical sociology specialization, for instance, often is traced back to the fourteenth-century work of the Arab scholar and statesperson Abd-al- Rahman ibn Khaldun (1332–1406). Ibn Khaldun provided numerous clinical observations based on his varied work experiences such as Secretary of State to the rule of Morocco and Chief Judge of Egypt.

Auguste Comte (1798–1857) and Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) are among those whose work frequently is mentioned as precursors to the

field. Comte, the French scholar who coined the term ‘‘sociology’’, believed that the scientific study of societies would provide the basis for social action. Emile Durkheim’s work on the relation between levels of influence (e.g., social compared to individual factors) led Alvin Gouldner (1965, p.19) to write that ‘‘more than any other classical sociologist (he) used a clinical model.’’

Interest in clinical sociology has been growing in a number of countries. For example, French is the predominant language of many, if not most, of the current international clinical sociology conferences, and books and articles have appeared with clinical sociology in the title in France and Frenchspeaking Canada. The French-language clinical

327

CLINICAL SOCIOLOGY

sociologists emphasize clinical analysis. They have a solid international network and have done an excellent job of attracting nonsociologists to that network. Their literature is substantial. Particularly notable is the work of Jacques van Bockstaele and Maria van Bockstaele; Robert Sevigny, Eugene Enriquez, Vincent de Gaulejac, and Jacques Rheaume.

Beginning in the mid-1990’s, Italians hosted clinical sociology conferences, published clinical sociology books and articles and ran numerous clinical sociology training workshops. If one is interested in learning about clinical sociology in

Italy, one would want to review the work of Michelina Tosi, Francesco Battisti, and Lucio Luison. Luison’s 1998 book, Introduczione alla Sociologia clinica (Introduction to Clinical Sociology), contains thirteen articles written by Americans. One is an original article written for the volume but all the others are translations of articles that appeared in the Sociological Practice Association’s Clinical Sociology Review or Sociological Practice. The volume concludes with the Sociological Practice Association’s code of ethics.

Clinical sociology also is found in other parts of the world. Of particular interest would be developments in Greece, Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay, and South Africa. In South Africa, for instance, one university’s sociology department has put a sociological clinic in place and another sociology department has developed a graduate specialization in counseling.

The international development of clinical sociology has been supported primarily by two organizations. The clinical sociology division of the International Sociological Association (ISA) was organized in 1982 at the ISA World Congress in Mexico City. The other major influence is the clinical sociology section of the Association internationale des Sociologues de Langue Francaise (International Association of French Language Sociologists).

It is clear that a global clinical sociology is beginning to emerge. American clinical sociology had a strong role in the early development of the global specialization but now it is only one of many influences. It will be interesting to see if the thrust of the international field will be as explicitly humanistic and intervention-oriented as American clinical sociology.

REFERENCES

Bruhn, John G., and Howard M. Rebach 1996 Clinical Sociology: An Agenda for Action. New York: Plenum.

Clark, Elizabeth J., Jan Marie Fritz, and P.P. Rieker (eds.) 1990 Clinical Sociological Perspectives on Illness & Loss: The Linkage of Theory and Practice. Philadelphia: The Charles Press.

Enriquez, Eugene 1997 ‘‘The Clinical Approach: Genesis and Development in Western Europe.’’ International Sociology. 12/2(June):151–164.

——— 1992 ‘‘Remarques Terminales Vers une Sociologie Clinique d’Inspiration Psychanalytique.’’ L’Organisation en Analyse. Fevrier. Paris: P.U.F.

———, Gilles Houle, Jacques Rheaume, and Robert Sevigny (eds.) 1993 L’Analyse Clinique dans les Sciences Humaines. Montreal: Editions Saint-Martin.

Fritz, Jan Marie (ed.) 1996 The Clinical Sociology Resource Book. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association Teaching Resources Center and the Sociological Practice Association.

Fritz, Jan Marie 1991a ‘‘The History of American Clinical Sociology: The First Courses.’’ Clinical Sociology Review 9:5–26.

