Search

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.

This paper responds to Nick Gane's "Against a descriptive turn". I argue that descriptive research strategies are more open and inclusive than those which purport to be causal where explanatory adequacy is assessed by expert insiders. I also show how open descriptive strategies can assist a wider explanatory purpose when these are conceived in non‐positivist ways. I argue that epochalist sociology lacks an adequate temporal ontology because it collapses descriptive specificity back into overarching epoch descriptions. Finally, I argue that if the entire range of publications associated with the Great British Class Survey are considered, that it has demonstrated a productive way of recognising the significance of class which has facilitated major research advances in its wake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The sudden emergence of the discipline 'neuroethics' is an intriguing event from the perspective of the sociologies of medicine, science and bioethics. Despite calls for greater social science engagement with neuroethics, it has so far received little attention. So that sociologists might consider how to engage with the field, and in order to simultaneously contribute towards a sociology of neuroethics, this paper explores neuroethics' disciplinary identity via a critical analysis of literature defining neuroethics' scope and role. Drawing on the sociologies of bioethics and expectations, I argue that in setting the neuroethical agenda, neuroethicists construct expectations about the future of neuroscience. In doing so, they align themselves with neuroscience, rather than maintaining a critical distance. Similar critiques have been made of bioethics, but in its efforts to distinguish itself from bioethics, neuroethics appears to exacerbate many of the attributes which sociologists have found problematic. This reinforces the need for critical social science perspectives to inform neuroethics, and also shows how neuroethics is potentially an interesting area of empirical study for sociology. However, the paper concludes by calling for critical reflexivity in sociology's engagement with neuroethics, in light of recent debates surrounding the relationship between social science, bioethics, bioscience and expectations. [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.

The article presents author's reply to sociologist John Lovering comments on the paper on flexible production organization and regional development. Lovering does not dispute the internal logic of the analysis of the relationship between market uncertainty and vertical disintegration. He merely asserts that firms are complex phenomena and might respond in ways different from those that author proposed depending on context and that the author's analysis is of necessity closed to these alternative possibilities. The claim that wider social and political influences are banished from author's analysis by ceteris paribus assumptions is incorrect. Lovering criticizes the work for its presumed insensitivity to the contingencies of real empirical outcomes.

The article comments on R.E. Pahl's paper on the adequacy of theory in urban and regional research. The paper displays all the characteristics usually associated with that particular mode of argumentation. Sweeping charges are leveled against targets who are never clearly identified. All of the substantive propositions are asserted rather than demonstrated. Many of his detailed allegations are actually open to empirical test although most of the evidence known contradicts Pahl's conclusions. His account of class analysis is alternately misleading and fanciful. And finally, the paper is impenetrably vague about what, if anything, provides a more satisfactory alternative.

Conferences play a pivotal role in the production and circulation of knowledge and in shaping and establishing academic and professional disciplines. As collective events, they facilitate intense moments of interaction where scientific and medical knowledge can be observed in the making. This paper calls attention to conferences as fascinating sites for sociologists of science, technology and medicine. By bringing together authors who look at conferences from different areas within the social sciences and using a variety of data gathering methods, this paper provides a comprehensive introduction to the field of conference studies and hopes to inspire greater reflection about the nature of conferences and their potential within research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article traces the career of the concept scientific community through three discernible stages. The formative stages is presented by Ludwik Fleck's Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. It was learned that one of the early expositions of the theme that scientific knowledge is socially conditioned, Fleck's work revolves around the correlative concepts of thought collective and thought style. Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, was discussed. Stage three in the career of the concept scientific community is marked by criticism and the development of alternative models. During the 1960s and 70s, the view prevailed among metascientists that scientific knowledge is produced by communities of specialists. In the works of leading contemporary philosophers of science, as in many historical studies, the existence of scientific communities was assumed without question or argument. Kuhn's paper represents a watershed in the histories of both the concept itself and the entire discipline of sociology of science. Social integration in science was considered a result of a consensus about strategic norms or standards. Findings on the examination of the concept scientific community through the related works of Kuhn and Fleck, the Polish scientist and scientist knowledge, was presented.

