In a formal sense, this study was undertaken as part of a wider investigation which resulted in my masters thesis, A Perspective of the Prince Edward County School Issue, at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia in 1963. In a truer sense, this inquiry began in September of 1959, when I returned home to Richmond, Virginia, from service in the U.S. Navy just as public education in Prince Edward was being abandoned. As a native Virginian, I was deeply embarrassed by the segregationists of my state who would resort to such an extreme measure. It was at this point that I was driven to begin to read extensively, talk to many, and harangue everyone within earshot about this outrageous action. This led me to take several exploratory visits to the county, only 55 miles away, in late 1959 and during 1960 to see if I could connect with folks who shared my concern.
By January 1961, I began to find myself in the county even more frequently, with a volunteer program known as the Richmond Committee of Volunteers to Prince Edward. This time marked the beginning of my long association with the American Friends Service Committee and still more visits to the county on their behalf.
Throughout this period, I seized every opportunity to collect information and contacts, so when I began the field work specifically for my thesis in 1962, I was deep into an appreciation of the conditions in the county and had an address book brimming with contacts. When my thesis was done in May of 1963, I had several more extended stays and interviews in the county for a report commissioned by the Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. So all of the information I accumulated through interviews, casual conversations, correspondence, documents, and the shooting of photographs during those three and a half years found its way into the background or pool of data for this paper.
The present manuscript appears very much the way it was written in the Spring of 1963, despite the fact that the completed final typed paper has been lost. The present version is something of a reconstruction using an early rough draft and adding sections and passages which I have recovered that once appeared in the final draft of 1963.
Many of the interview materials, documents, worksheets and other support materials have been lost.
The present paper, along with another extensive chapter I wrote on the culture of tobacco in the lives of the people in Prince Edward and other counties around "Southside", Virginia, now lost, never made it into my thesis. No version of this paper was ever published.
In the interest of historical authenticity, the terms "Negro" and "colored" are preserved in this version of the paper as they were used in 1963.
Finally, we beg the reader's indulgence and plead for generous forbearance when reading this paper. It was the first study ever done which involved independent fieldwork by a very young man who was just trying to break into the academic world for the first time.
Objectives and Assumptions
One of the original objectives in our study of Prince Edward County was that of discovering information about the system of decision-making which led to school closing and the continued abandonment of public education in the county. A study of methods of other students of community decision-making had preceded the Prince Edward inquiry.1 The methods used in this study were by and large an eclectic borrowing from these various methods in use since 1951.2
In this inquiry, the author has endeavored to veer away from the following assumptions about community decision-making, which are believed to have been weaknesses in one or the other of the two major methodologies used to date, the "stratificationist" and/or the "pluralist" approaches:3
1. that there exists a single "structured" community decision-making system2. that state and local governments are the true or originating sources of all county decisions
3. that "school closing" is a single issue area
4. that all individuals labeled as leaders by the ''reputation method'' are in the final analysis the only influentials
5. that all leaders lead in all issue areas
6. that the names suggested as "top leaders" by all respondents should have equal weight in the analysis of community decision-making
7. and that the legal boundaries of the county or any political unit necessarily circumscribes or are congruent with the social, cultural, economic, or political dynamics of the community Operational Definitions
For use in this study, we have constructed several key operational definitions which we shall attempt to apply to all of the following discussions in our study of county decision-making.
1. Community - describes the communal nature or the inter-related character of the entire county with respect to the common condition facing all individuals and groups in the county, namely, no public schools. Of course, the entire county is not truly a single community. It is heterogeneous in many respects but it is clearly homogeneous with respect to this one condition and the ramifications of that condition.
2. County decision - a culminated issue of county-wide importance affecting a significant number of county citizens through direct and/or indirect consequences.
3. County decision-making - the evolutionary social process, including the interaction which goes into the outcome of a county decision.
4. Issue area - a group of county decisions of a definite related nature
5. Power structure - the organization or syntax of roles or individuals engaged in county decision-making. The power structure is rarely static but rather is a dynamic system. It is constantly changing with respect to its human and role components. Any so-called "measurement" of the power structure is but a cross-sectional or synchronic view of the nature of county decision-making.
6. Influence - the ability of a given individual to control, contribute or affect the outcome of a county decision.
7. Influential - an individual who demonstrably possesses influence.
8. Class of influence - a particular realm of influence. This study employs three classes of influence: reputed leadership, property ownership and public notice.
