Search

The paper is a contribution to a sociological reading of a decisive moment in the history of Austrian and Viennese sociology: the early 20th century. In this early period of its establishment, the Austrian (and especially Viennese) sociology is known for its intellectual vitality, the diversity of its competing circles, its methodological innovations. At the same time, sociology appeared as a highly fragmented scientific field with dominant strands, today on the fringes of the discipline, and with peripheral and marginalized trends and positions, appreciated today as pioneers of modern sociology. By applying a topographic approach, the paper elaborates specific characteristics of this field, including the different degree of institutionalization in and outside the Universities, in connection with political and ideological struggles for discursive hegemony, or the deep gap between theoretical and empirical approaches, related to the effects of multidimensional and intersectional marginalization on protagonists of the sociological field who are today recognized as important innovators. With its focus on the material dimension of knowledge production and its particular attention to places and the localization of actors, methods, and thoughts, and the related (unequal) positions in the social field of science, the paper aims to contribute to a critical understanding of processes of marginalization as a constitutive, and driving, element in science history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examine how mainstream sociology has used race as an explanatory factor by examining papers in the American Sociological Review between 1937 and 1999. We find a dramatic increase in the likelihood that sociologists will take race into account, and we suggest that methodological innovations are largely responsible for creating an environment in which it is taken for granted that analysts in many fields will “control for race.” This pattern of usage may reinforce an implicit conception of racial differences that we call “broad but shallow,” in that race is expected to matter almost everywhere, but its effect can be neutralized by the addition of a control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author of this paper discusses the current state of historical sociology in Russia reflected in the respective section of the Sociological studies journal. After noting the potentialities of the discipline, the author summarizes the overall output of the 20 years' long existence of this section. The basic preoccupation in the initial phase of the section's existence was to get - and convey to readers - a clear understanding of the essence and functions of contemporary historical sociology (HS in the text below), to introduce its potentialities to the Russian sociologist audience. However, even today there are few regular contributors, authors tend to delve into minor issues, and even resort to long surpassed views on the discipline. A most urgent issue for Russian historical sociology today is, according to the author, to draw lessons from Russia's recent centuries to understand the essence of Russia's present as it is penetrated by its past: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under the circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living" (K. Marx). This is the essence of the enigmas to be deciphered by historical sociologists. The author formulates some such enigmas (like the proverbial Russian rake repeatedly stepped-upon) observable in recent (as well as earlier) events in the country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the book "Studies in Social and Political Theory," by Anthony Giddens. This book contains one paper on four myths in the history of sociology, two critiques of Emile Durkheim, and one discussion of suicide which in its earlier version dealt mainly with the French debate over the causes of suicide to which Durkheim's famous book was a contribution. The paper on the origins of sociology refutes several beliefs about the intellectual and political circumtances attending its birth. The thoroughly revised paper on suicide presents a theory that draws effectively on psychoanalysis. The longest and first essay in the book provides a superbly concise history of positivism and its philosophical and social scientific critics from Auguste Comte, a sociologist, to the recent demolition of the positivistic philosophy of science several sociologists. The interpretive practices of commonsense and the traditional methods of scholarship in history and the humanities remain, as they have always been in practice, is the major intellectual re source of sociology.

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.)

As a participant in the development of mathematical sociology over the past several decades, the author undertakes a personal and historical review of the field. A special effort is made to link early innovations and interests to recent developments. The paper deals successively with (a) the origins of mathematical sociology and its early achievements, (b) the cognitive interests and values of mathematical sociologists in relation to ideas associated with the founders of sociology, (c) the scope of mathematical contributions in terms of the general components of human action and society, and (d) the problematic specialty status of mathematical sociology. The paper concludes with some thoughts on the future of mathematical sociology. [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.)