The article comments on R.E. Pahl's paper on the use of class theory in urban and regional research. The title of Pahl's paper refers to the adequacy of sociological theory in urban and regional research, the paper is usually a critical discussion of the adequacy of social class as an explanatory concept. More specifically, it is a criticism of an approach within sociology which first takes the employment structure to represent classes and then proceeds to derive explanations and interpretations of social behavior from this class structure. Some of his criticisms of some aspects of class analysis are valid, they do not justify the rejection of class analysis in its entirety. An extensive range of topics and different approaches are encompassed within sociological discussions of social class and Pahl's discussion does not always make clear which aspect he is concerned to reject. Pahl may have criticized class analysis for failing to specify the links in the chain, but there are some very important missing links in his own argument.

This article presents two reports on the Eleventh World Congress of Sociology, that was organized in New Delhi in August 1986. If there is any unity across cultures among sociologists or others working in this field, it is provided neither by shared theories or concepts, nor by a common choice of topic studied, except in a very loose sense. Rather the international research community in our field is sustained through the sharing of a general perspective on society, a methodology and a more or less common Marxist-leftist political attitude. Political attitude is at least as important as the other two features, and is perhaps the key to a characterization of the events at the Delhi conference. The attitude of socio-political concern and engagement seems to be most productive in research terms when it is a counter-strategy, working in opposition to the dominant economic-political tendencies of a given society. This position was largely absent from the first world research reported. On the other hand, the moment it either becomes part of the political power structure or finds itself paralleling the efforts of the dominating parts it formerly saw as opponents, it faces a crisis. Such positions characterized the first and second world research presented.

The article provides an overview of comments made by sociologists on sociologist R.E. Pahl's paper "Is the Emperor Naked? Some Questions on the Adequacy of Sociological Theory in Urban and Regional Research," published in the December 1989 issue of the journal "International Journal of Urban and Regional Research." The paper undertook a critique of the use of class theory in urban and regional research. The assumption was that those working in the latter field were prone to making simplistic analyses since they were not aware of debates going on in sociology.

'Why be quantitative?' Harold D. Lasswell asked that question several decades ago. His answer was: to take advantage of the rigor and precision that comes with quantification. Since then, quantification has spread across social science disciplines, putting qualitative approaches on the defensive. This paper examines the practices of quantitative sociologists m their study of historical processes. Much ritualism is found in those practices; much rhetoric m quantification. Alas, Lasswell's good intentions seem to have gone lost m a ritual called 'hypothesis testing.' The author reflects critically upon his own practices and on the forms of quantification and the strategies of explanations that he has adopted, [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The fact is that the lower classes are not more likely than the middle class to have a disease or condition but they do react more violently to it and are more concerned about it. Nonetheless, neither sociologists nor public health researchers have for the most part taken proper note of the split between getting sick and reacting to it. For example in a recent general review of chronic illness the author does not even mentions his own study which shows no relationship between class and the prevalence of illness. Rather, he shows that some few chronic illnesses diagnosed in hospitals are related to living in lower class neighborhoods. Yet, he avoids making an overall statement about chronic illness and social class. There are obviously sonic problems here in the sociology of Sociology. First, there is a serious problem in the interpretation of tables which is caused by a lack of satisfactory non-parametric measures of association and analyses of variance. Second, there is a fallacy of forgetting why it is thought that social class was related to illness in the first place. The present paper concludes that social factors are important in the experience of ill health, although not in the gross fashion that had been imagined.

Processes of perception and thought are such that anyone who reads a book is necessarily selective in absorbing the author's meaning. What one reader thinks the author was saying may not coincide with what the author intended to say nor with another reader's perception of what the author meant. The first time the author read Robert M. Maclver's book "Social Causation" the parts which most caught his attention made the book seem at best a weak defense of the Verstehende approach in sociology or at worst a thoroughly animistic and anti-scientific treatise. This article, demonstrates the MacIver's book, like some of the works of other sociologists, explains a need of innovation in the basic concepts of sociology. Although Maclver will be cited more often than any other author. This paper is not intended as mere exegesis of one man's thoughts. Maclver is taken as a specimen, more or less representative of others. The interpretations offered in this article are intended to apply to sociology rather than to just this particular sociologist.

