Search

Throughout this paper a certain view of theology is assumed, and it seems desirable therefore to begin by an endeavor to state it clearly in a way, which it is hoped, will meet with very general agreement. It does not claim to be a complete view, but it endeavors to bring forward that aspect of theology, which makes a closer union between theologians and sociologists possible and indeed urgent. And in the first place it should be mentioned that by theology is meant Christian doctrine, any other religious philosophy being differently named. Theology, then, is taken to be! in the first place an interpretation of life by its highest and fullest perfection, unified as God. Theology postulates Christ as the perpetual image of God manifested in the world, but realized in fullness in "The Son of Man." In this way people have a working conception of the nature of God. This divine humanity summed up in Christ, is further exemplified by certain persons called the saints, more or less approximating to the ideal type. All Christians are "called to be saints."

The article describes conceptual displacement and migration in science. In the last few years there has been growing agreement among sociologists studying the scientific community that one of their central aims should be to describe systematically the connections between social processes and intellectual development in science. This concern on the part of sociologists with scientific knowledge is very recent, however, and most of the studies at present available deal exclusively with such social aspects of science as the system of professional rewards, the patterns of communication among research scientists, and the nature of social control within the research community.

The article comments on papers presented in a symposium on the nature and scope of sociology. Like other theoretical sciences, sociology is concerned with knowledge, not action, and thus sociology consists solely in scientific method and techniques, and in the organized body of theory and knowledge developed through the application of these. In this view, social engineering, which is the application of this knowledge to practical problems as through social work, social reform, or Christian social reconstruction, is definitely not sociology, although many sociologists participate in such engineering. When a sociologist participates in social engineering, he should realize that he is stepping over the boundaries of his role as a scientist. Like moral philosophy, sociology studies what can be observed of men's interactions through the use of the senses, but unlike philosophy it proceeds to testing the truth by a purely inductive criterion. In science, the ultimate test of all theories and hypotheses must be an inductive examination of whether they conform to the facts of sensible phenomena. It is this which distinguishes the knowledge of science from that of mathematics, philosophy or theology. It is for this reason that metaphysical principles may not be invoked to prove scientific questions.

The article provides an explanation of sociologist Leo Goodman's paper hierarchical models for significance tests in multivariate contingency tables. In several papers Goodman presents and elaborates a system for the analysis of contingency tables that promises to be extremely useful to sociologists. The papers are however, extremely compressed, heavily complex with the cumbersome notation of contingency analysis and are not easily accessible to the student and average research worker. The aim of this article is to explain the logic and procedures of the system in terms the reader may find more comfortable. The Goodman system consists of two parts: a scheme for making significance tests by means of hierarchical models and an extensive discussion of a set of techniques known as log linear models. The two parts are logically and practically distinct. Among the important uses of hierarchical models are the following: tests for the significance of partial correlations, tests for interactions, where the control variable has as many categories as one pleases, tests for higher-order interactions, succinct statements of what is and what is not going on in a contingency table. Since none of these tools have been easily available to the average sociologist, the Goodman system is well worth learning especially because it provides considerable insight into the properties of cross-classifications and the logic of significance tests.

In a recent issue of the journal Review of Religious Research, sociologist Donald N. Anderson presented an attempted replication of a study one of the present authors published in 1962 on the relationship between laymen's participation in ascetic Protestant churches and their political preferences. The present article offers a testable resolution of the discrepancies between Anderson's findings and authors' findings. In addition, it attempts to clarify the distinction between the way Anderson prefers to study religion and the way most sociologists study it. In so doing, a social interaction model of religious influence is presented. This model is shown to afford a better interpretation of the political outlook of Protestants than do certain other models used by students of religious behavior. According to authors, the conclusion of Anderson's paper is devoted to a critique of the way most sociologists conceptualize and measure religion. He rejects what he thinks is their penchant for defining the religious factor as "the residue apparent when such factors as occupation, education, place of birth, etc., have been controlled." Anderson's approach to religion is quite different from the approach of most sociologists.

This article comments on the position papers in the June 1967 issue of Rural Sociology. The author asserts that the papers are a mark of growing maturity of the rural sociology profession. It took years before the state universities and colleges assumed the dominant role of that they have achieved in the development of rural sociology. Contributions of the early sociologists to the applied field are presented to emphasize their historical value.

