Search

This paper discusses the strong criticism by Elias against the nation-state paradigm in sociology. Elias pointed his attention on sociologists of the twentieth century but particularly criticizes the analytical model of Parsons (AGIL), which seems to him an abstract combinatory of variables (pattern variables) without any references in social contexts. The sociology in the twentieth century is an apologetic of nation-state and, in Parsons, of the hegemonic role of the United States in the world. In fact, during the twentieth century many authors (historians and sociologists) tried to overcome the nation-state paradigm in the social sciences. The author of the paper analyses the contribution of Toynbee, Braudel, C. Schmitt, Huntington, Wallerstein and Hard-Negri. These attempts are based on different unit analysis: the civilization and its clash in the case of Toynbee and Huntington, the world economy in the case of Braudel and Wallerstein, and power in the case of C. Schmitt and Negri-Hardt. The author appreciates these attempts but his conclusion is that the concept of global society can better serve as unit analysis for a construction of a new paradigm in the social sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At ninety-eight (2006), Oswald Hall is Canada's senior, distinguished sociologist. For several decades Dr. Hall's colleagues have acknowledged his abiding ‘contributions to the growth of sociology in Canada and his loyalty to the profession.’ The prime purpose of this paper is to document Dr. Hall's legacy. It begins by briefly looking at Dr. Hall's origins and early training. Then it investigates his graduate and postgraduate education and delves into his varied roles as a teacher, researcher, civil servant, and administrator, as well as his appointments to various advisory bodies, enquiries, boards and associations and concludes with a commentary on Oswald Hall's accomplishments. Throughout the paper, Dr. Hall's major publications are reviewed chronologically. This study does not include Hall's twenty-seven year involvement with the chiropractic profession (1976 to 1998) because that era has been covered extensively in the December 2005 issue of the JCCA.2 Much of the article is based on testimony from colleagues and friends, as well as quotes from some of Hall's unpublished writings and manuscripts. Unpublished Hall quotes are identified in the references by their titles and/or dates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper questions how an earlier generation of British social analysts (sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists and others) identified cultural characteristics of post-war minorities, valuing some and derogating others, and using such valuations to assess or measure these groups’ differential rates of success or failure in integrating into British society. Through a critical review of some influential texts in British social studies over the last four or so decades, this paper suggests that analysts today as in the past run the risk of their work being seen, perhaps mistakenly, as attempts to apportion praise and blame with regard to new communities’ contributions to a tolerant and inclusive social order in post-imperial Britain. It is implied that representations of cultural and social capital — where ethnic identities, families and kinship networks are concerned — demand a far more sensitive, intellectually rigorous and honest, and empirically and theoretically informed treatment than some influential members of a past generation bequeathed. Cet article questionne l'approche de la précédente génération des chercheurs en sciences sociales britanniques (sociologues, ethnologues, politologues et autres) concernant les caractéristiques culturelles des minorités présentes après la deuxième guerre mondiale dans la société britannique, certains étant valorisés plus que d'autres. Ces chercheurs avaient par la suite utilisé ces évaluations pour estimer ou mesurer l'intégration plus ou moins réussie de ces groupes à la société britannique. Par l'examen critique de leurs textes forts influents dans les quarante années qui viennent de s’écouler cet article suggère qu'aujourd'hui, tout comme pour le passé, les spécialistes (actuels, comme leurs prédécesseurs) courent le risque de voir leurs travaux assimilés à une tentative de distribution de blâmes et louanges à ces communautés nouvelles, au vu de leurs contributions à un ordre social tolérant et intégrateur dans la Grande Bretagne post-impériale. Vis-à-vis de l'héritage reçu, la représentation du capital social et culturel — en ce qui concernes les identités ethniques, les familles et les réseaux de parenté — ne demanderaient-elle pas maintenant un traitement plus sensible, plus rigoureux et honnête au plan intellectuel ainsi qu'un traitement empirique mieux informé théoriquement? minorités, communautés, capital social, valeurs, subjectivité, le chercheur et son objet, cultures, intégration et exclusion [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research, with a capital 'R', is a subject of considerable concern within South African ruling circles. There's not enough of it, and it's not the right kind, or so the argument runs. Recognising the importance of the material conditions of the researchers and the need for a bottom-up approach to developing research priorities, this paper focuses on the state of sociology research in South Africa today. It demonstrates that, over the past twelve years, a marked increase in the output of masters and doctoral graduates has been accompanied by a decline in the level of completed research by qualified sociologists. In terms of publications, there has been a significant increase in the proportion produced by women, but a negligible change in the number by black scholars. The paper rejects pessimistic assessments of the state of South African sociology. It concludes by arguing that the discipline should place itself at the centre of an integrated and engaged social science by drawing diverse strands together at a local level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues for the importance of a broad sociological engagement with bioethics. It begins by considering why sociologists should be interested in bioethics and then goes on to explore the cognitive critique of bioethics developed by ethnographers. Some of these authors have also suggested that a more robust bioethics might emerge through the incorporation of the tools of ethnographic analysis. In this paper, it is argued that this is an important claim which needs to be analysed further and that Foucault's concept of discursive formations provides a useful framework for doing so. Once bioethics is redescribed as a discursive formation, the paper explores the challenges and obstacles that sociology and ethnography face in their attempt to open up a