gaya hidup lagi 2

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org

Life-Style Differences among Urban and Suburban Blue-Collar Families Author(s): Irving Tallman and Ramona Morgner Source: Social Forces, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Mar., 1970), pp. 334-348Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2574652Accessed: 02-10-2015 03:22 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 03:22:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

334 SOCIAL FORCES

LIFE-STYLE DIFFERENCES AMONG URBAN AND SUBURBAN BLUE-COLLAR FAMILIES*

IRVING TALLMAN RAMONA MORGNER University of Minnesota Syracuse University

ABSTRACT

Blue-collar couples from a working-class suburb and from a working-class urban district are compared on a number of life-style variables. Suburban families are more likely than urban families to adopt life-styles resembling the middle class as indicated by measures of local intimacy, social isolation, family organization, church activity, orientations to social mobility and political perspectives. Controls for background variables and social-class identification do not appreciably alter these relationships. The analyses also reveal differential adaptations by husbands and wives to suburban residence-thus illustrating some of the problems in generalizing from findings that do not systematically account for sex of respondents. In conjunction with previous research the findings underline a need to reassess the frequently reported assumption that class values are the prime determinants of life-style regardless of residence.

O ne of the significant trends in present day American society is the increasing migration of skilled and semiskilled

manual workers to the urban fringe and into mass produced suburban developments (Lazer- witz, 1960; Dobriner, 1963 :50-54; Berger, 1960; Woodbury, 1955; Taueber and Taueber, 1964). The extent to which this trend has altered generalizations about suburban life-styles has been the subject of debate in both popular and professional literature (Dobriner, 1963; Berger, 1960; Seligman, 1964).

In its simplest form, the question raised is: are working-class families who move to the suburbs substantially different in their life- styles from those who remain in the city, or conversely, are the ways of life thought to be characteristic of suburbs altered by the influx of working-class people? Underlying this debate is the broader issue of whether life-styles can be attributed primarily to cultural and subcultural factors or to ecological and res- identical characteristics. Writers stressing the

primacy of cultural variables maintain that style of life derives less from the environs than from a set of values integral to a particular social category.1 Those holding the ecological- residential orientation emphasize the importance of structural characteristics of the community which contribute to certain forms of interaction, and channel the flow of communication in such ways that distinctive patterns of behavior are fostered.2

* This is an expanded and revised version of a paper read at the annual meeting of the Mid- west Sociological Society, 1967. The research reported in this paper was supported by grants #3038 and 20-33 from the University of Minne- sota Experiment Station. We are indebted to Joel Nelson, Murray Straus, and Joan Aldous for their reading and criticisms of earlier drafts of this paper.

1Berger (1960:13), for example, concludes that " a 'way of life' is a function of such variables

as age, income, occupation, education, rural-urban background, and so forth, and that this is true for suburbs as it is for any other kind of modern community." (See also Dobriner, 1963 :23; Ktsanes and Reissman, 1959-60; Gans, 1967:274-295.)

2 For example, Shevky and Bell (1955), Greer (1956; 1960), and others argue that a high ratio of single-family dwellings to multiple dwellings in a community promote home- and family-centered orientations as well as a similarity of life routines among the residents. These factors, along with a greater amount of shared open space, increase casual and informal interaction among neighbors (Fava, 1958; Dobriner, 1963 :57-58). This form of interaction contributes to shared interests which, in turn, result in greater social participation both at the neighborhood and community levels (Greer, 1960). Finally, the relative isolation of the suburb is thought to account for greater dependence on the immediate nuclear fam-


BLUE-COLLAR LIFE-STYLES 335

It is, of course, an oversimplification to de- pict either orientation as the singular explanation of life-style differences. There is general recognition that both locational characteristics and cultural values interact to produce the ob- served effects. The critical question, however, is the relative influence of these variables on life-styles. Three possibilities exist: either residence or culture has a sufficient independent effect so that, despite interaction with other relevant variables, one emerges as the prime influence on the development of life-styles; or the two variables in combination produce an effect fundamentally different from that which would be expected if either variable could function independently of the other. The pri- mary concern of this paper is to provide data bearing on these possible outcomes.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

The empirical studies of suburban life generally yield certain consistent results. Inhab- itants in these areas are more likely than city dwellers to be younger, have larger families, and live in communities which are homogeneous in ethnicity and socioeconomic status.3 In addition, they tend to have distinctive patterns of social relationships which are manifest prin- cipally by greater intimacy with neighbors, greater participation in community organizations, and more involvement with their nuclear families (Greer, 1960). These behaviors have also been shown to be associated with an urban middle-class style of life (Smith et at., 1954; Bell and Boat, 1957; Bell and Force, 1956; Komarovsky, 1946). Since the middle class has tended to be overrepresented in most suburban research, the relative influence of class and residence is difficult to is- olate.

Parallel studies of working-class suburbs have been limited in scope and quantity. Berger's (1960) investigation of a blue-col-

lar tract development outside of San Jose, California, seems to be the most definitive work undertaken in the United States to date. Berger interprets his data as indicating little change in class identification, upward mobility, church attendance, social participation and political orientation resulting from migration to the suburbs. Two major difficulties, however, limit the generalizability of his findings. First, the sample was composed of workers who moved en masse when their plant transferred its operations to the suburbs; this is not representative of the usual patterns of residential selection.4 Second, no urban sample was provided for purposes of comparison ;5 in the absence of established norms, interpretations of the findings must, therefore, remain highly speculative.

Two English investigations reach somewhat different conclusions from those advanced by Berger. Mogey (1955;1956), in a study of workers who had moved to a housing estate on the fringe of Oxford, and Willmott and Young (1960), in their study of a London suburb, report changes among working-class families in the direction of an increasing nuclear family orientation and a tendency toward middle-class identification.

Research designed to test the comparative influence of residence and social class on life- style has, with the exception of Berger's study, tended to support the ecological-residential orientation. Greer (1956), in a study of two communities in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, reports an inverse relationship between social participation and urbanization when social class and segregation are controlled. Unfortunately, class was held constant in this investigation by comparing two middle-class communities, thus leaving unanswered the question of possible modification which might occur within the working class. Tomeh (1964)

ily, neighbors, and community (Martin, 1956; Young and Willmott, 1957:131-143).

