Search

In 1938, Joseph Oldham, a leading British Christian ecumenist, formed a discussion group that came to be known as the Moot. The Moot met in a retreat setting for several long weekends each year until early 1947, its discussions carefully organized and convened by Oldham. More than anything else, the discussions of the Moot revolved around the topic of order and, more particularly, around the problem of how order might be restored in British society and culture in the context of a 'world turned upside down'. Oldham and most members of the group sought a central place for Christian ideas and ideals in British social life. A striking feature of the Moot was the intellectual stature and the diversity of interests of its members. Among its 16 or so regular members were Oldham (1874-1969), his close friend T.S. Eliot (1888-1963) and Karl Mannheim (1893-1947). Among the later 'visitors' to Moot meetings was Michael Polanyi (1891-1976), who first came to the 20th Moot meeting in June of 1944. This article presents several papers that were produced for the Moot discussion of 15-18 December 1944 by Eliot, Mannheim and Polanyi. These papers have intrinsic and historical interest, and are published together for the first time here. The initial paper, written by Eliot, treats the role in society of 'the clerisy' - a term borrowed from Samuel Taylor Coleridge that points to an intellectual elite or vanguard. Eliot requested that Oldham solicit responses to his paper from Mannheim and Polanyi. Mannheim's response was a set of detailed answers to four questions that Eliot posed at the end of his essay. Polanyi's response was a short, coherent essay, which he identified as 'my own position with respect' to Eliot's discussion; his essay outlines a brief account of the role of the clerisy in science. Eliot wrote short comments on the responses of both Mannheim and Polanyi. These five pieces, which have a natural unity, should be of interest to anyone working in the history of social thought. We have abridged only Mannheim's lengthy response and have eliminated a few lines of illustrative material from Eliot's reply to Mannheim, but these excisions in no way detract from the clarity of the authors' perspectives in this rich trilogue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Existing accounts of American sociology’s founding years during the early twentieth century assume that the discipline was ‘metrocentric.’ They assume that it was only interested in processes occurring within the United States; that American sociologists fell prey to state-centrist thought; and that, therefore, contextualizing America sociology’s emergence necessitates understanding relations, events, and processes within the confines of US territorial boundaries. By contrast, this paper shows the imperial and hence global aspects of early American sociological thought. Early American sociologists were interested in imperialism and, therefore, in cross-societal, transnational, and global processes and relations. Implicitly or explicitly they approached imperialism as a process by which social groups, not least ‘races,’ interacted and conflicted. They also saw it as a route towards new global forms. Early American sociology thus articulated a sociological imagination that looked beyond American society and to the wider world. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This essay is part of a symposium on Modernity and the Jews in Western Social Thought (University of Chicago Press, 2017) and responds to comments on the book by Angel Adams Parham, Joseph Gerteis, Peter Kivisto, and Fuyuki Kurasawa. As all these commentators recognize, the history of social theory at its best involves more than conserving, inculcating, and consecrating the sociological canon or even remaking the canon through the addition of previously neglected authors. The history of social theory also allows scholars to address fundamental questions in the sociology of knowledge, the comparative investigation of different kinds of alterity, and the study of social solidarity and belonging. This essay reflects on how best to address these questions and suggests ways that new research in the history of social thought can build upon and extend existing scholarship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the work of die French social philosopher and feminist Jenny P. d'Héricourt, who, in the mid-nineteenth century, debated the writings of contemporary 'master-thinkers' such as Auguste Comte, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Jules Michelet. Usually ranged exclusively as a contribution to feminist thought, d'Héricourt's writing has also to be understood as a contribution to the conceptual outlines and defining questions of emerging sociology. The stated objective of her main work, La femme affranchie, was not to explain society but to claim equality for women. However, it was precisely her critique of contemporary theories of sexual difference and gender inequality that led d'Héricourt into the territory of sociological thinking — the very same territory her opponents had left by devoting themselves to the creation of a dualistic and asymmetrical concept of gender relations which relied upon women's supposed adversity towards modernity. In her effort to render women's role as agents of modernization visible, d'Héricourt developed, albeit in fragments, a theorem of social integration in modern society that anticipates Émile Durkheim's concept of organic solidarity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most textbooks today reserve the history of sociology for names like Marx, Weber, Durkheim and Mead. This abbreviated version of the history of the discipline leaves the reader with only a rudimentary understanding of the evolution of sociology, yet at the same time it deviates from the basic premise of sociology, which suggests understanding the relationship of the individual to society and the history of both. We have McDonaldized the history of sociology and in the process erased many individuals who were paramount in its development. The following study addresses the influence of Charles Abram Ellwood on the development of sociology, specifically the development of Herbert Blumer and subsequently symbolic interactionism. There are four main areas where Ellwood's ideas can be found in Blumer's work as well as within symbolic interactionism: (1) interactionism; (2) methodology; (3) emotions; and (4) group behavior. It is advocated here that Ellwood should be included among the names of Dewey, Mead, Cooley and Thomas as a central figure in the development of both Blumer and symbolic interactionism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]