Search

The article presents a comment on a previous article that appeared in a previous issue of the Canadian Journal of Sociology. According to the author, the central points of his article were: (a) that an extensive body of ignored research had shown that the methodologies adopted by the original Vertical Mosaic school of thought on elites probably exaggerated the exclusivity of Canadian elites to a considerable degree; (b) that the finding of elite membership that was unrepresentative of the social composition of the population did not indicate a shocking anomaly that demanded immediate remedy. This pattern is referred to in the international literature as the law of increasing disproportion; (c) that, in any case, research conducted using other methodologies, and research conducted since the original publication of The Vertical Mosaic, indicates that the Canadian pattern is in transition. Sociologist Harvey Rich argues that the measures of middle class used in the Vertical Mosaic tradition, and uncritically adopted in author's paper, are far too narrow and would apply to what most would designate as the upper middle class. Consequently, Rich argues that author's guesstimate about the possible proportion of those of working-class origins in the elites was too high. Rich is correct. It is also correct to suggest that author's paper sometimes confused sociologist Wallace Clement's position with sociologist John Porter's position and that its discussion suffered accordingly.

The article presents the response to a critical study related to sociology. Sociologist Michael W. Gillespie argues that the papers prepared by the sociologists K.W. Taylor and N.L. Chappell provide the misleading description of the log-linear methods and advocate a defective alternative method. The paper presents no tests of statistical importance and also fails to point out the inherent ambiguities shared by multiple association analysis with all variation partition schemes. The author says that Gillespie is correct in pointing out the potential ambiguities introduced into association coefficients because of correlated independent variables. Analysts who suspect that the raw frequency based coefficients are affected by nonorthogonal independent variables can analyze the percentaged data and compare both set of coefficients. If the relative magnitudes are similar, the nonorthogonality can be ignored. But if the relative magnitudes do not match, they must be more cautious in interpreting the frequency based coefficients.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The replication and extension of sociologist Wallace Clement's analysis of the overlap between the media and economic elites demonstrated the importance of specifying and refining methodology in order to insure more accurate results and thereby to improve theory development. Clement's analysis of the overlap between the media and economic elites demonstrated the importance of specifying and refining methodology in order to insure more accurate results and thereby to improve theory development. Clement reports on some variables for some complexes and on other variables for other complexes. For each complex, and for each individual within a complex, it would appear that he reported only those instances where there was direct or indirect overlap with economically dominant or other corporations, or where there was an indicator of upper-class background, ignoring those instances where there was not. Clement's means for determining which is the "main operating company" of a given media complex is methodologically problematic.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

When the notion that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada became the chief object of discord during the Meech Lake constitutional debate, sociologists were offered a golden opportunity to participate in shaping the evolving understandings that Canadians have of their country. But this opportunity was not grasped. This paper evaluates some of the discursive conditions that have produced the apparent indifference of Anglo-Canadian sociologists to this most crucial of sociological questions as it applies to their own country: what is a society? Of particular interest are the general underconceptualization in sociology of "society," and the conceptual confusion that links "society" to "nation," "state," and "country." Canada's political-economic autonomy relative to the United States is quite limited, and Canadian "sense of society" is vague and is challenged from within.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on a study on the transformation that occurred in the structure of the family and household in the nineteenth century in Moncton, New Brunswick. In recent years social historians have provided with many new and sometimes startling, insights into conditions of people's lives in the nineteenth century. The study aims at adding to the reconstruction of the past by a case study of Moncton from 1851 to 1871. Specifically, household and family structure in Moncton is examined in order to determine the validity of various theories about effects of industrialization on household structure. In the first part of the paper, researchers briefly review the major theoretical formulations. In the second part, researchers examine these formulations in light of data from Moncton. Sociologists have long recognized the significance of the family as a critical social organization for the transmission of societal values. The family, however, has boundaries that are highly malleable. As researcher Michael Anderson notes, the family can be seen as a recruitment base, selecting new members on the basis of blood or marriage ties and having a limitless potential for expansion. The rationale behind the selective recruitment of family members has long occupied the attention of sociologists.

