Search

In this introduction, we thank those who supported and contributed to our special issue of Classical Sociology, on the work and life of André Gorz. We then provide a sketch of Gorz's place in intellectual history. Along the way, we explain some of our motivations for editing the special issue, then move on to a discussion of our contributors' papers. We end with a reiteration of our goals for the issue, and with thanks once more to those who helped make it happen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main objective of the paper is to identify the logic of the sociological field in the GDR, looking at how it was spatialized in the city of East Berlin. In this regard, I am less interested in providing an overview of the different research streams of the main sociologists operating in the scientific and academic institutes located in Berlin than in reconstructing some crucial dynamics at work there and highlighting their effects at the social and symbolic levels. The underlying idea is that, especially in East Berlin, the sociological knowledge produced was less homogeneous than it has been represented in the existing literature. Without negating the existence of shared aspects characterizing Marxist-Leninist sociology, also superimposed on the political elite, a field analysis enables us to see how the different positions and trajectories of GDR-sociologists had an impact on their approaches to theoretical, epistemological, and methodological questions, and on their understanding and uses of concepts deriving from both Marxist-Leninist and "bourgeois" sociology. In the analysis, I will first compare the social trajectories of two of my interview-partners as paradigmatic of two different sociological habitus depending on their different academic/political socialization, networks, and positions in the field. As a second step, I will present a sketch of the sociological field drawn from 63 curricula of sociologists active in East Berlin in an attempt to pinpoint, on a larger scale, the homologies between the social and symbolic spaces of the field. Thus, the underlying idea is to examine the intersection of the "quasi-structural properties" of the field with its "phenomenological aspects" concerning the "feel for the game." While the two understandings of field are interdependent, it is in the second one that the physical space as a localized social space played a crucial role in defining the material, social, and cultural constraints and opportunities actors faced which, in turn, influenced their practices and choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main purpose of this paper is to examine the 'existence theory' proposed by Patrick Baert, Marcus Morgan, and Rin Ushiyama. To this end, it focuses on some key issues that could, and arguably should, be explored in more detail, especially if the authors decide to develop their project further, permitting them to establish a new interdisciplinary branch of inquiry. The comments and suggestions made in this paper are meant to be constructive, supporting the idea that Baert, Morgan, and Ushiyama's outline could, and should, be turned into a bold, systematic, and long-term research programme. More specifically, the in-depth analysis of Baert, Morgan, and Ushiyama's theoretical framework demonstrates that their undertaking, which draws on central insights from both existentialism and phenomenology, contributes to bridging the disciplinary gap between philosophy and sociology. The paper concludes by asserting that Baert, Morgan, and Ushiyama's model provides a solid foundation for an ambitious, but viable, project that may result in the creation of a new current of research, capable of generating valuable insights into the tension-laden confluence of existential milestones, existential ladders, and existential urgencies in the theatre of human life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

After the appointment of its first full-time professor in L.T. Hobhouse in 1907, British sociology lost an environmental approach that might have substantially altered the shape of the discipline. The environmental approach was that of Patrick Geddes, who made the relationship between people and their environments central for individual and social well-being. In spite of the fact that urban Britain was undergoing environmental crisis due to the negative effects of unrestrained industrialization, a range of other circumstances, personal as well as political and both inside and outside the academy, conspired to coalesce in the more or less deliberate exclusion of Geddes' ideas. The paper suggests that sociologists need to take a radically reflexive approach to the history of their own discipline that recognizes its embeddedness in the wider social world, since both individual and social action, as well as structural forces, may be as influential as quality or coherence in determining the fate of the ideas and theories that they create. In Geddes' case, this leads to a re-examination of both the historical context and the debate surrounding the establishment of sociology at the London School of Economics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After exploring the main tenets of existence theory and the affinities between this theory and other philosophical traditions, this introduction lists the central points of each contribution to this special issue. In what follows, we provide a brief synopsis of the critical commentaries by David Inglis, Simon Susen, Robin Wagner-Pacifici, Bryan S. Turner, William Outhwaite, and Thomas Kemple. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper responds to the 'existence theory' proposed by Baert, Morgan and Ushiyama. It considers their proposals in light of two main thematics: the general account of human existence, and the more empirical sociology of existential milestones. Both elements are appraised in light of existentialist philosophy and earlier attempts at 'existentialist sociology'. It is suggested that the authors engage with generational theory, and also give an account of the commodification of significant life-stages by the milestones culture industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does the discipline of Sociology need to be defended from fragmentation by the mobilisation of a canon derived from its classical legacy? The paper provides an exposition of the arguments of Turner, Susen and O'Neill concerning fragmentation of Sociology as a discipline. It investigates whether there is fragmentation or reinvigorated synthesis in three examples: inequality beyond class, posthumanism and postmodernism. It draws on a reading of contemporary theoretical developments in Sociology. It concludes that the classical legacy is important and that engagement with external forces has reinvigorated rather than fragmented the discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1873, 75 years before