Search

The article presents information on the work of sociologist Vilfredo Pareto. The paper attempts a conjunction of the two perspectives in the case of Pareto's sociology. The first refers to Pareto's role in relation to the crisis of the utilitarian-positivistic model of social action and the second concerns the "subjectivistic" crisis of both social and "natural" sciences. Pareto's recognizing the predominance of the non-logical element in human action has counterparts, even if couched in different terms, in the works of diverse scholars. More than any one else, Pareto then endeavors a super-historical generalization. It is this effort that allows him to recognize the importance of the immutability of the domination of some men over others and also to direct attention to the cyclical nature of human affairs, precisely at a time when the fashion was the search for linear directions in human evolution. The contradictions that may easily be brought to light through a reading of Pareto are, however, the very same one find in more recent authors.

The article discusses various issues related to welfare research. One of the biggest conceptual dilemmas in welfare research is the definitional problem. A few social scientists have stepped back from empirical data and have developed a panoramic view of the welfare system or have struggled to provide a conceptual framework for a field one might term the social science of welfare. These analysts have not been content with the everyday situation. Even among those who have made important contributions toward delineating a science of social welfare there is as yet no agreement on what should or should not be included in definitions, and by implication social science analyses, of social welfare. Despite definitional limitations, current welfare research has developed substantial information about public assistance programs and recipients. Several research papers, particularly that of economists, have zeroed in on the determinants of work-welfare choices. In spite of the growing literature on recipients little attention has been given to demographic or ecological analysis. Since public assessments have accentuated speculative propositions linking demographic change to welfare problems, it would be appropriate for more social scientists to undertake such analysis.

In this paper, the authors will critically examine a central, though neglected, aspect of political socialization research--the learning concept. Following a discussion of the current status of the learning concept, they propose a research strategy towards the operationalization of the concept in political socialization research and exemplify the approach with a specific learning paradigm adopted from experimental psychology. In a field such as psychology which evidences a long history of research in the study of learning as a general concept, there is a sharp disagreement as to what precisely is meant by "the learning process." Since psychologists differ with regard to the learning process, the unqualified utilization of the concept within political socialization research is highly questionable. Moreover, the failure to explicate clearly the meaning of the learning process in political socialization research has precluded the establishment of the "empirical import" of the concept. Inclusion of the term "political learning" as an integral element in a synthetic mode of discourse requires that the empirical import of the term be established.

Presents an introduction to papers related to sociology that appear in the December 1974 issue of the journal "Social Science Quarterly."