'Abd al‐Rahman Ibn Khaldun (1332‐1406), the founder of the science of society, became known to modern sociologists during the formative period of sociology, that is, the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. There was something of a reception of Ibn Khaldun in Europe at that time by sociologists and other scholars who were not necessarily involved with Islamic or West Asian studies. In fact, the reception of Ibn Khaldun by modern scholars in the West can be differentiated into Eurocentric or Orientalist as opposed to more disciplinary attitudes. While much has been said about the Eurocentric reception of Ibn Khaldun, less is discussed about the disciplinary approach to Ibn Khaldun among thinkers who wrote when the modern science of sociology was emerging in Europe. This special issue on Ibn Khaldun in the Formative Period of Sociology provides English translations of six articles originally written in Italian, French, German, Polish, Spanish and Turkish between 1896 and 1934. Not all of these articles were written by sociologists. Together, they provide some background as to how Ibn Khaldun was conceived of in non‐area studies circles, in the social sciences and humanities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is an attempt to evaluate the contribution of the late Erving Goffman to the field of Sociology. In doing so I have attempted to document some of the main commentaries upon Coffman's work — especially those of A. Dawe and A.W. Gouldner — and to evaluate their validity. This paper is presented within the framework of a general overview of Goffman's work and an elaboration of some of the salient themes within it. The intention of the author is to free Goffman from some of the crude overgeneralizations that his colleagues have used in evaluating his writings. In particular, I have attempted to show, in general terms, how Goffman's work is sensitive to ‘structural’ as well as ‘situational’ concerns and also to class, hierarchy and power. It is argued that Goffman's importance has been underestimated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Upon his death in 1920, at the age of 56, sociologist Max Weber left behind a huge and untidy mass of personal papers and scholarly manuscripts, some of the latter in the process of being edited for publication by Weber himself, others intended for intensive reworking, others yet superseded drafts. The intended characteristics of the book "Max Weber Gesamtausgabe," in the first of the publications listed below: they are those of a critical-historical edition, intended not to replace the several collections of Weber's writings currently available for the use of students, but rather to serve the needs of scholars, including the editors of such future collections. The edition is to include three sections: Writings and Speeches; Manuscripts of and notes from lecture courses. In the first section, the arrangement of material will embody a compromise between chronological and thematic grouping; that is, the numbering of volumes will reflect the shifts in the prevailing concerns of Weber's scholarly and publicistic activity, but each volume may contain again, in chronological sequence writings and speeches. From a number of years in so far as they bear on its chief theme. Each volume will contain editorial material which elucidates the circumstances of each piece of writing or speech, indicates the state of the relative sources and eventual discrepancies among them, and clarifies or corrects such parts or points in the text as might baffle or mislead even a relatively informed contemporary reader.

The author tries to show how sociology's failure to make the kind of progress characteristic of natural sciences, such as physics, is a result in part of differences in the type of phenomena studied and the fact that sociologists are more likely than physicists to use noncognitive criteria in selecting both their research problems and the solutions to those problems. In this article, the author says sociologists are more likely to use noncognitive criteria in selecting both problems and solutions to the problems, in part because they participate in the phenomena that they study. He sees one of the reasons why sociologists can not develop general laws as the rapid change in the social phenomena they study. A theory of gender inequality that may have been correct in the 1960s is not correct today because the phenomenon has changed. According to the author, another social scientist misportrays the natural sciences as having more consensus on terms and concepts than they actually do at the research frontier.