For decades Soviet and later post-Soviet sociology was dominated by a cohort of scholars born between 1927–1930 (Grushin, Kon, Levada, Ossipov, Yadov, Zaslavskaya). The origins of their prominence and the character of their recognition offers a puzzle as it seemingly defies conventional ideas about where academic renown comes from. Academic prominence is usually associated with either intellectual leadership or skillful manipulation of the academic power structures. Neither of these stories describes the peculiar pattern of recognition of the giants of Soviet sociology whose fame persisted after they retired from administrative responsibilities and in spite of their ideas from the Soviet era being almost forgotten. The hypothesis developed in this paper holds that this peculiar form of fame emerges from the unique position sociology held in Soviet society. The paper introduces a distinction between natural and intentional secrecy and argues that while most of Western sociology specialized in natural secrecy, Soviet sociology had to deal with intentional secrecy resulting from conscious attempts to conceal the dismal realities of state socialism. The pervasiveness of secrecy during the Soviet era resulted from the central legitimizing myth of Soviet society describing it as built following a scientifically devised plan. This legitimation allowed Soviet sociology to emerge and develop with an unparalleled speed, but, at the same time, it explains why sociology was seen as having considerable subversive potential and faced periodic repressions. This political environment accounts for Soviet sociology’s unique intellectual style as well as for the fact that its central figures remained in the disciplinary memory as heroic role models, rather than as authors of exemplary texts.

This paper traces the historical development as well as the analytical and ideological uses of 'industrial society' as an object of knowledge. The binary opposition traditional society/industrial society and the latter tripartite division traditional, industrial, post-industrial society have been central to the development of sociology as a discipline. Like all analytical concepts 'industrial society' is both a way of seeing and not seeing. It focuses attention on some social attributes and processes rather than others. The first objective of this paper is to evaluate whether or not this object of knowledge focuses attention on crucial aspects of social life, or whether, instead, it shrouds and distorts more than it reveals. The second objective is to evaluate the ideological import of the concept. Did it, and does it still, provide a realistic and achievable model of the way we ought to live together? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a recent CJS special issue developed around their paper titled “The Institutionalization of Symbolic Interactionism in Canadian Sociology, 1922-1979: Success at What Cost?” Helmes-Hayes and Milne (2017) document the emergence and establishment of symbolic interactionism (SI) in English-language Canadian sociology, and then consider its fragmentation and decline from 1979 into the present period. This is followed by commentaries from Jacqueline Low (2017), who gives a more optimistic impression of the present state of SI in Canada, and Neil McLaughlin (2017), who considers its sectarian nature as a social and intellectual movement. This is a worthy discussion in the history of Canadian sociology and the sociology of ideas. Certainly Canadian SI is an important part of our wider national sociology tradition, and it is important that we recognize its past, present, and future institutional development in light of as much evidence as possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The sociology of knowledge can enrich our understanding of history, society, knowledge and belief. However, it can only achieve this if it has a sound epistemological and methodological basis. This paper, by criticizing the views of David Bloor, argues that it would be a mistake to define the sociology of knowledge as the causal explanation of belief. More positively, it attempts to describe the general form which the sociology of knowledge should take, and a methodology by which it might proceed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper is a contribution to a sociological reading of a decisive moment in the history of Austrian and Viennese sociology: the early 20th century. In this early period of its establishment, the Austrian (and especially Viennese) sociology is known for its intellectual vitality, the diversity of its competing circles, its methodological innovations. At the same time, sociology appeared as a highly fragmented scientific field with dominant strands, today on the fringes of the discipline, and with peripheral and marginalized trends and positions, appreciated today as pioneers of modern sociology. By applying a topographic approach, the paper elaborates specific characteristics of this field, including the different degree of institutionalization in and outside the Universities, in connection with political and ideological struggles for discursive hegemony, or the deep gap between theoretical and empirical approaches, related to the effects of multidimensional and intersectional marginalization on protagonists of the sociological field who are today recognized as important innovators. With its focus on the material dimension of knowledge production and its particular attention to places and the localization of actors, methods, and thoughts, and the related (unequal) positions in the social field of science, the paper aims to contribute to a critical understanding of processes of marginalization as a constitutive, and driving, element in science history.