3 See Duncan and Reiss (1958). There is some evidence that as the suburban trend continues many of the older suburbs are becoming less ho- mogenous (Dobriner, 1963). Whether this tendency is characteristic, however, remains an open question (for example, Hoover and Vernon, 1959: esp. chap. 7).

4 On the other hand, the fact that Berger's (1960) subjects were forced to move provides a control for selective migration; a confounding factor in most attempts to assess the independent influence of location.

5Berger (1960) does present data based on his respondents' retrospective experiences prior to their move to the suburbs. Aside from the issue of re- liability, these data are not systematically used as a basis of comparison.


336 SOCIAL FORCES reports similar results for informal group contacts. Controlling for social class and a variety of demographic variables, she found that local intimacy was more pronounced in suburban communities when compared with the inner city. Her measure of social class however, seems less than adequate for our purposes. Subjects in her sample with at least a high school education were defined as middle class and those with less than a high school education as working class. Since sizeable proportions of manual workers are also high school graduates, it is not unreasonable to won- der whether the results would have been different if occupation or some multiple indicator of class had been used.6

Two other problems occur in attempting to generalize from the previous research. First, although most of the studies introduced controls for demographic variables, none controlled for subjective orientations such as self- ascribed social class and mobility -aspirations. If the cultural explanation is correct, these subjective orientations may be critical in ac- counting for residential differences in life- style. The second problem concerns the type of variables used as indicators of life-style- usually neighboring and various forms of social participation. The question raised by crit- ics of this research is whether these variables provide sufficient evidence for making generalizations about fundamental life-style patterns. Dobriner (1963 :58-59) claims that, although urban-suburban differences may occur in social relationships and home-centered activity, "as to political conversion, religious re- awakenings, status climbing, attitudes toward education and basic family structure there is no evidence that the suburban situation in any way significantly modifies basic class patterns."

In brief, although previous research has provided evidence linking residence to formal and informal social participation, it has not conclusively accounted for other significant aspects of life-style. In addition, although there is considerable data on white-collar sub-

urbs, the relationship between residence and working-class behavioral patterns has not been sufficiently examined. The research reported here was designed, in part, to provide some clarification of these issues.

Specifically, we shall seek answers to the following questions: First, do differences exist in life-styles between blue-collar families re- siding in the suburbs and comparable families living in the central city? Second, if such differences exist, are they primarily attributable to location as opposed to such cultural factors as social class identification, rural-urban upbringing, education, and mobility orientations? Third, if suburban-urban differences are found, to what extent are the life-style patterns (in blue-collar suburbs) comparable to those reported in white-collar suburban studies? Answers to these questions can not only provide an estimate of the primacy of residence or culture, but in addition should allow us to estimate whether blue-collar suburbs develop a unique style of life attributable to the joint effects of the two independent variables.

RESEARCH METHODS

The study was conducted by means of a structured and standardized interview with 51 couples living in a virtually homogeneous working-class tract north of the Twin Cities and 53 couples living in a central district of Minn- eapolis. The two areas were chosen because of their relative comparability in income, occupational status, segregation, and geograph- ical mobility rates. Each of these variables has been found in previous research to affect residence selection and would, therefore, represent confounding sources of variation in this research.7

6 For problems in overgeneralizing from the relation between education and occupation see Blau and Duncan (1967:196). See also pp. 144-145 and Figure 4.3 for evidence pertaining to occupational variance for high school graduates.

7 See Rossi (1955:esp. chap. 4) for a discussion of the influence of mobility rates. Also, Greer (1962:125-136) for a discussion of social rank and segregation as factors in residence selection. The decision to use a single urban and a single suburban tract matched on the variables described above was made to optimize analytic precision. This decision, of course, was made at the cost of having a representative sample. However, since the pri- mary purpose of this research was to test the effects of the two critical variables, and since such a test requires controlling for the variables men- tioned above, the sampling procedure used seemed the most practical. A probability sample which



To hold constant the effects of length of residence, only families living in their homes from 9 to 18 months were accepted. Water department records and local, agency publi- cations were used to determine length of residence. Comparability in family life cycle was approximated by further restricting the sample to those families with at least one child in an elementary school. This was determined by comparing the previous list of names against the district school records. Participating families were then randomly selected from the remaining list of names. The refusal rate was approximately 15 percent for both groups. Sep- arate interviews were conducted with each spouse, all of whom were native born Caucas- ians. Upon completion of the interviewing we found that the heads of 7 suburban families and 2 urban families held white-collar jobs. These families were eliminated from the analyses.

The suburban and city samples were comparable in occupational prestige, income, and parqnts' occupational status. The suburban sample was relatively younger, had larger families, fewer working wives, a somewhat higher proportion of home ownership and had a higher frequency of moves since marriage. In addition, suburban husbands had slightly higher educations and were more likely to have been raised in a rural environment.8 Each of these variables with the exception of the last, has generally been reported as characteristic of suburban populations (Duncan and Reiss, 1958; Dobriner, 1963:19-20).

It should be noted that the area from which the. city. sample was selected has relatively more single-family dwellings than "super- cities" such as Boston, Chicago and New York; nevertheless, the suburban-urban differences in density are still sizeable. According to 1960 Census data, 97 percent of the homes in the suburb studied were single-family dwellings as compared to 19 percent in the central city area.9 Since class and segregation are controlled, the research may be viewed as a partial replication of Greer's (1956) earlier investigation of two tracts in Los Angeles, except that the sample consists of representatives of the working class rather than of the middle class.

CHOICE OF LIFE-STYLE VARIABLES

The lack of constituent meaning for a con- cept such as "life-style" makes any set of indicators vulnerable to the criticism that they are not appropriate measures and do not tap "significant" aspects of the phenomenon. We view life-style as a broad rubric under which a number of behavioral activities and orientations can be included, each of which requires a distinctive investment of the individuals' resources of time, energy, affect or money. The behaviors investigated are not exhaustive of all possibilities but are representative of the concerns of many social scientists interested in the relationship between behavioral modes and community types.

We used the following behaviors and orientations as our indicators of life-style: (a) local intimacy, (b) social participation in voluntary organizations, (c) church participation, (d) family organization, (e) subjective class identification, (f) mobility orientation, and (g) political orientation.

RESULTS

Whenever residential differences for a given life-style variable were statistically significant, test variables were introduced to check for spuriousness, possible intervening variables,

would allow us to control for all variables would have to be extremely large and beyond the resources available to us.

