Social Mobility, Class Relations, and
Nationalism in Latin America
ALAIN TOURAINE
(Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes ~ Sorbonne)
SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY of industrialization consists
A not so much in the search for consequences or
social conditions in economic development, as in elu-
cidating the normative orientations toward action
which define social movements.
When applied to the Latin American case, this
approach allows three principles of analysis to be
brought into focus: social mobility, class relations and
nationalism. By combining these three principles, ac-
cording to the different stages of development, it is
possible to characterize different kinds of social
movements. We shall distinguish in particular, popu-
lar revolt, national popular movements, and popular
front movements. The dynamics accounting for the
shifts from one stage to another rests on the internal
oppositions existing between these three principles.
We shall distinguish two kinds of elites, one which
leads and one which launches. The spillover of a
leadership elite into a launching elite explains the am-
biguous role of elites in national popular movements.
I
The experience of European industrialization has
made us loath to think that the open conflict of
two antagonistic classes is the necessary concomitant
of the establishment of an industrial economy in
which the new sectors of industrial workers partici-
pate only through their work. Democracy and mass
consumption appear very late in this type of industrial
society. Its development determines a progressive
integration of the working sectors or classes in the
national society. In other words, economic develop-
ment and the social and political participation are
parallel phenomena.
This example, however, cannot be taken as a model
in the study of non-European processes of industrial-
ization. Generally speaking, certain forms of social
participation have been introduced in present-day
industrializing societies before they had reached the
economic maturity which Britain had achieved in
1884-85, i.e., a society where the sources of authority
and legitimacy are the rational growth of production,
the democratic control of the instruments of produc-
tion, and the results of production as such.
The masses mobilized by industrialization enter into
new activities and a new type of life. And also they
participate in the transformation and voluntary de-
velopment of that society. The more a society moves
toward industrial civilization, the more naturally it
orients itself directly toward that goal, and at the
same time finds obstacles to development which are
increasingly within the society itself. The more a
society moves away from dependence upon nature,
the more do national claims turn into social claims.
This is what causes social classes to compete with
each other.
In addition to these two elements of analysis - -
the progress of social integration, and the internaliza-
tion of the social conflicts in the society under con-
sideration, there is a third. The members of an in-
dustrializing society, of a society which undergoes a
process of rapid transformation, cannot incorporate
themselves into the society as it is, but to a society
which is being transformed by their own movement.
Beyond individual social mobility, a collective mobil-
ity shows itself. Therefore, integration refers to a
point which is intrinsically mobile, which in itself is
defined by the very nature of collective mobility. It
is at the very moment of what Gino Germani has
called the mobilization o/ society that the goal
aimed at shifts fasfest and when, therefore, the con-
sciousness of "collective mobility" and of "national
mobility" can reach its maximum.
The analysis of collective social behavior in de-
veloping societies must start with a consideration of
the relationships between these three lines of evolu-
tion. This consideration is made less difficult if we
distinguish, from the outset, successive stages of de-
velopment and try to define them in sociological
terms. The purpose of this report is to define the
study of the social mobilization of new strata in the
20 STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL
national society, the growth of urban concentrations,
and the changes in the occupational and class struc-
tures. This felicitous formulation interlocks the three
elements of analysis just distinguished: nationalism,
social mobility, and class ,elationships.
We must first describe how these elements come
to be related in the successive stages of the process
of development.
II
A social movement is defined by three elements:
a principle of defense, which refers to the particular
interests of a group or a social sector; a principle
of opposition, i.e., the definition of the adversary;
and finally, a principle of totality, a certain concep-
tion of the public interest without which a conflict
would be a purely private one and would not chal-
lenge the general orientation of society. It is the
central idea of this paper that, in every stage of the
process of development, the themes of mobility, na-
tionalism, and class relationships correspond to the
principles of defense, opposition, and totality. But the
correspondence l~;ill differ according to the stage of
development which is being considered.
1. In a first type of situation, economic depend-
ence prevails. In other words, the society under con-
sideration partakes of the industrial civilization simply
as object. It supplies the industrial societies with raw
materials, foodstuffs, or manpower, and is not con-
:iciously engaged in a process of economic develop-
ment. Power is not controlled by those who could
direct industrialization to their own benefit, but by
those who maintain a traditional patrimonial system,
by those who are connected with foreign political or
economic forces, or by those who try to enrich them-
selves through speculation, corruption, or violence.