Karl Jaspers published his theory of the Axial Age in 1949, unknown to Jaspers and to contemporary scholars today, Scottish folklorist John Stuart Stuart-Glennie elaborated the first fully developed and nuanced theory of what he termed “the Moral Revolution” to characterize the historical shift emerging roughly around 600 BCE in a variety of civilizations, most notably ancient China, India, Judaism, and Greece, as part of a broader critical philosophy of history. He continued to write on the idea over decades in books and articles and also presented his ideas to the fledgling Sociological Society of London in 1905, which were published the following year in the volume Sociological Papers, Volume 2. This article discusses Stuart-Glennie’s ideas on the moral revolution in the context of his philosophy of history, including what he termed “panzooinism”; ideas with implications for contemporary debates in theory, comparative history, and sociology of religion. It shows why he should be acknowledged as the originator of the theory now known as the axial age, and also now be included as a significant sociologist in the movement toward the establishment of sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is one of the final volumes in the Max Weber Gesamtausgabe and is entitled Verstehende Soziologie und Werturteilsfreiheit. It is ostensibly on Weber's methodological writings but most of the contents appear to be rather minor pieces— a large number of conference comments, small contributions, and several book reviews. Yet, this is an important work because of those pieces as well as the two major essays on methodology: "Über einige Kategorien der verstehende Soziologie" (1913) and "Der Sinn der 'Wertfreiheit' der soziologischen und ökonomischen Wissenschaften" (1917), both of which were originally published in the journal Logos. As with all of Weber's writings on methodology, these two essays are difficult to comprehend; yet, they are critical for grasping Weber's sociology. The first one sets out Weber's conception of "understanding" in history while the second explains why he believes his distinction between facts and values is critical for scholars. He suggests that we may not understand everything that occurred in history but we can understand enough; if we did not, then there would be no historical discipline. His words concerning the need for intellectual honesty are as important today as when he wrote them more than one hundred years ago. This book is a worthy companion to the forthcoming volume Zur Logik und Methodik der Sozialwissenschaften and is crucial for understanding Weber's path to sociology. It is a worthy final addition to the Max Weber Gesamtausgabe. And, it is a worthy successor to the Gesammelte Schriften zur Wissensschaftslehre. For anyone hoping to understand how Weber became the famous sociologist, this book is necessary reading. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper uses the work and employs the tools of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger to attempt to improve sociology. Heidegger’s thinking is employed primarily to undo a paradox of sociology. Sociology focuses on the social, but starts with the assumption of essentially non-social egos that somehow generate a social world. This ‘egologism’ has caused sociology to occupy itself with a number of pseudo-problems. We argue that Heidegger develops what we call a ‘socio-ontological’ approach, which means that human beings are always already social and dwell originarily in a social world. To present this ‘social foundation for sociology’ is the contribution of this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Herbert Adolphus Miller (1875–1951) is a neglected figure within North American sociology, yet he made a distinctive contribution to the sociology and politics of race relations. He was one of the first sociological critics of eugenics and developed a distinctive approach to race relations and the position of subject minorities derived from a critical analysis of European empires. His approach was complementary to that of Du Bois with whom he had a close relationship. In this article, we trace Miller's critique of eugenics and the idea of 'Americanisation' as a policy of immigrant assimilation, showing the distinctiveness of his approach within North American sociology, including the milieu of Chicago sociology with which he was associated. We also examine the connection between his sociology of race and Park's position on race relations as being a process of gradual assimilation. We conclude with discussion of the Chicago school influence over Gunnar Myrdal's The American Dilemma and the alternative approach to race relations that both Du Bois and Miller had already outlined in the 1920s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper attempts to introduce the topic of thinking into current sociology and to raise the question whether a sociology of thinking might be possible and, if so, what such a sociology could look like. Thinking is typically seen as something intensely private and fleeting in nature, two qualities that make it resistant to sociology’s efforts to get a grip on it. Earlier attempts to make a sociological analysis of thinking are surveyed, from Durkheim over the sociology of knowledge to today’s sociology of ideas and other approaches. An argument is made that a sociology of thinking could get some important inspiration from philosophy, especially when it comes to topics to analyze and the setting of an agenda. To exemplify this argument, some writings on thinking by Kant, Kierkegaard, and Heidegger are presented. The paper ends with some reflections on the normative dimension of thinking and a sociology of thinking. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The emergence of performance studies in the last three decades has been accompanied by an increasing dissatisfaction with the functional interpretation of ritual, and in this context Émile Durkheim's work on ritual and religion has been the target of much criticism. The paper argues that a closer consideration of Durkheim's interpretation of commemorative rites could be incorporated effectively into performance theory, as one of its neglected sources. The paper reviews current analytic approaches to ritual theory, and then analyses Durkheim's argument with regards to two themes: the social organization of time and memory, and the reenactment of the past as a source of aesthetic life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In an age of apparently endemic globalization and globality, any form of sociological theorizing centred on an understanding of the term 'society' which took the latter as being always located within the boundaries of a particular nation-state, would be indictable as being iniprisoned within the confines of a naïve and analytically unsatisfactory 'methodological nationalism'. A superficial assessment