Fritz, Jan Marie 1991b ‘‘The Emergence of American Clinical Sociology.’’ Pp. 17–32 In H. Rebach and J. Bruhn, eds., Handbook of Clinical Sociology. New York: Plenum.

Fritz, Jan Marie1985 The Clinical Sociology Handbook.

New York: Garland.

Gaulejac, Vincent de and Shirley Roy (ed.), 1993 Sociologies Cliniques. Paris: Hommes et Perspectives.

Giorgino, Enzo 1998 ‘‘Per un Ridefinizione del Lavoro Professionale in Sociologia.’’ Sociologia e Professione. 29 (Marzo):8–23.

Glassner, Barry, and Jonathan A. Freedman 1979 Clinical Sociology. New York: Longman.

Gouldner, Alvin 1965 ‘‘Explorations in Applied Social Science.’’ Social Problems. 3/3(January):169–181. Reprinted 1965 in Alvin Gouldner and S.M. Miller, eds., Applied Sociology. 5–22 New York: Free Press.

Luison, Lucio (ed.) 1998 Introduczione alla Sociologia Clinica: Teorie, Metodi e Tecniche di Intervento. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

Rebach, Howard M., and John G. Bruhn (eds.), 1991

Handbook of Clinical Sociology. New York: Plenum

Rheaume, Jacques 1997 ‘‘The Project of Clinical Sociology in Quebec.’’ International Sociology. 12/ 2(June):165–174.

328

COALITIONS

Sevigny, Robert 1997 ‘‘The Clinical Approach in the Social Sciences.’’ International Sociology. 12/ 2(June):135–150.

Straus, Roger A. (ed.), 1999 Using Sociology: An Introduction from the Applied and Clinical Perspectives. Third edition. New York: General Hall.

Straus, Roger A. (ed.), 1979 ‘‘Special Issue on Clinical Sociology.’’ The American Behavioral Scientist. March/April.

Tosi, Michelina, and Francesco Battisti (eds.) 1995

Sociologia Clinica e Sistemi Socio-Sanitari: Dalle Premesse Epistemologiche Allo Studio di Casi e Interventi. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

van Bockstaele, Jacques, Maria van Bockstaele, Colette Barrot, and Cl. Magny 1963 ‘‘Travaux de Sociologie Clinique: Quelques Conditions d’une Intervention de Type Analytique en Sociologie.’’ L’Annee Sociologique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

van Bockstaele, Jacques, Maria van Bockstaele, Colette Barrot, Jacques Malbos, and Pierrette Schein 1968 ‘‘Problemes de la Sociologie Clinique: Nouvelles Observations sur la Definition de la Socioanalyse.’’ L’Annee Sociologique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Winternitz, Milton Charles 1932 ‘‘Clincal Sociology.’’ In Report of the dean of the School of Medicine, Bulletin of Yale University.

Wirth, Louis 1931a ‘‘Clinical Sociology.’’ American Journal of Sociology, 37:49–66.

——— 1931b Sociology: Vocations for those Interested in It. Pamphlet.Vocational Guidance Series, No. l. Chicago: University of Chicago. Louis Wirth Collection, University of Chicago, Department of Special Collections. Box LVI, Folder 6.

JAN MARIE FRITZ

CLUSTER ANALYSIS

See Correlation and Regression Analysis; Factor

Analysis.

COALITIONS

Originally a word for union or fusion, the term coalition came in the eighteenth century to mean a temporary alliance of political parties. In modern social science, the meaning has broadened to include any combination of two or more social

actors formed for mutual advantage in contention with other actors in the same social system. In most contemporary theories of coalition formation, it is taken for granted that the principles governing coalition formation are not much affected by the size of the actors, who may be small children or large nations, but are significantly affected by the number of actors in the system. In the sociological and social-psychological literature, interest has focused on coalition formation in social systems containing three actors, commonly known as triads, and on the factors that influence the formation of coalitions in that configuration. Coalitions in triads have certain properties that are very useful in the analysis of power relationships in and among organizations. Moreover, tetrads, pentads, and higher-order social systems can be viewed for analytical purposes as clusters of linked triads. In the literature of political science, the principal topic has been the formation of electoral and legislative coalitions in multi-party and two-party systems.