Recent discussions in the philosophy of the social sciences exhibit a remarkable agreement about what has become one of the most urgent problems for sociological methodology. The situation may be summarized thus: ethnomethodological developments in interpretative sociology have shown that there can be no firm and certain basis on which to ground truth claims for our propositions. The conclusion drawn from this is that the traditional aspirations of conventional sociology — to be objective and scientific — cannot be attained. However, the programme of work promised by those who have developed ethnomethodology as a critique of ‘conventional sociology’ itself contains certain difficulties. Thus, the problem addressed by those writing in the philosophy of social science is this: given the contradictions in sociology as traditionally practiced, and given the problems in the programme offered by those largely responsible for discrediting it, whither sociology now? The purpose of my paper is to show that the question may be unnecessary. This is not so much because interpretative sociologists are mistaken in their understanding of the conditions in which research is undertaken, but rather because the positivist epistemological assumptions taken to be necessary for an objective scientific sociology, are not required for this and indeed are erroneous. I shall argue specifically that a Popperian account of (objective) science is wholly compatible with the understanding contemporary interpretative sociologists have of the research context, and indeed that there are striking similarities between this and Popper's ideas, most especially those developed in recent years. Thus, I shall go on to suggest that, by adopting a Popperian epistemology we may thereby recognize the validity of the fundamentals of the ethnomethodological position without being forced to abandon the effort to be objective and scientific; we may also sidestep the particular dif... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The challenge to the principle of causality in other disciplines has been taken over by some sociologists, who have criticized its utility for sociological inquiry and who suggest in some instances that the term should be dropped from the sociological lexicon. The critiques are grounded in four somewhat overlapping perspectives: the positivist, the statistical, the interactionist, and the conceptualist. A formulation of what constitutes causality is presented, which takes account of these critiques and which also attempts to preserve continuity with past definitions. The basic elements are ontological status, productivity, conditionality, uniformity, and asymmetry. The importance of this subject, why the notion should be retained by sociologists, and the difference that this formulation makes are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This issue of "Sociological Inquiry" presents a new and rather exciting feature which I believe will be of great interest to the readers of this journal. They are, for the first time, publishing the winning paper of the Alpha Kappa Delta (AKD) undergraduate paper competition. The editorial advisory board strongly recommended publishing the winning paper as "Sociological Inquiry" is, after all, the official journal of AKD, the international sociology honorary society. They also know that many of their subscribers are students. The editor hope that they enjoy this rather unique look at an aspect of human society that has been virtually untouched by sociologists. As they read this article, he hope also that they come away with a sense of satisfaction with knowing that the next generation of sociologists is being well trained in their discipline. Recognizing that much of this behavior has little to do with intended suicide, and cannot necessarily be linked to other pathologies, Sarah Hodgson interviews individuals who engage in this type of self mutilation through online chat rooms. Her analysis reveals several layers of learning that take place, as well as numerous mechanisms that are employed to maintain their credibility in a society that otherwise stigmatizes such behavior.

The article presents information on the content of the papers published in the 1943 issue of the "American Journal of Economics & Sociology." The authors represented in the volume turned out studies many of which added bricks or courses to the temple of learning, and some of which realized, however imperfectly. The journal's goal of co-operation among the various social sciences and related disciplines in the interest of a rational social and economic organization. The journal is more than a 576 pages of progress reports on scientific studies. These reports are made by men and women whose labors, out of personal interest and social responsibility, produced them in spite of the war's added teaching and administrative burdens or despite their contributions toward democratic victory in other roles. The news reports which give indications that some few of these studies already have had influence on informed opinion and public policy in the U.S. are an augury of the possibilities open to the scholar who grapples intelligently with the problems.

A reprint of the article "The Importance of Being Erving--Erving Goffman 1922 to 1982" which appeared in Volume 5, Issue 3 of "Sociology of Health & Illness" is presented. It discusses the career and contributions of sociologist and author Erving Goffman to the field of sociology. It describes the peculiarities of Goffman, his view of the social sciences and attitude towards data.