The article presents a comment on a previous article related to occupational mobility and work orientation that appeared in the April 1979 issue of the Canadian Journal of Sociology. According to the author, Professor Michael Smith raises certain objections to his reading of data taken from a survey of industrial workers conducted by sociologists J. Loubser and M. Fullan. The principal argument upon which Professor Smith's remarks center is his belief that tended to misrepresent the extent to which results contradict the findings in the book The Affluent Worker, by sociologist John H. Goldthorpe. Despite the commendably straightforward manner in which Professor Smith presents his case, matters are not as straightforward as they may seem. The author feels that it is Professor Smith who has "tended to misrepresent," or perhaps misunderstand, the nature of the author's paper, and that this arises from a rather selective and overly confined reading of both the author's paper and the Goldthorpe study. No doubt Professor Smith will remain unconvinced by author's assessment of his critique, according to the author; Smith writes in a way, which suggests he is wed to his methodological views with a conviction that prevents his recognizing their partiality.

The article focuses on sociologist Robert K. Merton, and the effect that he had on American sociology in the 20th century. While some criticise Merton, along with Talcott Parsons, for having harmed American sociology by narrowing the focuses of sociological theory, while others commend Merton for giving the discipline the biggest intellectual push in 50 years. Merton's views on how norms and counter-norms govern social roles are discussed, and ambivalence in Merton's view of autonomy theory are discussed in detail.

The article presents the authors comments on Karl Manheim, who according to the author, was his most influential university teacher. According to the author the world of sociology had been revealed to him by Karl Mannheim at the University of Frankfurt in the first years of the thirties. Karl Mannheim had influenced his thinking in many areas and not only in sociology. According to the author, what he first learned from Mannheim and worked at for a long time was the sociology of knowledge, which is inseparable from his name. He was its founder, or with sociologist Max Scheler, its cofounder. Unlike Scheler, however, Mannheim may well have anticipated by his own work the course taken by the sociology of knowledge since he wrote. He began it more as a philosopher than an sociologist with epistemological questions such as relativism and the problem of universal truth. But he soon moved to empirical, historical studies, e.g., of historicism, conservatism, the problem of generations. A key component of Mannheim's thinking was the attempt at understanding his time. According to the author, he must have caught this interest already as a student of his in the early thirties. Still in the thirties, it resulted in his preoccupation with a process he called "labilization", a term the author may well have picked up from Mannheim, probably from a lecture, since he has not come across it in his publications.

In this article sociologist David Cheal responds to the criticism of his writings on sociology. Sociologist Bonnie Fox describes that Cheal's argument about polycentric closure is characterized by "sexist, racist innuendo." Fox complains that post-modernists are leading sociology into a dangerous abandonment of the study of society for the examination of the texts. Cheal responds to this statement and states that in most of his academic career, he has tested hypotheses. The write-up discusses Professor R. Brym's constructions of disputes in which Cheal is also involved. The literary critic Charles Newman states that the term post-mortem describes the world created by a generation strong enough to dissolve the old order. Post-modernist such as Jane Flax recognize that the thinking fragments of Cheal are inconsistent with the enlightenment belief that conflicts between truth, knowledge and power which can be overdone by grounding claims to authority in reason.

In the past few years, various writers have proclaimed the end of English, the end of history, and the end of nature and professor David Cheal has announced the end of modern sociology. Whatever reservations one might have about the validity of these claims, they are at least right on schedule. Increasingly since the year 1300, centuries' ends have been greeted with deep foreboding by social and religious thinkers. The social thinkers in the decade of 1890 also sensed the demise of an old society. They, too, engineered a massive transformation of social thought. Various thinkers were all in their different ways striving to comprehend the newly recognized disparity between external reality and the internal appreciation of that reality. The result was an enormous heightening of intellectual self-consciousness, re-examination of the presuppositions of social thought itself. Psychologist Sigmund Freud, sociologist Max Weber and other intellectual luminaries of western Europe recognized the irrational, unconscious, and subjective elements in human affairs and in social research. Significantly, however, the best social thinkers in the decade of 1890 were concerned with the irrational only to exercise it.

