Search

The need for theory and for a historical perspective in attempting to arrive at a valid theory are widely recognized among sociologists, but preconceived notions of a systemic nature would seem to be standing in the way of an unbiased evaluation of the data of history. The paper analyzes the work of two leading urban sociologists who assume that preindustrial and industrial cities represent closed and mutually exclusive systems. Consequently, they assemble sustaining data, but brush aside contrary evidence which would tend to establish the city as a phenomenon in its own right, and the modern city as antedating industrialization. In historical view, the city appears as an emergent rather than as a variable, both in ancient Babylonia and in medieval Europe. The present-day city, ecologically enlarged into "urban regions," sociologically provides the principle for the organization of the total society, but the twofold model of the ancient and the medieval city, if understood ideal-typically, remains serviceable as an analytical tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though called a world war, the war of 1914-18 was, largely a European conflict which due to the increasingly intricate inter-relationships of modem life had repercussions far beyond its actual locale. While offering an unmistakable indication that in all spheres of man's activity an event occurring in any part of the world has a greater or lesser effect upon all other parts, that war was yet essentially a provincial war compared to the global conflict in which Alaska and Madagascar, Hunan province and Dakar, the Solomon Islands and the Caucasus, Norway and the Caribbean Sea are locked in the intricate maze of grand strategy. Upon students of history the effect of the earlier conflict was for the most part restricted to a search after causes or origins. The aim varied from that of placing the blame upon one nation or group of nations to the more philosophical effort to relate the already generally accepted concepts of nineteenth century history, industrialism, imperialism, nationalism, democracy, etc., into some pattern such that the inevitable result would appear to be the conflict which followed.

The article illustrate contrasts and similarities in the general development of European and American sociology in recent times. A conspicuous difference in this respect is that in American Sociology has grown as a child nursed by the Universities and Colleges; while in Europe its modern start, since August Comte, and development have in a considerable degree taken place outside of the Universities and Colleges. Indeed a number of the founders of the principal modern sociological systems in Europe never occupied the position of a teacher in University at all. This difference also continues to exist at the present moment: although the number of Universities and Colleges in Europe where sociology has been introduced as a regular course has considerably increased since the time of the War and Revolutions; nevertheless this number is still much below that of the United States. Another difference lies in the character of the European and American sociologists. The bulk of the sociological works in America are marked by their quantitative and empirical character while the bulk of the sociological literature of Europe is still marked by an analytical elaboration of concepts and definitions; by a philosophical and epistemological polishing of words.

More than any other American sociologist, Albion W. Small has mediated the results of European scholarship. The intellectual world is now one society. No nation would have had anything approaching its present scientific development without the collaboration of the scientists of different nations. Indeed, science as a national phenomenon is unthinkable. It is a part of the life of "the great society." In order to understand the development of the intellectual attitudes that have characterized the life work of Small and how he came to be so important a mediator between the scholarship of Europe and the U.S., it is necessary to sketch briefly some of the events of his career. Born May 11, 1854, at Buckfield, Maine, he graduated from Colby College in 1876. Already as a student he showed the fondness for telling phrases and the gift for constructing them which has always characterized his speech and writing. For the three years ending in 1879 he was a student at Newton Theological Seminary.

The story of man's occupation of the earth seems to be divided into two rather sharply marked periods the ancient and the modem world. It is not altogether a distinction of time; somewhat it is of space. For more than half of mankind is living in the ancient world today for all practical purposes. People of Europe and the Western Hemisphere and of certain islands of the Western seas are proud of our modernity. Perhaps the pride is based too heavily upon the modern machinery that people use so universally. The difference between the ancient world and the modern world, wherever those worlds may exist in time or space, is the difference of ideals upon which the two worlds are founded. The ancient world seems to have risen upon the theory that physical force is man's final arbiter, The modern world seems to be growing upon the faith that ideas rule that things of the spirit are unconquerable when they promote broader fellowships, more abundant living, more kindly pace in the works and ways of men.

The nature of so-called folk cultures and their distribution throughout the world has long been argued, and their reaction upon contact with western European culture has been studied in some detail. It is well recognized that the process of culture change initiated by these contacts has a drastic effect upon the lives of many people. Despite these studies and the attempts at the definition of the nature of folk cultures and the delineation of the processes of acculturation, little has been done in a systematic way with the present condition of these cultures. There appears to be a fundamental unity of these cultures which has been loosely characterized by the term "folk." The difficulty with this scheme, however, is that the poles of urban and folk cultures are easily recognized and described, but the vast number of cultures which partake of both qualities are not readily amenable to classification or systematic description. This condition then demands a reconsideration of the nature of folk cultures and an attempt to define "urbanness." Instead of a descriptive definition of folk cultures it would perhaps be better to utilize one which attempts to delineate the over-all nature of a folk culture.