The social science perspective on coalitions derives from two major sources: the formal sociology of Georg Simmel (1902) and the n-person game theory of John Von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern (1944). Simmel had the fundamental insight that conflict and cooperation are opposite sides of the same coin so that no functioning social system can be free of internal conflicts or of internal coalitions. Simmel also proposed that the geometry of social relationships is independent of the size of the actors in a social system but heavily influenced by their number; that social systems are held together by internal differentiation; that relationships between superiors and subordinates are intrinsically ambivalent; that groups of three tend to develop coalitions of two against one; and that, in stable social systems, coalitions shift continually from one situation to another.

While the basic ideas are attributable to Simmel, the analytical framework for most of the empirical research on coalitions that has been undertaken so far is that of Von Neumann (and his collaborator Oskar Morgenstern). Any social interaction involving costs and rewards can be described as an n- person game. In two-person games, the problem for each player is to find a winning strategy, but in games with three or more players, the formation of a winning coalition is likely to be the major

329

COALITIONS

strategic objective. The theory distinguishes between zero-sum games, in which one side loses whatever the other side gains, and non-zero-sum games with more complex payoff schedules. And it provides a mathematical argument for the equal division of gains among coalition partners, the gist of which is that any essential member of a winning coalition who is offered less than an equal share of the joint winnings can be induced to desert the coalition and join an adversary who offers more favorable terms. In the various experimental and real-life settings in which coalitions are studied, this solution has only limited application, but game theory continues to furnish the vocabulary of observation.

Some recent writers identify coaliton theory as that branch of game theory involving zero-sum games with more than two players and game theory as a branch of rational choice theory (Wood and

McLean 1995). The basic assumption of rational choice—by voters, lobbyists, legislators, and man- agers—has been vigorously attacked (see Green and Shapiro 1994) and as strongly defended (Nicholson 1992, among many others). The critics argue that rational choice theory is essentially self-con- tained; its elaborate intellectual apparatus does not provide a clear view of political action. The defenders say, in effect, that judgment should be withheld.

Meanwhile, game theory (and its coalition branch) have been developing new ideas, largely based on the key concept of equilibrium. Equilibrium in a game is that condition in which none of the players have incentives to deviate from their chosen strategies. It is called Nash equilibrium, after its formulator (Nash 1951), and has been extended to include two interesting varieties: subgame perfect equilibrium and Bayesian equilibrium. The former requires that rational players refrain from incredible threats. The latter replaces the players’ initial knowledge about payoff schedules with a set of probabilistic statements, subject to change by additional information. Another interesting innovation is the concept of nested games (Tsebelis 1990), in which the apparent irrationality of players’ moves in a given game is a rational consequence of their concurrent involvement in other games.

Modern empirical work on coalitions falls into two major categories: (1) experimental studies of

outcomes in games played by small groups—games that have been devised by the experimenter to test hypotheses about the choice of coalition partners and the division of coalition winnings under speci-

fied conditions, and (2) observational studies of coalitions in the real world. Stimulated by the publication of divergent theories of coalition formation (Mills 1953; Caplow 1956; Gamson 1961) in the American Sociological Review, coalition experiments became part of the standard repertory of social psychology in the 1960s and continue to be so to this day (Bottom, Eavey, and Miller 1996). A great deal has been learned about how the choice of coalition partners and the division of coalition winnings are affected by variations in game rules and player attributes. Much, although by no means all, of this work has focused on threeplayer games in which the players have unequal resources and any coalition is a winning coalition, the distribution of resources falling into one of three types: (1) A>B>C, A<B+C; (2) A=B, B>C, A<B+C; and (3) A>B, B=C, A<B+C. With respect to the choice of coalition partners, the central question has been whether subjects will consistently choose the partner with whom they can form the minimum winning coalition, or the stronger partner, or the partner who offers the more favorable terms, or the partner who resembles themselves in attributes or ideology. The general finding is that each of these results can be produced with fair consistency by varying the rules of the experimental game. The division of winnings between coalition partners has attracted even more attention than the choice of partners. The question has been whether winnings will be divided on the principle of equality, as suggested by game theory; or of parity, proportionate to the contribution of each partner, as suggested by exchange theory; or at an intermediate ratio established by bargaining. Although many experimenters have claimed that one or the other of these principles is primary, their collective results seem to show that all three modes of division occur spontaneously and that subjects may be tilted one way or another by appropriate instructions. Additional nuances of coalition formation have been explored in games having more than three players, variable payoffs, or incomplete information. Non-zero-sum games and sequential games with continually changing weights have been particularly instructive. The findings readily lend themselves to mathematical