The article comments on sociologist Nichloas S. Timasheff's work on "Don Luigi Sturzo's Contribution to Sociological Theory." Timasheff makes his points with fine perception and his comments are not only illuminatory of Sturzo's positions but also unflinchingly expose the problems that at points may trouble the reader of Sturzo. Don Sturzo would have received more adequate recognition hut for his tendency to lay down some maxims which antagonized various groups of readers, but which, nevertheless, do not affect the actual course of his sociological arguments or the conclusion to which they lead. The logic of his initial dictum beguiled Sturzo into an occasional concession that is at odds with the tenor of his sociological teachings. Sturzo's sociological contribution is many-sided, but has scarcely entered into the stream of sociological thought. Aside from an appreciative study by Monsignor Paul Hanley Furfey, which, nevertheless, recognizes the primary difficulty the author has been discussing, and the favorable comments of a few other sociologists, he has been ignored as unimportant. Sturzo himself has made it more difficult for sociologists in general to appreciate the scale of his contribution; his polemical attitude towards other sociologists whose views were akin to his own was no doubt also responsible. He was an effective critic but, as Timasheff points out, over inclined to consider other theories only in their more extreme interpretations.

Rural sociologists are concerned about the present status, the crucial issues, and the future of their group. In 1963, the Committee on the Development of Rural Sociology developed a preliminary list of major issues facing rural sociologists. With the approval of the Council, the members of the committee decided to prepare a set of working papers on some of these major issue areas. These papers would attempt to define more clearly the assumptions, dimensions, and issues, to present different points of view, and to suggest alternative definitions or positions and their probable consequences. Thus, it was hoped that the working papers would provide a structure from which more effective discussion would develop.

The article presents the author's views on a criticism of his research on Ideational and Sensate cultures by sociologist Hornell Hart. Since by its very nature ideational culture is all inner and charismatically collective and anonymous, it naturally does not yield as great a number of individual philosophers, thinkers, artists, or as great a number of scientific discoveries and inventions, or as high a standard of sensate living, as sensate culture, mainly external, does. And yet, so far as an absorption in God and in inner values is of great value, so far is Ideational culture one of the most magnificent forms of culture, and possibly uncomfortable as a settled dwelling for most of the sociologists. In addition, besides a great art and literature, the Mediaeval Ideational culture created Christianity, the backbone, the heart and soul, of Western culture, the very condition of the possibility of later Sensate culture itself. The weight of this single creation of Ideational culture is likely to be greater than that of almost all the philosophers, artists, scientific discoveries, and Sensate planes of living given by the critic.

The article presents the author's comments on the works of sociologist Robert F. Winch regarding permanence and change in the American family. The author suggests that there may be two significant aspects of a network of extended kin in a nuclear family. One is the literality of kin contacts and other is the presence or absence of formal kin groupings.

This article serves as a reply to comments made by E.G. Dunning and E.I. Hopper on the author's paper on social stratification in industrial society. Dunning and Hopper state that his paper 'explicitly sets out to explore' the problem of convergence. This, the author is afraid, is to claim too much for it. The author also wants to correct the statement made on the notion of one-way convergence. He wants also to explain that he does not think that American work on the subject of convergence as monolithic. He also explains that claim made that he regards national culture, political ideology and political organization as 'fixed and unalterable constraints on the effects of economic organization and technology'. Dunning and Hopper apparently fail to realise that the argument of Leach's to which they refer can equally be directed against the making of comparisons of a superficial kind. Certainly the existence of `generalised structural patterns' may be masked by differences in their specific manifestations in particular cases; but at the same time it is also implied by Leach's analogy that apparent similarities in social structures may be deceptive and may conceal underlying differences which it is the task of sociological analysis to expose.

The article presents information about various conferences and academic activities in the field of sociology that appeared in the 1965 issue of the "International Journal of Comparative Sociology." The International Association of French-Speaking Sociologists had its Fifth Symposium from September 29 to October 4, 1964. The symposium was held near Quebec, Canada, under the chairmanship of professor Georges Gurvitch. The theme of the symposium was "Social Classes in Present-day Sociology." A series of papers were on social classes in tropical Africa. The Sixtieth Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association was held at Chicago, Illinois, from August 30 to September 2, 1965. One came from this conference of American sociologists, with many Canadians present, a little confused, certainly so if he went with the purpose of taking it all in. For this anonymous reporter the impression was one of bigness, of complexity, and of a great bureaucracy emerging. The Sixth World Congress of Sociology will be held in Evian, France, during September 4 to 11, 1966. Communications by prospective participants are of two types official and individual. Specialists interested in an official presentation are required to contact the president of the working group in which they are interested.