In the paper, we present the development of symbolic interactionism (SI) in Poland by tracing and discussing its beginnings, as well as the influence the Chicago School had on the reception of SI in Polish sociology. Furthermore, we differentiate between two trends in the development of SI in Poland. One is connected with the early theoretical elaborations of the SI orientation and translations of classical books representing this perspective; another is linked with empirical work underpinned by SI concepts and the grounded theory approach in empirical research and data analysis. Stressing the importance of translations of classical texts of SI in its reception in Poland, we emphasize the role of field research and applications of SI concepts in sociological investigations that we shortly characterize. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on a meeting which was held in the Science Studies Unit of the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, which discussed the problems of analyzing mathematics from the point of view of the sociology of knowledge. The meeting was sponsored by Project PAREX, a European programme of cooperative research in the social studies of science, and by the Science Studies Unit. The proposal for the meeting had arisen from a previous meeting of Project PAREX, held in Regensburg in July 1976, and devoted to "The Social Context of Mathematics: Nineteenth-Century Schools of Thought." The first research paper by David Bloor, attempted to bring together the work in the philosophy of mathematics of Imre Lakatos and that in social anthropology of Mary Douglas. In another research paper, Herbert Mehrtens made use of his research on the history of lattice theory to discuss various substantive and methodological issues in the sociology of mathematics. Sabetai Unguru of the University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma, discussed the historiographic issues arising from his work on Greek mathematics.

Despite the close resemblances evident in their major works, their critical stance and their politics, C. Wright Mills and Alvin Gouldner have received strikingly different responses from their sociological peers, and they now occupy very different places in the collective memory of the discipline. This intriguing discrepancy provides the basis here for a comparative case study that examines both ongoing commemorative practices and historical evidence. This paper shows how the sociological community has frequently and approvingly commemorated Mills through introductory textbooks, as well as reading lists for doctoral comprehensive examinations, awards in Mills' honor and biographies of Mills, while doing much less to preserve and promote the memory of Gouldner and his contributions to the field. In an effort to attain a better understanding of such differences, I compare the prescriptions that each advocated for the discipline, especially as these are expressed in Mills' Sociological Imagination and Gouldner's Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. The analysis emphasizes how Mills explicitly sought to move beyond sociology, in a narrow academic sense, and called for well-honed empirical endeavors with relevance for a variety of publics, whereas Gouldner proceeded largely as an academic theorist who demanded sociological-theoretical reform. Unlike Mills, he did not breach the gap between academia and the general public. These findings illustrate an apparent paradox, namely, that American sociology in the twenty-first century may reserve its most esteemed positions for internal critics who advocate movement beyond its contemporary confines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper considers the charge that--contrary to the current widespread assumption accompanying the near-universal neglect of his work--Wilhelm Jerusalem (1854-1923) cannot count as one of the founders of the sociology of (scientific) knowledge. In order to elucidate the matter, Jerusalem's 'sociology of cognition' is here reconstructed in the context of his own work in psychology and philosophy as well as in the context of the work of some predecessors and contemporaries. It is argued that while it shows clear discontinuities with the present-day understanding of the sociology of (scientific) knowledge, Jerusalem's sociology of cognition was not only distinctive in its own day but also anticipated in nuce a much-discussed theme in current history of science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The so-called 'Bellah affair at Princeton' began in March 1973 when a harsh but nonetheless ordinary academic fight over the appointment of Robert N. Bellah as a permanent member of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton found its way to the wider public sphere. Using published and unpublished evidence, the paper shows how two different interpretations of academic freedom were put forward by Bellah's supporters and opponents, and how the sociological profession understood the episode as a disciplinary attack on the part of the hard sciences and historical disciplines. The emerging symbolic constellation led all the relevant actors to develop a shared interest in the rapid oblivion of the episode: the Bellah affair became a lose-lose game which all the players wanted to end as rapidly as possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Meso history is that branch of the history of sociology that focuses on social relations, that is, patterns of connection among groups, group members, and group meanings, as explanatory factors in the shaping of sociology. The methodology of meso history consists of strategies for discovering, documenting and patterning connections. This paper explores those strategies in terms of three moments generic to the research process in social science– moments of movement from intellectual curiosity to conceptualization, from research question to data collection and from data to presentation of findings–focusing on the distinctive permutations on this research process that occur in the practice of meso history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the research methodology of Gunnar Myrdal's study of race relations in the United States, An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (1944). It gives an overview of the methodological framework it presents for the study of racism and its consequences. The interpretative paradigm that underpinned this forcefully anti-racist synthesis of a large amount of empirical evidence is discussed, and three core elements of the normative theoretical framework are highlighted: the role of human rights values in theory and practice, the concept of `social environmentalism' and the principle of `cumulative causation'. Examples are then given of quantitative and qualitative evidence in support of the overall arguments about racism and its consequences. The paper concludes by noting that Myrdal's explicit value perspective, coupled with detailed empirical attention to the causal institutional effects of racism as a belief system, is a research tradition worthy of continued attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the attempt of Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre to launch an international review of economic and social history envisioned on a far more ambitious effort than the Annales that appeared in 1929. Emphasis on problem-oriented historical approach to topics of contemporary importance and interdisciplinary approach; Implication of the existence of close contact between the largest historical establishment; Structural conceptions of social and cultural history.