8 The relevant statistics for these differences are as follows: The median age for suburban men was 32.3, for urban men 38.0; for suburban women it was 30.0 as compared to 34.75 for urban women. The median number of children for surburbanites was 3.8 as compared to 3.0 for city dwellers. Six- teen percent of the suburban wives were employed whereas 33 percent of the city women held jobs. The median number of moves since marriage was 5.42 for suburbanites and 3.72 for urbanites. Eighty-two percent of the suburbanites were home owners as compared to 66 percent of those who lived in the city. Finally, 60 percent of the suburban men had a high school education or better whereas only 38 percent of the city men advanced to high school or beyond.

9 U.S. Bureau of the Census (1962). The over- representation in our sample of city dwellers who are home owners is probably a result of controlling for family life cycle. That is, intact families with at least one child in school will more likely be home owners.


338 SOCIAL FORCES and specification.10 All of the background and demographic variables which yield suburban- urban differences were introduced as test factors.11 Although none of the original relationships was seriously attenuated by intro- ducing the test variable, some controls did specify conditions under which certain relationships were operable. These specifications will be discussed at appropriate points in the analyses which follow.

Local Intimacy and Social Participation Higher rates of local intimacy and voluntary

social participation have been found to be associated with both suburban residence and membership in the middle class (Greer, 1960; Smith et al., 1954; Bell and Boat, 1957; Bell and Force, 1956; Komarovsky, 1946). Using these variables as a basis for comparing blue- collar families living in the suburbs with similar families living in the central city should, therefore, provide one test of the relative influence of residence and social class. 1. Local intimacy. Two types of indicators were used to measure local intimacy-the extent and degree of neighboring and the perception of shared interest with neighbors. The results are presented in Table 1. It can be seen that consistent and generally significant differences exist, with greater neighboring oc- curring in the suburbs. Similar findings occur for the indicators of shared interest although here the differences are more pronounced for husbands than for wives. Not only were the suburbanites more likely to see themselves as sharing the same interests as their neighbors but they also were more inclined to see themselves as having similar income and education. In addition, they appeared to be more sensitized to their neighbors' work and church activities. Con versely, a significantly higher proportion

of city men responded to the items by claim- ing they had no knowledge of their neighbors' activities, income, or education. These data appear to be in accord with the classic position of Simmel (1950) and Wirth (1938) that pop- ulation density and close proximity produces a reserve in interpersonal contacts.12 However, the findings probably also reflect the lack of importance of neighbors in the lives of the city men. Most of these men appeared to maintain close friendship ties in other sectors of the city and were, therefore, less dependent on immediate neighbors to meet their social needs (Smith et al., 1954). 2. Social participation. No significant differences were found in the initial analysis on indicators of social participation. Approx- imately 50 percent of both groups reported no organizational ties. This would tend to con- firm other data indicating low social participation among blue-collar workers (Hausknecht, 1964; for a more general review see Scott, 1957). However, since social participation may also be a function of familiarity with the community and available voluntary groups, the findings were reexamined by dividing the suburban sample into those who had previously lived in another suburb and those who had moved from the central city. Two-fifths of the suburban sample had moved from the central city while the remaining families in the sample had moved from other suburbs or the suburban fringe. The urban sample was composed only of people with previous residence in the central city. Table 2 presents social participation comparisons for the three groups. It can be seen that women with previous suburban residence attended meetings of service organizations and participated in group recreational activities more frequently than did either of the other two groups, although the only statistically significant differences were with women who had previously lived in the city. Women who previously lived in the

10 In order to conserve space the partials will not be presented in this paper. The interested reader may obtain copies of all the partial tables for the test factors as well as comparisons based on standardizations of the test factors and the interview schedule by writing to the A.S.I.S.-Na- tional Auxiliary Publication Service, Library of Congress, Washingto-n 25, D.C., for document number NAPS 00764.

11 Other "subjective" variables which were introduced as test factors will be discussed later in this paper.

12 It is possible that this generalization holds only within metropolitan areas. Reiss (1954), for example, reports greater interpersonal contact in urban as compared to rural areas. Martin (1956) suggests that the choice of suburban residence is based, in part, on the opportunities provided for social contacts while maintaining the amenities of urban life.


BLUE-COLLAR LIFE-STYLES 339 TABLE 1. RESIDENCE DIFFERENCES ON INDICATORS OF LOCAL INTIMACY (PERCENT)

Men Women

Suburban Urban Suburban Urban (N = 45) (N = 51) (N = 45) (N = 51)

Neighboring Items Visit immediate neighbors at least once a month ............ 69 39* 52 44 Know more than one neighbor well enough to call him by

first name ...................................... 78 53* 89 72* Know more than one neighbor well enough to visit regularly.. 60 43* 75 51* Wife often visits other housewives 42 25* Other housewives often visit wife 49 24*

Shared Interest Items Similarity of education

About the same ....................................... 71 56 63 62 Don't know ........................................... 0 22* 11 16

Similarity of income About the same ....................................... 69 55 70 55 Don't know ........................................... 7 28* 20 20

Similarity of interests About the same ....................................... 67 35* 63 38* Don't know ........................................... 18 41* 17 38*

Type of work neighbors do Don't know ........................................... 7 21 2 24*

Frequency that neighbors go to church Don't know ............................. 22 42* 24 42*

*Indicatcs signiificant residential differences by sex at beyond the 5 percent level (X2 3.81, df=1).

suburbs were also significantly more likely than the other groups to consider themselves frequent participators in their previous location. For men, the only significant differences were on participation in recreational group activities. Here men with previous suburban residence were the most frequent participators.

The evidence indicating greater social participation of suburban women as compared to their husbands is consonant with previous research in white-collar suburbs (Martin, 1956). Since the relative isolation of the suburb with its lack of rapid public transportation and toll free telephone calls tends to weaken the traditional ties of working-class women to relatives and old friends, it may make them somewhat more amenable to organizational activity. The suburban wives' greater participation in service organizations offers some confirmation for Greer's (1960) hypothesis that similarity in households creates bonds of mu- tual dependence as well as shared perception of common problems. This, in turn, contributes to a stronger community orientation. In- asmuch as community problems are probably

more visible to wives, it is not surprising that they become more active participants.13

Chutrch Participation

Research pertaining to the relationship between residence and church participation has produced inconsistent results and conflicting interpretations (Winter, 1961; Gans, 1967:264- 266, suggest an increase in church attendance in suburbia; Zimmer and Hawley, 1959, present contrary evidence). The findings with regard to the influence of social class are somewhat more consistent, indicating greater church participation in the middle class than the working class (Schneider, 1964). Ad- vocates of the cultural explanation for life- style differences have maintained that residence does not appreciably influence this aspect of social behavior and have used data pertaining to church activities as one of the bulwarks in

13 Unfortunately, the small number of cases resulting from dividing the suburban sample into two groups made the introduction of test variables impractical.


