Search

The article analyzes the Amherst papers in relation to development of Parsons' theory. A careful analysis of the Amherst papers reveals that the basic ideas and philosophical principles that Parsons followed throughout his life were already in place, some more fully developed than others, yet forming an integrally coherent pattern to a surprising degree. The clear existence in Parsons's Amherst papers of a metatheoretical framework predating his later professional writing calls into question some still existing myths about radical breaks in the development of Parsons's theory. In one version of this mythology, Parsons began his theory as a voluntarist, then became a structural-functionalist, later moved on to become a systems-theorist and ended up as a social evolutionist. Despite such claims, Parsons always was a voluntarist, even during his so-called structural-functionalist middle period. The Amherst papers reveal an amazingly complex and logically coherent theoretical system-in the mind of a twenty-year-young man-and testify to an extraordinary scope of philosophical depth, and intellectual maturity.

This article comments on a paper by David Jenness, which focused on the efforts of the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA) in organizing the social sciences in their own interest. The future of federal support for sociology will depend on the continued mobilization efforts of COSSA and upon public recognition of sociological contributions to the realization of two prime sets of values. Much has been written since 1981, when Reaganism became the guiding hand and official ideology at the federal level, of the need for new academic-industry partnerships. Most often, research training and subject-matter expertise were the initial factors to employment. Marketable skills opened opportunities that would have been shut to someone simply proclaiming sociology as his or her trade or profession. The virtues of a range of sociological skills are recognized much more readily: for information and intelligence, for systems analysis and design, for social trend analysis and forecasting, and in general for systematic scouting of the environment within which organized efforts in the public and private sectors operate, flourish, or decline. Herbert Costner once referred to this aspect of applied work as reconnaissance sociology.

The decline of interest among sociologists in the works of Talcott Parsons over the last several decades has been driven in substantial respects by a belief that he was personally conservative in his political views and that his theoretical formulations were rigidly tied to a conservative view of social order. The present paper reviews Parsons' major political involvements through the course of his career from his student days through the last decade of his life. The review demonstrates that Parsons was a typical academic liberal of his time and that his liberalism was expressed especially in several major applied essays. In the 1930s, he was an early and active opponent of Nazism. During World War II, he taught professionals to administer occupied territories and nations effectively. After the war, he advocated for government support of the social sciences, citing the important contributions they had made to the war effort. In the 1950s, he wrote a famous critical analysis of the Joseph McCarthy movement in American politics. In the 1960s, he contributed supportive essays to the Civil Rights movement. Later in the decade and in the 1970s, he contributed to the protection of academic freedoms while also proposing accommodations to the demands of the student movement for more "relevant" teaching and greater participation in university governance. Throughout his career, he taught and worked closely with students of various political views and sought to protect their rights of freedom of political expression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discourse and ideology are interrelated concepts in social sciences and the humanities and are even occasionally employed interchangeably. This paper sheds light on their relationship in academic discourse and examines the role of sociology as a scientific field in its conceptualization. Using bibliometric analysis, we examined 15,716 academic publications mentioning "discourse" or "ideology" in their title and written in English by American and British scholars between 1966 and 2015. The investigation focused on the two terms' conceptual environment, areas of usage, journals, and the organizations to which the authors were affiliated. First, we conclude that although some sociology researchers have attempted to create a sociological definition for the concept of discourse, sociologists are not its most active users. The same is true for ideology. These concepts have established niches in other disciplines (political science and history for "ideology," and educational science and linguistics for "discourse"). Second, throughout the years, the field of discourse studies has become more diversified and fragmented than that of ideology. Third, the leading organizations in both fields are prestigious American and British universities, which indicates that discourse and ideology are elements of the intellectual elites' language. Fourth, the concept of discourse was more frequently applied than that of ideology in the years 2010–2015, and we expect that it will remain popular among scholars in the next decade. As for ideology, we believe that new social challenges could foster the rediscovery of this concept in the near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Christian Smith's paper 'The Incoherence of 'Culture' in American Sociology' is a valuable provocation that can prompt us to reflect on the role of concepts and on the role of agreement on the definition of concepts in scientific research. In this comment paper, I raise questions about Smith's empirical expectation that sociologists should agree on a concept of culture based on debates in the sociology of science. I also suggest that in terms of the future agenda for the sociology of culture, we should distinguish between dialogue and clarification on the one hand, which I agree is needed, and standardization on the other hand, which seems incompatible with open-minded empirical research. Rather than work on agreement on what culture is, we might work on clarifying relevant distinctions among dimensions of culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In economic sociology, relations and relationships have emerged as central yet poorly specified concepts. In this paper, I clarify these terms in a positive critique of the current state of the field. I then consider the ways in which the proposed framework can help analysts to bridge the divide between economics and sociology. Armed with techniques derived from formal network analysis, the new economic sociology offered the first sustained foray into economic territory, but sociological skeptics remain unsatisfied. Two broad rejoinders to this network-analytic approach emerged in the last two decades, but both correctives, nevertheless, leave the divide intact. In the last decade, however, a new paradigm is coalescing under the rubric of “relational economic sociology. While showing promise, it furthers the confusion surrounding the key concepts of “relations” and “relationships.” The proposed framework provides a foundation for constructive dialogue among the different traditions which constitute this new paradigm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an overview of papers on epistemology and professional practice of sociology with topics such as the role of the journal "New Zealand Sociology" in creating a national sociology in the country, the concept of culture in contemporary sociology and conflict sociology.