9. Leadership - influence as determined by one's reputation as a contributor to county decision-making among both influentials and non-influentials,. The term leader will be employed in accordance with this definition.
10. Property ownership - influence as determined by one's rank in total value of assessments of property owned in the county. The term property owner will be employed in accordance with this definition.
11. Public notice - influence as determined by the relative frequency of one's name appearing in articles about public affairs in periodicals, public and other documents, records, minutes, reports, pamphlets, and other publications which serve a function in the county. The term influential of public notice will be employed in this paper in accordance with this definition.
12. Top - this term shall be used as an adjective for describing all of those influentials who rank above a certain specified level of influence.
13. Secondary - this term shall be used as an adjective for describing all those influentials who rank below top influentials, but still rank above a certain specified lesser level of influence. Methodology
The "multiple classes of influence method", which we might term our approach, employed the following procedures in Prince Edward County:
1. A list of elected and appointed officials was compiled.
2. A list of private school officials was compiled.
3. A list of individuals known to the author from interviews in 1960-61 was compiled.
4. A list of all individual property owners with property valued at $10,000 or greater was compiled from the county tax records.
5. A list was compiled of all individuals whose names appeared once or more in articles relevant to county public affairs in periodicals, official and other documents, records, minutes, reports, pamphlets and other publications during the years 1960-1961 and during the period of December 1, 1962 - March 1, 1963. Individuals on the lists were then ranked in order of their relative frequency of citation
6. An interview was conducted with the editor of the local weekly newspaper and a list of leaders was secured from him.
7. Interviews were made with an opportunistic geographic sample of the county residents and a list of leaders was secured from each of them.
8. List Numbers 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 were combined and interviews were made with a sample5 of these "leaders", securing from each of them their own list of "leaders."6
9. List Numbers 1 through 8 were combined, duplications eliminated, and the names on lists 1-3 which did not appear on lists 6-8 were purged as unlikely to be key community influentials.
Upon completion of these steps, we had what was believed to be a relatively complete list of key county influentials. Although some doubt remained that someone might have been left out, the relatively small size of the community and the repetitiveness of names from all sources strongly suggested that we were close to an all-inclusive list. In fact our final lists included:
(1) 148 people with evidence of public notice conforming to our selection process.
(2) 28 landholders with total property values of $10,000 or over, 14 of which we eliminated because they were corporate holdings which the county tax officials told us did not represent anyone who lives or participates in any aspect of county life. Among the remaining 14 landholders were 13 whites and 1 "colored".
(3) from interview respondents, we were able to identify 12 white putative leaders who were proponents of school closing and 2 Negro and 1 white putative leaders who were opponents of school closing. This involved dropping out all names which were mentioned by only a single respondent in their interviews.
The three classes of influence lists were then analyzed and individual names in each list were sorted into a hierarchy according to their combined three rankings. There were, of course, many ties, which suggested to us that individual leaders may cluster at several different levels of influence.
While we interviewed well over 325 people inside and outside the county intermittently over a period of nearly three and a half years for all the various aspects of our study, only 36 of the interviews contributed directly to the specific investigation of the community decision-making system.
What follows now are some qualifying comments which the reader may wish keep in mind as they review the findings.
Qualifications
The first reservation to be considered when examining the reported data is that of the limited number of interview subjects. There were several reasons why the number of interviews fell somewhat below what would be expected in a strict probability sample necessary for a full-scale quantitative study of decision-making.
The first reason was the time in the field limited by the county's remoteness, the costs of staying over for long periods, and the competing responsibilities for the author such in his job, graduate school program, and family. Another limitation on the time which we were able to spend in the field was due to the delicate nature of interviewing on the subject of school closing in a place in which major outside criticism and embarrassment over negative publicity was just beginning to build up. As a consequence and despite the author's attempts at neutrality, we occasionally encountered suspicion, hostility, stalking, and even threats of violence which then led us to leave the county for what might be called "some cooling down time". Finally, the ordeal of being in the county under such stress, witnessing the sad deterioration of normal social life there, and learning of so many instances of raw injustices visited upon Negroes, sometimes created a pressing need in the author for escape, which incidentally was not open to most of the ordinary citizens of Prince Edward County in those three plus years in which we spent so many scattered days there.