330

COALITIONS

expression (Kahan and Rapoport 1984; Prasnikar and Roth 1992).

The explicit application of coalition analysis to real-life situations began with William Riker’s (1962) study of political coalitions in legislative bodies; he discerned a consistent preference for minimal winning coalitions and emphasized the pivotal role of weak factions. Theodore Caplow (1968) showed how the developing theory of coalitions in triads could be used to analyze conflict and competition in nuclear and extended families, organizational hierarchies, primate groups, revolutionary movements, international relations, and other contexts. The initial development of observational studies was relatively slow, compared with the proliferation of laboratory studies, but there were some notable achievements, particularly in family dynamics and international relations, where coalition models fit gracefully into earlier lines of investigation. Coalition theory was also applied, albeit in a more tentative way, to work groups, intraand interorganizational relationships, litigation and criminal justice, class and ethnic conflict, and military strategy. However, the bulk of empirical research after 1980 was undertaken by political scientists and focused on international relations, with particular emphasis on nuclear deterrence (Powell 1990) and on the formation of legislative coalitions (Laver and Schofield 1990; Shepsle 1991;

Krebbiel 1991; Cox and McCubbins 1993). Some investigators have shifted their focus from coalition formation to coalition breaking (Lupia and Strom 1995; Horowitz and Just 1995; Mershon

1996), which appears to follow a quite different dynamic. Economists have studied customs unions, trading blocs, and other forms of economic combination (Burbidge et al. 1995; Yi 1996). But with a few notable exceptions (e. g. Lemieux 1997), sociologists have tended to neglect the study of coalitions since the promising beginnings of the 1970s.

Whatever the field of application, the examination of coalitions, especially the simple coalition of two against one, provides a key to the social geometry of innumerable situations involving con-

flict, competition, and cooperation. In nearly every conflict, each of the contending parties seeks the support of relevant third parties, and the side that gains that support is likely to prevail. In very many competitive situations, the outcome is eventually decided by the formation of a winning coalition. And any system of cooperation that involves

a status order must rely on the routine formation of coalitions of superiors against subordinates and be able to counter coalitions of subordinates against superiors.

All of these situations are susceptible to coalitions of two against one, which tend to transform strength into weakness and weakness into strength.

Under many conditions, in the first of the triads mentioned above (A>B>C, A<B+C), both A and B will prefer C as a coalition partner; his initial weakness ensures his inclusion in the winning coalition. When A>B, B=C, A<B+C, B and C will often prefer each other as coalition partners; A’s initial strength ensures his exclusion from the winning coalition. When A=B, A>C, C’s initial weakness again makes him a likely winner. The

first purpose of any hierarchy must be to restrain in one way or another the inherent tendency of subordinates to combine against superiors. Although force and ritual are often deployed for this purpose, the stability of complex status orders depends on certain interactive effects that appear in triads with overlapping membership, called linked triads. In such clusters, the choice of coalition partners in one triad influences the choices made in other triads. The natural rules that seem to govern the formation of coalitions in linked hierarchical triads are that a coalition adversary in one triad may not be chosen as a coalition partner in another triad, and that actors offered a choice between incompatible winning coalitions will choose the one in the higher-ranking triad. The net effect favors conservative coalitions of superiors against subordinates without entirely suppressing revolutionary coalitions of subordinates against superiors.