There has been renewed interest over the past 5 years among sociologists in empirically examining the status of sociology in high school. The few studies that have recently been conducted, however, have focused almost exclusively on high school sociology teachers. The nature and structure of the courses themselves have been largely ignored. Given the American Sociological Association’s recent attempts to develop and implement an Advanced Placement course, it seems especially important to examine the characteristics of existing sociology courses. This paper uses the results of a national mail survey to describe and discuss three aspects of the nature and structure of a random sample of sociology courses that were offered during the 2005–06 school year: instructional materials and pedagogical resources, teaching techniques, and course content. I demonstrate that these aspects of the courses look remarkably similar across the country: Teachers rely overwhelmingly on standard introductory textbooks to structure their courses. They are also apt to utilize supplemental materials from textbook publishers and from newspapers and newsmagazines, and to use a combination of lecture and discussion in their sociology classes. The paper concludes with recommendations for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How has sociology evolved over the last 40 years? In this paper, we examine networks built on thousands of sociology-relevant papers to map sociology's position in the wider social sciences and identify changes in the most prominent research fronts in the discipline. We find first that sociology seems to have traded centrality in the field of social sciences for internal cohesion: sociology is central, but not nearly as well bounded as neighboring disciplines such as economics or law. Internally, sociology appears to have moved away from research topics associated with fundamental social processes and toward social-problems research. We end by discussing strategies for extending this work to wider science production networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I have attempted to present, without too much violation of their original intent by my own interjections, a balance of viewpoints between those who maintain that creative sociology is conservative and those who claim that it is revolutionary (a) in the Kuhnian sense of paradigm change and (b) in the political sense.
Is it possible, on the basis of the fairly representative sample of views presented here to answer the question posed in the title of this paper: "Creative Sociology": Conservative or Revolutionary? Do the spokesmen for each side provide adequate evidence upon which one may decide? With regard to the issue of paradigm change, the answer is "no." If, as appears to be the case, a group of theorists claim to have developed a revolutionary paradigm, which will replace existing paradigms, then the burden of responsibility for support of their claim must rest on them. So far, they have not provided support which makes it possible to accept or deny their claim. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After a review of comparable degree productivity among several social and behavioral sciences, this paper concludes that sociology was uniquely affected by forces that lowered both the production of B.A.'s, M.A.'s, and Ph.D.'s and the quality of its graduate students. From the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, sociology suffered drastic declines in student numbers and quality. The increased careerism among students apparently accounts for a substantial portion of this decline, but through a very concrete mechanism: the expansion of business programs. The paper suggests that perhaps an absence of a serious commitment to teaching scientific sociology accounts for the loss of quality, since applied sciences have fared much better than has sociology. The recent ASA Task Force recommendations for curriculum redesign are reviewed, and a call is issued for revitalizing the scientific component of undergraduate sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper proposes an applied sociology of social problems that encompasses concern with the definition of problems and the conditions defined as problematic. The literature on applied sociology focuses on social problems, but exhibits no concern with the social definition of problems, an issue that should be of primary concern according to the constructionist perspective on social problems. I propose an applied research orientation that is capable of assessing the definition of a problem as well as describing the condition defined as problematic. I illustrate the proposed orientation by discussing an applied study of the people who inhabit the streets in Santa Cruz, California. The study succeeded in redefining those people as streetpeople instead of as transients, but not as part of the new poor. The paper considers the implications of assessing the definition of a problem for policy development, the factors that constrain the redefinition of a problem, and other issues of general relevance. The paper concludes by underscoring the importance of definitional processes and politics, and indicating the prospects of an applied sociology of social problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is