of Durkheim's work might lead one to believe that of all the thinkers of the classical period of sociology, Durkheim is the most methodologically nationalist, and thus the most unpromising resource for analyses of globalization processes in the present day. However, this paper shows that such a view is a serious oversimplification of a multi-stranded oeuvre which contains within it intriguing elements that point towards a Durkheimian account of globalization processes and conditions of globality. While there are indeed methodologically nationalist strains in Durkheim's work, these are more than counter-balanced by certain other, more globally oriented, concerns. First, there are tendencies towards the development of a 'cosmopolitan' political theory, a stance which has been fairly well remarked upon by other authors. Second, at a more explicitly 'sociological' level, there are also certain orientations towards an account of the genesis and nature of social and cultural globality. This account is scattered throughout various locations in Durkheim's writings, most notably The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, and the paper reconstructs what it takes to be Durkheim's embryonic project in 'global sociology' to be found there and in sonic of his other works. Attention is drawn to the apparent debt Durkheim owed to Fustel de Coulanges in this regard. This paper concludes with the argument that Durkheim's endeavours to understand conditions of globality and planet-wide connectivity should be given serious attention in contemporary re-assessments of the capacities of classical sociologists to deal with globe-spanning processes and institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Merton's two papers on the norms of science were written in a period of intense political activity in science, and responded to this context, using conceptual tools from classical sociology and Harvard thinking of the time. The basic reasoning was Weberian: science and politics each had a different ethos. One target was the Left view of science as a model for society. Another was the view of the American Left that complex societies required regulation, but that science should be free of control. Merton pictured science as already intensely policed, but threatened by the conflict between its special ethos and potential democratic demands, and requiring protection. Tis was a 'liberal' argument, but Merton used the language of the left to present it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that Charles Sanders Peirce contributed significantly to the founding of American sociology, doing so at the level of philosophical presuppositions or meta-sociology. I emphasize two of his ideas. One is semiotics, which is virtually the same as the anthropologists' concept of culture. This latter concept in turn was essential to clarifying the sociologists' idea of the social or society. Peirce also created the modern theory of the dialogical self, which explained the symbolic character of human beings and proved foundational for social psychology. Politically Peirce was a right-wing conservative, but his ideas eventually contributed to the egalitarian views of cultures and sub-cultures. In addition his ideas contributed, by way of unanticipated consequences, to the 20th-century human rights revolutions in the American legal system. Thus he was both a founder of sociology and a founder of American political liberalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper argues that although Durkheim did not explicitly employ the notion of collective memory, his approach offers a very insightful understanding of the need for historical continuity. Durkheim's belief that every society displays and requires a sense of continuity with the past and that the past confers identity on individuals and groups allows us to see collective memory as one of the elementary forms of social life. The paper presents Durkheim's discussion of commemorative rituals in early societies, where he directly addresses the notion of social memory, which is seen as perpetuated by religious rites and as a means of ensuring shared morality and social cohesion. His conceptualization of the role of law and memory in sustaining organic solidarity is also considered. In conclusion it is discussed whether Durkheim's understanding of social memory provides us with relevant means to interpret social processes of remembering in today's societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the late 19th-century analytic context in which classical sociology emerged was constituted in substantial part by a discourse of political economy, the subsequent development of the discipline has been characterized by a growing analytic distance between sociology and economics. With increasing specialization in the field of knowledge in the course of the 20th century there was a neglect of social institutions in orthodox economic analysis and a parallel relative neglect of economic phenomena within sociological analysis. The latter condition has been exacerbated by the 'cultural turn' in social thought that took place towards the close of the century, ironically a period marked by the growing prominence of economic matters in social and political life. This paper presents an argument for a return to the analytic concern with economic life that lies at the heart of classical sociology, for an 'economic turn' in contemporary sociological thought. This is achieved through a discussion of the work of J.K. Galbraith on economics and the transformation of capitalism; private affluence and public provision; and the consequences of a culture of contentment, work that suggests an affinity with the analytic preoccupations of the classical sociologists. The paper demonstrates the sociological relevance of the social and institutional analyses of J.K. Galbraith. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper first offers a brief account of the competition between the Durkheimian sociological tradition and German philosophy in the period in which Bourdieu was a student at the École Normale Supérieure. It indicates the intellectual influences of the early years that Bourdieu subsequently acknowledged and then examines his use of the work of Weber in his first book, Sociologie de l'Algérie (1958). The paper then focuses on the development of Bourdieu's thought from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s, a period in which he strategically presented himself as an anti-humanist sociologist whilst also articulating a view of science that was in tune with phenomenological and ontological philosophy. Bourdieu's 'Sociology and Philosophy in France since 1945' (1967a) receives particular attention since his analysis of sociology and philosophy in France in the post-war period was a key element in his own position-taking in respect of the two disciplines. The paper then examines Bourdieu's