In this article the author replies back to the writer Emily M. Nett's critical comment on "The Inadequacy of the Monolithic Model of the Family." Nett raises so many points in her comment, some major, some minor, that the author cannot possibly reply to all of them. Starting from the observation that much of what is written by sociologists about families today seems to fail to reflect the salient features affecting families today, the author searched the relevant literature in order to deduce the dominant assumptions concerning families which underlie this literature and which result in this effect. One set of assumptions which is very widely accepted is that the family plays certain universal functions. If people assume that a function is being subserved, this makes it unnecessary to investigate to what degree it actually is being subserved. This re-conceptualization introduces a dynamic element into the analysis of families. It also allows for the identification of incongruities between dimensions without the need to come to the conclusion that the family is threatened by chaos or by extinction because a particular type of incongruity is becoming more frequent, since there is no assumption that congruency between levels of interaction between dimensions is natural to begin with.

In a recent article in the Canadian Journal of Sociology, sociologist Graham Knight presented and interpreted some data on the attitudes of a sample of southern Ontario workers to their jobs and on their expectations of different kinds of occupational mobility. His paper is concerned with the extent of "instrumentalism" and mobility aspirations amongst blue-collar workers and also with the degree to which those attitudes and aspirations are correlated with each other and with various social backgrounds and occupational characteristics. In interpreting his results Knight contrasts what he sees as two alternative approaches to the analysis of attitudes to work. In this article, the author wants to argue that Knight has tended to misrepresent the extent to which his results contradict the findings in the book The Affluent Worker, by John H. Goldthorpe. Specifically, the author wants to argue the following: that Knight appears to claim demonstrable differences between the attitudes and aspirations found in his sample of workers and the attitudes and aspirations found by Goldthorpe, when in fact those differences either do not exist or, at least, have not been shown to exist by Knight.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Sociologists and criminologists have relied on the concept of "turning points" to map individual criminal careers over the life course. Similar to individuals, criminal organizations undergo drastic changes that influence their trajectory over time and space. Using the case of the Almighty Latin King and Queen Nation (ALKQN) in New York City, we introduce the concept of "organizational turning points" to explain the group's evolution through various legitimate and illegitimate forms. Bringing together conceptual lenses from literature on organizational change, culture and cognition, and criminology, we demonstrate that street gangs can be complex and fluid organisms that change over time and space. Identifying and recognizing organizational turning points in criminal groups can have important implications for scholars and practitioners alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses the books "Max Weber: Readings and Commentary on Modernity" edited by Stephen Karlberg, "The Max Weber Dictionary: Key Words and Central Concepts" by Richard Swedberg, and "The Essential Weber: A Reader" edited by Sam Whimster.

The article discusses the future of Anglo-Canadian sociology as a scientific discipline. Several prominent members of the field have speculated on the possible imminent demise of the discipline and point to loss of identity and autonomy as the primary cause. The author examines the issue thoroughly, concluding that the direction of Anglo-Canadian sociology lies in the professional attitudes and activities of its members. Suggestions for future avenues of sociological research and activity are provided.

Discusses the contribution made by sociologists and economists to the study of the changing structure of income inequality in Canada and the U.S. Argument of sociologists Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison (1982) on the wage distribution generated by the technical division of labor characteristic of mature industrial societies; Relationship of the changes in the structure of income inequality with observable changes in class structure; Role of unions and bargaining systems in the studies of wage structures.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Recently, there have been calls from several Canadian sociologists to make sociology more relevant to contemporary events in Canada, as of January 1, 1997. This article examines certain features of current social reforms, and it considers their implications for Canadian sociology. The topic of particular concern is the nexus of labor market restructuring and the restructuring of the welfare state, in which increased unemployment is followed by cuts to income protection for the unemployed. Canadian political economy, which had correctly identified the salience of this problem, is described as being at a crossroads with no obvious civic role today. It is, therefore, recommended that sociologists should pay more attention to the micro-social effects of macro-social events, and especially to the unintended consequences of program changes.

