Search

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]

The years 1939–1953 were important both for the development of Garfinkel’s ideas and for the discipline of sociology more generally. But very little is known about Garfinkel’s work during this period of rapid disciplinary change – or of his close relationship then with many intellectual leaders in sociology, psychology, philosophy and economics. Filling in details of his work during this period promises to improve the understanding of his important contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In lectures delivered to psychologists in the 1920s and 1930s, Marcel Mauss argued for a rapprochement between sociology and psychology. His goal was not disciplinary unification, but rather a more holistic sociology that recognized the mutual constitution of the body and mind, and the effects of society on the embodied person. Following a review of main points from Mauss’s lectures, I critically review several research programs that are advancing in directions similar to those Mauss advocated: cognitive science research on embodied cognition; psychology studies of cross-cultural differences in perception and emotional expression; and sociological studies of moral cultures. I argue that these research programs provide firm support for positions developed in Mauss’s lectures, and that, therefore, Mauss’s ideas provide a useful template on which future sociological studies of culture, mind, and body can be built. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]