Search

We will briefly outline some of Marx's central ideas and concepts. Our purpose here is to show non-Marxists the excitement and potential that drive the enterprise. This review can also be of use to those who seized upon part of the Marxian enterprise and either misunderstood it or used it in a way that did violence to the integrity of Marx's methods and theories. While we do not make a claim for the correct reading, we argue that some readings are more plausible than others. We wish to underscore the fact that Marx is not just another sociologist or conflict theorist. Though sociologists have taken over part of the methods and some of the terms in question, sociology is not Marxist, nor is Marxism just another variant of sociology. I believe that many sociologists have no idea of what interested Marx, or why, and that many who parade under Marx's banner have forgotten the complexity of the intellectual enterprise which he identified. There has been a degeneration of the Marxian project, as well as a rebirth. These dual themes are explored in the course of this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes the nature of critical theory, its historical development, its connections to sociology and Marxism, and the central debates over its core ideas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Postwar literature reveals that sociologists disagree on the composition of the working class and neglect to specify relationships among its manual, clerical, and service workers. Contrary to Marxist thought, evidence on the deskilling of working-class occupations is inconclusive. Marxist and non-Marxists agree that management has not succeeded in dictating the control of work. The literature fails to locate connections between technology, work alienation, job dissatisfaction, and the societal alienation of workers. Weakest theory and research deal with the political mobilization of the working class, which is hampered by its internal stratification and cleavages. Paradoxically, labor unions are more effective in promoting consumer interests than those of their members or other workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following the publication of Taylor, Walton and Young's New Criminology (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972 and New York: Harper Torch Books, 1974), the Quarterly asked Anthony Platt, Richard Quinney and Paul Rock to write reviewessays which were subsequently published in the Quarterly in the Autumn 1973 issue. These reviews elicited the following response by Stephen Mugford. It was circulated to the authors of the New Criminology. who declined to comment, choosing to formulate a general response to the many review comments the book has generated. Mugford's comment was also sent to the original reviewers, and Paul Rock's reply follows. The editor would like to encourage such free interchange, and will attempt to facilitate comment by circulating manuscripts and soliciting commentary. (Perhaps a format similar to that employed by Current Anthropology will emerge). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]