This article presents a brief story of sociologist Marcel Rioux's life and a survey of his ideas written from the view of one of his students. Rioux was among most important architects of modern Quebec sociology. His generation was the last to have direct experience in building institutions of Canadian sociology and anthropology before walking away from their anglophone counterparts to form Quebec associations. Marcel Rioux spent every day of his adult life thinking about bringing the wall down. His writings reflect moods that range from wild optimism that equates sovereignty with the emancipation of all humanity, to a dark sense of hopelessness and even nihilism. His lasting gift to students was the unmediated freedom he provided to explore virtually any aspect of critical theory. The author misses his troubled sense of autonomy, his warm grasp of purest movements of sociability, and his very personal critical sociology of modern Quebec society.

It has been argued that in the 1950's Western social sciences were dominated by an orthodox consensus formed around a broad theory of industrial society. One of the key dimensions of this theory was that class conflict had become normatively regulated in the West and that the major ideological struggles characteristic of the transition from traditional agrarian to modem industrial societies had essentially disappeared. Most notably, the emphasis on normative consensus and the focus on the mechanisms of the liberal state presented a view of a world where, to paraphrase the title of sociologist Daniel Bell's classic book from the period, ideology had ended. But the political polarization and radicalization of the 1960's problematized the assumptions of the orthodox consensus and led to a widespread rediscovery of the concept of ideology. In this article, the author wants to outline the main theoretical arguments of the new critique of ideology and examine the ways in which recent critical movements appear to have rendered the concept of ideology obsolete. He evaluates the strengths and limitations of the new critique. While recent movements in social theory have made important contributions and offered much-needed correctives to Marxian theories of ideology, the author argues that it is premature to write off the Marxian perspective entirely.

This article discusses the symposium of "Canadian Journal of Sociology." The symposium was a fascinating and rich spectrum of views and insights with each analysis of social scientists pointing to different sins of omission and commission, as well as gratifying confirmation of the analysis. An advocate of the role of human agency in making history, sociologist Rianne Mahon urges a break with determinist and purely structural explanations of Canadian history. She praises the book of sociologist Gordon Laxer for freeing the period of initial industrialization from determinist explanation. There is one serious omission in sociologist Laxer's analysis as the state capacity is not fully brought up by in his analysis. While comparing the economic policies of Canada, Laxer switches to the comparisons between the U.S. and Canada in some instances because of direct American influences on Canadian debates.

This article focuses on a debate that has occurred between the followers of present and past about the proper way to read sociological predecessors. The write-up analyzes the arguments, demonstrating the very nature and possibility of sociology. A deconstructive reading of sociologist Emilie Durkheim is presented as an illustration of the argument. Both the followers have focused on Durkheim to illustrate their methodologies of reading. Despite their differences, both the followers are trying to correct what they see as a general situation of confusion in sociology by introducing or restoring shared criteria for judging sociological theory. According to Durkheim, the distinction between things which are sacred and things which are profane is the defining characteristics of all religions. It is the most profound differentiation in all of human thoughts.

This article focuses on professor M.H. Mackinnon's Corrective, based on the criticism of sociologist Max Weber's analysis, Mackinnon has misrepresented or misunderstood the major thrust of Weber's analysis and its interpretation or at least has not addressed himself to the problem raised by this analysis and interpretation. The purpose of this write-up is to not to present a textual exegesis of Weber's writings but rather to see what can be learnt by confronting his dispersed writings on early and medieval Christianity with his general methodology. As mentioned in the beginning of the article, Weber, as is well-known, never did write a full-fledged treatise on early or medieval Christianity of the kind that he did of ancient Judaism, India and China. At the same time, many references are made throughout his works, as MacKinnon has indeed illustrated in his corrective, to several central aspects of early and medieval Christianity. The main purpose of this article is to draw some more general implications for civilizational analysis.