The article presents discussion by various sociologists during the fourth working session of the First World Congress for Rural Sociology held in Dijon, France. Sociologist Antonio M. Arce from Costa Rica briefly commented on Pakistani sociologist A.M. Khan's paper entitled "Impact of changes in agriculture on political life in Asia". These comments refer to three different aspects of the paper and are expected to stimulate discussions from the audience. The paper tries to analyse the dynamic relationship between agricultural development efforts and political ferment in Asia and how this interdependence relates to the residues of Western colonialism and the emergence of Russian and Chinese communism. Another sociologist R. Bičanič from Yugoslavia discussed about the interference of politics in sociology. He also discussed the point dealing with the revival of rural sociology in socialist countries, particularly Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The rural exodus linked with accelerated industrialization has become so intense that agriculture is threatened with a depleted labour force, and this leads to a policy of income parity with industrial workers for agricultural producers also which may have wider political implications.

This article reports on the Fifth World Congress of Sociology organised by the International Sociological Association (ISA), at the Shoreham Hotel, Washington D.C., during 2-8 September, 1962, under the auspices of UNESCO and in collaboration with the American Sociological Association. The meetings brought together 1,030 participants from fifty one countries. Three main themes dealt with were, sociologists, policy-makers and the public, the sociology of development, the nature and problems of sociological theory. Many of the 240 invited contributions and the main papers presented to the plenary sessions are being published in the periodical "Transactions," volumes I and II of which have already appeared. Volumes III and IV will be published during the spring of 1963 and will contain reports on the discussions, a representative selection of the shorter papers and a list of the participants. Grants from the American Council of Learned Societies, the National Science Foundation and the Social Science Research Council enabled the ISA to pay the travel expenses of most of the principal contributors and to offer free charter flight tickets to 80 young research workers from twenty countries.

Although sociologists have long concerned themselves in one way or an- other with conformity, neither they nor psychologists have made systematic paper and pencil studies of conforming behavior. The chief weakness of the paper in any study of behavior is that the symbolized responses of a subject in a test situation may not truly indicate his response in a situation calling for non-symbolized action. This weakness does not render paper and pencil studies worthless, however. In order to determine the cross-sectional consistency of individual conformity, each subject's number of conformity answers out of the twenty-five situations was totaled. Each male individual's score was then placed in his appropriate category for age, community, and occupation, and the arithmetic mean and median computed for each grouping. In the absence of any technique in the present study to parcel out these possible factors, it is assumed for the present that part of the variation in the amount of cross- sectional consistency of conformity responses displayed by individuals of various groupings is due to the effect of prevailing ideologies and conduct norms on individual behavior.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the applicability of Parsonian "pattern-variables" in defining a constructed type. Specification of boundaries or cutting-off points of role relationships in Weber's three types of authority systems, while an intriguing problem, is a project too great in scope for a short paper. Instead, for this preliminary attempt, a social system has been selected in which a few crucial role relationships define its character. It is also a system familiar to sociologists. The setting selected is the educational institution at the university level. The type to be defined, "the seat of learning," is perhaps the most "ideal" of ideal types. A number of other constructed type educational institutions might be isolated, e.g., "marriage markets," "sources of status," "diploma mills," or, perhaps, "campus playgrounds." Sets of role relationships could be specified to define any of these types. For purposes of illustration, however, the definition of one type will be sufficient. Four steps are involved in defining the constructed type: (1) selection of the crucial role pairs; (2) the definition of the chosen role relationships by use of the pattern-variables; (3) measurement of the pattern- variable choices; and (4) establishment of boundary points for the pattern-variables themselves. The fourth step will not be completed in this paper; it is felt that the necessary methodological apparatuses are already available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the author presents various topics published in the Winter 1952-53 issue of the journal "Public Opinion Quarterly." In the first paper published in the issue, Paul F. Lazarsfeld expresses the hope of American sociologists that international communications research can help to fill certain methodological and substantive gaps which have not yet been successfully bridged in the domestic sphere. He stresses particularly the opportunities open in this new field for bringing social researchers and policy makers closer together in their endeavors in the area of social progress. The reader may look at this paper as an expression of mature speculation about the opportunities, hopes, and dangers in the new field. In the next two sections, the author moves into the work-a-day realm, encountering the people who, in spite of all the handicaps of an ill-defined field, unproven methods, and shortage of trained personnel, have gone ahead and contributed substantively to international communications research. In the section on "Techniques" some very pertinent problems of methodology are frankly stated. The issue is concluded by a short report on the first meeting of the Committee on International Communications Research, which took place during the last annual convention of the American Association for Public Opinion Research.

