Download - HSRC Press

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.zageneralizations concerning the level of abstraction of the proposed typology,should be intelligible.We view the 32 unitary value orientations as relevant to all spheres of socialaction, and the developed typology as applicable to all societies, irrespective oftheir social and cultural differences — as Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck do withregard to the value orientations that they distinguish. In terms of Smelser’slevels of specificity, the proposed typology can be said to represent ‘societalvalues’. Smelser’s second level of specificity is that of institutional sectors orspheres. We are aware that T. Parsons has suggested that there is a more directrelation between particular institutional complexes and particular functions,between e.g. politics and Goal Achievement, economy and Adaptation, etc. Wewould, however, not advise for these correlations to be taken to extremes. Ourtypology is definitely applicable to a particular institutional complex but wewould insist that all four problem complexes and all tour dimensions ofengagement remain valid and relevant, which means that to any oneinstitutional complex all of the 32 unitary value orientations apply, or, aretheoretically possible.There can, furthermore, be no objection to any attempt to apply the developedtypology to the more specific levels differentiated within the value componentof action as given by Smelser. The validity and meaningfulness of the typologyfor collectivities of varying range (societies, communities, groups, etc.) are notproblematical, at least not logically or theoretically so, if the unitary valueorientations are indexed or operationalized in the form of value statements towhich individuals have to react. I have developed such a test containing 64value statements and first results have brought relative assurance on themeaningfulness of the typology as well as the practicality of using valuestatements in questionnaires.Further remarks on the empirical identification or measurement of valueorientations would take us beyond the intended scope of this paper. One lastpoint is, however, in order: if the technique of reaction to value statements isused, the content of these statements obviously have to be adjusted to (i) thelevel of specificity (society, institutional complex, etc.), (ii) the range of thecollectivities in which individuals are questioned (society, community, group,organization), (iii) the sociocultural patterns — it would obviously not do tohave statements referring to social situations and cultural items that none orfew of the respondents have experienced, and (iv) the educational status of therespondents.QUESTIONS1. How does the author justify his attempt at constructing yet anothertypology of value-orientations?231