a review and discussion of the two most common ways sociologists distinguish sociology from common sense in their constant dental of the perennial charge that "sociology is just common sense" Sociologists routinely exaggerate the differences between sociology and common sense by insisting that common sense is (1) false and (2) contradictory. These responses are unsatisfactory, incomplete, and often untrue. Each of these points is discussed and supported by illustrative examples from a wide range of sociological literature. The paper proposes that sociologists' handling of the sociology/common sense issue is a self-serving ideology designed to mystify their audiences in an effort to monopolize their role as experts on social life and to protect their professional autonomy. The paper ends by referring the reader to published materials' which deal more adequately with the similarities and dissimilarities of sociology and common sense and by supporting the thesis that sociology must combine the two types of knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many sociologists believe that behavioral sociology is alien to traditional sociological thought, and some have questioned its legitimacy as a sociological perspective. This paper takes the position that behavioral sociology is very much in accord with basic tenets of sociology. The belief that it is not results from misunderstanding and confusion about the foundations and practice of behavioral sociology. Three key concerns about behavioral sociology are addressed: (1) the subject matter of behavioral sociology and its distinction from behavioral psychology; (2) the unexplained "givens" of behavioral sociology (the origins of existing reward systems), and (3) the concern that behaviorists view human behavior as mechanistic and unfeeling. The paper concludes that many differences between behavioral sociology and other sociological perspectives have been exaggerated, that behavioral sociology does exhibit most traditional characteristics of the discipline, and that the concern with the legitimacy of behavioral theory in sociology has obscured the one significant difference that does exist disagreement over the goals and conduct of a science of human behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Burawoy’s manifesto connects to a long series of debates on the role of science in society as well as on the myth of pure science. This paper argues that the gap between professional sociology and public sociology is far from being unbridgeable and that public sociology is not suppressed to the extent portrayed by Burawoy. In late modern societies a number of schools, including various scientific, public and intellectual movements have questioned the possibility, value position and social relevance of a functionally differentiated pure science by applying the sine qua non of modernity, i.e. critical reflection, to science. According to the argument developed here, also illustrated by a personal example, Burawoy could possibly prevent the gate-keepers of the empire of pure science from closing the otherwise open gates in front of his program and in front of critical reflection if only he used less harsh war-cries and were more careful in detecting the changes he himself urges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We can only welcome the discourse that has been initiated in our professional community with the concept of public sociology in the focus. Undoubtedly, Michael Burawoy has indisputable merits in fuelling this international dialogue. I find, however, that his position and conceptual framework is debatable at several points, therefore my review is on the side of those who criticize his ideas. My paper is divided into three parts: in keeping with the idea that the drop mirrors the ocean, I will start with the detailed critique of a single paragraph—the one which makes comments on his table entitled Types of sociological knowledge. It will be argued that by switching his viewpoints and using vaguely defined notions without empirical evidences he often tackles his subject inconsistently. Secondly, I intend to offer an alternative, three-dimensional conceptual model in which the social scientist’s prestige, influence and position on the action chain is taken into account as the main analytical aspects of the relationship between her/him and the public. Finally, based on this model, I propose to identify some strategies in order to find a better balance between the public and professional activity of social scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on American sociology. The present paper aims to offer an explanation for how sociology came to its present state and what can be done to integrate the discipline. A discipline becomes integrated when there is relatively centralized control over the material, organizational and symbolic resources necessary for intellectual work. Material resources are necessary to conduct intellectual activities. Organizational resources are administrative control over the allocation of material and symbolic resources that enable a discipline develop coherence. Symbolic resources are cultural and include members of a discipline perceiving that they are part of a common intellectual community.