In this situation, defense of the public interest is
defined in the first place as the commencement, the
commencement of society, its liberation from external
domination (whether national or foreign) ! The op-
position is directed against what we could call the
Anti-Nation and, particularly, against what is often
called imperialist forces or colonial domination. Ac-
tion is taken in the name of an exploited class, of
the lowest ranking members of the working class, or
of landless and jobless people. W e shall call such a
social movement a popular revolt.
2. In a second type of situation, society is already
mobilized. A national bourgeoisie or the State,
both acting together in various combinations, have
undertaken some substantial economic development.
In this setting social movements are controlled by
the importance of individual social mobility, and
DEVELOPMENT
even more, by that of collective mobility.
The new workers or the new city-dwellers define
themselves by their own movement. They are the
"barbarians" crossing the borders of the Roman
Empire, whose massive pressure snaps the boundaries
of limited democracy, the bourgeois parliamentarian-
ism which prevailed in Argentina before Juan Peron,
in Brazil before Getulio Vargas, and which still pre-
vails in Colombia. Collective actions, therefore, are
carried out in the name of the movement and of the
newcomers. They are directed against a class, the
bourgeoisie, which controls institutions and the eco-
nomic system. But this opposition is not absolute, for
the new urban strata define the public interest as the
formation of a new nation. In this situation, national-
ism is defined as the creation of a national unity
rather than as anti-imperialism. This national unity,
however, is not the terminal point of a process of
integration, but rather the aim of a movement which
overruns the institutional, and specifically the polit-
ical, system which then comes into existence. Germani
has called these types of social movements, national-
popular movements.
3. In a third type of situation, a society in which
the realities and the problems of an industrial econ-
omy already prevail, confronts the internal resistance
of archaic social groups or structures. Against such
resistance movements are made up which appeal to
the people, to the majority of the citizens, movements
which are not purely working-class, although in
Europe and the United States populism has been a
favorable circumstance for the rise or progress of
trade unionism. The adversary of this type of move-
ment is, then, all that which, because of its immobil-
ity, exerts resistance to movement. The forces of
social conservation are represented by what we shall
call an urban or rural bourgeoisie rather than capital-
ism. But even though the principal actors do not
define themselves in terms of class, in the Marxist
sense of the word, it is in terms of class that what
is being fought for is generally presented. To illus-
trate this proposition with a European example, we
shall say that at the time of the "Dreyfus affair"
which deeply divided France, neither of the adver-
saries could define itself as to class. Nonetheless, the
struggle itself was interpreted by most people in
terms of a social class conflict. This situation was also
to be found, at least partially, in the antagonism be-
tween F.R.A.P. and the conservative political forces
of Chile - - an antagonism which began in 1938 and
continues unabated.
These three situations are therefore defined as dif-
ferent combinations of three identical elements, which
we can summarize in the following table:
 S O C I A L M O B I L I T Y , CLASS R E L A T I O N S , A N D N A T I O N A L I S M
Principle of Principle of Principle of
Defense Opposition Totality
I class nation movement
II movement class nation
III nation movement class
It would serve little purpose to content oneself
with this scheme. W e shall simply try to show that
it can serve as a point of departure for more detailed
analyses. Above all, it shows that the analysis of social
and political problems of developing societies cannot
be made by means of a single notational system but
must necessarily combine three themes, each of which
has a very different position in sociological analysis,
namely, mobility, class conflict, and nationalism. It
is only possible to choose one of these approaches.
It is possible to consider these types of society as
three successive stages of a process which goes from
dependence to mobilization and, later, relative inte-
gration. It is also possible to show that the theme
of nation undergoes changes. It was at first a goal
to be created; later, it becomes a social force. It can
also be underlined that, in the course of this evolu-
tion, there is a shift from a consciousness of one's
own class to a consciousness of the oppositional class
and, finally, to a consciousness of class relations and
conflicts. These three analytical approaches are equal-
ly valuable and the works which take any of these
standpoints can arrive, and have already arrived, at
many important results.
But it is hard to imagine that an understanding
of the complexity of the situations studied, and even
more of their real dynamics, could be .reached in this
way. A partial viewpoint cannot embrace a system
of action, i.e., the corfibination of the goal one fights
for, the enemy one fights against, and the principle
in the name of which the struggle is carried on. This
is the reason why attempts to define the social strati-
fication systems of these societies are, finally, some-
what futile. Social stratification is simple only as
long as it is viewed apolitically, as long as historical
action is omitted. However, a consideration of the
problem of development in terms of this type of
analysis can only overemphasize one of the three
principles of analysis - - social mobility - - reducing
it to individual mobility and thus impoverishing it.