340 SOCIAL FORCES TABLE 2. RESIDENTIAL COMPARISONS ON INDICATORS OF SOCIAL PARTICIPATION (PERCENT)

Men Women

Suburban Urban Suburban Urban City to Suburb to City to City to Suburb to City to Suburb Suburb City Suburb Suburb City

Item (N = 19) (N = 25) (N = 51) (N = 17) (N = 27) (N = 50) Average time spent attending service

organizations and meetings (such as P.T.A., etc.). Once a month or more 32 38 39 35 70t? 54

Average time spent in social group activities (card clubs, bowling, etc.) in present location. One evening a week or more 26 56 22* 12 361 28

Often attend meetings in old location 11 20 33 18 524? 22t Urban Urban

Suburban Men Men Suburban Women Women (N = 44) (N = 51) (AN = 45) (N=51)

Attend church more often since move 20 4t 34 24 Importance of church since move 30 9t 29 23?

*Signifies significant differences between central city sample and suburban to suburban group by sex (p


ment with friends and kin show a significantly higher proportion of urban as compared to suburban couples who felt that their move brought them closer to their relatives. In addition, the urban women were more likely to discuss their marital difficulties with close friends and relatives, whereas a higher proportion of suburban women reported that they had no one with whom to discuss these problems. These results were modified to some extent when age and working wives were controlled. As might be expected, the results held only for nonworking wives. With regard to age, the original residence differences re- mained constant for women under thirty; the older women in both communities were less likely to utilize kin and close friends to discuss marital problems. At the same time, the older suburban women represented the largest group which stated it had no one to talk with when marital problems occurred. The implications of these findings will be discussed in a later section; suffice it to say at this point, that, despite some qualifications, the introduction of test variables did not attenuate the original residence differences.

In order to test for role segmentation, we compared husbands and wives in the two com-

munities on their sources of confidants for nine problematic situations.15 As indicated in Table 3, urban husbands differed significantly from their wives on the resources they relied upon when common family difficulties occurred. Although the differences in the suburban sample were in the same direction, they were not as pronounced and were not statistically significant.

When education was controlled, husband-wife differences in the urban sample held only for families in which the men had less than a high school education; this control did not alter the results in the suburban sample. This is in keeping with Komarovsky's (1962:155-159) findings that the less-educated urban working- class men tend to be unable to make use of

TABLE 3. RESIDENTIAL DIFFERENCES IN FAMILY ORIENTATION (PERCENT)

Suburban Urban

Men Women Men Women (N = 45) (N = 45) (N = 51) (N = 51)

Differences in Movement Toward Relatives Item:

Live closer to husband's relatives in new location .22 26 41 * 43 Live closer to wife's relatives in new location .16 24 34* 44*

Residential and Sex Comparisons on Sources of Communication When Marital Problems Occur

Whom talked to: Spouse ................................................. .13 4 12 2 Friends and relatives ..................................... .33 39 17 56*t Outsiders ............................................... 16 17 29 22 No one ................................................. .38 39 41 20*t

Sources of Communication over 9 Problematic Situations Whom talked to:

Spouse .5 ........................................ .53 64 44 64t Friends and relatives ..................................... 13 14 7 17t

Outsiders ............................................... .17 9 26 lit No one ................................................. 18 13 22 8t

*Signifies significant residential differences by sex (p < .05 with chi-square test). tSignificant differences (between spouses) within communities computed by correlated "+" for dependent samples (p < .05 with two-tailed test).

chap. 3) for a discussion of linkage between social networks and role segmentation.

15 Subjects were asked with whom they talked in the following situations: (1) bad moods, (2) marital problems, (3) difficulty with neighbors, (4) difficulty with in-laws, (5) need for house re- pairs, (6) problems at work, or, for wives, problems at home, (7) difficulty with children, (8) financial problems, and (9) personal illness. Re- sponses were coded into four categories based on whether they talked with: (1) their spouse, (2) close friends and relatives, (3) an outsider (this included neighbors, fellow workers, or profession- als such as doctors, teachers, ministers, social workers, etc.), or (4) no one.


342 SOCIAL FORCES

confidants. While the exact temporal sequence cannot be determined from our data, it appears as if residence has a similar effect to that of education in mitigating role segmentation, probably because both variables contribute to greater spousal communication. In the case of residence this may be a consequence of isolation from friends and relatives; in the case of education it is indicative of a greater commonality of interests between spouses.

The fact that the suburban families were less apt to evidence close involvement with old friends and relatives or conjugal role segmentation suggests a shift away from the traditional working-class system of relationships, and toward a more nuclear type of family organization.16

Social Mobility The popular image of suburbia as inhabited

by upwardly mobile strivers has been chal- lenged by several studies (Bell, 1958; Dewey, 1948; Jaco and Belknap, 1953; Greer, 1956). Our data, however, yield significant residential differences for men on indicators of mobility. Although the majority of our respondents in both communities identify themselves as members of the working class, a greater proportion of male suburbanites as compared to city dwellers assume middle-class status. These data are shown in Table 4. Also, as indicated in Table 4, suburban men are more likely to consider their chances of getting ahead in their present job as very good and to view themselves as moving up in the world. Urban men, alternatively, tend to place a higher value on working-class identity as exemplified by their preference for working-class status and the tendency to want their sons to remain within this stratum.

When background variables were controlled only husband's age affected the relationships.