This collection of papers materialized in response to the American Sociological Association's call for centennial plenary sessions in 2004 as it prepared for the 2005 annual meeting in Philadelphia. Three of the nearly two-dozen centennial plenary sessions selected for the conference proceedings focused on the subject of sociological knowledge. One of these plenary sessions was organized by me; the other two, originally intended to be one session but divided in order to accommodate the large number of proposed presenters, was organized by Barbara Schneider. Shortly after the sessions were confirmed, I contacted Barbara to determine her interest in publishing some of the presentations as a collection that offered multiple perspectives on the nature of sociological knowledge. Based on the initial interest expressed by both Barbara and the presenters, I contacted Larry Nichols to determine if he might have an interest in publishing a special issue of The American Sociologist on this topic. Upon his consent, work proceeded forward on this special issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public sociology is an attempt to redress the issues of public engagement and disciplinary identity that have beset the discipline over the past several decades. While public sociology seeks to rectify the public invisibility of sociology, this paper investigates the limitations of it program. Several points of critique are offered. First, public sociology's affiliations with Marxism serve to potentially entrench existing divisions within the discipline. Second, public sociology's advancement of an agenda geared toward a "sociology for publics" instead of a "sociology of publics" imposes limitations on the development of a public interface. Third, the lack of a methodological agenda for public sociology raises concerns of how sociology can compete within a contested climate of public opinion. Fourth, issues of disciplinary coherence are not necessarily resolved by public sociology, and are potentially exacerbated by the invocation of public sociology as a new disciplinary identity. Fifth, the incoherence of professional sociology is obviated, and a misleading affiliation is made between scientific knowledge and the hegemonic structure of the profession. Finally, the idealism of public sociology's putative defense of civil society is explored as a utopian gesture akin to that of Habermas' attempt to revive the public sphere. The development of a strong program in professional sociology is briefly offered as a means to repair the disciplinary problems that are illustrated by emergence of the project of public sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociological production is a situated and embodied activity carried out by individuals inserted in actual social relations. Considering that this feature has an influence upon the content of scholarly literature and that it can be revealed in the scientific text itself, I propound a new interpretation of the writing process of Robert E. Park's "The City," the famous paper he published initially in 1915. Customarily depicted as a manifesto for an autonomous urban sociology, I argue on the contrary that its general economy has to be linked to Park's biographical background. When he affiliated with the Sociology Department at the University of Chicago, Park was brought to teach a course on the social survey. "The City" was to be the academic expression of his point of view on the topic. Park's biographical encounters with some active promoters of the social survey approach are evidenced and their influence on his 1915 essay is carefully analyzed, showing notably that curious intellectual omissions in "The City" can be traced back to these previous encounters. Park's latter texts, and the 1925 revised version of "The City" in particular, are shown to provide the interwar sociologists with a peculiar narrative about the history of sociology: Park's predecessors are deliberately confined in a pre-scientific stage of the discipline and Park's original essay is presented as a seminal research program destined to be later fulfilled by the newly established urban sociologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Selected writings from Reuel Denney's work as a social analyst are reviewed in order to establish and highlight his often-overlooked contributions to sociology. Denney's cultural studies of Americans at play, with specific reference to his writings on the subcultures of football and hot-rodding, and on television and the electronic media, advertising and architecture, are reviewed in examining some major themes emphasized in his sociology. These writings are discussed against the backdrop of Denney's early life experiences drawn from his autobiography to better enable readers to gain an appreciation of his sociological thinking. The beginnings of a Denney postmodern are sketched as a conclusion to this paper's major contention that Denney anticipated much of today's sociology as cultural studies. As one of Reuel's students, nearly forty years ago, I hope that this article serves not only to highlight Denney's contributions and place within the discipline of sociology, but also that my personal recollections will serve to reveal the strong attachments we students felt toward him as our teacher, mentor, and friend. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The introductory course is a nearly ubiquitous offering in sociology programs. There are several reasons why the discipline of sociology has settled on a standard format for introductory texts. Most instructors probably took a fairly standard introductory course when they were students, and they may take it for granted that the course ought to be taught that way. Most sociologists specialize in one or two substantive areas, teaching the introductory course probably bears little relation to their scholarly interests, and some may hope to minimize the time they invest in preparing for this course. And introductory teachers can exchange ideas at the increasingly frequent sessions about teaching at scholarly conferences. The paper examines the similarity of introductory textbooks in sociology by comparing the vocabulary presented in glossaries in major introductory textbooks with actual usage in major sociology journals to see how closely the texts' vocabulary reflects the discipline's language. The findings suggest that a major reason is that textbook authors and publishers duplicate elements of other books, both because they attempt to copy successful features and because the review process encourages conformity to a standard model.