This simplest social translation of economic develop-
ment is precisely collective social mobility.
It might be objected that this analysis and its
chart exaggerate certain combinations of the three
elements. Why hold only three cases constant, when
at least six are possible? Even more cases are ad-
missable if it is considered that a combination may
21
use the same term three or four times. This objection
is justified on historical grounds. To give one exam-
ple, certain European revolutionary movements at the
start of the twentieth century, may perhaps be en-
tirely defined as class movements, defending the
working class against the capitalist class in the name
of achieving a classless society, or a dictatorship by
one (formerly oppressed) class.
Nonetheless the hypothesis here presented is pre-
cisely that the three dimensions which have been
singled out are present at every moment in social
change. This indicates the difference between
"modern" and "classic" interpretations of develop-
ment. The latter, based as they were on the European
experience and postulating oftener than not the
homogeneity of the historical field of action, over-
emphasized the unilinear character of change at the
expense of the constituent principles of social m o v e -
ments.
1. The pattern: class-movement-nation. This desig-
nates the revolt of one class against immobility in
the name of the nation. But in this first stage of
evolution, the nation can only be defined as opposed
to the anti-nation, by a refusal to accept colonial
status. This form, accounts for the formation of a
movement which can be nothing but the negation of
negation, rather than ~i positive affirmation of de-
velopment values. The paffern herein considered is
thus a degraded form of that which has been included
in the chart.
2. The pattern." nation-class-movement. This desig-
nates a populism opposed to the industrial bour-
geoisie in the name of economic development. This
pattern is far more interesting than the preceding
ones, but it is not very far apart from the one which
has been dealth with. It may be considered a variant
of populism. The weakness of this formulation re-
sides in tho fact that at this stage anti-colonial claims
and social claims are closely interrelated. The defense
of the people, a tradition which has been maintained
from J. Jaurds to the Belgian trade unionist A.
Renard, is a vision of society which is more strongly
marked by class conflict than by the will to achieve
development; since on this theory, development is
a fact and the obstacle to be surmounted is the insti-
tutional lag with respect to the forces of production.
3. The pattern: movement-nation-class. This desig-
nates a political movement based on collective mo-
bility in contrast to alienaled action in the name of
a class society. At this ten ral stage of development,
the essential element is the shift from a movement
to a nation. The individuals and categories in collec-
tive mobility value their movement as such and the
national transformation indicated. It would therefore
 22 STUDIES I N COMPARATIVE I N T E R N A T I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T
be most unusual if their action should be registered
as a class representation of society. We might say
that this pattern is a deformation of the national-
popular movements, introduced by a contamination
of classic European models. The failure of Com-
munist parties in Western Europe probably derives
from their relation with this pattern, which should be
considered as historically far less important than the
national popular movements corresponding to the
movement-class-nation pattern.
III
After defining the nature of the political-social
problems in each of the great stages of the process of
development, it is important to look for the condi-
tions which determine the transition from one stage
to the next. The human agents of these changes are
necessarily important social actors, whose relation-
ships to the basic elements and social dynamics pre-
viously indicated need to be defined with greater
precision.
1. Let us begin with the first of the three stages
which we have distinguished. In that situation, the
unity of the three elements distinguished - - and con-
sequently the solidity of the system of historical action
- -will be best ensured by the presence of a strong
revolutionary State. The strength of this central
power derives from the support provided by the
peasants or miners, underprivileged social sectors
~¢hich demand an early betterment of their life con-
ditions. But these demands often clash with the re-
quirement for increasing agricultural productivity and
therefore with the "normal" sequence of stages of
industrialization. The revolutionary agency then finds
itself caught in a dilemma which forces it to choose
between the policy of industrialization - - which
logically presupposes, in the first stages, the advance-
ment of the agricultural economy - - and the respect
for the claims of the popular revolt.
These difficulties can be overcome only if the
State commands a strong authority, resting upon a
solid national homogeneity and a rigid administrative
and political machinery. This situation is more readily
to be found in Communist China than in any Latin
American country. If these institutional instruments
are lacking, it is difficult to reconcile the rural
masses' desire for immediate gratification with the
policy of economic development.