Guenther Roth's study places Max Weber in an intricate network of ties among members of his lineage. This paper presents core findings of Roth's analysis of Weber's family relations, discusses the validity of Roth's core theses and some of the implications of his analysis for Weber as a person and scholar, and addresses how Roth's book may influence future approaches to Weber's sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Textbooks increasingly reflect changes in our sociological stock of knowledge about the founders of the discipline. Richard Hamilton is unaware of this research and its documentation of the flaws in earlier accounts of the history of the profession. In an effort to expand his disciplinary understanding, I briefly review the extensive scholarship on the sociology of Harriet Martineau which has been published over the last quarter of a century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article places an episode in the history of sociological theory into intellectual history in the twentieth century. The perspective is chronological as well as contextual. The themes are two theoretical approaches, both embedded in both American and German history, Parsonian Systems Theory and "Frankfurt School" Critical Theory. The chronology shown spanned mainly from the 1940s to the 1960s. The context of the two theories is a period that is crucial in twentieth century history. The protagonists of the two approaches were, in the 1940s, Americans and Germans exiled in the United States. In the 1950s, both approaches were affected by McCarthyism in different ways. The 1960s, however, were the culmination. The dynamics of the two approaches led into a schism which came into the open on the occasion of the 1964 German Sociology Conference in Heidelberg celebrating Max Weber. The article shows the stages in the evolution of the schism, emulating three acts in a drama. The final split was over whether Weber or Marx should be the classic whose oeuvre was to influence sociological thinking today. My aim is to exemplify how these two authoritative approaches in sociological theory, far from escaping the vagaries and vicissitudes of their times, were embedded in twentieth-century history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the influence of Ellen Swallow Richards, a nineteenth century sanitation chemist who contributed to the social sciences by founding the profession of Home Economics. Sometimes known as the "First Woman of Science," Richards was active in the progressive reform movements, and used her theories on "Oekology" and "Euthenics" to encourage women and men alike to achieve control over the forces of technology. Richards viewed home economics as a program of study appropriate to both males and females at all levels of education. Her work in advocating the establishment of these courses of study also opened the doors of employment to the earliest female graduates in higher education. Much of Richards's influence on the social sciences was indirect, through the presence of her former students at the University of Chicago's Department of Sociology during its formative years. The paper concludes with a brief comparison of Richards's theories with those of the "Religious Men" of the Chicago Sociology Department. A discussion of the "Lost Women" discussed by others in this Symposium is included in the closing section of the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the history of the sociology of knowledge in light of the two problems that have systematically thwarted all efforts to fulfil its promise: the self-defeating relativization of knowledge and the circularity of knowledge and society that the theories imply. The paper looks at the strategies that social scientists have developed to overcome (and sometimes ignore) these problems, and building on the work of Clifford Geertz and Thomas Kuhn advances the concept of a cultural paradigm as an alternative approach. To clarify the questions of the sociology of knowledge and exemplify the usefulness of the new perspective, the paper briefly explores the historical and cultural contexts that helped constitute an idea of the person as a player of roles. Shakespeare notwithstanding, the perception of the person as a role-player, the paper suggests, is to be seen as a central element in the production of modernity - of an eminently American, eminently middle-class sort of modernity whose development it reflected and helped to shape. The incorporation rather than the denial of relativism and circularity within this framework are discussed in the conclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents John Goldthorpe's response to several comments about his paper which analyzed the uses of history in sociology. According to Goldthorpe, his main concern was to show that history and sociology necessarily differed in the nature of the evidence that they used or, more precisely, in the ways in which this evidence came into being. He claims that in his paper, he emphasizes that historians cannot hope to produce descriptions that are free of general ideas about social action, process and structure. His argument concerning the differences in evidence available to historians and sociologists is that the latter have the possibility of engaging in research that itself generates evidence, over and above, not as distinct from, that of exploiting relics. Goldthorpe clarifies the argument with which his paper began was that (i) pace Abrams and Giddens, history and sociology are not the same thing; (ii) that one important way in which they differ is the nature of the evidence on which historians and sociologists draw; and (iii) that sociologists, in being able to generate their own data in the present, rather than being restricted to the relics of the past, are in a position of advantage that should be recognized and not given up without good reason.