critiques of Weber at this time and suggests that his dissatisfaction with Weber's epistemology logically became a dissastisfaction with the claims of sociological explanation as such. There followed an attempt to reconcile a commitment to social science with an allegiance to elements of phenomenological thought. The outcome was a willingness on Bourdieu's part to see reflexivity as a means to problematizing sociological explanation more than as a means to refining it or making it more sophisticated. The consequence was that commitments to phenomenological ontology and social science co-existed in this period. The balance was to change again subsequently in Bourdieu's thought, and his responsivenesss to changing conditions exemplifies how we should ourselves rethink the relations between possible future social theories and the classical theories of Western sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In my contribution, I intend to move from Positivismusstreit in order to work through the complex and in part unexplored rapport of Popper with the topic of Society. It is possible to point out some parts in Popper’s paper that was presented in Tübingen that reinforce the idea of a social connotation of science present in Popper’s conception of epistemology. These parts, in my opinion, have two immediate and significant consequences: on one hand, they support the thesis of one of the scholars of Popper, Ian Jarvie, who, in a volume from 2001, suggested a rereading of the epistemological reflections of Popper from a social approach. Second, these parts offer a perspective on the reading which represents new hindsight regarding the conception of ‘Social’ of the two key scholars Popper and Adorno. Through a reconstruction of the initial positions, this article will attempt to present the Popperian interpretation of the relationship between Science and Society and the role of Sociology. If opportunely reconsidered, these aspects may actually be an instrument through which it is possible to pinpoint an absolutely unexpected common theme between the participants at Tübingen. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This introductory article to the special issue 'Classical Sociology from the Metropolis' provides a comprehensive exploration of the profound influence of metropolises, particularly Berlin, on the development and discourse of classical sociology. Emphasizing the metropolis as a social space and promoter of sociological thought, it delves into the lives and works of key figures such as Georg Simmel, Robert E. Park, W.E.B. Du Bois, Frieda Wunderlich and Rose Laub Coser. Their interactions, perspectives and transnational exchanges, particularly between Berlin and other urban centres such as Chicago and New York, are highlighted, illustrating the global interconnectedness of sociological discourse. While acknowledging established sociological icons, the article also highlights the often overlooked contributions of women and scholars of colour, challenging and expanding the traditional understanding of the 'classical' in sociological thought. The narrative travels from the early urban sociological and feminist theories that emerged in the metropolis of the 1920s to the complexities of Marxist sociology in a divided Berlin after the Second World War. Through a curated selection of articles in the special issue, the work underlines the central role of the metropolis in shaping foundational sociological concepts and the thinkers who championed them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a brief exercise in the critical sociology of sociology, this article demonstrates W.E.B. Du Bois's undeniable contributions to the history, discourse, and development of American sociology in particular, and the wider world of sociology in general. This dialectical approach to Du Bois's sociological discourse will enable objective interpreters of his work to see that when compared and contrasted with the monumental work of Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim, what was and what remains really and truly distinctive about Du Bois's sociology is precisely his unpretentious preoccupation with uniquely and unequivocally American social, political, and cultural issues, such as, for example: race and anti-Black racism in the context of slavery, lynching, Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, segregation, and other forms of racial oppression in the United States; racial capitalism and the racial colonization of social classes in the United States; and the racial colonization of gender and sexuality in the United States. [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]

The sociological importance attributed to ‘the sacred’ has varied historically as theorists have sought to explain the relationship between religion and early capitalism, the rise of twentieth-century secularization processes, the profusion of nationalism in post-Soviet societies, and the recent global upsurge in religious movements. Paradoxically, however, sociology’s concern with the social significance of the sacred has not been accompanied by commensurate interest in those contrasting and varied sacrificial processes implicated in creating the sacred. This paper suggests that this imbalance limits our understanding of the relationship between the sacred, religion and society, and makes it difficult to assess the contemporary relevance of classical writings on the subject. Specifically, it hinders our knowledge of why certain phenomena become sacred, and in so doing limits our appreciation of how societies develop cultural priorities, of how they stimulate individuals to become certain types of social subjects, and of the risks and opportunities that arise in milieux characterized by shrinking or expanding prospects for creating sacred phenomena. This is because sacrifice (sacer facere), ‘the making of sacred things’, constitutes a crucial mediator of these phenomena; illuminating the nature and consequences of specific modalities of sacred rituals, actions and objects, and revealing much about their location within or dislocation from particular social milieux, identities and religions. Our argument progresses by viewing sacrifice as an example of what Mauss refers to as a ‘total social fact’, and by engaging with the writings of Bataille, Girard and Simmel; three figures to have made important, sociologically underexplored, contributions to the subject. In so doing, we aim to lay the foundations for a sociology of the contemporary nature and function of sacrifice, suggesting it should be a core issue for twenty-first-century sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editors discusses the topics of papers published within the issue, including the attributes of sociology that led it to repudiate natural law, the intellectual resources provided by natural law for social theory and the sociological critique of natural law.