Without going into a detailed analysis of this type
of situation, it is at least possible to conclude that
the three terms which constitute the historical dynam-
ics of this type of society will tend to fuse together
under the impulse of the revolutionary State.
If there is no such strongly integrating revolution-
ary authority, there is a considerable risk of clash
between the principle of defense and the principle of
opposition. Slogans such as "all land to the peasants"
or "the mines for the miners" are, on the one hand,
likely to become a curb restraining economic prog-
ress; on the other, the requirements of the struggle
against the adversary can place in power a political
machinery which, while being capable of enforcing
a discipline upon the population, disorganizes the
spontaneity of the revolutionary movement. The
"anibalista" period in Cuba can be regarded as an
example of the latter situation.
If there is no revolutionary authority proper, the
unity necessary to evolve such a system of historical
action can be ensured by a post-revolutionary State
Machinery, which progressively undertakes the transi-
tion to the second stage of development through the
creation of State concerns and, later, through its own
fusion, at least partial, with a national bourgeoisie.
In this way, the Mexican post-revolutionary machin-
ery has been able to set up the exceptionally solid
framewerk within which a national bourgeoisie and
a national-popular movement have developed simul-
taneously. The unity and tension between these two
social forces define, from the sociological point of
view, the second stage of development. As Presidents
change, either of these elements moves to the fore-
ground, but its unity always remains ensured within
the P.R.I. (the dominant ruling party of Mexico).
This type of one-party solution is possible only if
the agrarian revolt occurs prior to the formation of
such a political system. If that is not the case, and
unless recourse is had to further revolutionary solu-
tions, it is exceedingly difficult to ensure the transi-
tion to the second stage of development. This is
shown by the example of Bolivia, where popular
revolt from below and the institutional machinery
partially supported by a middle class tend to come
into conflict. In so doing they have a cancellation
effect, thus curbing the capacity of a society to
develop.
These three examples show the direction which our
analysis is to follow. If we consider the most
"archaic" situations, the more they move away from
the revolutionary path, the more the existing forces
tend to conflict, or at least, to separate. This leads
us to consider consecutively the problems of mobility,
nationalism, and those of social classes.
2. The situation is very different in developmental
stages characterized by the existence of national-
popular movements. The optimal integration of the
diverse elements of the system of historical action
is not provided, in this case, by a revolutionary State,
but rather by the alliance between the national or
 S O C I A L M O B I L I T Y , CLASS R E L A T I O N S , A N D
nationalistic bourgeoisie and the national popular
movement. Brazil governed by Kubitschek. with
Goulart's cooperation, provides the best example of
this "national alliance" in modern Latin America.
The unifying principle of this system is national-
ism. The Brazlian example teaches us that, for a
considerably long period, intellectual and political
tendencies as diverse as those represented by O. Ran-
gel, H. Jaguaribe, C. Furtado, and A. Vieira Pinto,
can remain relatively united because of the binding
power of nationalism. If this ideological bond of
union is lacking, an opposition is very likely to arise
between a social mobility which has lost its collective
meaning on the one hand and a nationalism trans-
formed into national dictatorship with the support
of the armed forces. If, on the contrary, the inte-
grating nationalism commands too strong a domi-
nance over the other elements of the historical
situation, there is the risk of sacrificing economic
development to the social integration of the new
urban masses and of ending up in an authoritarian
regime. This was the case in Peron's Argentina.
The transition from the second to the third stage
of development, if not accomplished through the
reconciliation of the national-popular movement and
the national bourgeoisie, can be directed by select
groups which play a role similar to that of the post-
revolutionary State machinery in the transition from
the first to the second stage. Certain sectors of the
Army, sensitive to the Nasserist ideology and to its
methods of action, can be tempted to perform that
role. In Argentina as well as in Peru this process can
be observed.
