TOWARD A THEORY OF MINORITY-GROUP RELATIONS.

By Hubert J. Blalock Jr. '48. New York: John Wiley &Sons Inc., 1967. 221 pp. $6.95.

Your daily newspaper to the contrary not-withstanding, we really do not know whether the climate of race relations in this country is better or worse than it was ten years ago. However, there is little doubt that the climate of discussion about race relations is deteriorating fast. It used to be that segregationists foamed at the mouth while "moderates" and "liberals" patiently attempted to reply with facts and reason. Today, however, one can hardly pick up a respectable newspaper or magazine without reading hysterical conjecture of the sort that would be considered effusive by the intellectual standards of the K.K.K.

In this light, it is no mean tribute to Professor Blalock to state that he has written an unexciting book on race relations - one that appeals to the head rather than the viscera.

The core consists of 97 numbered propositions— e.g. "(39) the minority's chances for promotion are more likely in unions, membership in which cuts across several occupational levels" - organized around two themes, status seeking and economic competition. His analysis thus pays little attention to the traditional social psychological themes of prejudice, authoritarianism, and scapegoating. Rather he views inter-group relations in terms of competition for jobs, power, and social prestige. The net effect, nevertheless, is as chilling as the latest fulmination from this week's self-appointed Black Power spokesman since the propositions make frighteningly clear the economic, political, and social gains which follow from stomping on your fellow man.

To the professional sociologist the book is especially interesting because Blalock, one of the leading quantitative minded sociologists in the country, provides a sophisticated analysis of the issues and difficulties involved in gathering data to test the propositions. The non-technical reader will, I suspect, find these parts abstruse and nit-picking. They may be abstruse, but they are not nit-picking, for they tell us what facts are required to prove or disprove the propositions; and if we abandon the data, we abandon rationality as a tool for solving this problem that racks our nation.

Professor of Sociology at Dartmouth, Mr.Davis teaches Methods of Sociological Investigation and an advanced seminar in Interpersonal Relations.