space for themselves in bioethics. The paper concludes by suggesting that sociologists and ethnographers need to reflect on the ways in which they might democratically secure legitimacy for their own claims in the field of social ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the practical implications of Wallerstein's call for the substitution of an existing culture of sociology by a culture of social science for the future of the sociological project in South Africa. South African sociology is examined in terms of Therborn's three spaces of identity in which sociology is located: a space of discipline, a space of everyday practice and a space of imagination and investigation. The paper argues that sociology in South Africa is responding creatively to the challenges of our society. In order to maintain this response we need to strengthen our discipline through institutional and intellectual engagement. In conclusion it is argued that sociology is distinctive through its sociological imagination, its emphasis on unmasking deceptions and illusions and its commitment to improving the world we live in. Analytical knowledge, technical know-how and the well-being of human beings are the heart and soul of sociology. Our contribution is best made not as social scientists but first and foremost as sociologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1945 Davis and Moore, following an earlier formulation by Davis, proposed a functional theory of stratification that was intended to account for what they contended was the "universal necessity" for social inequality in any social order. Beginning with an article by Tumin in 1953, the Davis-Moore theory elicited regular analysis, commentary, criticism, and debate through the 1970s. Although professional work on the theory has largely ceased since the late 1980s, the Davis-Moore theory remains perhaps the single most widely cited paper in American introductory sociology and stratification textbooks and constitutes "required reading" in hundreds, if not thousands, of undergraduate and graduate courses throughout the United States. The present paper traces the history of the debate and attempts to explain the theory's longevity and vitality in the face of what has amounted to largely negative assessments by other sociologists over the preceding fifty years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper first offers a brief account of the competition between the Durkheimian sociological tradition and German philosophy in the period in which Bourdieu was a student at the École Normale Supérieure. It indicates the intellectual influences of the early years that Bourdieu subsequently acknowledged and then examines his use of the work of Weber in his first book, Sociologie de l'Algérie (1958). The paper then focuses on the development of Bourdieu's thought from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s, a period in which he strategically presented himself as an anti-humanist sociologist whilst also articulating a view of science that was in tune with phenomenological and ontological philosophy. Bourdieu's 'Sociology and Philosophy in France since 1945' (1967a) receives particular attention since his analysis of sociology and philosophy in France in the post-war period was a key element in his own position-taking in respect of the two disciplines. The paper then examines Bourdieu's critiques of Weber at this time and suggests that his dissatisfaction with Weber's epistemology logically became a dissastisfaction with the claims of sociological explanation as such. There followed an attempt to reconcile a commitment to social science with an allegiance to elements of phenomenological thought. The outcome was a willingness on Bourdieu's part to see reflexivity as a means to problematizing sociological explanation more than as a means to refining it or making it more sophisticated. The consequence was that commitments to phenomenological ontology and social science co-existed in this period. The balance was to change again subsequently in Bourdieu's thought, and his responsivenesss to changing conditions exemplifies how we should ourselves rethink the relations between possible future social theories and the classical theories of Western sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between 1885 and 1930, as sociology was becoming an academic discipline, sociology was also being practiced intelligently, innovatively, and self-consciously outside the academy in the social settlements that grew up in America's major cities. In this paper, we first define and give a brief overview of the settlement movement in America; second, we show how the settlement workers were sociologists in their self-definition and action and in their relations with other sociologists; third, in the body of the paper, we describe the sociology done by the settlements in terms of the empirical research they undertook and the theory they created. Our argument is that settlement sociologists produced empirical studies that were both substantively significant and methodologically pioneering; that they did so in terms of a coherent social theory unique in its focus on "the neighborly relation"; and that both their research and theory were part of a critical, reflexive, and activist sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years growing sociological interest in new forms of cultural distinction has led some to argue that the advantages previously conveyed by the consumption of ‘high’ culture ‘or ‘omnivorousness’ are being overwritten by the possession of what has been termed ‘emerging cultural capital’. So far, though, this term has only been discussed in passing within empirical work and remains in need of further analytical specification. This special issue seeks to both critically interrogate and develop this concept by bringing together the work of leading cultural sociologists around four key themes: the role of age and generation in the formation of cultural capital; the power of visual display for distinction; the significance of new elite cultures; and the need for methodological pluralism to apprehend the expressions and mechanisms of distinction. This editorial introduction outlines the descriptive terrain on which the concept of emerging cultural capital has rested until now before exploring the common themes that sit across all five papers in the special issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the participation by sociologists in several major conferences, mostly held in New York, that focused on issues related to science, democracy and faith between the late 1930s and the early post-World War II period. These events offered sociologists an opportunity to showcase the discipline to leading scholars, public figures, and other intellectuals and public audiences outside the discipline. Amidst widespread