In her paper, Molm raises whether behavioral sociology is an appropriate perspective for distinctly sociological analysis or does it lead to psychological reductionism. In the first section of the paper, where she distinguishes behavioral sociology from behavioral psychology, Molm adopts a sociological focus that is in agreement with my conception of it. The discussion in the second section of the paper seems to depart from the sociological perspective of the first section. Most of Molm's paper deals with microsociological studies, and her contribution which should be acknowledged is that she recognizes the dangers of psychological reductionism. In concluding her article, she notes that a main difference between behavioral and other sociologists is the methodological one that the former tend to prefer laboratory experiments and the latter research in natural settings. The nature of the explanatory theory depends on the conception of social structure. The theory seeks to explain the pattern of structure of social relations in terms of the structure or distribution of social positions.

Some of sociology's recent internal critics (e.g., Turner and Turner, 1990; Halliday and Janowitz, 1992; Collins, 1986; Gans, 1990; Crane and Small, 1992) suggest that the discipline's diversity of theoretical, methodological and substantive foci leave it in a weakened position for achieving individual and collective ends. Other sociologists (e.g., D'Antonio, 1992; Roos and Jones, 1993; Stacey and Thorne, 1985) argue that substantive diversity has made the discipline attractive to a greater variety of previously underrepresented groups, particularly women, groups that have, in turn, contributed to sociology's substantive diversity. This paper reports on a content analysis of 2,016 articles from North American sociology journals in 1936, 1956, 1976, and 1996 as well as from chemistry, anthropology, economics, political science, and psychology journals in 1996. The analysis focused on a number of, often contradictory, hypotheses drawn from the competing views of sociology's diversity with respect to its substantive concerns and its gender composition. It finds, for instance, that there is more substantive diversity in today's sociology journal articles than there was earlier, at least when diversity is measured in terms of fields that are reputed to be attractive to women. This may not be surprising, since more women are writing sociology journal articles than ever before. Moreover, the substantive diversity seems to be related to more, not less, funding of sociological research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a hypothetical format, evidence is advanced to support the proposition that sociology is in a critical stage of its development. The argument presented is that sociology very soon must abandon, at least in large part, its traditional assumptions favoring antireductionism and purposeful (teleological) explanations for human social behavior to avoid losing all academic recognition as a science (or even pre-science)
Although it was rather clearly foreseen early in the last quarter of the 20th century that sociobiology would eventually absorb the scientific aspects of sociology and supplant it (Sade, 1975:263), the speed with which this occurred was remarkable. By the mid-1980s, the trends in this direction were commonly recognized, and by the end of the 20th century, essentially nothing remained of sociology within the academic community. This paper outlines in a historical context the factors responsible for this eventuality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper summarizes briefly the formal relationship between the American Sociological Association (ASA) and the seven regional sociological societies, suggests that little has resulted from the affiliation, and recommends (1) the ASA Committee on Regional Affairs be terminated, and (2) four other ways of linking the national and regional societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines critically the possibility of utilizing concepts and techniques of analysts from structuralism in sociology. Noting some of the reasons why sociologists have expressed little interest in structuralism to date, in contrast to anthropologists, it then attempts to state the difficulties and limitations of applying the methods and theoretical assumptions of linguistic structuralism to the analysis of social phenomena other than language. Secondly, it focuses on certain weaknesses of structural anthropology as developed by Lvi-Strauss, in particular the exclusive and psychologistic emphasis on the symbolic dimension of human experiences and the problematic philosophical status of structuralism. Finally, it suggests that while structuralism may have some relevance to the study of the relatively stable structures of primitive societies, it essentially cannot deal with the complex historical and structural problems of industrial societies which are the special province of sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on the future of sociology archive as a discipline. The major U.S. university libraries now go to extraordinary lengths and expense to collect the papers of writers, even many who as yet have not been categorically identified as important. There is a serious lesson in this-one might even say, a vital one-for sociology as it confronts an uncertain future. As everyone of a certain age will recall, the saga of Roots, in book and television formats, single-handedly gave American blacks a collective sense of historical importance that up to that point was absent from mass culture. The new Holocaust Museum in Washington is the most eloquent and emotionally wracking contemporary expression of historical memory for public consumption on a grand scale. Other examples can be found at every juncture of the "culture wars" that have been raging in the United States since the 1960s. Every politically self-aware group is supposed to venerate its real or imagined past, both at individual and collective levels, not only because such joint expressions enhance self-conceptions but also owing to the strategic advantage.