Residence differences were attenuated for those under the age of thirty-five, but were not appreciably altered for the older group. The young men in both communities tended to view themselves as working class while, at the same time, they stated they had a good chance of moving up in the world-suggesting that they may anticipate entering the middle class at some future time. We can infer from these data that with increasing age urban men experience a gradual process of disillusionment concerning their life chances. Considering the limited mobility opportunities which exist for manual workers this disillusionment is understan(iable (Blau and Duncan, 1967). What is of interest is that this process does not occur for the suburban group. The differences cannot be attributed to greater job mobility among the suburbanites since the samples are comparable in occupational status and income, and controlling for education does not modify the results. One possible explanation for these findings may lie in Chinoy's (1952; 1955 :83-85,123-34) observa- tion that older manual workers adopt certain types of material acquisitions as symbolic rep- resentations of success in order to allay the anxiety resulting from their lack of job imobil- ity. In this case the popular image of suburbia may be used to represent upward mobility and the attainment of middle-class status. The fact that the younger men in the suburbs are less likely to consider themselves as middle class suggests that they still hope to attain this status by means of job mobility.

Political Orientation Our final criterion of life-style was political

orientation. The results of previous research on the relationship between residence and political beliefs are not sufficiently consistent to allow for easy interpretations or unambiguous generalizations (Wood, 1958: chap. 5, for a review of research on suburban political behavior). What is apparent, however is that the popular view of the suburb as a stronghold of Republicanism and conservatism is not supported by the data. On the other hand, the com- monly held view of the traditional affiliation of the working class with the Democratic party appears to be a firmly established fact of Amer- ican political life (Alford, 1963:94-122).

The findings presented in Table 5 were in

16 The prototype of popular books fostering this image is Whyte's The Organi2ation Mani (1957). Bell (1958) has reported that in his middle-class sample, child and family orientations rather than career considerations were the prime motives for moving to the suburbs. Riesman (1957) considered an emphasis on pleasant environs and the good life more important to suburbanites than upward mobility. A similar position is taken by Ber- ger (1968:esp. chap. 2) in his report of a working-class suburb.



TABLE 4. RESIDENTIAL DIFFERENCES ON MEASURES OF UPWARD SOCIAL MOBILITY (PERCENT)

Men Women

Suburban Urban Suburban Urban Item (N=45) (NI=51) (N=45) (N=51)

Self-ascribed social class upper or middle ..................... 42 22* 32 24 Good chance of getting ahead in present job .................. 50 20* 39 26 Belong to group going up in world ........................... 61 30* 63 38* Desired social class upper or middle .......................... 89 65* 84 75

*Indicates significant statistical residential differences by sex at beyond the 5 percent level.

TABLE 5. RESIDENCE COMPARISONS OF POLITICAL ORIENTATION (PERCENT)

Men Women

Suburban Urban Suburban Urban Item (N=44) (N=49) (N = 45) (N = 50)

Party Affiliation Democrat...

........................................... 47 72* 71 63

Political Orientation Middle-of-the-road .. ................................... 62 38* 61 70

*Indicates significant statistical residential differences by sex at beyond the 5 percent level.

accord with previous data on urban working- class political orientations. Responses among the suburbanites, however, appeared to be more in keeping with the popular view of suburban politics and did not reflect some of the previous empirical findings.

We used two measures to assess political orientation; one was respondents' party affiliation, the other was their self-categorization as liberal, conservative or middle-of-the-road. Again our data indicate residence differences for men but not women. Almost three-quarters of the urban men considered themselves as Dem- ocrats as compared to less than half of the suburban men. In addition, the suburban men were significantly more likely to consider themselves middle-of-the-road, whereas the urbanites were inclined to take a less ambiguous political stance by adopting the label of either liberal or conservative. When background variables were controlled the residence differences held only for those who had at least a high school education, who were over the age of thirty-five, and whose wives were not working. Again it appears that although education, age, and working wives do not account for the residential differences, they specify conditions under which the relationship between residence and political views is operative.

EFFECTS OF RESIDENCE AND CLASS

We can conclude from the data reported above that residence is associated with fundamental differences in life-styles for the working-class families in this study. Further, the results fail to support the interpretations of Ber- ger, Gans, and Dobriner that the pervasiveness of working-class values renders residential factors virtually insignificant. The fact that none of the background or demographic variables when used as test factors appreciably altered the original relationships lends credence to these conclusions.'7 This is not to say that residence had a totally independent affect on the dependent variables. Rather, the specifica-

17 In order to determine more precisely the extent to which the test factors influenced the relationship between residence and the life-style variables, we standardized the effects of these variables and compared the original relationships with those resulting from the standardizations. These data are not presented here in order to conserve space; they are, however, available for the interested reader (see footnote 12). In only 3 of the 153 comparisons were the original findings reduced by as much as a third. There were no consistent reductions for any of the life-style categories standardized on a given test factor. For a description of the standardized procedure used see Rosenberg (1962).


344 SOCIAL FORCES tions resulting from the introduction of the test variables suggest that class and class-related cultural factors interact with residence to influence some of the life-style patterns. For example, the residential differences in church interest and activity were accounted for primarily by suburban men who came from rural backgrounds. Similarly the data indicating that previous residence influenced the rate of social participation of suburban women suggests that the integration of working-class women into suburban patterns of social participation may be somewhat slower than we might expect for middle-class women.

The findings pertaining to family organization indicate a somewhat more complicated pat- tern. It appears that suburban residence has an effect similar to increasing age for women and better education for men in modifying traditional working-class family patterns in the direction of a more companionate-nuclear type of family organization. The greater tendency of suburban wives to express feelings of isola- *tion, however, suggests that family nuclearization in the suburbs may be the result of the need to substitute spousal companionship for previous forms of emotional support.'8 Data reported elsewhere indicating greater couple role tension among blue-collar suburban families provide indirect support for the interpretation that this kind of forced nuclearization in- creases intrafamilial stress (Tallman, 1969). Apparently the greater neighboring and social participation of suburban women does not provide them with an adequate substitute for close ties with friends and relatives.

Thus, although the data from our blue-collar suburb approximate those of previous studies of white-collar suburbs with regard to neighboring, participation in voluntary associations, and family organization, there are indications that those behaviors may be qualitatively different in the two types of suburbs. These differences become even more evident when we compare

our findings on mobility and political orientations with previous reports of white-collar suburbs. What seems most striking in our data is the extent to which the suburban sample ap- proximates the popular image of suburbia as inhabited by middle class, upwardly mobile strivers who adapt a middle-of-the-road political stance (Whyte, 1957). Paradoxically, it is just these mobility orientations which most clearly set apart our blue-collar suburb from white- collar suburbs, the latter having frequently been described as inhabited by persons with high familism and nonmobility orientations (Bell, 1958; Mowrer, 1958).