This paper traces a line between Simmel’s formal sociology, his little-reviewed concept of ‘forms of second order’, his apriorities for social life and his incipient sociology of emotions. Thus different elements of Simmel’s sociology are brought together and linked. These elements were all present in his 1908 monograph, Sociology, but were not connected to each other in the way that they have been interconnected here. The social form of ‘gratitude’ is presented as a paradigmatic ‘form of second order’, and thus illustrates the way in which forms of sociation, especially second-order forms of sociation, are deeply connected to the apriorities of social life. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Two matters addressed in the analyses of Joseph Schumpeter, namely fiscal crises to which modern ‘tax states’ are vulnerable and processes of ‘creative destruction’ intrinsic to modern capitalism, have grown steadily in significance since the mid-twentieth century. Schumpeter anticipated a continuing growth in demand for public services and forms of social provision and drew on aspects of Rudolf Goldscheid’s innovative designation of a critical new field of inquiry, ‘fiscal sociology’, to discuss fiscal limits to the state’s capacity to respond to needs and demands for social provision. The fiscal crisis symptoms identified by Schumpeter are argued to be bound up with much broader and more substantial underlying economic processes and tendencies exposed by Marx, in particular with social and economic costs arising from the necessity for continual rounds of ‘creative destruction’ which constitute an intrinsic feature of all phases in the development of the capitalist mode of production and have become even more prominent in ‘late’ globalized capitalism. The paper concludes by comparing Schumpeter’s unidirectional view of the state–capital relationship with views outlined by other social and economic analysts for whom the contradiction between capitalist economy and the public household or common good is paramount. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

For Durkheim, sociology, as a new kind of science, is part and parcel of the constitutional process of modern societies. This conception of sociology rests on two fundamental theses. First, society, as a normative realm made up of ideas, and especially of ideals, is an ontological novelty: it shows itself in the constitution of individuals, since human beings are persons able to think and act only as long as they are social individuals. Second, modern society is an historical novelty, constituted by an ideal of the person which asks and enables each social individual to become a fully autonomous being. The aim of this paper is to clarify these two basic foundations of Durkheimian sociology. Part I focuses on the first thesis: Durkheim’s reconstruction of the sociological tradition as a conceptual struggle toward the idea of society, conceived as a new order of reality. It examines the social philosophy Durkheim developed in order to account for the relation between society and the individual; the conceptualization of the human individual as social in The Division of Social Labor, its later development in the framework of The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Part II, to be published in a second volume, will focus on the second thesis. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper discusses the canonization process of George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) in sociology through a recounting of the history of the book Mind, Self, and Society (1934). The relation between Mead and this particular work has no parallel in the history of sociological theory. Although the book was not written by Mead, or even organized under his direction, it has been through it that generations of academics and students have come in contact with Mead’s ideas. There are two main goals behind this exercise in historical reconstruction. First, the study of how Mind, Self, and Society came into existence and acquired classical standing offers an insightful view of the contingency and the complexity of canon formation. It is on this continuous process of reception, through which certain texts and authors acquire classical value, which the second part of the article focuses. It discusses the extent to which the history of the reception of Mead’s ideas would have been very different, and the impact of his ideas for theory building substantially larger, if it had been based, not on a posthumously published transcript, but on his own work. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The paper addresses the recent turn to pragmatism within sociological theory, arguing that, in crucial respects, the ‘new’ pragmatism is at odds with the animating thrust of the ‘old’ pragmatism associated with James, Dewey and Mead. Two tendencies in the new pragmatism are discussed, namely ‘the universal pragmatics’ associated with general theory (Habermas) and the displacement of explanation in favour of edification (Rorty). Each position fails to recognize the unifying role played by ‘problem-solving’ in the original pragmatist approach, and this, in turn, is argued to provide a more satisfactory way of resolving some dilemmas of contemporary sociological theory. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

By analysing two cases from the recent history of Vaishnavism (a temple festival in Vrindavan; the development of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, or ISKCON), this paper shows that the notion of dépense as developed by Marcel Mauss, Robert Hertz and Georges Bataille can be applied as an analytical tool in the study of rituals and religion as an indicator of religious commitment. At the same time it is possible to show that, by constructing a kind of macro-economic theory that includes religious behaviour, recent theories of religious economics are part of, and reproduce, a modern discourse of rationality that rules out, rather than understands, forms of irrationality such as unproductive expenditure (dépense). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociologists of science today take it for granted that science is a collective activity in a profound sense, and it was above all Robert Merton who established this at a time when a misconceived individualistic perspective was generally used to address it. Current work on science, whether as institution, normative order, moral community, sub-culture, set of peers or status group, is indebted to Merton's account of the norms of science, or else to his analysis of the system of honorific reward through which the norms are sustained. This paper concentrates on the second topic. How is normative order sustained in the sciences? It will reinforce Merton's original insight that no explanation of this is possible in terms of individual calculative action; show how Merton's alternative sociological approach can be linked to traditional sociological thought and particularly to Weber's account of status groups; and show also how more recent sociological work relates to Merton's now that his work has become a recognized resource in that same direction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the classical sociology of Ludwig Gumplowicz, who was one of the forerunners of scientific sociology. Connected with Graz in Austria and primarily writing in German, he is generally regarded as a representative of Austrian sociology. This paper highlights the Polish origins of the scholar, as well as the multicultural influences that shaped his thought, and treats him as a classic of both Austrian and Polish sociology. His scholarly work and biography are presented with special regard to the historical reception of his thought. An attempt is also made to try to show the circumstances which led to a relatively quick depreciation of his work, and sonic new regenerative works on his sociology are highlighted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a paper written by T. S. Eliot to be discussed at the Moot meeting. Eliot discusses "clerisy", a term used by Samuel Taylor Coleridge which refers to a vanguard or intellectual elite, and its role in the society. He also distinguishes class and elite for the understanding of clerisy. He cited his political views on questions concerning society and culture. Eliot asked J. H. Oldham to seek responses from Karl Mannheim and Michael Polanyi regarding the questions he posed at the end of his discussion.

The idea of a social (or general) mind was prevalent in early American sociology from the 1880s through about the 1910s. As a concept, the social mind served as a proxy for what would later be defined and understood as culture and other collective phenomena such as social movements, crowd behavior, organizational behavior (e.g. ‘corporate actors’), and so forth. In the early stages of the development of sociology in America, sociologists such as Lester F. Ward and Franklin H. Giddings (1855-1931) were struggling to establish sociology as a legitimate science, and they needed to ground this new science of society in an object or reality that existed above the level of the individual members of society (for not doing so would bring the charge that sociology was nothing more than a watered-down version of psychology). In this paper I examine specifically Giddings' writings on the social mind, for they illustrate how subjectivist or idealist elements can be incorporated into an overtly positivistic or naturalistic theoretical framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although there is a thriving industry of classical sociology within the discipline of sociology, not much attention has been focused on the early American sociologists. This paper offers a six-fold typology of the uses of the classics within sociology, and argues that the neglect of early American sociology among contemporary sociologists requires correction. For reasons delineated, Lester F. Ward is the overlooked early American sociologist most deserving of renewed attention and study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper different interpretations of the sociological concept of the sacred are analysed and put in relation with the idea of solidarity. In the first section a particular understanding of the Durkheimian conception of the sacred is shown to express both the sociological and the philosophical meaning of the idea of normativity. In the second part Habermas's thought on religion is analysed and shown to develop in four stages. Here the point is that one can understand the emancipatory profile of modernity - which Habermas analysed in terms of communicative reason - as the core of a collective representation that, once idealized, can be understood as a secular form of the sacred. Finally, a third section is dedicated to a self-reflective defence of the nexus between solidarity and the sacred, a self-reflective defence that implies a criticism of the trivial secularized self-understanding of modernity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With a few notable exceptions, Alexis de Tocqueville's contributions to the formation of the sociological canon have been ignored. Most sociologists are likely to recognize him as a key source for current work on social capital and the civil society. But, in this paper I argue that Tocqueville's importance for sociology extends far beyond those uses. Tocqueville is the author of a sophisticated and powerful theory of culture that solves the key problem of reconciling culture with the claims of methodological individualism. He does so by shunning the disciplinary boundaries that have sprung up after him, integrating political, historical, institutional and psychological building blocks of culture in a subtle yet powerful analytical framework. He thus avoids many of the pitfalls that plague other theories of culture, which makes his contribution to the sociological canon equal to that of many other canon-forming writers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Can Robert K. Merton’s seminal work in the sociology of science still offer useful insights to understand key features, trends and challenges of science in contemporary societies? This article focuses on two main topics. It addresses the general theme of values and norms in science in the light of relevant organizational changes that have marked science in recent decades, as well as the resilience of the concept of ‘scientific community’ to those changes. Starting from Merton’s classical study of the ‘Matthew effect’, the article then analyses the theme of competition in science, with