3. In the last situation, characterized by the pre-
valence of populism, the revolutionary solution re-
gains meaning; but this meaning is quite different
from that which it had in the first situation. In this
stage, it does not find itself compelled to confront
the tensions arising from the dilemma between the
popular desire of immediate gratification and the de-
mands for industrial development. The will to social
action, populism, and the consciousness of class con-
flict are brought together. Yet, this does not represent
an organic fusion, but a political tactic such as the
Chilean Popular Front, or we could even say, the
Spanish or French Popular Front of the Thirties. The
"evolutionary" solution is more likely to occur in a
situation similar to that of the United States - - i.e.,
in a situation in which there is a rather full fusion
between the three orientations of historical action. If
the society following this path does not possess the
dynamic quality which characterized the U.S. economy
at the beginning of the 20th century, the integration
of the elements of action results in the stagnation of
society, as in Uruguay. The danger of this type of
NATIONALISM 23
situation is that the Popular Front may not succeed
in performing its role of unifying agent, thus giving
way to an opposition between an unveiled class con-
flict and the desire of economic and social "prog-
ress." This antagonism finds expression, in most
instances, in a conflict between the Communist forces
and the Socialist parties. In these cases we observe
a rupture between a "social movement" and a "politi-
cal class." The general disorganization of political
life which then ensues characterized the French
situation at the beginning of the present century.
The comparison of these three types of situations
leads us to a simple conclusion. As we move from
archaic to modern situations and. conditions, the
principle of unity of the system of historical action
shifts from the "top" to the "bottom" of society,
from the revolutionary State to the Popular Front,
with an intermediate situation of alliance of the
national-popular movement with the national bour-
geoisie. In terms of our earlier scheme, this means
that the principle of opposition plays a centrar role
in the dynamics of the first stage, while the principle
of totality is central in the second stage and the prin-
ciple of defense has crucial significance in the third
stage.
This leads us to introduce a last element to our
analysis. In each stage of development, it is necessary
to distinguish two types of ruling elites. On the one
hand, the elites already mentioned, which introduce
maximum stability to a system of historical action
whether this be a revolutionary State, national-popu-
lar leaders, or Popular-Front leaders. On the other
hand, the elites which "unchain" the social movement
must also be reckoned with. The more archaic the
situation considered, the greater the distance between
the two types of elites. The liberal intelligentsia un-
chains, in the first stage, the popular revolt, as shown
by the role of the 26 de ]ulio movement in Cuba.
Following the European model, it is a radical or
socialist middle class which unchains a Popular Front
movement. In the intermediate stage, the petty bour-
geoisie plays an important role in the formation of
national-popular movements. This "detonating" func-
tion, then, tends to be performed by a social sector
which is one stage in advance of the historical situa-
tion, i.e., a "vanguard" force.
But these groupings almost necessarily clash with
the integration leaders. The liberal bourgeoisie is
swept by the revolutionary State in the first stage,
the national-popular upsurge overwhelms the petty
bourgeoisie in the second, and, in the third one, the
middle class and socialist intellectuals are themselves
overcome by the Popular Front; just as more revolu-
tionary movements move out in front of the European
Social Democratic Parties. The two-fold role - -
24 STUDIES I N C O M P A R A T I V E I N T E R N A T I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T
changing and preserving - - of the "progressive
forces" makes it possible for us to understand the
complicity of its relationships with the national-
popular movements and the other elements of the
political system.
We are now in a position to return to the central
thread in our analysis, combining the principles of
autonomy and unity with the elements of a system
of historical action.
W e shall limit our consideration to only one of
the three variables requiring examination, namely,
that of social mobility. It holds a central position in
the course of the second stage of the process of de-
velopment. Here we deal with a collective social
mobility, with the formation of a new action. Mobil-
ity here becomes its own end. It turns against any
crystallization of social oppositions, barriers and con-
flicts. These societies define themselves, above all, as
open societies, i.e., in them individual and collective
mobility are merged. At the same time, this fusion
determines a strong indentification with mass move-
ments, and a%cant involvement in its activities. In a
situation of popular revolt, on the contrary, collective
mobility takes precedence over individual mobility,
and this favors the existence of militants who devote
themselves to a movement or a political machinery.
Finally, in the "populist" situation, individual social
mobility prevails, which is a favorable condition for
the development of organizations pursuing mainly
instrumental goals.
IV
It is now easier to introduce the simple idea upon
which this entire analysis rests. Social movements ex-
press the condition of social forces and the nature
of a given society's problems. Both the forces and
the problems can only be defined in terms of a
knowledge of social movements. Does this mean that
social movements are the expression of general prin-
ciples or values such as liberty and justice or power
and social integration? This kind of explanation is
self-defeating, since it does not help in knowing why
a society in a given situation resorts to one of these
principles rather than to another.