uncertainty and a quest for answers to significant social and economic problems, sociologists revealed that they were no more adept than other intellectuals to provide definitive pathways out of potential catastrophe. At the same time, the conferences and related events demonstrated that sociologists had analytical tools and insights that could be useful in framing questions and orientations that were of interest not only to scholar bodies, but also served as potential reference points for social policy and community development. These activities, in helping to legitimize the discipline and reinforce the boundaries within which it operated, did so in a manner that also separated and privileged sociologists, as professionals or experts, from broader publics in ways that narrowed the discipline's main foci and lessened its capacity to adopt more democratic public roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper tracks Mead's induction into the sociological canon, focusing in particular on American sociologists who made a concerted effort to reconstruct Mead as a systematic social theorist and apply his ideas to empirical research. It distinguishes two interpretive strategies of framing the classic and constructing the canon -- the politics of orthodoxy and politics of the open canon. The politics of orthodoxy aims to ascertain the original meaning and close the textual canon, creating a template relative to which alternative interpretations are judged incomplete, unorthodox, or wrongheaded. The politics of the open canon proceeds on the assumption that the classic text lends itself to conflicting interpretations, that room for the honest difference of opinion must be safeguarded, and that the capacity to further productive inquiry rather than the adherence to an orthodox view recommends a particular construal as viable and canon-worhty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper draws on a wide range of researches to stress the importance of social context to the sociological understanding of religious experiences. It argues that individualistic definitions fail to take into account real group experiences such as those resulting from the reforms of Vatican II. For the sociologist, it is important to explore general patterns of group experiences and the meanings attributed to them. The paper discusses some of the methodological and conceptual problems in this area before considering evidence for the patterning of religious experience according to differences of generation, gender, class, level of urbanization, institutional involvement, and status inconsistency. The paper concludes by locating religious experiences in the context of modernity. In contrast to related theories of secularization, it draws attention to the recent work of Hervieu-Léger which suggests that utopian future expectations create space which can only be met by new forms of religious experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper draws a parallel between two contemporary French conceptions of sociology. Each is first considered in terms of the principles and strategies of its sociological method. Through an analogy with Marx's philosophy of social science, critical sociology is shown to make an heuristic use for the analysis of cultures and social structures of the resistance to sociology that the sociologist encounters in the social objects, whereas pragmatic sociology adopts a pluralistic and descriptive strategy towards actions, actors and things. The paper then tries to show how common interests or trading zones could allow both critical and pragmatic sociology to profit from their competitive relation by taking each other as objects of sociological analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ethnomethodologists (or at least many of them) have been reticent about their theoretical sources and methodological principles. It frequently falls to others to make such matters explicit. In this paper I discuss this silence about theory, but rather than entering the breach by specifying a set of implicit assumptions and principles, I suggest that the reticence is consistent with ethnomethodology‘s distinctive research ‘program‘. The main part of the paper describes the pedagogical exercises and forms of apprenticeship through which Garfinkel and Sacks aimed to develop ethnomethodology as a practice. These efforts were not entirely successful, partly because ethnomethodological ‘practice‘ required an engagement with other fully-fledged practices. Aside from the difficulties of mastering such practices, it was unclear what an ethnomethodological study would add to, or take from, them. Whether successful or not, ethnomethodological research points to the specificity of discourse and action in any given practice which a general theory is bound to misconstrue. Current disputes about cultural constructivist versions of natural science illustrate the problems that arise when the terms of a general theory are used to describe and evaluate specific domains of practice. The paper concludes by recommending ethnomethodology as a way to dissolve an unbridgeable gap between cultural theories and socially located practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept 'social control' has been criticised from a variety of quarters in recent years, particularly by historians and historical sociologists. However, it remains in common usage in sociological studies of welfare, deviance and social control. This paper shows, first, how this reliance on the concept of social control is rooted in a wider-ranging argument in social and political theory concerning the liberal-democratic fusion between the state and civil society, and that the lack of resolution of this argument is the foundation of the persistence of the concept social control in other areas of social inquiry, despite its repeated 'falsification'. Second, the paper highlights the main arguments against the use of 'social control' in explaining social order, in particular the misunderstanding of class, culture and power which its use encourages, and the paper will conclude with a discussion of alternative ways of conceptualising the operation of power in contemporary societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper considers the relevance of the sociology of science for the study of power. Though there is by no means complete agreement between sociologists of science, recent work in this area has suggested that (a) scientists negotiate not only about scientific but also social reality, and (b) the distinction between macro- and micro-sociology is an impediment rather than an aid to analysis. Thus, though there are indeed differences in scale, it is argued that these should be seen as the outcome of differentially effective attempts by scientists to impose versions of scientific and social reality.