Perestroika involves encouraging market forces to help strike a new balance between the apparently conflicting goals of economic efficiency and social equality. Few people need convincing any longer that Soviet central planning defeated both aims, destroying initiative and innovation, institutionalizing privilege and brutality. And as in industry, so in sociology: the virtual absence of intellectual pluralism, of a relatively free market in ideas, impoverished the discipline to the point where it was scarcely recognizable as sociology. The proximity of Soviet sociologists to ruling circles is also likely to influence their work negatively. It is intellectually beneficial for sociologists to maintain an ambiguous relationship to power, an ongoing tension between ideological commitment and scientific distance. Value commitments can furnish motivation and insight: detachment can allow a modest measure of intellectual freedom and objectivity. To the degree that Soviet sociologists get caught up in the understandable rush to serve the reform movement, they are likely to concentrate on narrow, applied research topics and inquiries that are designed to legitimize the regime. Add this to the other problems listed above, and one may conclude that it is likely to be some time before Soviet sociologists start making innovative contributions to world sociology, especially at the theoretical level.

In recent years, a number of books and articles in major sociology journals have cast doubt on the theoretical assumptions, methods, and results of positivist sociology. In contrast to earlier positivism debates, the current critique comes from positivist sociologists themselves, including some of the leading representatives of quantitative research. Although limited by a continuing commitment to the positivist paradigm, their discussion suggests that this paradigm may be intrinsically unsuitable for the analysis of social processes whose non-linear and chaotic nature conflicts with the assumptions of linear causality and predictability basic to positivist analysis. Ironically, one impetus for this reevaluation comes from the natural sciences from which positivism has taken its cues for such a long time, in particular the development of theories of chaos which have replaced linear Newtonian physics in the analysis of many inherently unpredictable natural phenomena.

This article questions the conventional wisdom concerning the class basis of mass support for the Social Credit movement in Alberta. Most accounts maintain that the petite bourgeoisie - specifically, independent farmers and small businessmen - provided disproportionately high levels of support for the movement. A careful review of the literature shows that no study has provided empirical evidence substantiating the received claim. Moreover, empirical evidence is provided which indicates that the movement received a high level of support outside the ranks of this class. The sociologist of literature is at liberty to abridge whatever he finds of scientific use in the existing body of literary critical work. Given the observed pattern of mass support, it is suggested that it is incorrect to characterize Social Credit as a petit-bourgeois movement.

The article is in reply to comments made by sociologists Richard Hamilton and Robert Brym on author's article "Intellectuals and Politics." Hamilton is correct to note that the book offers only hypotheses, not firmly based conclusions. Hamilton so readily dismisses all of the studies for the apparent reason that they are not based mainly on quantitative data: the only data, which it seems, he recognizes as "real" evidence. This inference seems warranted because the only studies of intellectuals supposedly relevant to the overproduction-radicalism. The author discusses the emergence of the term "intellectual" and note that the outlines of intellectuals as a group have become "well-defined" only during the past three or four hundred years. Hamilton absurdly reports that he think that the term "intellectual" has been "well-defined" in the sense of a clear meaning having become attached to it. Brym's paragraph dealing with "the evidence problem" reinforces author's original point about the arguments by authority. It also misrepresents both the substance and context of his remarks.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses the work of sociologist S.D. Clarke in context of Canadian sociology. Sociologists Harry Hiller and Deborah Harrison have provided the first analysis of Clark from within the critical tradition of sociology. Harrison draws attention to the need for some of the more reactionary implications of Clark's work to be considered by progressive social scientists. Harry Hiller has contributed a volume that should stand for some time as the essential guide for and adequate understanding of one whose sociology has become difficult to understand because of its method, historical subject, and lack of clear sociological thesis statements. According to the author, an incorporation of Clark within the tradition of progressive Canadian sociology is necessary. Although S.D. Clark should not be spared from the critical eyes, his contributions should not be overlooked in the search for a progressive Canadian sociology. His work represents a scholarly critique of the effort to transplant conservative British institutions at a time when it was still possible to take seriously the problem of British imperialism in North America.

