Introduction

In analyzing change, no problem has been as vexatious as understanding the motives of those who are involved. One of the major differences between the natural and social sciences is the crucial necessity of dealing with motivation in the latter. Herein lies much of the reason for the "soft" nature of scientific inquiry in the social area. Freudian theories of motivation are difficult to apply even at the individual level and have not proven to be useful for large-scale aggregate analysis. Social learning theories, which are less subjective, have been widely used in behavior modification and socialization studies. The latter, especially, have been severely criticized on the grounds that attitudes and beliefs lack stability over time. ¹ Psychohistorical studies remain popular but, like psychological analyses of great men generally, are largely single case studies. ² National character studies, once highly popular, have fallen from grace. ³ Marx and others focused on alienation as the prime cause of change; during the 1960s studies of alienation were much in vogue in attempts to understand youth unrest. ⁴ Unfortunately, alienation loses much of its explanatory power for instances of peaceful, affirmative change. David McClelland suggested that need achievement is a major factor underlying development in the modern world. ⁵ This informative lead, however, was never followed up extensively by political scientists. More popular three decades ago, but now out of fashion, were studies of the authoritarian personality made widely known by Adorno and his associates. ⁶ Criticisms, especially of a methodological nature, brought some of the findings about authoritarianism into question although intuitively the studies as a whole struck responsive chords.