This paper characterizes the field of sociological theory since the mid-1980s as the site of eight active and diverse intellectual projects. These projects are (I) to construct general analytical tools for use in empirical social research, (II) to synthesize multiple theoretical approaches; (III) to refine existing theoretical research programs; (IV) to stimulate dialogue among different theoretical perspectives; (V) to enlarge and reconstruct current theoretical approaches conceptually, methodologically, socially, and politically; (VI) to analyze a range of past theoretical ideas; (VII) to offer a diagnosis of contemporary social conditions; and (VIII) to dissolve the enterprise of sociological theory. We discuss the contours of these projects and identify some of the major ideas and theorists associated with each. We conclude with a brief discussion of the organizational structure of the contemporary theory field, observing that most current theoretical projects are formulated with insufficient attention to their conditions of possibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article deals with the state of sociology in Canada. A review of the history of the discipline of sociology in this country leads to the almost inescapable conclusion that what has developed here is not a Canadian sociology but a sociology that is American. Not only have Canadian universities recruited their sociology staffs largely from the United States, but most of the Canadians we have had teaching sociology in this country have acquired their training across the border. If one attempted to trace the early development of sociological teaching and research in Canada there might be reason to argue that in its origins the discipline had something of a Canadian or, at least, a non-American character. They were not Americans in those days before the First World War or immediately after teaching sociology or attempting to apply its teachings to the affairs of the community. There is much that could be said about the accomplishments of Canadian sociology, particularly as it is coming to be developed by younger scholars in the field.

The history of Hungarian sociology in the state-socialist period can certainly be described in terms of a general Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) historical model, the most important feature of which is the undivided power of the Communist Party. Under such conditions, the Soviet Union and local political power holders had a direct influence on the institutionalization and functioning of sciences, including sociology. The study contributes to understanding the social impact of the 1956 revolution, particularly its crushing effect on the development of Hungarian sociology in relation to the general model. Firstly, the early development of sociology in the Soviet Union and most state-socialist countries in the 1950s was blocked in Hungary by the 1956 revolution. The trauma of the 1956 revolution made all groups of society, including the intelligentsia, realize that the system could not be changed in the long term. At the same time, it made it clear to the political authorities that the system could not be maintained in the long run with methods of the past. As a result, Kádár's consolidation relied heavily on a compromising intelligentsia, needed for its expertise (in this case, modern sociological expertise) and legitimizing the system. Consequently, sociology in Hungary started developing and became institutionalized in the early 1960s. In this situation, sociology represented both a critical point of view opposing the system and, at the same time, a tool of its - covert or overt - legitimation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This text outlines the journey and achievements of the Gusti Cooperative, a research group with deep roots in the work of Professor Zoltán Rostás in the field of oral history. Established in the early 2000s, the Cooperative emerged from Rostás's initiative to offer an alternative and complementary history of the Sociological School of Bucharest. Comprising Rostás, his Ph.D. students, and a network of friends, the Cooperative primarily focuses on social history and the history of Romanian sociology. Their work revolves around oral history interviews, documentation, and the publication of otherwise inaccessible documents from the interwar period. Despite maintaining an informal status and lacking a conventional organizational structure, the Cooperative has made significant contributions to the field of Romanian sociological research over the past two decades. Their most notable work involves the retrieval and publication of forgotten pages from the history of Romanian sociology, including anthologies, correspondences, and unpublished documents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research is intended as an in-depth study of the contexts favouring the development of organizational and scientific cooperation practices, as well as of the contexts favouring the emergence of organizational competition and conflict practices within the Gustian School. I will follow how the respective practices emerged and consolidated within the abovementioned sociological school. I will also discuss the organizational climate and how internal conflicts were managed in the school. Using this approach, I intend to explore and elaborate upon the directions already inaugurated by Zoltán Rostás in his research on the organizational development of the Gustian School. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Sociedade e Estado is the property of Sociedade e Estado 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 provides information on the June 2002 issue of the journal "The American Sociologist." The issue features six papers that explore several related themes in the intellectual history of sociology. The authors place particular emphasis on the enduring legacies of creative minds, while also tracing out unnoticed linkages between thinkers and intellectual traditions and pointing to unresolved tensions and lacunae within individual approaches. Uta Gerhardt contributes an erudite and nuanced discussion of the relations between major figures who are ordinarily regarded as polar opposites, social-action and social-system theorist Talcott Parsons and members of the "Frankfurt School" of philosophy, psychology, and sociology, especially Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. David Nock presents an analysis of the career of the late Arthur K. Davis, a student of Parsons and Pitirim Sorokin at Harvard University, Massachusetts, who held professorships at Union College, as well as the universities of Calgary and Alberta, and served as president of the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association. Bruce Wearne analyzes the theoretical framework of Bernard Barber, another major figure educated at Harvard during the Sorokin-Parsons era. In contrast to many treatments that regard Barber rather simplistically as a disciple of Parsons, Wearne probes Barber's ongoing effort to create an independent variant of social systems theory that has focused largely on the sociology of science.