In sociology today, as in other sciences, the professional journals serve as major channels for the dissemination of ideas and information. The papers presented in the principal periodicals reach a wide audience among sociologists, are acknowledged as the best work, and stand as models for all who aspire to success. The present writers have selected for analysis a sample of contributions to two prestigious journals, the "American Sociological Review" and the "American Journal of Sociology." Included in this survey are the 202 articles published in the two periodicals during 1965 and 1966, and the 200 papers published in 1940 and 1941. The term "substantive research" is employed to refer both to studies presenting empirical data on social phenomena and to papers reviewing past research or proposing new direct lions for inquiry. Classed under methodology are all, articles dealing with the basic assumptions of science, with the limitations and potentialities of specific methods, with the development, validity, and reliability of specific scales and measures, and with various statistical and mathematical devices and techniques.

This article presents the Report of the Editor of the journal "American Sociological Review." The growth of the Review has taken place during a period when several other journals to which many sociologists contribute have become established, apparently the Review is holding its own. The relatively large number of books reviewed during 1960, the only "deviant" figure in the table, may suggest the desirability of greater selectivity than that of the present editors, who have viewed numerous marginal works as appropriate grist for the sociologist's mill. During this period, approximately 1,050 papers will have been evaluated, and except in a very few cases each manuscript has been read by at least two referees. There have been no important editorial innovations since last year's report, but certain developments may be noted. More papers by foreign authors have been received, articles by sociologists in England, Poland, and Israel already have been published, and scholars from many nations have been encouraged to submit such papers.

The article presents information about the journal "Sociological Focus." For the last 32 years the official publication of the Ohio Valley Sociological Society has been the "Ohio Valley Sociologist," which primarily carried news and notes of interest to sociologists in the region. In the last few years the membership has become aware of a need for a modified format for the Sociologist. This has been manifest in the increasing publication of occasional papers including the presidential addresses and the winning papers from the student competition. In 1967 the society's members voted to expand the function of the sociologist so that greater space would be devoted to the publication of scholarly papers while maintaining the usual information service. In line with this new emphasis the title and the format of the journal have been changed. The papers in this issue deal with the sociology of academia and higher education. The winter issue will be a special issue on the sociology of mental health, the spring issue will deal with political sociology, and a future number will be devoted to papers on the sociology of religion.

Presents a letter to the editor on the anonymity rule adopted by the editors of the American Sociologists Journal.

This paper examines research on the diffusion of innovation, the final stage in the process of technological change. The focus rests primarily on two traditions in diffusion research: that of economists and that of sociologists. Diffusion researchers in these and related disciplines have made significant contributions to the understanding of the dynamics of processes of change; yet the state of the art in diffusion research is not equal to the sum of its parts. This is due in large measure to disciplinary parochialism: scholars have concentrated on those innovations, diffusion environments, explanatory variables, and analytical methodologies which are most compatible with their particular disciplines, despite the fact that diffusion is not a discipline-specific phenomenon. Deficiencies in current understanding of diffusion are examined in the context of this and other significant problems. The paper concludes by considering the policy relevance of diffusion research and suggesting issues with which future research might productively be concerned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on dogmatic trends in marxist sociology. In this paper marxist sociology will be discussed. First the article tries to demonstrate that certain theses of marxist sociologists have the consequence that a critique of marxist sociology becomes impossible. Second, the paper tries to show some difficulties of such a dogmatization. The starting point is the book "Historischer Materialismus und marxistische Soziologie," by Erich Hahn. This seems legitimate because Hahn proposes theses which are widely accepted by German-speaking marxist sociologists. Thus, Hahn's book represents at least one influential branch of marxist sociology. The discussion implies in no way that there are no strategies to immunize theories against critique in nonmarxist sociology; rather the contrary is correct. The exact kind of relation between marxist sociology and historical materialism, however, remains unclear. There may be a logical relation between marxist sociology and historical materialism, i.e. marxist sociology is a system of sentences which can be deduced from another system of sentences. Because a confrontation of marxist and nonmarxist theories is a certain kind of criticism, it follows that marxist and nonmarxist theories should be confronted and thus may be parts of explanations.

The article presents comments of professor Benjamin Nelson on essays which discussed his paper "Civilizational Complexes and Inter-Civilizational Encounters." He states that Jerome Gittleman senses his stress on case studies of intercivilizational encounters is derived from a conviction that the indirect study of civilizational patterns offers more reliable procedures for getting at varying mixes of civilizations. He thanks Edward Tiryakian for setting out issues on contemporary sociologists.