The present paper extends this argument by considering the way in which a set of pharmacological experiments was undertaken in order to generate results and control aspects of the scientific and social environment. It is suggested that the experimentalist acted like an entrepreneur, combining a variety of potentially unruly resources with the aim of simplifying these and reducing them to docile figures on a sheet of paper. The strategies and materials used in this process of control are considered and three classes of potential resources are identified: natural objects or devices, people and inscriptions. It is argued that these have certain properties that render them relatively durable and transportable and hence convenient for the purpose of long distance social control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concern of this paper is to locate certain troubles and contradictions within Lucien Goldinann's avowedly sociological programme for the investigation of culture. It will be seen that these turn, generally, upon Goldmann's insistence on maintaining a central methodological position for the category of the subject and, more particularly, upon his conception of the subject as individual (rather than collective) subject. Part of these methodological troubles is seen to be connected with Goldmann's use of a metaphor connecting Piaget's individual/environment distinction with the distinction between social groups and history. To this degree, the paper is generally concerned with the severance of sociological studies of culture from psychologistic and belletrist preoccupations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is intended to place the other papers in this issue of the journal in a broader theoretical and political context. It considers some of the ways in which sociologists of education have approached the analysis of the curriculum and discusses the extent to which their work can be seen as a contribution to political struggles in and around the curriculum. It pays particular attention to the ways in which recent American and Australian work in this field has developed and to some of the criticisms that have been made of the political orientation of such work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents sociologist Bonnie Fox's comments on author's paper "Family Study in Canada." The paper was about historical change. It questioned how an area of Canadian life that figured so large in the initial sociological enterprise in Canada could later become peripheral to concerns of the few sociologists who ultimately decide which papers are published in the official journal, which topics deserve special issues of that journal. Most texts try to present the "state of the art" at the time of writing. The textbook remains the only place where knowledge in the field is codified and legitimated. It was precisely because most Canadian family sociology textbooks attempt to catalogue all the knowledge in the field that they seemed entirely appropriate for the purpose of establishing how the field has been constructed through the 1980s. Fox's sketch goes a little way toward including a few names of the many Canadian scholars who have made important contributions to the field but whose identities and ideas.

This paper explores the importance of race and racial attitudes among sociologists by attempting to document the existence of what has been called a "black insiders doctrine" and showing that black sociologists are more likely than their white counterparts to subscribe to this doctrine. Data in this paper are based on a survey questionnaire administered during the winter of 1978. The findings show that: (1) race is a strong predictor in determining how sociologists perceive the role and characteristics of black sociologists and (2) black sociologists do not think highly of whites who study race relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper outlines the career of Maurice F. Parmelee, sociologist, government official, nudist, and author of thirteen books, including the first American criminology text (1918). The contents of the latter are examined and contrasts with contemporary textbooks are noted. Parmelee's career is an anomoly, for although he published abundantly, he faded into sociological obscurity. Some conjecture is offered about scholarly career paths generally, drawn out of the Parmelee case. Finally, the paper argues that historical accounts of the development of American criminology are incomplete, for they fail to mention a number of early figures, including Parmelee. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a critical examination of the papers by Colomy and Brown, West, and Ostrow. Each is considered in terms of how the author's work connects with topics addressed by Goffman and with his own theoretical and methodological approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper depicts the career of the author as a complicated journey from European beginnings to American destinations. It emphasizes crucial turning points that finally led the author from antifascist radical intellectual to established member of the American sociological community. It attempts to show lines of divergence but also lines of continuity in his thought and contributions. This essay attempts to show the extent to which his background influenced the themes and orientations of his sociological work. The paper may be read as a contribution to the sociology of knowledge from the autobiographical point of view. It stresses the various stages of the author's career and attempts to show the extent to which these stages are reflected in his writings and general orientations. The paper closes with a bird's eye view of the recent past and the probable future of American sociological thought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article responds to sociologist Andy Pickering's comments, partly because of the inherent intellectual stimulation of exchanging ideas with such a distinguished colleague, but partly also because of the need for much greater interchange between the two fields, the sociology of environment and technology, on the one hand and the sociology of science on the other. Pickering's comments raise three important points about the analysis of Iron Mountain, Michigan. First, he praises what he calls papers symmetry in noting the importance of physical⁄environmental as well as social factors in understanding social outcomes. Second, he argues that people have not taken this point far enough, in large part because, he believes, the social is not sufficiently at stake in papers. Third, he argues that a fruitful antidote would be to trace the evolution of actual practices, in detail, over time.

