Search

The paper builds on Joel Isaac's analysis of "interstitial" arrangements that generate scientific knowledge, and also draws upon the networking model of theory groups articulated by Nicholas and Caroline Mullins. I consider how the "interstitial academy" at Harvard, as well as Talcott Parsons's navigation of it, facilitated his professional rise from a vulnerable young instructor in economics in 1927 to one of the most prominent social scientists in the United States in 1951. I examine Parsons's engagement with curriculum-building committees in sociology and social ethics, in "the area of social science" and in social relations, as well as with undergraduate courses on institutions and on sociological theory, including a graduate student discussion circle, and with seminars on Pareto, on rationality and on "basic social science." In some instances, Parsons's involvement as a newcomer or junior participant led to important peer alliances, or to the support of higher-ranking faculty and administrators who sponsored his advancement. In other instances, especially as his ascent progressed, Parsons played the more powerful role of "indispensable hub" who gained stature by organizing cross-disciplinary interaction. Parsons's interdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration also placed him an initial administrative role that would prepare him to serve as chair of two academic departments. The final and most important outcome of the process of upward mobility was the creation of a "theory school" that elevated Parsons to a unique status as the most boundary-spanning theorist of the social sciences. The paper thus supplements existing accounts of the rise of Parsons while also offering a mode of analysis that might be widely applied to the careers of other social scientists, both contemporary and historical (e.g., to figures such as Jane Addams and W. E. B. DuBois), in diverse academic settings and national contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper illuminates, in a discussion of my relationship with him, how Talcott Parsons acted out his commitment to the values of cognitive rationality, how he implemented those values when working with students who did not share his liberal politics. I illustrate how students may learn not only from divergences in perspective with one professor, but also from the contradictions between their teachers's work. There are two contentions here. One concerns the importance of professors encouraging students to encounter points-of-view divergent from the professor's viewpoint, and then the significance of supporting them when they do so. This is possible only when the values of cognitive rationality regulate activity within a university setting. I illustrate these contentions in a discussion of my work with the political sociologist, Barrington Moore, Jr., the economic theorist, Kenneth Arrow, and the political philosopher, Judith Shklar, each of whose work diverged greatly from Parsons's theoretical perspective. Lastly, I contend that an understanding of our teachers's work is manifest in our extension of it, not in criticisms of their ideas, their texts. I show how this was the case in my own work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been much recent debate within sociology regarding academic versus applied approaches, as well as how to integrate these during a career. Sociologists interested in such issues might find both inspiration and an exemplar in social psychologist Gordon W. Allport. Well known for his leadership role in both personality and psychological social psychology, Allport has still not gained widespread recognition for his sociological contributions, especially his "public sociology." As an undergraduate, Allport embraced the tradition of "social ethics" as taught at Harvard, which focused on social problems and social policy, and on individual engagement. Over the first two decades of a half-century career, Allport adapted to his "hard science" organizational and professional contexts and earned a tenured position primarily by building up a naturalistic psychology. But beginning in the early 1940s, he increasingly re-engaged with social ethics and overt reform efforts, with a focus on the social psychology and sociology of rumor, prejudice and racial and religious discrimination. Though a key architect of the interdisciplinary Department of Social Relations, he came to see that project as excessively value-neutral and he lobbied to revive a clear ethical commitment. Fittingly, Allport ended his career as the first incumbent of the Richard Clarke Cabot Professorship of Social Ethics. In this way, he bridged naturalistic psychology, sociology and social ethics in order to create an integral science oriented toward social justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines gender stratification in sociology by analyzing how the subject was presented to undergraduates at Harvard and Radcliffe from the late nineteenth century to the mid-1940s. Data for relevant courses in economics and social ethics, as well as sociology, demonstrate that women were disadvantaged throughout the period. The analysis also shows, however, that women gradually attained relative equality, and argues that gender integration was always a covert goal of Harvard's policy of "coordinate education." The article explains the process of equalization in terms of cooperative relationships in informal work groups. Ironically, however, integration disempowered Harvard faculty and Radcliffe administrators while augmenting the power of Harvard's centralizing administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]