Information about the Fifth Symposium of the International Association of French-speaking Sociologists held in Quebec, Canada from September 29 to October 4, 1964 is presented. The symposium, chaired by Georges Gurvitch, initially tackled the social classes in Africa and the inequalities that the people in the region experienced. Another paper discussed about the social categories in Arab countries before the popularization of Marxist ideas.

This article appraises the book ""Atomic Power Development." Law and Contemporary Problems." This is a symposium by ten authors, each of whom is interested in some legal or social science aspect of nuclear energy. The separate contributions are diverse, ranging over the basic technical situation, the role of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, democratic control, public investment, public power, patent aspects, the role of the states, and foreign policy, all in relation to atomic power development. Despite this diversity, there is inevitably a considerable overlap of discussion in related articles. There is also substantial agreement on the technical and social facts but, as might be expected, the interpretation of these facts is not uniform and reflects variations in the authors' separate viewpoints. Sociologists will find the volume under review somewhat apart from their usual professional interests. Nevertheless, there is much basic material here for students of social change and of the impact of innovation on social structures.

The article presents the autobiography of the sociologist Jan Szczepanski on the tribulations of a Polish sociologist. He started to study philosophy and sociology in 1932 at the University of Poznan, Poland, under Florian Znaniecki. He received the M.A. degree on the basis of a paper on the semantics of Husserl, and the Ph.D. degree on the basis of a dissertation entitled "The Idea of the Milieu in Rural Sociology," written under the direction of Professor Znaniecki in 1939. Both these works, prepared for printing in 1939, were lost during the war and have never been published, only several articles appearing at that time. He brought with him from his home an interest in rural sociology. His father possessed a small farm in the mountain locality of Ustron in Silesia. Work on this farm was therefore his first experience of any social importance. Sociology in Poland was quickly reconstructed. During the first post-war years the author wrote two textbooks, "Development of the Methods of Sociology" and "History of Social Thought in the Nineteenth Century." However, after the turn towards Stalinism, the publication of the manuscripts proved impossible. Instead he published many papers, and wrote in the weeklies, taking part directly in political discussions and polemics.

The article presents news and information from the Department of Social Anthropology, Karnatak University, Dharwar, India. Senor Roberto Etchepareborda, the Argentinian Ambassador to India, on October 18, 1963, read a paper on the Gaucho literature of Argentina. Some excerpts of the paper are as follows. The paper reads that under Spanish rule, Argentina was undivided, and on the broad pampas roamed unnumbered wild horses and cattle, descendants of those brought over by the early settlers. These were the greatest source of wealth and gave rise to a body of fearless riders called Gauchos that made business of hunting wild cattle for their hides and tallow or driving them to "estancias" to be branded and gentled. Gauchos were the backbone of the armies. They fought the Portuguese invaders in 1771 and helped in 1807 to retake Buenos Aires from the British. A list of the visitors to the University has been provided. An acknowledgement from the editor to sociologists who helped in the preparation of notes and news section, has also been given.

The concept of role differentiation has been used by sociologists to explain a wide variety of social phenomena. Most who have used the concept have assumed that task and social roles are incompatible. The present paper clarifies the conceit of role differentiation and re-evaluates some of the basic evidence. Neither the data originally published by Bales nor data from a number of more recent studies strongly support the proposition that task and social roles are incompatible. The paper also comments on some recently proposed methods for measuring role differentiation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociologists in general, and medical sociologists in particular, are committed to the pro position that the stratification system within an organization is a consequential feature affecting task performance. Studies which actually demonstrate such consequences, however, are rare. This is the first c/two papers which demonstrate that differentially stratified hospital units vary in their performance of medical tasks. The two papers involve the measurement of performance from three standard perspectives: the objective (based on medical records); the reputational (based on superiors' ratings of the interne); and the subjective (reports by internes on their own behavior). The present paper deals with the latter two kinds of evidence. The data indicate that, from the standpoint of both the interne's report and the ratings assigned to him by his medical superiors, stratification is related to medical performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sense of the need for refinement and respecification of a concept found to be unwieldy as an analytical tool is not an uncommon experience of the sociologist. The concept "rural" is one of those whose usefulness would be enhanced by some refinement. Re-examination of the work of human ecologists and rural sociologists may permit description of population dispersion in such a way as to contribute to more precise specification of the concept rural and to make some progress toward the development of a more useful rural conceptual scheme. This paper proposes to approach a more specific definition of rurality by considering "rural" and the ecological concept "hinterland" together. The basic hypothesis of this paper is that the moral order in the raw-materials-producing areas of high land-to-man ratios is dynamic and not static but it continues to be a distinctive order. Logical argument and empirical evidence in support of this hypothesis will seek to establish a three-way classification of population such as Metropolitan areas, Urban Hinterland and Rural Hinterland. These concepts, if adequately defined, would serve as replacement for the commonly used rural-urban dichotomy which has limited usefulness in the analysis of population differences.