This paper argues that the dominance of linear models has led many sociologists to construe the social world in terms of a "general linear reality." This reality assumes (1) that the social world consists of fixed entities with variable attributes, (2) that cause cannot flow from "small" to "large" attributes/events, (3) that causal attributes have only one causal pattern at once, (4) that the sequence of events does not influence their outcome, (5) that the. "careers" of entities are largely independent, and (6) that causal attributes are generally independent of each other. The paper discusses examples of these assumptions in empirical work, considers standard and new methods addressing them, and briefly explores alternative models for reality that employ demographic, sequential, and network perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This collective effort (the order of authors is purely alphabetical) explores our particular Sociological perspective, explains the harriers we tire encountering in developing that perspective. and describes the strategies we are employing to create a participatory conditional environment. Our paper concludes that our alienation has decreased as our participation has increased. Now - three months after the paper went to the printer, developments in our department have to sonic extent reversed the sense of community and participation tee discuss below. Our task is larger than we first thought, though we still hope to succeed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is an attempt to in form young sociologists in academic institutions about issues of tenure. Although there is room for debate concerning the nature of tenure, a basic conception of tenure is presented here which we believe is defensible under any set of economic or political circumstances. The misconceptions about tenure by young sociologists and the misconceptions about fundamental responsibilities of department chairs often lead to dissatisfied sociologists, demoralized departments, and hated administrators Sociologists should be aware of the way tenure is implemented at their institutions. Chairs not only should be informed but also should inform their department members about the tenure process. The paper is the result of experiences gained by the authors while serving on the Committee of the Freedom of Research and Teaching of the American Sociological Association. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is taken from Chapter 6 of the publication A Lucky Journey: The Sociological Enterprise, 1931-1980, which reflects on the progress of the American Sociological Review (ASR) as a publication from 1958 to 1960. The local editorial staff of the publication began with a contingent of ten scholars. These ten scholars included representatives of various sub-fields in sociology and of related discipline as well as specialists on Soviet Russia, Africa, India and Japan. Most of the day-to-day labor on the Review was done by editorial secretary Betty Vogel, Michael Olmsted, and their nominal boss. Michael Olmsted was more than a first-rate book review editor, he evaluated papers in his special fields with sagacity and designed an attractive cover to replace what had long been the dismal front of the publication. Solicitation of papers by prominent sociologists helped to upgrade ASR as a scholarly journal. Another change was the introduction of a division of the Review on the Profession which included not merely the obituaries or communications pertaining to the sociological guild, but both solicited submitted articles on the occupation itself. This innovation, according to the author, was consistent with his own growing interest in the sociology of sociology.

