Search

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]

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]

Much of the writing of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865) is neglected within sociology. Yet building on the work of Auguste Comte, Proudhon was an influential, if controversial, social theorist throughout the 19th century. Proudhon, "the father of anarchism," held an understanding of progress antagonistic toward that of Marx, his contemporary within the emerging socialist movement. While Comte and Marx focused on knowledge or class struggle respectively as the source of progress within society, Proudhon argued that only justice generates social progress. Several notable French sociologists have written on the importance of Proudhon's work, but contemporary sociology continues to neglect his ideas. In what follows, I first outline Proudhon's place in sociology. Then, I describe his law of progress and the "three revolutions in justice." Next, I derive several theoretical propositions from Proudhon's idea of justice. Lastly, I examine what a serious study of Proudhonian justice can contribute to the discipline of sociology as a whole. [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]

In his introduction to the first German translation of Durkheim’s Division of Labour in Society, Luhmann hails the work as a “classic” of sociology, stressing its continued relevance and the need to persist in thinking with Durkheim. The present study focuses on this interpretative gesture, that is, on how Luhmann read Durkheim and set out a research program for sociology by defining its field of investigation, paying particular attention to his discussion of Durkheim’s approach to modern individuality. According to this interpretation, the French sociologist worked out a “sociological” conceptualization of the individual. On the one hand, in Luhmann’s view, Durkheim’s theory sheds light on a decrease in social control. On the other hand, he stresses that this inquiry into individuality was closely connected with a critical investigation of another conception of the individual that seems to derive from it, namely, the idea of human beings as “self-constituting.” Nevertheless, a complete examination of Luhmann’s interpretative gesture must also consider what is overlooked, namely the political conception of the individual Durkheim aimed to develop. In an attempt to fill this gap, this article highlights the political effects that such an occultation may entail. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simmel was the only German sociologist who directly cooperated with Durkheim. After an initial impression of convergence between the sociology of social facts and the sociology of social forms, a break between the two founders of sociology became inevitable. Yet, Durkheim and Simmel went on positioning themselves against one other in the years ahead. Durkheim’s allegation of ‘individual psychologism’ induced Simmel to a veiled reception of Durkheim’s methodological approach that permitted him to refine the sociological epistemology he eventually presented in the Soziologie published in 1908. On this basis, he was able to formulate a final criticism of the sociology of social facts as a social psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the following transcription, the reader will witness the progress of a board game invented and played by two sociologists. In the round of ‘Sociology, the game’ described here, the two players chose to play two classical sociologists, Max Weber and Georg Simmel. Upon picking question cards relating to different themes (on concepts, writing and methods, among others), they answer with their authors in mind, translating their approach in contemporary language and trying to address some of today’s issues. As the game moves on, the reader will observe that the players engage in a dialogue and seem increasingly concerned with the sociological form and the place of imagination in doing sociology: moving back and forth between each author’s stance and their own concerns as contemporary sociologists, the game helps them at once to bring two different thinkers closer together, and to gain perspective on current issues in doing and writing sociology. The reader will note that the format of the game provides an interesting laboratory of ideas, while not precluding humour and entertainment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The social theory outlined by Patrick Geddes has been largely ignored in writings on the history of sociology and in contemporary discussions of social theory. This neglect reflects the fact that his contributions were scattered and incomplete and were never drawn together into a coherent statement. He and his followers failed to engage with other sociologists and their insights were lost. This article draws on Geddes’ published statements to present a systematic account and reconstruction of his theoretical ideas. It is argued that he built a strikingly modern system theory that is relevant to contemporary discussions in social theory and that his role in the development of sociology must be reconsidered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]