This article presents correspondence between two sociologists. One of the sociologists says to the other that the "Sociologie von Heute" came to hand the other day and he was delighted to see it and to note its neat and attractive appearance. Print and paper leave nothing to be desired and the translation seems smooth. It is certainly a great thing to have such generous praise of the article "Social Control" appearing in German. The sociologist says he was much interested in the other sociologist's standing. He was much interested in what the other sociologist said in his last letter regarding the possibility of a German translation of pure sociology. He says with the book in French and in German, the other sociologist's ideas would make their way to all the eminent intellects among the civilized peoples and his high position in sociology would be universally acknowledged. He says that he will not get anything published in the March issue of the "American Sociological Review." He says in February, he worked out a 2500 word article on population for the "Encyclopedia Americana."

The author says that the typical country weekly of New England, in addition to its personal journalism, its boiler plate fillers, its articles on extraordinary or exciting local events, is a series of chatty confidences about the town's everyday living. Its few pages are packed with columns headed "Local Items" or "Personals" or "People We Know." The presence of these items has been the sine qua non of such journals since their inception in the mid-nineteenth century. They seem to possess some element which resists innovation. Yet, the country newspaper, consistent and detailed register though it may be, has been given very little consideration as a possible source for sociological research. Rural sociologists have, to be sure, made some use of the point of view of social control. A departure from this tradition, then, the investigator who would claim that logical source of the first importance. It is interesting to note that this estimate of the country weekly is not confined to those who have observed it from the theoretical standpoint with the idea of forming a general opinion.

This article presents information on the activities of various sociological organizations and departments of sociology in universities in the U.S. "Rural Sociology," a new journal to be published quarterly, is being established this year by the Section on Rural Sociology of the American Sociological Society. The managing editor of this journal, which is to be published by The Louisiana State University Press, is T. Lynn Smith of Louisiana State University. The annual meeting of the Eastern Sociological Conference will be held on April 18 and 19 in New Haven, Connecticut. The central topic of the Conference will be Social Theory and the Social Order. The annual Spring meeting of the Ohio Sociological Society will be held in Columbus, Ohio, April 24 and 25, 1936. The Pacific Sociological Society held its Seventh Conference, together with Coast Economists, at Mills College in Oakland, California, December 27-28. In September 1935, E. D. Tetreau, formerly analyst with the Federal Emergency Relief Administration and Associate Professor of Rural Sociology at Ohio State University, accepted a position at the University of Arizona as rural sociologist on The Experiment Station staff.

The article author comments on a paper presented by sociologist Pitirim A. Sorokin, on the possibility of accurate social planning. One serious difficulty with the paper is that he Sorokin confuses "social planning" with "social prediction." These two concepts are fundamentally different, close to being practically opposite. Social prediction assumes the operation of constant social forces which produce consistent and continuous results, representing unbroken sequences in such a way that the future can be known from the past. Social planning, on the contrary, assumes the special interposition in social relations of human will and purpose, in order to deflect or divert social movement in such a way that the future may not only be different from the past, but different in ways specifically visualized in advance. Another distinction which Sorokin fails to make clear is that between "social planning" and "societal planning." It seems to the author that there can be no reasonable disagreement as to the possibility of social planning.

Research on communities often fails to meet two important criteria which permit valid generalizations from the findings. First, studies generally fail to apply the scientific comparative approach and the techniques of multivariate analysis in their design and execution. Second, theory fails to distinguish between properties of communities and properties which are properly classified in other systems. Sociologists who study communities do not share a precise definition of community, nor do they agree how observations about community phenomena are to be incorporated into sociological theory. The discussion that follows will be facilitated, however, if one can make reasonably clear the sense in which this paper deals with the sociological study of community. Community is viewed in this paper as a territorial system. The more comprehensive territorial definitions of community view it as a form of social or ecological organization arising from the fact that people share a common area for their daily activities.

