An Analysis of Conflicting Social Norms

T HIS PAPER illustrates an empirical procedure for studying role obligations, with particular reference to simultaneous role obligations which conflict. The writer became especially interested in the problem when considering the strains to which the non-commissioned officer in the Army was subjected. On the one hand, the non-com had the role of agent of the command and in case the orders from above conflicted with what his men thought were right and necessary he was expected by his superiors to carry out the orders. But he also was an enlisted sharing enlisted men's attitudes, often hostile attitudes, toward the commissioned ranks. Consequently, the system of informal controls was such as to reward him for siding with the men in a conflict situation and punish him if he did not. There was some evidence that unless his men had confidence that he could see their point of view, he was an ineffective leader; on the other hand, open and flagrant disobedience by him of an order from above could not be tolerated by the command.' The general theoretical viewpoint behind this paper involves several propositions: i. In any social group there exist norms and a strain for conformity to these norms. 2. Ordinarily, if the norms are clear and unambiguous the individual has no choice but to conform or take the consequences in group resentment. 3. If a person has simultaneous roles in two or more groups such that simultaneous conformity to the norms of each of the groups is incompatible, he can take one of only a limited number of actions, for example: (i) He can conform to one set of role expectations and take the consequences of non-conformity to other sets. (2) He can seek a compromise position by which he attempts to conform in part, though not wholly, to one or more sets of role expectations, in the hope that the sanctions applied will be minimal. It need hardly be pointed out that conflicts of role obligations are a common experience of all people, especially in our complex Western society. The foreman in industry, like the non-com in the Army, is an obvious example; the marginal man, *Manuscript received September 30, 1949. t This study was made at the Harvard Laboratory of Social Relations, in connection with research sponsored by the RAND Corporation under AirForce Project RAND. 'Stouffer, Suchman, DeVinney, Star, Williams, The American Soldier, Vol. I, Chapter 8.