Immanuel Wallerstein’s name is attached to the development of a new way of practicing social science, world-systems analysis, which preceded the rise of Global Studies by nearly 20 years. However, the elements constituting the theoretical basis of the Modern World-System are the fruit of a slow elaboration during the 1960s. It is this path that this article retraces, drawing on both published and unpublished texts in Binghamton's Immanuel Wallerstein Papers from this pivotal period (1964–1970). Starting from a comparative perspective with a nomothetic aim on the modernization of national societies, Immanuel Wallerstein gradually detached himself from it in favor of writing the history of a global capitalist system. In this evolution, the reading of Fernand Braudel and contacts with the Maison des Sciences de l'Homme were decisive.

The article looks at the efforts to extend the ideas of the French sociologist Émile Durkheim following his death on November 15, 1917. It is noted that some of the latest works of Durkheim were retrieved by his nephew, Marcel Mauss, from a depository of Durkheim's papers held by his daughter, Marie. Marie's second son Étienne Halphen got interested in his grandfather's works, particularly in the circumstances surrounding the life of the sociologist. A booklet titled "Hommages à Émile Durkheim" was published in 1988.

The article reflects on the impact of the article "Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay, and Change" by Mayer N. Zald and Roberta Ash in volume 44 of the periodical "Social Forces." Topics include the history of protest movements since 1966, the transformation of social movement organizations (SMOs), and the work of sociologists including Doug McAdam, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly.

In the paper, we present the development of symbolic interactionism (SI) in Poland by tracing and discussing its beginnings, as well as the influence the Chicago School had on the reception of SI in Polish sociology. Furthermore, we differentiate between two trends in the development of SI in Poland. One is connected with the early theoretical elaborations of the SI orientation and translations of classical books representing this perspective; another is linked with empirical work underpinned by SI concepts and the grounded theory approach in empirical research and data analysis. Stressing the importance of translations of classical texts of SI in its reception in Poland, we emphasize the role of field research and applications of SI concepts in sociological investigations that we shortly characterize.