The article presents a critical comment on the manuscript "The Inadequacy of the Monolithic Model of the Family," written by Margrit Eichler. It is difficult to know in what sense Eichler uses the term model. There are essentially two most common non-technical uses of the word, as in model ships or model child. A model ship is a three-dimensional replica, a model child is a norm or ideal. Presumably Eichler thinks she has presented the replica of family constructed by dominant sociologists. Unfortunately, as a replica of the presumed sociological model, her construction lacks the first requirement, technically called isomorphism, which means a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the model and the elements of the thing of which it is the model. The ideal type and the constructed type are the tools of a sociologist. The actors' model of family, which falls under the rubric of a normative or folk type, is more like the model boy than the model ship or train. Since it represents the cultural ideals or institutionalized beliefs and norms, many sociologists incorporate the normative type into their constructed types. Had Eichler used a different syntax in her description of the model she attributes to dominant sociology, she would have more accurately been specifying selected features of this type encountered in North American culture. The abbreviated, selective, and mystified form of the normative type is the stereotype of family, or the nuclear family.

Sociologist Karl Mannheim's A Sociological Theory of Culture and Its Knowability, from which the text published in the September 1980 issue of The Canadian Journal of Sociology has been taken, is the later of two early essays, which, nearly sixty years after their composition, will be published in Germany and in Great Britain and the United States. This is a long overdue event since On the Distinctive Character of Cultural-Sociological Knowledge and A Sociological Theory of Culture have value beyond their interest as documents for a representative intellectual biography and can still help, not only with the understanding of Mannheim's project but also with contemporary reflection on sociological interpretation. The text presented here consists of most of the first of two parts of A Sociological Theory of Culture, which is entitled On the Sociological Determination of Methodology. It breaks off at the point where Mannheim begins to deal with sociologist Karl Marx and dialectical thought. The essay as a whole is intended by Mannheim, as he explains in his preface, as a contribution to the sociology of thinking. The article presented here is meant to be a contribution to the historical-sociological.

The article examines the changing image of sociology within the English-speaking Canadian academic community and the society at large. Harold Innis, a sociologist, played the key role in pulling sociology out of its isolated position within the Canadian academic community. Within the University of Toronto in Ontario, the type of sociology expounded by C.W.M Hart, a teacher aroused in academic circles strong antagonisms. Sociology, with Hart as a teacher, did not suffer from being ignored. It came rather to be viewed as a threat. Hart was a great teacher, who built about himself a number of devoted students, but unfortunately his difficulty in getting along with people led many persons in the university to associate their feelings toward him with their attitude to sociology. The stereotype of American sociology as a discipline concerned only with the gathering of useless facts persisted throughout the Canadian academic community, in Toronto as elsewhere. Before the decade of the 1950s came to an end, something of a community of sociologists was beginning to emerge in Canada, and sociology was coming close to establishing itself as a respectable discipline within the Canadian academic community.

The article highlights issues related to sociology in Canada. The generally accepted view of how sociology is constituted as a science commits to procedures, which subsume the regional and local. Methods, such as the construction of typologies, are made use of in recovering from the distinctive local settings attributes, which can be arrayed conceptually in an abstract formal space. frameworks of "theory". The methodological procedures devised by sociologists and presented in standard introductory texts on "methods" are designed to constitute data in such a way that distinctive local and individual features and the characteristic ways in which social phenomena are embedded in and integral to a social organization of local settings become contingent and accidental properties which must be stripped away conceptually. Ethnographic research in sociology provides the endemic problems of its "generalizability." black males throughout the urban United States?" The work of ethnomethodologists seeks also its invariant practices, its forms of law-like statements, while repudiating the established methods of arriving at them.