particular regard to the dynamics that characterize the reputation and visibility of scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a commitment in Thomas Hobbes’s work which is largely neglected by sociology, a commitment to society as a product of sovereignty. Hobbes makes this commitment in line with his strident opposition to the scholastic idea of the dominance of reason in nature. For Hobbes, society is not based on natural reason. Drawing on his distinctive Epicurean anthropology, he argues that the small amount of reason that nature supplies to humans is enough to give them a limited capacity for sociability – enough, that is, to achieve a rudimentary level of self-preservation – but not nearly enough to produce society. He builds this argument directly against the scholastic argument that nature in fact supplies to humans so much reason that, were they to apply it in the manner in which nature intends, they would achieve a perfect society. In forging his particular direction against the scholastics, Hobbes draws mostly on his Epicurean political philosophy, whereby the rule of a strong authority, the sovereign, disciplines the wills of subjects in order to properly balance their passions, to the extent that a distinct domain of peace and security is created and maintained, a domain he mostly calls simply ‘society’. His account of society is normative in only one respect, a very important respect – its dedication to the fundamental importance of peace and security. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this essay, we provide a comprehensive reply to the critical commentaries by David Inglis, Thomas Kemple, William Outhwaite, Simon Susen, Bryan S. Turner, and Robin Wagner-Pacifici. Our reply is structured along three main pillars. Firstly, we clarify what we aim to achieve with existence theory. Drawing on neo-pragmatist philosophy, our aim is to present a new and useful perspective on a wide range of social phenomena; we do not attempt to tackle or resolve broad philosophical issues. Secondly, we demonstrate that we do not subscribe to an algorithmic notion of society which posits that people's trajectories have to fit a neat, linear pathway. Related, we do not wish to impose a normative model that endorses the existential milestones that are dominant in any particular society. Thirdly, building on various helpful pointers from our critics, we elaborate on various ways in which the theory could be enriched and further developed: for instance, by bringing in insights from the sociology of generations, critical theory, and sociological studies of the body. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides an introduction to the 20th Anniversary Special Issue of the Journal of Classical Sociology. It begins with some brief observations on the key developments that have shaped the disciplinary core of sociology over the past decades. It goes on to reflect on the role of classical sociology in Europe and beyond, drawing attention to its continuing presence in British and Anglo-American intellectual circles. Far from existing in a bubble of academic ivory towers, the paradigms emerging from disputes in the social sciences in general and in sociology in particular are profoundly shaped by wider historical trends – notably those influenced by different forms of collective action, as illustrated in the impact of social movements on the university sector in the late 1960s. In light of recent calls for 'the decolonization of academia', we ask to what extent sociology can, and should, strive to go beyond the hegemony of the 'Western' canon. Having given a succinct overview of the 20-year history of JCS, we elucidate the different formats of the material published in the journal, stressing the importance of editorial flexibility. On a more substantive note, we point out that the thematic scope of the work published in JCS has been wide-ranging and inclusive – not only because of its editors' broad conception of 'classics' and 'classicality', but also because of the interdisciplinary spirit permeating the journal. This commitment, as we explain, manifests itself in the wide range of thinkers and topics discussed – from a multiplicity of perspectives – in the journal. We also grapple with noteworthy challenges posed by the academic publishing industry in the early 21st century, including the difficulties arising from peer-review processes. Finally, we express our gratitude to those who have contributed to this 20th Anniversary Special Issue and emphasize the journal's commitment to defending the legacy of classical sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article aims to contribute to a sociology of knowledge via an autoanalysis of a marginalised member of the British upper-middle class, who moved first from the South to the North of England and then from England to Scottish society as an immigrant: a 'stranger who stayed'. Written in the first person, Bridget Fowler's reflections move between different religious and political worlds, focusing especially on her reception of conflicting sociological theories and her own development through these. Influenced by five exceptionally learned and lucid sociologists – John Rex, Herminio Martins, Raymond Williams, Pierre Bourdieu and Terry Lovell – she has spent her sociological career contributing to the demystification of power in various forms. In particular she has focused on the significance of secular culture – notably literature – in creating hegemonic domination. She has also analysed the role of symbolic revolutions in social transformation, avoiding in this respect falling either into idealism or simplistic class reductionism. Arguing that sociological theory still needs to teach Marx, Weber and Durkheim, these founding figures should not be seen as creating – in social scientific terms – a unified architectural construction, but should be read with and against one another; further, they need also to be combined with other, more contemporary, influences. Finally whilst noting the existential salience of movements around identity – nation, gender, sexuality and disability – she argues that the discipline must continue to reach out 'beyond the fragments', to address social totalities more broadly, including wider issues of social space and structures of