The similarity between the life-styles ev- idenced by the suburban men and the popular image of suburban life raises the possibility that those blue-collar men who wish to identify themselves as middle class will move to the suburbs as verification of having achieved middle-class status.19 If this interpretation is valid then it is conceivable that many of the residential differences reported above can be accounted for by the greater mobility orientation of the suburban men. To test this possibility we reanalyzed the data controlling for class identification and perception of upward mobility. Again results did not attenuate the original residential differences on any of the life-style indicators.20

Controlling for social-class identification, however, did yield specifications for perceived similarity of neighbors' income and education and self-identification as liberal, conservative, or middle-of-the-road. On these three items the residential differences attentuate for men who identify themselves as middle class but remain constant for those who consider themselves working class. Apparently men with middle-class orientations were sensitized to the status attributes of their neighbors regardless of residence. A similar sensitivity to the characteristics of neighbors was found for suburban residents (see Table 1)-with the important distinction that suburbanites did not re- strict their interests to just questions of income and education but included perceptions of shared

18 The finding that the older suburban women ,experienced the greatest sense of isolation is somewhat harder to account for. It may be that despite a tendency to move toward a more companionate orientation with increasing age urban women still have old patterns of relationships to fall back on in emergencies, whereas these resources are not available for suburban women.

19 Chinoy (1952) suggests this is a motivating factor among automobile workers.

20 The differences for women were weaker in the original relationships and the results using these controls were relatively inconsistent.



interest and knowledge of the neighbors' work and church activities. This broader area of involvement suggests that the suburbanite is as concerned with his potential integration in the community as he is with status characteristics of his neighbors.

The fact that suburban-urban differences on political orientations cannot be explained by the greater middle-class identification of the suburban men suggests that residential factors play a role in the development of these views. It may be that the same factors which create greater neighboring and common interests in the suburbs also foster proximate and prag- matic political concerns, thereby mitigating the development of more absolute political orientations.21

Although these findings do not rule out the possibility that upwardly mobile manual workers may selectively choose to live in the suburbs, they do suggest that the life-style differences we found cannot be explained by this aspect of selective migration.22

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The pervasive influence of residence on the variables depicting life-style suggests that the ecology of the community has a significant, though not totally independent, effect on critical modes of behavior. Such characteristics as the ratio of single to multiple dwellings, the amount of shared common space, and relative isolation from the city appear to have as much influence on the working-class family as they do on the middle class. In fact, the isolation of the suburb may be particularly salient in the working class since it breaks up traditional pat-

terns of close relationships with relatives and peers. This is probably more true for women than it is for men since working-class women seem to be more tied to kin than are their husbands (Rainwater et al., 1959; Komarovsky, 1962; Young and Willmott, 1957; Adams, 1968: 169).

The ecological explanation does not appear to adequately account for all of the findings, however. For example, location per se does not explain the greater middle class and upwardly mobile orientation of the suburbanites. It may be that upwardly mobile workers tend to select suburban residences because they symbolize middle-class status. At the same time, our data show that mobility orientations do not significantly modify the residential differences in other aspects of life-style reported in this paper. What seems most likely is that the interaction between suburban location and upwardly mobile persons with working-class backgrounds results in a life-style which is different from that characteristic of white-collar suburbs or working- class urban areas. Should our findings be supported by more representative studies, we would expect that the blue-collar suburb, unlike its white-collar counterpart, would represent a status-conscious community with a moderately conservative bent, a moderate level of social participation, greater church attendance, and a relatively high degree of marital tension. Even where our data approximate those of white-collar suburbs (e.g., neighboring, local intimacy, social participation, and nuclear family orientations) it seems reasonable to infer that more intensive study would yield qualita- tive differences.

The differential effect of residence on men and women has been the subject of considerable discussion in the literature. The suburb has been described as the central domain of women, and suburban life is viewed as uniquely satisfying to their values and expressive orientations (Mowrer, 1958:162-163; Martin, 1956). Most of the findings reported in this paper, with the exception of those referring to social participation, indicate greater residence differences for men than for women. The implications of these differences have been reported in some detail elsewhere (Tallman, 1969). Suffice it to say, the data indicate that the suburbs did not provide greater satisfaction for women; if

21 This interpretation is not unlike Greer's (1960) notion that the basis of political participation in suburbs is shared life space and interests. See also his discussion in The Emerging City (1962 :esp. chap. 4). Another factor which may play a role in the lack of partisanship as well as the lack of strong commitment is the non-partisan nature of most suburban elections (Wood, 1958; Greer, 1962:141).

220ur efforts to discover a basis for selective migration in this study did not yield sizeable residential differences. The reasons given for moving in the two communities were remarkably similar. Approximately 45 percent of the men and women in both communities stated they moved to obtain better liousing or living conditions.


346 SOCIAL FORCES anything, suburban life was viewed more pos- itively by men. In general, the findings illus- trate the importance of using both spouses in studies of this type and the dangers of assum- ing that a single respondent adequately represents the household.

The suburb reported here is relatively recent in origin and virtually homogeneous in class composition. In this sense it is comparable to Berger's (1968) suburb, but unlike Dobriner's (1963) description of Levittown.23 The generalizations that can be drawn from this study are also limited by the fact that it represents only one midwest community. A definitive study of suburban life in the United States will have to provide a representative sample of communities as well as populations. Given the problems extant in defining communities it would appear that any attempt at representative sampling must be preceded by a more careful delineation of ecological and residential factors than has been characteristic of such research in the past. Our data strongly suggest that an adequate typology of communities can make a major contribution in explaining the development of divergent life-styles.

23 For example, 42 percent of our suburban sample defined themselves as middle class as compared to 41 percent in Berger's study (1968:119).

REFERENCES Adams, Bert N.

1968 Kinship in an Urban Setting. Chicago: Markham.

Alford, Robert R. 1963 Party and Society. Chicago: Rand Mc-

Nally. Bell, Wendell

1958 "Social Choice, Life Styles, and Subur- ban Residence." Pp. 225-247 in William M. Dobriner (ed)., The Suburbcan Corn- munnity. New York: Putnam's.

Bell, Wendell, and Marion D. Boat 1957 "Urban Neighborhoods and Informal So-

cial Relations." Amterican Journal of So- ciology 62(January) :391-398.