The second important qualification to be noted here is about our selection of interview subjects. For example, we were not able to interview some of the putative leaders and obtain their confirmation about other putative leaders. Sometimes, we faced limitations on getting in to see an individual on our list because they claimed all the appointment times we proposed were inconvenient. As time went on and our presence and purpose became better known among the more ardent segregationist leaders, a few would-be respondents angrily objected to any interview with us.
Despite the fact that the number and selection of respondents was short of the best sampling practice, we believe that the qualitative anthropological data from our other interviews has provided us with the necessary supplementary evidence for having considerable confidence in our conclusions about the structure of leadership in this community with respect to the school closing issue. Moreover, we would argue that the capability for quantitative analysis is not the sole test of the value of social data which may have practical utility in the policy arena.7
Even though we were able to assemble a fairly adequate number of names for the lists in each of the three classes of influence in the county, it is still quite possible that we have neglected to identify some important individuals who possess and use influence from within an absentee-owner industry, a local office of an out-of-county company, the possession of stock or ownership in some corporation or company doing significant business in the county, or yet some other even more subtle role of influence.
Another problem which we confronted was the difficulty in combining the three different classes of influence rankings for each individual into a single rank. Typical solutions such as comparing means or medians were meaningless in our situation. Certainly in later studies we would want to improve on the quantitative techniques to be used. Despite this difficulty, supplementary information gathered for other aspects of our wider investigation allowed us to ultimately obtain an overall ranking for each individual.
It is interesting to note that despite all of our apparent failures, there was little variance between respondents which we did interview as to who the leaders are in their county. It is suggested that the county's small population size, its relatively effective informal communication system, and its rural Gemeinschaft-like social nature 8 are at least in part responsible for close agreement on reputed leaders by our respondents.
Notwithstanding the shortcomings discussed here, we are convinced that the three-class influential method is considerably closer to obtaining a snapshot of our community decision-making system than would the "reputation method" alone.9 In addition, we argue that our approach is superior to the "pluralist method", if in no other way, than for its cost effectiveness in interviewing respondents for all kinds of issue areas while you have them there right in front of you. It strikes us as absurd to approach an interview respondent assuming that they will speak of but a single issue, especially in a small community with an over-reaching issue like public school closing. 10
Another advantage of the "multiple-class influence" methodology is that our method could conceivably be strengthened by expanding the number of influence classes to four, five, or to any other number for which one can find a measurable indicator. Using more influence classes is very likely to close the gap between the unknown "real" influential system and our estimate of it by only a few multiple classes of influence. Our method also lends itself ultimately to scaling instruments and much more rigorous statistical analysis. Clearly, we were not able to optimize our methodology in all of the ways that we would have wished in this pilot study.
While the weaknesses and unresolved questions which may inhere in our "three-class influential" methodology may seed doubt in the readers's mind about our findings, we would still argue that we would rather make a tentative generalization with some qualifications than to be stricken speechless because of methodological inhibitions.
Findings
By examining and combining the ranks of our putative leaders on each of our three classes of influence, we found 15 men11 who may be said to qualify by our methods as top or secondary influentials. Among the 15 were four distinct "top influentials" in Prince Edward County who may have been the most important contributors of all to the sundry county decisions related to public school closing.12 They are sometimes described as the core of an "oligarchy" by opponents of school closing. They follow in what might be the order of the strength of their influence: (1) J. Barrye Wall, Sr., the editor and publisher of the local weekly newspaper,13 (2) Charles W. "Rat" Glenn, affiliated with a large general contracting business,14 (3) Robert E. Taylor, the owner and president of a home building business, and (4) B. Blanton Hanbury, affiliated with a large lumber business15. None of the four held positions in local government, but all were on the Board of the Prince Edward School Foundation. Glenn was second in total appraised value of real estate property among all county property owners.
One might suspect that non-leaders may not recognize as leaders some persons identified as leaders by other leaders unless they function within a public role. This was verified by the fact that Blanton Hanbury, who served as the president of the School Foundation, and Barrye Wall, Sr. were the most frequently mentioned as "top leaders" by people not in leadership roles while these same non-leader respondents failed to mention either Glenn or Taylor as leaders. Neither of these two men occupy any role which receives anywhere near the publicity which Hanbury and Wall receive.