power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article addresses the issue of how to theorize with the help of the classics in sociology; and it is pointed out that the main difficulty involved is that Weber et al have told us next to nothing of how they actually produced their analyses. We are left with trying to search written statements for some clues; and there are not many of these. Furthermore, written statements represent a distinct universe of their own, meaning by this that some things can be said in a written form and others not. While the advantages of having something in a written form are clear, much of what goes into theorizing is of a nature that is hard to express in a written form. Several suggestions for how to theorize with the help of the classics can nevertheless also be found in the article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gregory Bateson developed his transdisciplinary thinking in the shadow of sociology, but his ideas are not generally viewed as part of the field of classical sociology. This article will explain this exclusion by arguing that Bateson's way of theorising – while attempting to make progress in the understanding of reality – returns to ideas that were already rejected within the field in which he first worked. Furthermore, as a reading of Bateson through the lens of Durkheim will show, Bateson's theories fail to provide a better understanding of social reality than those of his predecessors. This type of critical analysis demonstrates the weakness of some of Bateson's central claims and contributes to a more in-depth understanding and reassessment of his ideas from a sociological perspective. Pointing out that Bateson's critique of the modern worldview is based on a pre-critical and pre-modern philosophy of wholeness is not to invalidate Bateson's foundational intuition that our current mode of thinking challenges our chances of surviving as a species. However, in order to make a theoretically convincing argument concerning how our thinking challenges our survival, a more critical understanding of the relation between mind and society than the one Bateson offers is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article aims at exploring the complex interplay between sociology and politics during the Nazi Regime by looking at how some nationalist and national-socialist ideas were incorporated in the works of sociologists. In order to do so, I shall focus on the production and dissemination of sociological knowledge, interlacing two levels of analysis. The first level examines the manners in which sociologists linguistically and epistemologically appropriated some key concepts of nationalist thought and national-socialist ideology. The second level considers the pragmatical use of sociological concepts and methods for investigating and recording the daily life of different groups within the Third Reich's territory. For this purpose, I will first draw an overall picture of the social and symbolic spaces of the sociological field in the interwar period, looking at how some nationalist key concepts gained different meanings over time. I will then analyse the intellectual/scientific trajectories of two sociologists, Adolf Gunther and Erich Rothacker, who began their careers in the second decade of the twentieth century. I argue that, in both cases, the academic/intellectual habitus each author developed before 1933 played a crucial role in determining their rise or decline as sociologists and, broadly speaking, as intellectual figures during the Nazi regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is exploratory in nature and attempts to address the following two questions: What is the role of abstractions in sociology? and How can you learn to become better at using them? Noting that there exists next to no literature in sociology on the topic of abstraction, a presentation is first made of two statements on this subject by Durkheim and Weber. Their content can be summarized as follows: abstractions are produced through isolation and generalization. Durkheim and Weber, like other sociologists, do not, however, address the issue of the general nature of abstraction, and for this, some ideas by Charles S. Peirce and Alfred North Whitehead are brought in. They suggest that an abstraction is characterized by the fact that its nature is derived from the reality of another phenomenon. The consequences of this view for sociology are discussed. The article ends with an attempt to show what a practical definition of abstraction would look like, in which the focus is on how to construct and use an abstraction, rather than on just define it in a formal manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emile Durkheim developed his sociology in part by pointing to the insufficiency of contractual explanations of society. This article examines several iterations of 'the contract' in light of the rediscovery of Durkheim's (2011 [1894–1895]) lectures on Hobbes' De Cive. By viewing these recovered lectures alongside his canonical texts, we find three ways in which Durkheim distinguished his sociology from political and economic understandings of the social, in contrast with the contractarianism of Hobbes, the contractualism of Rousseau and the 'contractual solidarity' of Spencer. In his accounts of these thinkers, Durkheim explicates both his philosophical anthropology and his ontology of the social. Whereas contractual explanations of society treat the social as artificial and/or a mere aggregate formation, the social for Durkheim arises spontaneously and exists as a sui generis formation. Through the clarification of these conceptual coordinates, the nature of the social and its relationship with the political for each of these four thinkers come more fully into view. The article concludes with a consideration of the problem of the dissolution of society, pointing to a limit point or horizon for what is thinkable within Durkheimian sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a Review Article on the volume devoted to most of Weber's methodological writings in the Max Weber Gesamtausgabe. It indicates the critical importance of these writings and highlights the helpful editorial introduction, the copious notes, and other comments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]