In this essay, I reflect on the ways elements of Robin M. Williams Jr.’s research agenda might be carried forth in a meaningful way to sociological studies of twenty-first-century phenomena—in particular identifying the ways in which the facts of human interaction, of human expectation, and of human influence shapes outcomes of significance for our present, our future, and, therefore, our past. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As an alternative to traditional interpretations of the history of sociology, Tiryakian (1979) has proposed that the development of the discipline may be conceived a, reflecting the succession of certain dominant "schools." A school is comprised of a founder-leader, followers, and a paradigm. This paper identifies six presuppositions of the Chicago School paradigm set forth in Park and Burgess's Introduction to the Science of Sociology (1969) and discusses how five of these presuppositions are central to the work of Everett C Hughes, one of Park's students and a major figure in the continuity of the Chicago School. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With reference to the generally recognized need to rediscover the historic memory of Sociology, this paper suggests to integrate the history of theories, that have been privileged up to today, with the history of empirical research and with non-conventional sources that councern both the actors (schools, reviews, conferences) and the audience of sociology, so as to outline its presence, absence, crisis in the cultural scenario. As for an explanatory phasing of the history of Italian Sociology, the development-diffusion criterion is not sufficient. The author has there- fore retraced for each decade of the after-war period the relations between sociology and other social sciences, the type of responsiveness Italy showed to other countries' sociology, the impact on social policies deriving from sociological theory and research. The concluding statement is that to complete the history of sociology it is necessary to take into account the growing historic-cultural exposure of scientific knowledge and the mutual social thoughtfulness towards scientific knowledge itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article investigates the relationship between Progressive era (1890-1920) social reform and the origins of American sociology with a view of the vital contributions of women in these endeavors. I observe the efforts of the first generation of sociologists to legitimate and delineate the field in the "social construction" of the discipline of sociology, as they attempted to combine Christianity, the social gospel, and socialism into a new and unique ideology. In this article I examine the archival material of Progressive era reformer, Caroline Bartlett Crane (1858-1935), a Unitarian minister and student in the sociology department of the University of Chicago in 1896, to address the relationship between theology, sociology, and social reform from a woman's perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mrs. Ethel Sturges Dummer played a significant role in sociology in the interwar period, although this has been largely forgotten; that is probably due to our lack of a name for what she did, combined with the fact that despite a high level of "professional* activity she never held a paid job. Although she was an exceptional individual, consideration of her case draws attention to the need to take into account, in writing the history of sociology, the important contributions sometimes made by people who did not bear the Job title "sociologist." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an introduction to the papers on "lost women" in the social sciences included in a symposium during the 1999 Michigan Sociological Association Fall Conference. The panel was entitled "Rediscovering Early Women Social Scientists." The papers included a presentation on the early sociologists Jane Addams, Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Harriet Martineau, who have been deliberately excluded from histories of the discipline. Another paper examined the contributions of Ellen Swallow Richards to early social science. Another paper presented a discussion about the contributions of Caroline Bartlet Crane to early sociology. The papers are included in this issue of the "Michigan Sociological Review."

The author of this paper discusses the current state of historical sociology in Russia reflected in the respective section of the Sociological studies journal. After noting the potentialities of the discipline, the author summarizes the overall output of the 20 years’ long existence of this section. The basic preoccupation in the initial phase of the section’s existence was to get – and convey to readers – a clear understanding of the essence and functions of contemporary historical sociology (HS in the text below), to introduce its potentialities to the Russian sociologist audience. However, even today there are few regular contributors, authors tend to delve into minor issues, and even resort to long surpassed views on the discipline. A most urgent issue for Russian historical sociology today is, according to the author, to draw lessons from Russia’s recent centuries to understand the essence of Russia’s present as it is penetrated by its past: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under the circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living” (К. Маrx). This is the essence of the enigmas to be deciphered by historical sociologists. The author formulates some such enigmas (like the proverbial Russian rake repeatedly stepped-upon) observable in recent (as well as earlier) events in the country.

In this paper I deal with the role of analogical reasoning in the thought of Georg Simmel (1858-1918), one of the founders of German sociology. My main goal here is to grasp the relations between analogy-making as a cognitive resource and the style of thought to which Simmel clings. As a first step towards this, I gather the fragments of the history of the concept of analogy that I consider to be the most relevant to Simmel’s reception of it. After that, I put forward a synoptic survey of the instances of analogy that can be identified in those of his works deemed to be the most influential to sociology, viz., his Philosophie des Geldes (1900) and his Soziologie (1908). Finally, I face the question regarding how Simmel handled his analogies as he set out to articulate such intellectual undertakings – aiming to lay bare the connections between this resource and the cognitive ideal of plasticity, conceived as a pervasive guiding principle of Simmel’s sociological and philosophical thought.