The remaining eleven reputed leaders on our lists include five businessmen or former businessmen (Robert B. Crawford, W. S. Weaver, E. Louis Dahl, W. W. Vaughan, and J. Guy Lancaster), two attorneys (Frank N. Watkins, Prince Edward Commonwealth Attorney and J. Barrye Wall, Jr.), two educators (Roy R. Pearson and Dean C. D. Gordon Moss) and two ministers (Reverend L. Francis Griffin and Reverend Vernon Johns, Minister, Darlington Heights).
This makes eight (or nine, counting a retired businessman who now calls himself a farmer) of the fifteen having business as their primary occupational affiliation. The two attorneys, although having other roles, conduct private legal practices on the side, much of which is concerned with business. So in a sense, eleven of the twelve proponents of school closing are affiliated with business.
The two ministers are both Negro opponents of school closing. The first is Reverend Griffin, Pastor of Farmville's First Baptist Church and the NAACP coordinator in the county, who is considered by most county residents of both races, as well as by outsiders, as the top Negro leader in the county. The other Negro minister, Reverend Johns, has left Prince Edward from time to time to live elsewhere, once in Montgomery Alabama where he became widely known as a civil rights leader and the predecessor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. at the Dexter Street Baptist church. He is still referred to as a leader by the older white leadership in Prince Edward since he comes back from time to time to his farm in the county. Reverend Johns has often been considered notorious by many whites because he was an activist and the uncle and mentor to Barbara Johns who led the Moton High School student strike against poor educational conditions for Negroes in April 1951. The third opponent of school closing included in this list of fifteen is Dr. Moss, a Dean at the all-white Longwood College in Farmville. He is not considered a leader by white non-leader proponents of school closings, but is often referred to as their opponent in the school battle. He is an elderly man, a historian, and a native of Lynchburg, Virginia. He was educated at Washington and Lee and Yale universities and has taught at the college intermittently since 1926.
Although three opponents of school closing appear on the list of fifteen influentials in Prince Edward, our information shows that they do not possess comparable power to any of the other dozen segregationist influentials because these whites are in control of the law-making and law enforcement machinery. This means that after a county decision is made by covert decision-makers, it is implemented into law or policy by the titular leaders. 16 Therefore, since the opponents have little or no influence with titular leaders, it leaves them without the means to realize decisions. It is then reasonable to regard the twelve proponents of school closing as the primary possessors of influence among the total fifteen.
It is interesting to note that among the twelve influentials who advocate school closing, eleven are affiliated with business interests in a county which claims to be an agricultural area. There are no career farmers and no tobacco planters represented among the twelve influentials. Also, only two of the twelve live outside of Farmville and they both live within ten miles of Farmville. 17
Among the eight who are in favor of school closing, but who are not among the top four influentials, are three men who were ranked by our analysis as exercising a higher order of influence than the other five. This then gives us a pro-segregationist influentials hierarchy with three different levels: four top influencials, three high order secondary influencials, and five lower order secondary influentials. There was no such differences detected between the three secondary leaders who are opponents of school closing.
One of these three high order secondary influentials, Robert B. Crawford, although not reputed by non-leader respondents as possessing exceptional influence, carries a great deal of weight in the statewide resistance to desegregation. Crawford owns a large dry cleaning establishment in Farmville; is a national and state leader in various dry cleaning and laundry proprietor associations; spent fifteen years on the county school board; and was a founder and the first president the 12,000 member statewide segregationist organization known as the Defenders of State Sovereignty and Individual Liberties. He has also been a close confidant and advisor to various governors and the state political machine.18 The other two high order secondary leaders are the two attorneys, one of them being a son of Barrye Wall, Sr. Editor of the Farmville Herald, one of the four top influentials mentioned above.
Among the "top influentials," based only on total property value owned, we find a family, David and Phillip Weinberg, in the number one position among all property holders in the county. This family owns nearly twice as much property in value as the number two property owner, C. W. Glenn. This family runs an investment corporation which owns many of the downtown Farmville buildings used for retail stores and offices. This fact ordinarily could be seen as an index of influence, however, only one person mentioned this family in any leadership role. It was in a conversation with a respondent who claimed to be close to the county's top influentials. He alluded to the Weinbergs by mentioning only their religious identity, not their name, and then characterized them as the "wealthiest persons" in the county. The respondent further insisted that it was the Weinburgs who were largely responsible for the school closing. The suggestive undertone of the respondent's allegation was an anti-Semitic contention that the Weinbergs had somehow caused the Negroes to become dissatisfied with their schools and that the county was then forced to shut them down.19
David Weinberg reported in an interview that as the only Jewish family in town, he needed to be very cautious about revealing his true feelings of opposition to school closing.