Bell, Wendell, and Maryanne T. Force 1956 "Urban Neighborhood Types and Partic-

ipation in Formal Association." Ainerican Sociological Review 21 (February) :25-34.

Berger, Bennett M. 1960 Working Class Suburb. Berkeley and Los

Angeles: University of California Press. 1968 "Suburbia and the American Dream." Pp.

434-444 in Sylvia F. Fava (ed.), Urban- ism in World Perspective. New York: Crowell.

Blau, Peter M., and Otis Dudley Duncan 1967 The American Occupational Structure.

New York: Wiley. Bott, Elizabeth

1957 Family and Social Network. London: Tavistock.

Cavan, Ruth S. 1964 "Sub-Cultural Variation and Mobility."

Pp. 535-581 in Harold Christensen (ed.), Handbook of Marriage and the Family. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Chinoy, Ely 1952 "The Tradition of Opportunity and the

Aspirations of Automobile Workers." American Journal of Sociology 57(May) 453-459.

1955 Automobile Workers and the American Dream. Boston: Beacon Press.

Dewey, Richard 1948 "Peripheral Expansion in Milwaukee

County." Americcan Journcal of Sociology 53(May) :414-422.

Dobriner, William M. 1963 Class in Subutrbia. Englewood Cliffs:

Prentice-Hall. Dun-can, Otis Dudley, and Albert J. Reiss, Jr.

1958 "Suburbs and Urban Fringe." Pp. 45-66 in William M. Dobriner (ed.), The Sub- urban Comnmunity. New York: Putnam's.

Fava, Sylvia F. 1958 "Contrasts in Neighboring: New York

City and Suburban County." Pp. 122-131 in William M. Dobriner (ed.), The Sub- urban Community. New York: Putnam's.

Gans, Herbert J. 1962 The Urban Villagers. New York: Free

Press. 1967 The Levittowners. New York: Pantheon

Books. Greer, Scott

1956 "Urbanism Reconsidered: A Comparative Study of Local Areas in a Metropolis." American Sociological Review 21 (Febru- ary) :19-25.

1960 "The Social Structure and Political Pro- cess of Suburbia." American Sociolog- ical Review 25 (August) :514-526.

1962 The Emerging City. New York: Free Press.

Hausknecht, Murray 1964 "The Blue Collar Joiner." Pp. 207-214

in Arthur B. Shostak and William Gom- berg (eds.), Blue Collar World. Engle- wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.


BLUE-COLLAR LIFE-STYLES 347 Hoover, Edgar M., and Raymond Vernon

1959 Anatomy of a Metropolis. New York: Anchor Books.

Jaco, E. Gartley, and Ivan Belknap 1953 "Is a New Family Form Emerging in the

Urban Fringe ?" Amnerican Sociological Review 18(October) :551-557.

Komarovsky, Mirra 1946 "The Voluntary Associations of Urban

Dwellers." Amnerican Sociological Review 11 (December) :686-698.

1962 Blue Collar Marriage. New York: Ran- dom House.

Ktsanes, Thomas, and Leonard Reissman 1959-1960 "Suburbia-New Homes for Old

Values." Social Problems 7(Winter) 187-195.

Lazerwitz, Bernard 1960 "Metropolitan Residential Belts." Amer-

Sociological Review 25(April) :245-252. Martin, Walter

1956 "The Structuring of Social Relationships Engendered by Suburban Residence." American Sociological Review 21 (Au- gust) :446-452.

Miller, S. M., and Frank Riessman 1964 "The Working-Class Sub-Culture: A

New View." Pp. 24-36 in Arthur B. Shostak and William Gomberg (eds.), Blue Collar World. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Mogey, J. M. 1955 "Chlanges in Family Life Expericnced by

English Workers Moving From Slums to Housing Estates." Marriage antd Family Livintg 17(May) :123-129.

1956 Famtily and Neighborliood. London: Ox- ford University Press.

Mowrer, Ernest R. 1958 "The Family in Suburbia." Pp. 147-164

in William M. Dobriner (ed.), The Sub- urban Comntiunity. Ncw York: Putnam's.

Rainwater, Lee, R. P. Coleman, and Gerald Handel 1959 WVorkin,igmian's WVife. New York: Oceana.

Reiss, Albert J., Jr. 1954 "Rural-Urban and Status Differences in

Interpersonal Contacts." American Jour- ntal of Sociology 65(September) :182-195.

Riesman, David 1957 "The Suburban Dislocation." Annals of

the Amiiericant Academy of Political antd Social Science 314 :123-146.

Rosenberg, Morris 1962 "Test Factor Standardlization as a Meth-

od of Interprctation." Social Forces 41 (October) :53-61.

Rossi, Peter H. 1955 Why Families Move. Glencoe: Free

Press. Schneider, Louis

1964 "Problems in the Sociology of Religion." Pp. 770-807 in Robert E. L. Faris (ed.), Handbook of Modern Sociology. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Scott, J. C. 1957 "Membership and Participation in Volun-

tary Associations." American Sociolog- ical Review 21 (June) :315-326.

Seligman, Daniel 1964 "The New Masses." Pp. 151-161 in

Frederick J. Tietze and James E. Mc- Keown (eds.), The Chan,gintg Metropolis. Boston: Houghton Miffin.

Shevky, Eshrev, and Wendell Bell 1955 Social Area Analysis. Stanford: Stan-

ford University Press. Simmel, Georg

1950 "The Metropolis and Mental Life." Pp. 409-424 in Kurt H. Wolff (trans. and ed.), The Sociology of Geory Simmel. Glencoe: Free Press.

Smith, Joel, William H. Form, and Gregory P. Stone

1954 "Local Intimacy in a Middle-Sized City." American Joutrntal of Sociology 60(No- vember) :276-284.

Tallman, Irving 1969 "Working-Class Wife in Suburbia: Ful-

fillment or Crisis." Journal of Marriage and the Family 31(February) :65-72.

Taueber, Karl E., and Alma F. Taueber 1964 "White Migration and Social-Economic

Differences Between Cities and Suburbs." American Sociological Review 29 (Octo- ber) :718-729.

Tomeh, Aida K. 1964 "Informal Group Participation and Res-

idential Patterns." American Journal of Sociology 70(July) :28-35.