One main purpose of this paper is to encourage sociologists to fully support their sociological association leaders' efforts to further develop and implement comprehensive plans to improve the image of sociology, especially among those who can employ our graduates, but also among the general populace. Preceding a proposed multi-level plan is an attempt to integrate and present many of the competencies that sociologists and social psychologists have identified through research into a classification of sociological and social psychological skills. The typology can facilitate the selection of competencies appropriate for academic courses or seminars. In brief, the ten categories of this typology are: (1) Communication Skills; (2) Conceptual Tools; (3) Critical Thinking; (4) Problem Solving Strategies; (5) Special Competencies Applicable to Work Organization; (6) Group Dynamics; (7) Group Counseling; (8) Applied Social Research Methodologies; (9) Consulting Expertise; and (10) Competence in Self-Marketing Skills that Students Need. The several examples of skills within each of the ten classifications could be considered by faculty for possible inclusion in their syllabi. A discussion of the necessity to better inform business, industry, foundations, and government agencies of sociological competencies is provided followed by a multi-level public relations proposal, "A Plan to Put Career Vagueness Behind Us." The plan presented is not intended to be the plan. It can serve as a check list or supplement to the strategic plans currently being developed and implemented by the ASA and other sociological associations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociological classics serve six distinct functions (1) touchstones, examples of beautiful and possible ways of doing scientific work, (2) developmental tasks to induce complexity of mind in a student, to replace the cliches of Sociology 1, (3) intellectual badges for the first footnotes of a paper to identify broad features of a style of work, (4) sources of fundamental ideas, root concerns of sociology, (5) routine science, as sources of puzzles and hypotheses for empirical work, (6) rituals to express the solidarity and common concerns of sociology as a discipline Much confusion about the roles of classic books in the education of sociologists stems from confusion of these functions, and particularly from not noticing that a classic that fails at one of the functions may serve well at another. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I argue that the selection of appropriate statistical procedures is at best haphazard without a careful consideration of the consequences of one's research, and that significant distortions often will result when applied concerns are ignored. I advance the hypothesis that typical conceptions of basic research in sociology preclude the proper use of statistics. From this it follows that mainstream, quantitative sociology can begin to save itself only by taking seriously the question of applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses its attention upon the relationship between the dominant ideas in American sociology and the receptivity, opposition, or indifference to the ideas of Karl Marx. It documents that early American sociology basically ignored Marx's ideas. When his ideas were addressed, the modal response was overwhelmingly negative, and typically along ideological lines. A classificatory scheme is developed to identify the ideological nature of the treatment of Karl Marx in early American sociology. In effect, Marx was defined as beyond the limits of valid inquiry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In view of the revanchist ideology that often passes under the rubric of sociobiology, a perspective that insists on the learned nature of social behavior is welcome. Undoubtedly, a search for the causes and careers of human behavior is a legitimate enterprise in sociology, but in the context of Molm's paper, a different question must be raised regarding behaviorist sociology. The root criticism of behavioral sociology, it seems to me, is the one she attributes to symbolic interactionism. The view that human emit behavior, Molm contends, is not a mechanistic theory at all because operant behaviors are not automatically elicited by any prior stimulus, they simply occur not elicited by a stimulus. If something that is yet to happen is the cause of the behavior that is about to be emitted, then surely it is the anticipation of receiving the reinforcement that is causing the behavior. I am sure Molm is correct that the argument about behavioral sociology is really about behavioral sociology is really about the goals and aims of science.

This article discusses the American Sociological Association (ASA) as a portrait of organizational success and intellectual paralysis. There are many important things that the ASA does very well. Its conventions are now quite large and complicated, with more than 200 sessions and close to a thousand persons participating in the sessions. Planning for a convention starts four years in advance with the choice of a site, and program committees work hard for a year in setting up sessions and recruiting session organizers. The sessions have changed over the past few decades, as of 1981. In the early days, sessions were organized more casually, networks of acquaintances being used frequently as means to solicit papers for sessions. Now, participation has been placed on a more universalistic basis. More opportunities are provided for members to exchange ideas and information about work in progress through luncheon roundtables, workshops, and poster sessions. The ASA also is successful in publishing its journals and in running a monograph series. The journals do come out more or less on time and are delivered to the right addresses. If there is an establishment in the ASA, it is composed of persons who are well known, mainly through their scholarly works or other activities that bring them to the attention of the members. Although the ASA must be reckoned successful in a bureaucratic sense, it has not been successful in advancing the intellectual side of the discipline.