Rural sociologists, for a long time now, have doubted whether their discipline really existed. In the developed countries, the agricultural population has shrunk, so that nowadays it may account for as little as 4 percent of the total gainfully employed population; it has also gradually become more difficult, and even impossible, to put one's finger on the differences between rural and urban. These changes have affected rural sociologists in various ways. Some have left the field altogether. Others have turned their attention to new problems that occur in the countryside, problems that are mostly related to the uses made of open space and natural resources. They have specialized in the sociology of recreation, the sociology of environmental problems, or in regional planning. According to the author, the discipline has not only lost the wholeness it may once have had, but also that the specializations themselves are often marked by the lack of a holistic outlook. It is as if rural sociologists have lost sight of the fact that, whatever phenomenon they study, it is embedded in a context as wide as a total society, and even wider.

The article presents a discussion on values in family research. Professor Donald O. Cowgill has attempted to explore the influence of an individual's values upon the selection of a research problem, his research design, the presentation of data and his findings or conclusions. He has done this by a rather extensive examination of literature dealing with migration ranging from the sociologist to the novelist. By and large he exonerates the sociologist, particularly the contemporary sociologist, from this type of bias, although this may actually be an example of the influence of an individual's values or value judgments. it is really impossible to do justice to Cowgill's paper both because of its length and its exhaustive citation of sources. The author believes that two points are pertinent. First, is it ever possible to reduce the question of migration to such simple terms as "Is migration good or bad ?" The second point is the influence of social change on attitudes toward migration. The author holds that research does depend upon the personal predilections of the researcher, but increasingly larger projects seem to depend as much, if indeed not considerably more, upon the value judgments of large foundations which furnish research money.

The article focuses on the author's comment on sociologists Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore's paper "Some Principles of Stratification." According to the author, the paper offers some important point but that the argument they advance is contradictory in certain of its implications and therefore defective. The source of the difficulty is to be found in one of the premises of their argument. To state it most simply, the premise asserts, "people desire rewards." This assertion is incontestable, but it is not adequately qualified in their argument. The author shows in the first part of this article how their argument, containing this premise, leads to contradictory implications. Then, in the second part of this article, the author attempts to provide qualifications which he believes will allow Davis and Moore's argument to avoid contradictions and thus give it greater force.

The article focuses on the sociology in and of China. In the general history of social sciences it is assumed that the marriage between sociology and anthropology comes late, having been preceded by a long courtship. China does not fit this pattern. Almost as soon as social sciences were established there anthropology and sociology were intertwined, to be disentangled in a strange way when Communists arrived. To avoid a tedious recitation of evidence just one witness is called upon, a scholar whose later career in the U.S. makes his testimony underline the Chinese paradox. Writing in China in 1944 Francis L.K. Hsu has said in this paper that the word sociology is used synonymously with the term social anthropology. It is customary to date the beginning of sociology in China by the publication of Yen Fu's translation of two chapters of "The Study of Sociology" in 1898. Later a few original works were produced in Chinese and courses of instruction were introduced in universities, it was not until about the 1920s that sociological investigations of any great weight began to be made.

This article discusses changing patterns of rural organization. There are many different approaches possible for a summary of a congress. The first design which will be used is to study a general hypothesis based on the sociologist R.K. Merton's comparison between European and American research technique in the sociology of knowledge. It seems as if one of the most important tasks in science is to study repeatedly the reliability and the validity of the empirical findings, in order to construct a coherent theoretical building. This means that the same hypothesis has to be tested several times at different places and at different points of time. It might be a very stimulating task for the European Society for Rural Sociology to further such a cumulative work. There has not either been very much discussion of how to study the consequences of a change. Especially the nonintended consequences are of great interest for a rural sociologist and have great practical importance. A final aspect in connection with change is the study of social processes. The necessity of analyzing the socio-cultural linkage has already been emphasized.

This section presents news of sociological interest in the U.S. as of October 1958. The Reverend Joseph H. Fichter, presented a paper on "The City Curate as a Career Man" at the convention of the American Sociological Society held August 27 to 29 in Seattle, Washington. "Parochial School: A Sociological Study," a report of Father Fichter's research while a visiting professor at Notre Dame, will be published this fall by the University of Notre Dame Press. The Reverend Donald R. Campion, S.J., since June 28 assistant editor of "America," addressed the Fourth Annual Institute of Philosophy at Mount Saint Agnes College, Baltimore, June 23, on "The Sociologist and His Work," as part of a week's discussion of "Social Dimensions of the Disciplines." "An Empirical Study of the Relationship of Occupational Mobility to Fertility" by Dr. Hugh E. Brooks of Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania, and "An Empirical Study of the Relationship of Catholic Practice and Fertility" by Doctor Franklin J. Henry of John Carroll University, Cleveland, appeared in the July issue of the "Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly."