U.S. Bureau of the Census 1962 U.S. Centsus of Populationts antd Housin,g:

1960 Centsuts Tracts. Final Report PHC (1) -93, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Whyte, William H. 1957 7he Organtizationt Man1. New York: An-

chor Books. Willmott, Peter, and Michael Young

1960 Famiiily antd Class in a London Subturb. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.


348 SOCIAL FORCES Winter, G.

1961 The Suburban Captivity of the Church. New York: Doubleday.

Wirth, Louis 1938 "Urbanism as a Way of Life." American

Journal of Sociology 44(July) :1-24. Wood, Robert C.

1958 Suburbia, Its People and Their Politics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Woodbury, Coleman 1955 "Suburbanization and Suburbia." Amer-

ican Journal of Public Health 45:1-10. Young, Michael, and Peter Willmott

1957 Family and Kinship in East London. Bal- timore: Penguin Books.

Zimmer, Basil, and Amos Hawley 1959 "Suburbanization and Church Participa-

tion." Social Forces 37(May) :348-354.

SUBJECTIVE SOCIAL CLASS IN AMERICA: 1945-68* E. M. SCHREIBER G. T. NYGREEN

Princeton University

ABSTRACT

Evidence from a series of national samples shows no decline in working-class identification in the United States since 1945. The disagreement between these results and those of Tucker for 1963 appears to be the consequence of different question wordings and an implicitly different conceptualization of "class." The Tucker question prompted the modal respondent to rank himself in terms of an evaluative dimension rather than to identify himself with a group. The 1963 study probably gives a minimum estimate of "working-class consciousness"; this interpretation is more consistent with evidence from the other studies.

It recently was claimed, with supporting evidence, that there has been "a reduction in the use of the working-class label for full-

time employed men in the U.S. from 1945 to 1963" (Tucker, 1968:513). Specifically, Tucker (1968:510) reported that the percentage of men choosing the "working-class" label in response to a question on subjective social class has dropped from the 51 percent found by Centers (1949) in 1945 to 31 percent in 1963. In contrast, Lane (1965:886) cited data that led him to conclude that "men appear to be as willing today as they were about twenty years ago to see themselves as members of 'the working class.' "1

Similarly divergent results have occurred for white-collar workers: Hamilton (1966a :193; 1966b) reported that 52 percent of the clerical and sales workers identified themselves as working class in 1956 and that in 1964, "roughly half" of this group made a similar choice. In contrast, Tucker (1966) found that only 16 percent of the full-time employed male clerical and sales workers selected the working-class or lower-class label in 1963. Hamilton (1966b) suggested that "Tucker's finding is not indicative of a trend, but is rather attributable to the changed question wording, i.e., the choice among six alternatives." Tucker (1966 :856; 1968:511) argued that merely increasing the number of response alternatives does not seem an adequate explanation for the different results. He thus concluded that the contrast between the results of his study with those of Centers indicated a real shift from working to middle in the modal class identification.

The problem seems to lie with the operational

* The data in this paper were processed using facilities provided by the Computer Center and by the Office for Survey Research and Statistical Studies, Princeton University. The authors are indebted to Stephen L. Klineberg for his com- ments on earlier versions of this paper.

1 Lane and Tucker both used the 1945 study of Richard Centers (1949) as the base point for their comparisons. Tucker, however, compared 1945 only with his own 1963 study. In contrast, Lane compared 1945 with published tables using data from studies done in 1946, 1952, and 1956 as well as with the marginal distributions in the code-

books for the Survey Research Center Election Studies of 1952, 1956, 1960, and 1964. The 1946 data were taken from Centers (1949:77) ; the data for 1952 and 1956 were taken from Converse (1958: 390).


Article Contentsp. 334p. 335p. 336p. 337p. 338p. 339p. 340p. 341p. 342p. 343p. 344p. 345p. 346p. 347p. 348

Issue Table of ContentsSocial Forces, Vol. 48, No. 3, Mar., 1970Front MatterErratum: Differential Prior Socialization: A Comparison of Four Professional Training ProgramsMultiple Correlation and Ordinally Scaled Data [pp. 299 - 311]The Community As a Social Field [pp. 311 - 322]A Critical Examination of the Designation of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas [pp. 322 - 333]Life-Style Differences among Urban and Suburban Blue-Collar Families [pp. 334 - 348]Subjective Social Class in America: 1945-68 [pp. 348 - 356]An Indicator of Marriage Dissolution by Marriage Cohort [pp. 356 - 365]Bureaucracy and Alienation: A Dimensional Approach [pp. 365 - 373]Some Political Implications of Students' Acquisition of Social Science Information [pp. 373 - 383]In Defense of Orthodoxy: Notes on the Validity of an Index [pp. 383 - 393]Research NoteNote on the Mathematical Formalization of a Measure of Division of Labor [pp. 394 - 396]

CommentaryOn Christianity and Sociopolitical Change [pp. 397 - 408]On Christianity and Sociopolitical Change: Reply [pp. 408 - 411]

In Memoriam: Samuel Huntington Hobbs, Jr. 1895-1969 [p. 412]Book Reviewsuntitled [pp. 413 - 414]untitled [p. 414]untitled [pp. 414 - 415]untitled [pp. 415 - 416]untitled [pp. 416 - 417]untitled [pp. 417 - 418]untitled [pp. 418 - 419]untitled [p. 419]untitled [pp. 419 - 420]untitled [pp. 420 - 421]untitled [p. 421]untitled [pp. 421 - 422]untitled [pp. 422 - 423]untitled [pp. 423 - 424]untitled [p. 424]untitled [p. 425]untitled [pp. 425 - 426]untitled [pp. 426 - 427]untitled [pp. 427 - 428]untitled [p. 428]untitled [pp. 428 - 429]untitled [p. 429]untitled [pp. 429 - 430]untitled [p. 430]untitled [pp. 430 - 431]untitled [p. 431]untitled [p. 432]untitled [pp. 432 - 433]untitled [p. 433]untitled [pp. 433 - 434]untitled [p. 434]untitled [p. 435]untitled [pp. 435 - 436]untitled [p. 436]untitled [pp. 436 - 437]untitled [pp. 437 - 438]untitled [p. 438]untitled [pp. 438 - 439]untitled [pp. 439 - 440]untitled [p. 440]New Books Received [pp. 440 - 443]

Back Matter

gaya hidup lagi 2

Documents

Transcript of gaya hidup lagi 2