Social movements manifest the ways in which a
group or a society view its histoi'ical goals. These
goals appear as soon as this experience is considered
as a relation between work and its social utilization,
or rather as a relation between the worker - - indi-
vidual or collective - - and his work. It is legitimate
to speak of developing societies only to the degree
to which men are engaged" in the transformation of
their economic situation, for the purpose of securing
their material progress and enlarging their capacity
for self-administration.
Such objectives are consciously aimed at in societies..
For this reason they are called industrial societies.
They can only be aimed at indirectly and, to a great
extent, unconsciously, in those societies which are only
at the take-off point in development.
National claims, the consciousness of collective
mobility, and class consciousness are three such in-
direct expressions of this double demand for develop-
ment and democracy. This is revealed with increasing
clarity in the jump from one stage of development
to another. At the take-off point there is a struggle
against the obstacles which oppose development. The
very lack of democratic social control of the product
of collective work, brings forth an affirmation of the
nation's cultural and social identity against colonial
dependence. In the last stage on the road to indus-
trial civilization, economic progress and social de-
mocracy are spoken of by indirection and implication.
Whatever forms they may assume, these two com-
plementary demands for development and democracy
are the basis of systems of political action. By clari-
fying the adversaries of development, the various
principles of identity and defense, of of opposition
and conflict, and a principle of totality, may become
representative of the historical frame of action.
This line of reasoning combines what is often
separated in a cross-section of society in terms of
institutions: social stratification, class relations, polit-
ical life. It is useless to ask about the sequence in
which these three realms of reality, these three text-
book chapters, are assembled. In effect, their relations
are more fundamental than the particular essence of
each, since they lead directly to the very nature of
social movements, a defense of a particular sector
against private interests within the framework of a
general vision of society. If the condition of the
sector defending its interest is viewed as one of iso-
lation, it may be described in terms of stratification
and social mobility; if the adversary is defined in
terms of generalized conflict, we will be speaking of
social classes; if the emphasis is upon the conception
of society underlying this opposition, we adopt the
language of political institutions. But one should re-
member that these approaches are made possible only
through the decomposition of a basic analysis of
historical action, of the permanent and transient ten-
sions which unite the creative effort. There is an
ongoing transformation of the world through work,
and an effort on the part of men in each society
to control the instruments and the products of their
efforts.
In the emergent societies of Latin America, the
representation of society is determined by the rela-
 S O C I A L M O B I L I T Y , CLASS R E L A T I O N S , A N D N A T I O N A L I S M
tionship between two basic orientations of the social
actors: the will to develop and modernize society
(including the struggle against the obstacles to this
project) and the desire for personal gratification.
Both of these intersect in the intermediate situation.
Instead, in the most archaic situation, there is a com-
bination between a very strong drive toward social
integration and a keen sensitivity to the traditional
social barriers: country-town, poor-rich, native-for-
eigners. In the more modern situation, there is a
desire for personal upward mobility. There is there-
fore a high sensitivity to social-economic stratification,
and the consciousness of the collective social conflicts
coexist. Given these brief suggestions, I would like
to warn against an oversimplifying type of reasoning,
according to which social attitudes and movements
would be a reflection of the degree of economic de-
velopment achieved by the society. In this way, one
would pass from a conflict-riddled and revolutionary
society to a stratified one in which competition
among individuals and among social groups becomes
formalized.
The reflections presented here can constitute an
introduction to certain conceptions of social structures
or, better, of systems of historical action. For if we
were to simplify our argument to the utmost, we
25
could summarize it as follows: In what different ways
do social stratification, class relationships, and polit-
ical action link up according to the stage of develop-
ment considered? This kind of question is a safe-
guard against the idea that these three elements of
status, class, and "politics constitute three stages of
social reality and that, as we pass from one to the
other, we move from substructure to superstructure,
from an objective situation to one or several political
and social ideologies.
Finally, it was the purpose of this paper to under-
score the usefulness of a directly sociological defini-
tion of development. To approach the problems of
development in different ways does not imply an
a priori denial of the need for economic analysis. For
the sociologist, development is not so much a fact as
an orientation to action. More precisely, it is a prin-
ciple of legitimacy of certain societies which for this
reason we call industrial societies.
Thanks to this principle, we can regard social
stratification, class relations, and political movements
as different aspects in the organization of a collective
experience. It becomes possible for us to study t h e
relations between the three elements, since they are
sociologically comparable concepts.