same ward. The precinct, therefore, is a better unit than the ward, to bring into relief the natural boundaries of the local group. In order to illustrate the various regional attitudes on questions pertaining to the mores I have prepared Maps XIV, XV, and XVI. These maps are constructed on the basis of the voting precinct and represent the percentage of electors for each precinct voting affirma tively on the three subjects in question-prohibition, woman's suffrage, and the non-employment of women in liquor shops. The similarity of shading of the various sections of the city in all three of these maps is significant. The local areas that supported prohibition invariably supported woman's suffrage to approximately the same degree. The areas surrounding the central business section of the city stand out conspicuously as opposed to both prohibition and woman's suffrage and in favor of the employment of women in liquor shops; while the eastern, western, and northern extremities of the city-the three leading residential areas-are strong supporters of the first two issues and opposers of the third issue. In the process of the sifting and sorting of population within a city, there is a tendency for people of similar mores to become grouped together in neighborhood association. And it is only in the decision of questions involving the mores that the specific group character of these local areas comes into prominence. The consistency of attitudes displayed by the various local regions on questions dealing with the mores is remarkable. Not only did the Columbus vote on prohibition for consecutive years show almost precisely the same results, as far as local segregation of opinion is concerned, but the votes on the other subjects, more or less kindred, show almost identical distribution of supporters and opposers. The ward distribution of opinion on a number of such subjects is graphically shown in Graph I. The points are arbitrarily connected to assist the eye in following the ward fluctuations on these subjects. The correlation of ward opinions on these three subjects is conspicious. Obviously the voter who favored woman's suffrage voted also for prohibition, and for the non-employment of women in liquor shops. The lower line graphically representing the relative economic status of the different wards, bears an interesting similarity of fluctuations to those of the lines illustrating ward opinion on the three subjects in question. Wards 4, 5, 15, and 16, which stand high in economic status are the strongest supporters of each of the three municipal issues; while Ward 9, which has the lowest economic rating, shows the lowest affirmative vote on these issues. The correlation of opinion on these subjects may be shown still more clearly by observing the precinct distribution of votes for a single ward. There are too many precincts to make it practicable to show this distribution for the entire city. But the distribution of opinion within one ward will serve as an example of the general 'Similarity of attitudes, however, is not in itself a criterion of group consciousness. It is necessary that the individual members of the group shall be aware of the similarity of their attitudes. Referring to the Polish peasant, Thomas and Znaniecki, say, "The manner in which social opinion holds the community together is easily analyzed. Any extraordinary occurrence becomes for a certain time the focus of attention of all the members of the community, an identical attitude toward this is developed, and each member of the community is conscious that he shares the general attitude or that his attitude is shared by the rest of the community. These are the three original elements of the mechanism of social opinion: the phenomenon, the identity of attitude, and the consciousness of this identity."-The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, I, 145. |