As mentioned above, the second top property owner is C. W. "Rat" Glenn, the prosperous general contractor who was mentioned earlier as one of the four top influentials. We inadvertently found in another study that Glenn also had very big holdings in Amelia county. The fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, and thirteenth places among property owners were are all held by five of Farmville's largest businessmen20. In seventh place is Robert Taylor, the already mentioned home builder who is also among the four top influentials. Fourteenth place is held by a businessman from Rice, W.S. Weaver, who is on the secondary influencial list. In twelfth place is an elderly Negro dentist, Dr. N. P. Miller and his wife, the only Negroes among the top fourteen property owners. The occupational affiliations of the remaining four big property owners were not uncovered, but it was learned that three of them were women.21
It is difficult to know precisely how owning property in itself exercises power and influence, but it was reported by some of our respondents that some top owners used their property or the business conducted on their property as a lever against people who are known to advocate school opening. This added to the fact that the pro-school closing influentials were mostly businessmen suggests that the abolition of public schools in Prince Edward County was pretty much driven by business interests.
As for the rankings of influence by frequency of "public notice", Blanton Hanbury, the lumberman who was mentioned among the four top influentials, came in first. Tied for second were J. Barrye Wall, Jr., W. W. Vaughan and Roy R. Pearson. Tied for third were J Barrye Wall Sr., Robert E. Taylor, Frank N. Watkins, W. S. Weaver, E. Louis Dahl, and L. Francis Griffin. The remaining scatter of ranks made them unuseable in our analysis.22
Conclusions
The reader is reminded that the interpretation of the findings reported here are not simply the author's opinion about who are the top influentials behind the school closing decisions. Rather, it is the result of an analysis of the combined relative rankings of three indices of community influence which have created our list of those who wield the power and influence in this county on the issue of public school closing.
Put another way, the names and rankings of the twelve segregationist influentials proposed here have not been opined by the author, but are derived from his systematic observations about the distribution of real property wealth, the frequency of persons' names appearing in print, and what 36 county respondents said about who leads the fights for and against school closure in Prince Edward County. So one can quarrel with our assumption that a combination of property ownership, public notice, and reports from residents is a reliable and valid means to discover community influentials on an issue, but one cannot argue with what the county tax records show, what the publications in the community reveal, and what the opinions are among people who we interviewed.
With this said, we can see (1) that the decision-making power on the school issue in Prince Edward is dominated by four top influentials who are advocates of school closing; (2) that all four of these are businessmen as are seven of the eight of the secondary segregationist influentials; (3) that agricultural interests are not represented among the top and secondary influentials; (4) that opponents of school closing may still be recognized for their leadership even if they sit outside the seats of power; and in general, (5) segregationist influencials in Prince Edward County do not themselves need to implement their own county decisions. This is done for them by those in official positions.
It should be added here that although the school closing influentials in the county enjoy considerable autonomy in executing local policy, they must still sometimes pay deference to the Byrd Machine with which they have cast their lots. 23
One large question remains, " Is there a power structure in Prince Edward County which could be described as a pro-school closing "oligarchy?" Most respondents in our interviews which used the expression "oligarchy" did not say or imply that all twelve proponents of school closing were members of a single closed, monolithic oligarchy. But some said that the top four and the high order secondary leaders do clearly represent a relatively closed body of covert decision-makers. At the other end of the response spectrum, individuals told us that the term "oligarchy" for them simply refers to a clustering and overlapping of key influentials from our list. That is, on one day some of the influentials from our list will assemble to make a decision together, but on another policy-making day, not all of the same people will be there.
But most who used the term "oligarchy" in their descriptions of who makes decisions about school closing or opening, fell somewhere in between. Our personal conclusion is closer to that of the first definition, in which we see four men in the main dominating the other eight who in turn strongly exert their own influence on community decisions. Meanwhile, three other strong influencials, objecting to school closing, stand outside what they report is, without a doubt, a power structure which deserves to be called an oligarchy.