In this paper, I would like to try to sort out the conflict of two ways of knowing: on the one hand there are folk methods for constituting positive knowledge and on the other hand there are scientific methods of acquiring accurate, positive knowledge. Both methods try to solve the problem of subjectivity: privately, individually held states of knowing and understanding. In this endeavor, the very existence of social reality is at stake. If persons have, internally, states of understanding that are different from each other in any persistent and significant way, their behavior will be at cross purpose or to no human purpose and gradually behavior will drift irreconcilably apart. There are, of course, social controls by which to resynchronize behavior but in these, too, folk methods are challenged by scientific methods. I wish to emphasize that the human project requires both folk methods and scientific methods of knowledge constitution. The former could ensure collective praxis; the latter could contribute to the authentic self-knowledge of a social life world. Together they could reunite the alienated divisions of the knowledge process. I suggest some canons in the last section that may promote such reunification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents a commentary about the preponderance of sociology by David Gray. Sociologists appear unable to treat methods as techniques for analyzing human group life in its naturalistic and historical contexts. The alternative model of science attempts to fit itself and its methods to the demands and variations of the empirical world. Research papers that flow from methods courses and substantive field courses must be written around bodies of theory or interpreted from the perspective of a particular theory. The increasing press to expand the foundations of mathematical sociology, at the graduate and undergraduate levels, has had the unfortunate consequence of removing the serious study of theory and substantive fields from many curricula. The mirror theory of published sociology becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Behavioral sociology has developed unique features which have caused controversy and confusion in the discipline. In this paper, we briefly describe the history of behavioral sociology, and show how its major forms have been applied to behavioral analysts in complex organizations, laboratory experimental analysis of social exchange and social process, and behavioral macrosociology and theoretical extensions We also briefly examine criticisms of behavioral sociology on grounds of tautology, reduction, the omission of internal states as relevant data, and behavior control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article compares philosopher Talcott Parsons's views with Habermas's theory. The entire basis of Habermas's communicative action banks on the distinctions Parsons made some sixty years previously, namely Habermas's notion of the universal validity claims underlying all speech. The three dimensions corresponding to the three validity claims are the subjective world, the objective world and the social world. This makes sense only in post conventional societies, because prior to that time, persons often drew upon only one world in making claims such as appealing to tradition, the divine right of kings, aesthetics, religion, or whatever. Habermas's penchant for grand, overarching theory was borrowed from Parsons and Parsons himself had been earlier influenced by that unique German brand of theorizing tracing back through Hegel and Marx, Simmel, Weber and Mannheim. In effect, the same logic underlying Habermas's analytic of the three worlds and the three validity claims can be found in the pages of Parsons's Amherst papers.

This section introduces the articles featured in the summer 2000 issue of The American Sociologist. As a new millennium unfolds, a global dialogue in sociology is underway that promises to enrich and renew culture-bound sociological imaginations. As Gary Marx notes, by 1911 Edward A. Ross, a towering figure in his day, had published a book for popular audiences about China as seen by a sociological traveler. Karl Marx brings this commentary up to date, and provides insight into a reality that Ross did not experience, namely, the teaching of sociology in Chinese universities. William Buxton has gathered together a fascinating set of materials about U.S. interest in Asia, with particular reference to Talcott Parsons, Harvard University and Japan. As he notes, these materials call into question simplistic views of Parsons as a Eurocentric thinker by documenting an ongoing encounter with Asia that extended from the 1940s through the late 1970s. One product of events at Harvard was a graduate-seminar paper written in 1941 by Marion Levy and rediscovered by him a half century later. In addition to its relevance for the emergent sociology of Asia, Levy's paper is a most interesting example of early functionalist analysis in U.S. sociology.

Each moment of the sociological enterprise may be rightly regarded as a turning point, that is, a place of choosing among options that have consequences for the field. The papers in the September, 2003 issue of the journal "American Sociologist" share a theme of revisiting for the sake of new departures. Sociologist Neil J. Smelser begins with a broad overview of a century's travels that affirms the value of the sociological endeavor and looks optimistically ahead to new developments. Sociologists Douglas Hartmann, Paul R. Croll and Katja Guenther focus on past definitions of the race-relations problematic in order to articulate emergent understandings. Sociologist Michael DeCesare reconsiders the relationship between earlier choices of theoretical orientation and later pedagogical practices. Sociologists Joel Best and David Schweingruber cast a critical eye toward the established terminology in sociological textbooks, asking whether one should continue this way of teaching the profession's language. Sociologist Patrick D. Nolan offers a similar reflection on standardized stories and rhetorical strategies in the textbooks that represent the field to most undergraduates.