Implications of college-wide competency-based education (CBE) approaches for undergraduate sociology programs are discussed, using an established program for illustration. Five basic questions for sociologists considering involvement in CBE are addressed: (1) Are courses to be built upon content or competency? (2) Is it possible to achieve the ideal of integrating content and competency in evaluating student performance without relegating content to a secondary role? (3) Is it possible to alter one's conception of teaching from dispensing knowledge to facilitating learning? (4) Is it possible to alter one's conception of professional autonomy to meet CBE demands? (5) Is the education at CBE institutions comparable to that offered at traditional institutions, both in terms of learning and career opportunities? This paper examines some implications of college-wide competency-based education (CBE) approaches for undergraduate sociology programs and curricula, using an existing program for illustration. A major difficulty in delineating CBE's impact on academic programs is that the approach is not yet marked by a set of unifying conceptual or organizational principles, nor does an adequate definition or theoretical framework exist to guide generalization (Grant, 1979:11). For these reasons, the present paper is confined to issues arising from elements that appear to be common to CBE approaches in general.[1]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between 1915 and the late 1930s W.I. Thomas developed a theory of human motivation steering a middle course between determinism (biological or social) and unfettered free will. The theory of the four wishes posited that all human beings, across time and place, are driven by a set of connected wishes mediated by the social and physical environment. These are the wish for new experience, the wish for security, the wish for recognition, and the wish for response. Between 1917 when Thomas first published the wishes and the early 1930s when the wishes fell out of use, they were the dominant micro theory of motivation invoked by sociologists in the United States (particularly those associated with the Chicago School). This paper explores the rise and fall of Thomas's wishes in the context of the sociology of ideas, with particular emphasis on fluctuations in Thomas's professional status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, many different versions of relational sociology have appeared. In this paper, I present a critical realist version developed since 1983, which is also called ‘relational theory of society’ (CRRS). It shares with the other relational sociologies the idea of avoiding both methodological individualism and holism. The main differences lie in the way social relations are defined, the kind of reality that is attributed to them, how they configure social formations, and the way in which their changes are conceived (morphogenesis and emergence). In particular, this approach is suitable to understand how the morphogenesis of society comes about through social relations, which are the connectors that mediate between agency and social structure. The generative mechanism that feeds social morphogenesis resides in the dynamic (that is, in their ways of operating) of the social relations networks that alter the social molecule constituting structures already in place. Social morphogenesis is a form of surplus of society with respect to itself. Society increases (or decreases) its potential for surplus depending on processes of valorization (or devalorization) of social relations. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this paper I present and summarize the theoretical proposals of four leading scholars of the so-called ‘relational sociology’. First of all I try to contextualize its emergence and developments in the increasingly globalized scientific system. From this particular (and international) point of view, relational sociology seems to develop through a peculiar scientific path opened and charted by well-identified actors and competitors, their invisible colleges, their global connections, cleavages, and coalitions. Whatever the structuring of this field, it accomplishes the criticism of classical individualistic and collectivistic sociological theories, a task strongly facilitated by the development of new methods and techniques of empirical research, and by the increasingly powerful computing capabilities. After this brief historical reconstruction, and following very strictly the contributions of the four scholars, I try to synthetize their theoretical designs, focusing the analysis on two scientific issues of great significance for the future of relational sociology: the specific ontology of ‘social relations’ and the methodologies used to observe it adequately. Finally, I wonder if we are facing a new sociological paradigm, already well structured and internationally established, or rather a ‘relational turn’ that probably will develop into a new ‘sociological field’ internally very differentiated and articulated. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The aim of John Searle’s philosophy of society is to provide a foundation for the social sciences. Arguing that the study of social reality needs to be based on a philosophy of language, Searle claims that sociology has little to offer since no sociologist ever took language seriously. Attacking Durkheim head-on, Searle not only claims that Durkheim’s project differs from his own but also that Durkheim’s sociology has serious shortcomings. Opposing Searle, this paper argues that Durkheim’s account of social reality is still viable and that Searle’s attack backfires on his own theoretical project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The sociology of the South, as a substantive area research interest, emerged during the 1800s as a means to rationalize and preserve the cultural norms of slavery era whites who would soon experience seismic social shocks including the Civil War and emancipation of enslaved blacks. The person singularly cited as the architect of this area of study is Howard W. Odum. Although Odum is identified as the person most responsible for the development of this field, archival data indicate that W. E. B. Du Bois and the men and women of the Atlanta Sociological Laboratory were its first practitioners. In this paper evidence is offered to show that Du Bois's Atlanta University efforts predated Odum's North Carolina research program. Additionally, an explanation for Du Bois's marginalization in the existing sociology of the South literature is offered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Existing accounts of American sociology’s founding years during the early twentieth century assume that the discipline was ‘metrocentric.’ They assume that it was only interested in processes occurring within the United States; that American sociologists fell prey to state-centrist thought; and that, therefore, contextualizing America sociology’s emergence necessitates understanding relations, events, and processes within the confines of US territorial boundaries. By contrast, this paper shows the imperial and hence global aspects of early American sociological thought. Early American sociologists were interested in imperialism and, therefore, in cross-societal, transnational, and global processes and relations. Implicitly or explicitly they approached imperialism as a process by which social groups, not least ‘races,’ interacted and conflicted. They also saw it as a route towards new global forms. Early American sociology thus articulated a sociological imagination that looked beyond American society and to the wider world. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Anarchism has not had a noticeable impact upon sociology. The two traditions diverged in their interest in society and their relationship to it. This paper contrasts the practitioners or thinkers of one tradition against the other. The analysis shows some strong antagonisms, many instances of close analysis and critique of each other’s perspectives, and a number of friendly and supportive relationships between anarchists and sociologists. Anarchists tended to admire the intellectual rigor of sociologists, but thought sociologists were insiders – mere reformers at best, reactionaries at worst – content to study society, but rarely to act for its improvement. Sociologists viewed anarchists with an even wider range of opinion, including considering them principled and admirable revolutionaries, slightly naïve utopians, or criminals and chaos-lovers bent on the destruction of social order. These factors contributed to the exclusion of anarchist ideas and anarchists themselves from the sociological canon. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Although the issue of boundaries is not new, in recent years sociologists have shown renewed interest in the topic. For example, the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association in 2006 featured the theme of boundaries. This paper is an exploratory effort to analyze sociological work on boundaries and to compare and contrast this work with a biblical view on this topic. In doing so, the following issues were discussed: the blurring of boundaries, overemphasis on boundaries, idolatry, and more specifically, issues of boundaries in the area of marriage and family, gender roles, social identity, and materialism. From this it can be concluded that there are gaps that should be addressed, discussed and written about from a Christian perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the author discusses the role of the sociologist after half-a-century of studying science. He explores the problem with misconceptions about human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment in South Africa. He provides an overview of the paper "Third Wave of Science Studies," which he and fellow sociologist Rob Evans wrote. He also discusses the new programme called Studies of Expertise and Experience.