Cross-cutting the coalition preferences that arise from unequal distributions of power and resources are preferences based on affinity, compatibility, and prior experience with potential partners. These other bases of coalition formation are conspicuous in intimate groups such as the family, where same-sex coalitions alternate with samegeneration coalitions.

The study of coalitions in nuclear families is particularly rewarding because the distribution of power in the triad of mother-father-child changes so dramatically as the child grows, and because same-sex coalitions are differently valued than

331

COALITIONS

cross-sex coalitions. The initial distribution of power between husband and wife is always transformed by the arrival of children; most cultures encourage certain patterns, such as the Oedipus and Electra complexes dear to Freudians: coalitions of mother and son against father and of father and daughter against mother. Research on the contemporary

American family suggests that parental coalitions are quite durable, both mother-daughter and moth- er-son coalitions against the father are very common, father-daughter coalitions against the mother much less so, and father-son coalitions against the mother comparatively rare. Sibling coalitions are most likely among same-sex siblings adjacent in age. Sibling aggression is endemic in families of this type, especially in the presence of parents. An interesting study by Richard Felson and Natalie

Russo (1988) suggests that parents usually take side with the weaker child in these incidents, and this leads to more frequent aggression by the excluded child. There are very few family conflicts that cannot be instructively described by a coalition model.

The application of coalition theory to international relations was particularly rewarding with respect to the ‘‘strategic triangle’’ of the United

States, China, and the Soviet Union during the Cold War era of 1950–1985. In one of the many studies that have examined the internal dynamics of this triad, James Hsiung (1987) concluded that China as the weak player in this triad benefitted much more than either of the superpowers from the various coalitional shifts that occurred over time, as would be theoretically expected in a triad of this type (A=B, B>C, A<B+C). A study by Caplow (1989) explained the failure of peace planning in

1815, 1919, and 1945, by showing how efforts to put an end to the international war system were undermined by the formation of coalitions to prevent the domination of the peacekeeping organization by the strongest of the victorious powers. Many older studies of international balances of power visualize international relations as a game in which the first priority of every major player is to block the domination of the entire system by any other player. Frank C. Zagare’s (1984) analysis of the Geneva Conference on Vietnam in 1954 as a three-player game compared the preference schedules of the three players and showed how they combined to produce the unexpected outcome of the negotiations.

Both family dynamics and international relations in peacetime exemplify situations of continuous conflict, wherein relationships have long histories and are expected to persist indefinitely, and the opposition of interests is qualified by the necessity for cooperation. The choice of coalition partners and the division of winnings is strongly influenced by the past transactions of the parties and by the fact that payoffs are not completely predictable. Continuous conflict triads with A>B>C, A<B+C often alternate the three possible coalitions according to circumstances: the conservative coalition AB reinforces the existing status order; the revolutionary coalition BC challenges it; and the improper coalition AC subverts it.

Episodic conflicts, by contrast, involve discrete zero-sum games played under strict rules.

The passage of any measure in a legislative body necessarily involves the formation of a coalition.

Even when one party has a solid majority, its members will seldom be in complete agreement on an issue. The formation of a coalition for the passage of a specific measure usually involves hard bargaining and payoffs negotiated in advance.

Under these conditions, the tendency to minimize costs by forming the minimal winning coalitions is very strong. When A>B>C, A<B+C, a BC coalition is highly probable. Empirical studies of legislative voting bear this out, although more than minimal coalitions also occur, for various reasons.

The resolution of disputes by civil and criminal litigation is another variety of episodic conflict that can be studied as a coalition process. Donald Black (1989) explored the triad of judge and courtroom adversaries and discovered a clear tendency for judges to favor the litigant to whom they are socially closer, ordinarily the litigant of higher status—a tacit conservative coalition. But in forms of dispute resolution where the third party is less authoritative, the weaker adversary may be favored. Marital counselors, for example, often side with wives against husbands, and ombudsmen and other relatively powerless mediators normally incline toward the weaker party.