An unusual type of paper is under the title "The Need for Asylum Reform." That title expresses the purpose that moved sociologist H.S. Liveing to write the paper and seek publicity for it. But the proper channels for such publicity were found to be closed. In printing here the larger part of Mrs. Liveing's paper, authors may possibly hope for some slight effect on the movement towards Asylum Reform. But for the sociologist, experiences, such as are here offered, have a theoretical value, as "pointer facts." These mental observations bear significantly on those problems of inner disharmonies, or "endo-psychic conflicts," which have been brought to the front, and are being pressed home by the psychoanalytic school. The suggestion is that the sociologist should read Liveing's paper as evidence of certain environmental factors apt to be minimized, or even overlooked, in a purely psychological analysis of mental disintegration. Accepting the psychoanalysis' account of inner conflict as failure of the mind to integrate its own experience of life, the sociologist pleads for a fuller social analysis of the milieu, which makes up and constitutes the external half of the inner process. In particular he demands a fuller investigation, and heavier weighting, of the part played by the distracting urban milieu in maintaining, aggravating, and even originating, the mental conflicts which psychological abstraction is perhaps too much disposed to trace backwards into infantile impressions within the family circle.

This article focuses on the writings of John S. Stuart-Glennie, a famous historian and sociologist. Stuart-Glennie was educated at the Grammar School and the University of Aberdeen and at the University of Bonn. After graduating, he traveled widely in Europe and America, was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple, and practised in the court of his kinsman, the Vice-Chancellor Sir John Stuart. A nearer way of understanding his work and aims is by taking some of his early books and papers. Of these one of the earliest, his "Arthurian Scotland: Topographical and Traditional Evidences of the Historical Origin of Arthurian Romance"-though often little considered by the specialists in Arthurian romance, owes this neglect not a little to their deficiency on the side on which he was so strong-the side, namely, of concrete geographical research, of utilization and interpretation of the local traditions. Another interesting presentment of his work, is afforded by such a paper as his "Roman Origins and History," in the Proceedings of the British and American Archaeological Society of Rome, 1907.

The article presents various letters of sociologist Albion W. Small to his associate Lester F. Ward on the present state of sociology, and on the role that sociologists were playing in this earlier period. In one of the letter, Small suggests Ward that they would better reprint their 4th lecture from the journal "American Anthropologist." Small has quoted that they have reached a time in which it is scientific strategy to deal in a very elementary way with some rudimentary principles. In an another letter, Small suggests that their article on Anthropology should be omitted, on the ground that it had already been published. In one of the letter, Small assures Ward that he has received his papers and has left orders for the title to be arranged according to Ward's suggestion, viz., "Contributions to Social Philosophy." Ward adds that he has also ordered the Chapter-title for their second paper "Sociology and Cosmology," to be put on the cover of the journal but the full title to be put on cover of reprints.

The central theme of this paper is that the role of the sociologist in theological education and in religious research is inextricably related to the type of cognitive structure that informs conception of the nature of sociology and of its relationship to other sciences. The manner in which this issue is resolved will commit the sociologist to some philosophic or theological tradition, either explicitly or by implication. Dominant cognitive structures extant in current American sociological discussions are informed primarily by the atomistic heritage of the famous Greek philosopher Democritus in classical Greek philosophy, or by the skeptical tradition in the heritage of the Greek Sophist or by some combination of the two. The Problem of the relationship between theology and sociology considered formally, four approaches to the relationship between theology and sociology are possible. Two of the approaches will make distinctions between various disciplines and two will argue for a basic unity of the sciences, although one of the latter will usually distinguish between science and an area of nonscience, in which theology would find its place.

Sociologists have given insufficient attention to the influence of structural properties on the process of socialization. This paper sets forth a set of typologies which is expected to place limits on, but not necessarily determine, the behavioral alternatives within socialization systems. The outline can be used as a heuristic device for comparative analysis of socialization research and for the design and evaluation of socialization programs. Three aspects of the structure of socialization systems are discussed--the novice-agent relationship, the setting, and the target roles. Novice-agent relationships are characterized by four dimensions: 1) specification, 2) relative anomie, 3) incumbency of the target role, and 4) role repetition. Variations in types of setting are: 1) formality of setting, 2) individual or group socialization, 3) serial and disjunctive socialization. Target roles may vary along six dimensions: 1) voluntary, involuntary or semi-voluntary entrance, 2) time boundaries of roles, 3) valuation of roles, 4) socialization into social group or social category, 5) degree of institutionalization of roles, and 6) relation of role to novice's identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]