This is the first e-special issue for the journal Sociology and its chosen focus is the article ‘The coming crisis of empirical sociology’ by Savage and Burrows (2007). This article challenged sociologists with a variety of questions about the role, relevance and methodological opportunities for sociological research in the 21st century. On publication it stoked the already charged debates on a public sociology (Burawoy, 2004), the role of publicly funded research (ESRC, 2009) and relevance of sociological research in an age of burgeoning social media (Brewer and Hunter, 2006). This e-special provides a reprise of these debates and explores relevant papers in Sociology, as well as alerting readers to recurring themes and new directions on the topic of methods and social research. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper examines the role of the state in the development of French Sociology after 1945. This role was important in the institutionalization of the discipline. It favoured the creation of research teams, resarch centres or laboratories. The State favoured the funding of french sociology too. This funding, in the form of research contracts with various public bodies, has contributed to the emergence of the figure of the expert and, more broadly, to the involvement of sociologists in sectoral policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, Savage and Burrows (2007) have argued that one way to invigorate sociology's 'empirical crisis' is to take advantage of live, web-based digital transactional data. This paper argues that whilst sociologists do indeed need to engage with this growing digital data deluge, there are longer-term risks involved that need to be considered. More precisely, C. Wright Mills' 'sociological imagination' is used as the basis for the kind of sociological research that one might aim for, even within the digital era. In so doing, it is suggested that current forms of engaging with transactional social data are problematic to the sociological imagination because they tend to be ahistorical and focus mainly on 'now casting'. The ahistorical nature of this genre of digital research, it is argued, necessarily restricts the possibility of developing a serious sociological imagination. In turn, it is concluded, there is a need to think beyond the digitized surfaces of the plastic present and to consider the impact that time and temporality, particularly within the digital arena, have on shaping our sociological imagination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article uses the recent work of sociologist Margaret M. Poloma to argue that developments in the sociology of Pentecostalism have the potential to revitalize a classical Pentecostal movement that can be otherwise understood as languishing. In particular, the social scientific study of benevolent service in various segments of the Pentecostal movement provides the springboard for the argument. After locating the interdisciplinary work of Poloma and her colleagues on godly love within the broader context of social science research in the last half century, this paper will explore its implications for the future and renewal of especially the classical Pentecostal movement, for Pentecostal theology and self-understanding, and for scholarship on Pentecostalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Harry Alpert (1912-1977), the US sociologist, is best-known for his directorship of the National Science Foundation's social science programme in the 1950s. This study extends our understanding of Alpert in two main ways: first, by examining the earlier development of his views and career. Beginning with his 1939 biography of Emile Durkheim, we explore the early development of Alpert's views about foundational questions concerning the scientific status of sociology and social science more generally, proper social science methodology, the practical value of social science, the academic institutionalisation of sociology, and the unity-of-science viewpoint. Second, this paper illuminates Alpert's complex involvement with certain tensions in mid-century US social science that were themselves linked to major transformations in national science policy, public patronage, and unequal relations between the social and natural sciences. We show that Alpert's views about the intellectual foundations, practical relevance, and institutional standing of the social sciences were, in some important respects, at odds with his NSF policy work. Although remembered as a quantitative evangelist and advocate for the unity-of-science viewpoint, Alpert was in fact an urbane critic of natural-science envy, social scientific certainty, and what he saw as excessive devotion to quantitative methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Creative endeavors often resemble one another. This paper explores similarities between sociology and art based on the use of conventions and creativity. More specifically, by comparing the construction of musical mix tapes, the author draws parallels between creating sociology and mix tapes. Looking at the process of how a mix tape is created using other artists' songs and music for a specified purpose illuminates sociology and our roles as sociologists in a new light that leaves open new possibilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