This section introduces the articles featured in the summer 2002 issue of The American Sociologist. This issue features six papers that explore several related themes in the intellectual history of sociology. The authors place particular emphasis on the enduring legacies of creative minds, while also tracing out unnoticed linkages between thinkers and intellectual traditions and pointing to unresolved tensions and lacunae within individual approaches. The articles combine a retrospective glance with a commitment to incorporating and further developing the insights of earlier work. There is also a happy blending of the personal, the conceptual, and the historical. Uta Gerhardt contributes an erudite and nuanced discussion of the relations between major figures who are ordinarily regarded as polar opposites: social-action and social-system theorist Talcott Parsons and members of the frankfurt School of philosophy, psychology, and sociology, especially Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. Jean-Francois Côté and Daniel Dagenais provide further insight into the development of critical sociology similar to that of the Frankfurt School within the context of contemporary Canada, especially Quebec.

This section introduces the articles featured in the spring 2002 issue of The American Sociologist. The half-dozen articles here, along with Brym's engaging introductory essay, help us regain a sense of sociology as an unfolding international movement and also of the distinctive experiences of sociologists in particular national contexts. Rather ironically, in light of the sweep of the paradigms and macro-level theories that are sociology's coin of the realm, there are strong parochial tendencies in the field. In the United States, for instance, many departments of sociology tend to relegate international and cross-cultural matters to anthropologists, and many textbook writers produce analyses that focus overwhelmingly on their home country. One consequence of such tendencies is to speak as though formulas that fit one context have a general or universal applicability. As the papers here inform us time and again, sociology in Canada has struggled with the Anglo-French division of society and culture, which has generated two separate and largely unengaged spheres, and has segregated even the respective social sciences. Meanwhile, Canadian sociologists have worked to develop a voice of their own that is not distorted by the influence of sociology produced in the United States or in Europe.

The article introduces as series of articles dealing in a variety of ways with critical theorists and critical theory. The first three papers offer insightful analyses of the work of several critical thinkers Erich Fromm, David Riesman, C. Wright Mills and Leo Strauss. Neil McLaughlin examines David's Riesman's synthesis of the German critical tradition and U.S. pragmatism in his best known work, The Lonely Crowd. In McLaughlin's view, Riesman's classic analysis of U.S. society in 1950 bears a strong resemblance to many postmodern writings, particularly since Riesman self-consciously assumed the mantle of the public intellectual. James Abbott examines the thought of political philosopher Leo Strauss, with particular attention to its relevance for contemporary controversies concerning facts and values. Abbott is drawn to Strauss's analysis of the crises of modern liberalism and of twentieth century social science, and brings this to bear on the contemporary paradox of a sociology that simultaneously advocates visions of the good society while denying the possibility of trans-historical standards that would validate such visions. Joel Best offers incisive reflections on sociology's status in the academic world. Ironically, despite its image as a minor field, sociology has arguably been among the most influential of disciplines and has spawned a series of specialties that migrated to independence.

This article presents a commentary on a paper by Robert A. Stebbins in a previous issue of The American Sociologist which provided an account of professional and amateur sociology in the U.S. Amateur sociology was the parent professional, the child Park was a professional writer, an amateur sociologist. He did join the sociological fraternity, to that extent he became professional. Sumner wrote a book it got adopted by sociologists. Sumner accepted the adoption very unwillingly, and made no change in his writing or thinking. At present, sociology has a professional structure, and can control what is published as sociology, but the commenter is grateful that people cannot control what is written on sociological matters or in the sociological mood. The commenter cites that unless sociologists get much more bureaucratized, it will always be possible for people to be writers of sociology. At present, sociology has a professional structure, and can control what is published as sociology. There is no virtue in being amateur. Researchers, professional or not should not try to publish their reports in the regular journals. In this way new lines of thought and research will reach the widest audience of interested readers.

This article presents a commentary on a paper by Robert A. Stebbins in a previous issue of The American Sociologist which provided an account of professional and amateur sociology in the U.S. Stebbins' account of professional and amateur sociology unearths a set of boxes nesting in one another that according to the commenter, contain issues going to the foundations of current social science, conceptually and institutionally. The most encompassing issue is embedded in Stebbins' assertion throughout that the discipline and profession of sociology exists, has definable and agreed aims, and is thereby a special stream in science as well as within social science. He presumes that there is some accurate version of sociology into which laypeople can and should be indoctrinated. The commenter relates that many institutional structures support this version of the division of scientific labor, a version based more on professionalism and careerism than on ideas about the unity of science. Skepticism, is missing from this account of sociology. The proposal mostly takes up issues of craft, unrelated however to the research questions for which the particular tactic of volunteer sociologists would be more useful than another.