In terminal conflicts, the object is the permanent destruction of adversaries, and the formation of coalitions is a delicate matter. In the triad where A>B>C, A<B+C, a successful BC coalition that destroys A leaves C at the mercy of B. Indeed, any winning coalition is hazardous for the weaker

332

COALITIONS

partner. A fragile peace can be maintained if A>B>C and A=B+C; the BC coalition forms as a matter of course, creating what is known as a balance of power. This has been the key configuration in European affairs for the past several centuries. The balance breaks down with any significant shift in the relative power of the parties; for example, if A grows stronger than the BC coalition, it will be tempted to conquer them. If B becomes equal to A, an AB coalition may be tempted to attack and partition C. If C grows stronger and the triad assumes the form A>B, B=C, B+C>A, the formation of a BC coalition to overthrow A is likely. In the eighteenth century, the breakdown of a balance of power led to war without delay. Under current conditions, the breakdown of a balance of power among major industrialized states does not involve an automatic resort to arms, but in several regional arenas, such as the Middle East, the old mechanism is still intact.

Terminal conflicts occur also within nations as coups, resistance movements, and revolutions. One common pattern is the urban uprising against a dictatorial regime, in which the players are the government, the army, and the populace. If the army continues to support the government and is willing to fire on the populace, the uprising fails, as in China in 1989. If the army sides with the populace, the government is overthrown, as in Indonesia in 1998. Often the issue is undecided until the moment when the troops confront the demonstrators. At a more fundamental level, successful revolutions require a coalition of formerly separate factions against the ruling group.

Every organization generates both internal and boundary coalitions. Internal coalitions are activated whenever persons or groups of unequal status interact before witnesses. In general, the presence of a high-status witness reinforces the authority of a superior, while the presence of a low-status witness reduces it; examined in detail, these catalytic effects are delicate and precise.

Boundary coalitions occur whenever one organization has permanent relations with another. Their respective agents must form a coalition with each other to perform their functions, and that coalition pits them both against their own colleagues, always with interesting consequences.

In a long-term perspective, the three bodies of coalition studies, theoretical, experimental, and

observational, have developed unevenly. The theories are elaborate and elegant. The experimental studies have explored nearly every possibility suggested by the theories, run down every lead, manipulated every variable. But in sociology, as distinct from political science and economics, the observational studies have scarcely tapped the rich possibilities suggested by the available theories.

The most important work remains to be done.

(SEE ALSO: Decision-Making Theory and Research)

REFERENCES

Adams, Wesley J. 1985 ‘‘The Missing Triad: The Case of Two-Child Families.’’ Family Process 24:409–413.

Black, Donald 1989 Sociological Justice. New York: Ox-

ford University Press.

Bonacich, Phillip, Oscar Grusky, and Mark Peyrot 1985 ‘‘Family Coalitions: A New Approach and Method.’’

Social Psychological Quarterly 44:42–50.

Bottom, William P., Cheryl L. Eavey, and Gary J. Miller 1996 ‘‘Coalitional Integrity as a Constraint on the Power of Agenda Setters,’’ Journal of Conflict Resolution 40:2:298–319.

Burbidge, John B., James A. DePater, Gordon M. Myers, and Abhjit Sengupta 1997 ‘‘A Coalition-Formation Approach to Equilibrium Federations and Trading Blocs’’ American Economic Review 87:940–56.

Caplow, Theodore 1956 ‘‘A Theory of Coalitions in the Triad.’’ American Sociological Review 21:480–493.

———1968 Two Against One: Coalitions in Triads. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

———1989 Peace Games. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press.

Felsen, Richard B. and Natalie Russo 1988 ‘‘Parental Punishment and Sibling Aggression.’’ Social Psychology Quarterly 51:1:11–18.

Gamson, William A. 1961 ‘‘A Theory of Coalition Formation.’’ American Sociological Review 26:565–573.

Green, D.P. and I. Shapiro 1994 Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Horowitz, John K. and Richard E. Just 1995 ‘‘Political Coalition Breaking and Sustainability of Policy Reform.’’ Journal of Development Economics 47:271–286.

Hsiung, James C. 1987 ‘‘Internal Dynamics in the Sino- Soviet-U.S. Triad,’’ In I.J. Kim, ed., The Strategic Triangle. New York: Paragon.

333