My first semester as a tenure-track faculty member at a mid-size university began ignominiously and suggested that my academic career might be short-lived. It began with a blistering memo that was stridently critical of the academic dean’s policy which led to being taken to the proverbial woodshed. Other less serious episodes followed which put me at odds with the “administration.” Yet I have spent more than a third of my career in administrative positions, including a stint in the provost’s office (as an assistant vice chancellor), and only recently returned to faculty status. Over the course of my academic career I have noticed that a large number of academic sociologists have taken administrative positions in academia beyond that of the department chair. This paper will explore this phenomenon and discuss the reasons members of the ‘debunking’ discipline assume administrative roles. I will address this issue within the context of my personal odyssey in administration and how the sociological perspective and imagination has contributed to working in the ‘dark side’ of academia. Finally, I will discuss lessons learned and recommendations for the aspirant administrators among the ranks of academic sociologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Genotype–environment interaction (G×E) refers to situations in which genetic effects connected to a phenotype are dependent upon variability in the environment, or when genes modify an organism''s sensitivity to particular environmental features. Using a typology suggested in the G×E literature, we provide an overview of recent papers that show how social context can trigger a genetic vulnerability, compensate for a genetic vulnerability, control behaviors for which a genetic vulnerability exists, and improve adaptation via proximal causes. We argue that to improve their understanding of social structure, sociologists can take advantage of research in behavior genetics by assessing the impact of within-group variance of various health outcomes and complex human behaviors that are explainable by genotype, environment and their interaction. Insights from life course sociology can aid in ensuring that the dynamic nature of the environment in G×E has been accounted for. Identification of an appropriate entry point for sociologists interested in G×E research could begin with the choice of an environmental feature of interest, a genetic factor of interest, and/or behavior of interest. Optimizing measurement in order to capture the complexity of G×E is critical. Examining the interaction between poorly measured environmental factors and well measured genetic variables will overestimate the effects of genetic variables while underestimating the effect of environmental influences, thereby distorting the interaction between genotype and environment. Although the expense of collecting environmental data is very high, reliable and precise measurement of an environmental pathogen enhances a study''s statistical power. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

In the article the author examines the debate between sociologists Emile Durkheim and Herbert Spencer concerning the rise of individualism. The author believes that Durkheim's model of individualism, a consequence of division of labor, is different from Spencer's model. He asserts that Spencer is a theorist of bio-psychological individualism with issues such as survival, pain avoidance and reproduction. Durkheim discusses the development of sociological individualism in his paper "The Division of Labor."

Since the early fifties M.N. Srinivas's sociological imagination has defined the perspectives and methodologies that govern the contours of Indian sociology. This text, which is the seventh memorial M.N. Srinivas lecture, makes a critical assessment of Srinivas's contribution to sociology in India and to sociology of the world. It argues that Srinivas's theories and conceptual repertoire has not been able to capture the complexities of Indian society. It remains trapped in middle class, upper class and patriarchal orientations. The 'field view' that Srinivas advocated, the study of the micro (the caste system in the village) through participant observation is limiting and needs to be compensated and complemented by other methods. The paper argues for the imperative to assess the macro in order to examine the nature of contemporary polity and economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Op-eds in newspapers represent an important form of intellectual debate that helps shape public opinion and elite policy. For academics, writing op-eds offers an opportunity to publicize a book or other research findings, and to gain influence and attention for their ideas. Given a reward structure within the academy that stresses peer review publication, professors are at a decided structural disadvantage, compared to journalists, when they try to enter the oped space. Thus op-eds give us a useful window into how academics and public sociologists enter the public sphere in comparison to columnists, think-tanks, politicians, social movement activists, and corporate leaders. Drawing on the innovative theoretical approach outlined by Ronald Jacobs and Eleanor Townsley, this paper offers an analysis of a selected set of Canadian op-eds and suggests a research agenda for studying op-eds in Canada. Not surprisingly, we find that journalists dominate the space of the op-ed in Canada. We also find that sociologists are fairly underrepresented compared to our obvious competitors in the social sciences. We conclude with thoughts about the implications of our findings for further research in the sociology of sociology, public sociology and the study of the social space of opinion. We also offer informed suggestions regarding normative and practical issues that Canadian sociologists should consider in light of these broader empirical patterns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]