Notes
1 This culminated in an unpublished paper written by this author entitled "Some Aspects of Community Power", May 1, 1962.
2. Floyd Hunter, Community Power Structure (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953). 1951 was the year in which Hunter began his field work for "regional City." His book opened the way for dozens of studies of community power and decision-making.
3. Nelson W. Polsby, "How to Study Community Power: The Pluralist Alternative," Journal of Politics: 22-3 (August 1960), pp. 474-484. The term "stratificationist" has, as in the above paper by Polsby, come to be used as the name for the "Hunter school" upon which the "reputation method" is predicated. The term "pluralist" is the name claimed by Polsby, Dahl, Woolfinger and many others who assert that the "Hunter school" is seeking a "self-fulfilling prophecy" and that the study of "community power" must be examined through each "issue area."
4 Ibid.
5. In rural areas and small localities, the field worker was able to interview all the alleged "influentials."
6. AIexander A. Fanelli. " A Typology of Community Leadership Based on Influence and Interaction Within the Leader System", Social Forces: 34-4 (May 1956), Pp. 332-338. Steps six through eight are an adaptation of the "snowball" or "cobweb" method of securing a leadership list referred to by Fanelli.
7. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., "The Humanist Looks at Empirical Social Research", American Sociological Review: 27-6 (December 1962), pp 768-771. Mr. Schlesinger, a fugitive from history, posits this contention.
8. Ferdinand Tonnies, Community and Society (translated by Charles P. Loomis), 1957 pp. 237-259.
9 Referral is made to Hunter's original use in the "Regional City" Study.
10. There is still a good deal of question in the mind of the author regarding just what an "issue area" leader or influential really is and also why it is useful to even know a single "issue area" influential since he is proven to be influential only in a single community issue. This author's test of usefulness, of course, is whether or not a method contributes to the work of the practitioner or lays a foundation for more sophisticated study of decision-making. Whether the "pluralist" approach subscribes to these tests is unknown.
11. No women made it onto the list.
12. Interviews with county respondents.
13. Most of this individual's income is derived from his printing business which is common among small town newspapers.
14. Affiliation here means part owner or high management position.
15. There is universal agreement among leaders on the most influential leaders in the county but there is some question in the minds of some leader-respondents whether the last two individuals are equal to the first two in influence.
16. Individuals who occupy positions in local government.
17. This was verified by the local telephone directory and map.
18. Benjamin Muse, Virginia's Massive Resistance (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1961), p. 9-10. The "State political machine refers to the organization headed by U. S. Senator Harry F. Byrd, Sr.
19. Interview in the county.
20. The sizes of businesses were verified from interviews, the telephone directory, and seeing their establishments.
21. Actually, one group of properties included in the top property owners was owned by two women together.
22. From an analysis of The Farmville Herald throughout 1960, 1961, and December, 1962 through February, 1963.
23. This statement is supported by Muse throughout his Virginia's Massive Resistance; by V. 0. Key in his Southern Politics. (New York: Random House, 1949), pp. 1935; Howard H. Carwile in his Speaking from Byrdland, and many other observers who acknowledge the commanding and pervasive influence of the Byrd Machine.
References
Robert A Dahl. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961.
William D'Antonio and Howard J. Ehrlich (eds). Power and Democracy in America. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1961.
Howard H. Carwile. Speaking from Byrdland. New York: Lyle Stuart, 1960.
AIexander A. Fanelli, " A Typology of Community Leadership Based on Influence and Interaction Within the Leader System", Social Forces: 34-4 (May 1956), pp. 332-338.
Floyd Hunter. Community Power Structure. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953.
V. 0. Key. Southern Politics. New York: Random House, 1949.
Nelson W. Polsby, "How to Study Community Power: The Pluralist Alternative," Journal of Politics: 22-3 (August 1960), pp. 474-484.
Benjamin Muse. Virginia's Massive Resistance. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1961.
Edward H. Peeples, "Some Aspects of Community Power", unpublished paper, University of Pennsylvania, May 1, 1962.
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., "The Humanist Looks at Empirical Social Research", American Sociological Review: 27-6 (December 1962), pp 768-771.
Ferdinand Tonnies, Community and Society (translated by Charles P. Loomis), 1957 pp. 237-259.
Edward H. Peeples, 1963
0 comments:
Post a Comment