The purpose of this article is to reconsider partnership and parenthood in post-transitional societies from the viewpoint of sociology. As is well known, after the end of the Baby Boom, albeit with variations in the tempo and the level, a considerable decline in fertility has occurred in industrialized countries. Furthermore, this decline has occurred in tandem with the transformation of partnership such as an increase in the number of cohabited couples. The causes and effects of this decline in fertility have hitherto been studied by social scientists such as economists and demographers. Although the family has been one of the main research interests for sociologists for a long while, the changes in partnership and fertility behavior in developed countries have not been sufficiently argued from the perspective of sociological theory on family. In this article, we will initially compare and contrast two changes in fertility patterns: the first of these is the fertility decline that occurred around the latter half of the nineteenth century; the second is the change that has been observed in industrialized countries since the second half of the 1960s. We will then discuss the difference between economic and ideational approaches in the explanation of partnership and fertility changes. Finally, we will examine the convergence and the divergence theories on family change. This article will conclude with an emphasis on the importance of the middle-range theories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In his popular introductory sociology text, Stark identifies W. E. B. Du Bois and Albion Small as important cornerstones of the U.S. sociological tradition. While the work of the “Chicago School” is well known in sociological circles, Du Bois’ sociological legacy is not. The Philadelphia Negro ([1899] 1996) is a classic empirical sociological study that is rarely included in discussions of the development of scientific sociology. Likewise, The Negro Church ([1903b] 2003) represents one of the first empirically based sociological studies of a religious institution. Sociologists of religion routinely discuss the contributions of Durkheim, Weber, and Simmel while virtually ignoring Du Bois. This is ironic because Du Bois’ work on religion was based on ethnographic data, field interviews, surveys, and census data. This article provides an overview of Du Bois’ sociological study of the Black Church in the United States by identifying some of the main themes developed in The Philadelphia Negro ([1899] 1996), The Souls of Black Folk ([1903a] 1994), and The Negro Church ([1903b] 2003). These studies reveal that Du Bois was a pioneer in the areas of evaluation research, public sociology, service learning, and congregational studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this essay I want to address two question marks which arose during my reading of Michael Burawoy's inspiring piece. First, sharing his spirit of recreating the sociological enlightenment by differentiating between different types of public sociologies, I do not share his optimism that sociology can easily become an integral part of public discourse and practice. Second, I don’t think that mainstream sociology is really prepared for this adventure. My argument points in the opposite direction: all the different forms of public and non-public sociology are in danger of becoming museum pieces. Thus, sociology not only needs a public voice, it also needs to be reinvented first – in order to have a public voice at all! [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article comments on Michael Burawoy's article "For Public Sociology," in volume 56, issue number 2, of the "British Journal of Sociology." Michael Burawoy has presented 11 theses on public sociology. Some of his main claims can be summarized in three statements: public sociology is part of a four-fold bundle of disciplinary activities; public sociology is important and should be made stronger and developed as an integrated part of the discipline; and public sociology requires well functioning publics. Comments are made on: academic institutions as bundles of activities; the nature of public sociology; and why and how dissemination and public discourse should be made stronger.

This article comments on Michael Burawoy's article "For Public Sociology," in volume 56, issue number 2, of the "British Journal of Sociology." Focus is made on two aspects of Burawoy's arguments which would be inaccurate if they were directed to the international community of sociologists: the division of social labor or functional differentiation among the four sociologies; and the nature of the friction among them. Thus, while Michael Burawoy's challenge to sociologists to think constructively and critically about sociology is timely and welcome, his ideas should be discussed in the context of the geographical breadth of the discipline.

This article points out that Michael Burawoy's call for a renewal of commitment to a public sociology has had a massive impact. Writing in the tradition of C. Wright Mills's clarion call, Burawoy seeks to defend the critical and reflexive role of the sociologist through his or her autonomous engagement in the public sphere of political decision. His argument has had a mixed reception in the United States. For the most part his views have been welcomed as re-emphasizing an important dimension of sociological activity that has, perhaps, been lost or submerged in the current political and financial climate of conservatism and retrenchment. Within the universities, many have found it easier to keep their heads down and get on with purely academic work, lest political involvement bring unwanted attention. Burawoy has been seen as re-asserting the political legitimacy of public participation. In some quarters, however, his views have met with a more negative reaction and have been seen as a scarcely concealed attempt to abandon impartiality and to advocate a leftist radicalism. This mixed reception was, perhaps, inevitable, given the political context in which Burawoy has intervened. He is, necessarily, critical of sociologists, other social scientists, the universities and the other institutions for which sociologists work, and also the wider structures of power in which these are enmeshed.

This article responds to Craig Calhoun and other critics of the author by defending the seriousness and coherence of public sociology as a distinct realm within a national and global disciplinary division of sociological labor, and as an antidote to external subversion. Two visions of the public sociologist are two visions of social change; the one riding on the claimed universality of intellectuals, the other riding on the organization of subaltern groups. For the traditional public sociologist the privileged site is the university, while civil society is the locus of misrecognized suffering; for the organic public sociologist civil society is the source of insight into what is and what could be, insight excavated and elaborated by the sociologist. This gives two divergent visions and divisions of sociology as a field of power. In the conception of traditional public sociology the danger comes from the invading forces of mass media, consultantships, technocracy, commodification and politicization of the university, refracted within the field of sociology as the subjugation of the academic to the extraacademic. In the conception of the organic public sociology domination appears as rationalization. Here the danger comes from science itself, such as neoliberal economics that imposes a singular model on all, precisely because it does not acknowledge the critique of its theoretical foundations or the lived experience of the people its theorizes.

It is necessary to reevaluate the role of the Department of Sociology at Columbia University in the years 1929–1950. The impact of Robert M. MacIver, who played a significant role in the exchange between European and American thinkers, is examined, as well as his marginalization. It is argued that in the 1930s it was characteristic that the sociologists in the centers in Chicago and Columbia exchanged their disciplinary functions. It was MacIver's Columbia that took on the role of advocate of humanistic sociology and Mead's and Cooley's heritage. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the 50th anniversary celebration of the Tavistock Institute in London, England, highlighting the 1997 Kurt Lewin Award Lecture, which examined the status of action research throughout the world. Sound theory produces propositions that are generalizable and, at the same time, applicable to the individual case. There is not one theory for the many and another for the one. Sociologist Kurt Lewin presented this feature in his description of the Galilean approach to explanation, as compared with the Aristotelian approach. The premise of the Galilean approach is that a complete description should lead to predictions that do not admit exceptions. If one exception is found, it can serve as the basis for disconfirmation and as a basis for further research. One cannot ignore or delay dealing with exceptions by labeling them as residual categories. The criterion of what is complete is defined by the theory. This makes it especially important that the theory be confronted with robust tests such as those proposed by the Galilean approach.

The article presents information on sociologist Norbert Elias and debates his works related to sociology. The theme which recurs In all of his works is the relation of individuals and society. In the elucidation of which he draws on his knowledge of medicine. He considers it significant that, in contrast to animals, human beings possess among other things variable facial muscles including the "Risus sardonicus" which permit them to engage In prolonged communication with their own kind relying only on facial expression. Such expression reactivates Inborn social patterns. The idea that he does not exist Independently of other people and that the wall which divides the rousing of emotions and the movement of facial muscles and body gestures has been created by patterns of civilization was beginning to emerge In Elias, although not until fifteen years later did it take concrete shape In his scientific work. Due to notions of this kind, he was to encounter difficulties with his doctoral dissertation under the Neo-Kantian scholar R. Honigswald.

The determinants of and variations in processes of cultural valorization are of increasing interest to sociologists. In the case of high-culture literary texts, the central evaluation process takes place through canon formation. We explore the mechanisms of canon formation and of cultural valorization processes more generally by analyzing the critical history of Zora Neale Hurston's novel Their Eyes Were Watching God. Published in 1937 to lukewarm reviews, the novel is currently considered a core canonical text. We specify three processes involved in the reconstruction of Hurston's novel and in the establishment of the African American literary canon: (1) the application of new evaluative criteria, (2) the reconstruction of textual meaning through newly available interpretative strategies, and (3) changes in the institutional and organizational environment that allowed new claims on high-status critical positions to be made by those previously outside the literary hierarchy. The implications of this study for theoretical models of cultural valorization in sociology are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the book "Visions of the Sociological Tradition" by the author of the book himself. The first public discussions of the book showed that many critics found it difficult to grasp its overall structure. Although the author found this disappointing, one must admit that the book poses exceptional demands. It is dense; it weaves a maze of complex arguments; it leaves a fair amount of work to the attentive reader. So he is grateful to the book review editor of the journal "Sociological Forum" for this chance to clarify some of its less apparent features as well as to reflect on its personal and public meanings. The author feels that it has more integrity and offers a more complete expression of his thought than any of his other productions. Given the core impulse behind the book, it should be evident that to his mind the most important objective of the work is to enhance connections. This is true for students, sociologists, national publics and the international community alike. He has in mind connections of three sorts; between past and present authors, among the diverse units of disciplines or nations and across the international community.

This article focuses on the author's view on the non cumulation of social science literature. He says that when he was a graduate sociology student many years ago, he visualized the literature as an ever growing mountain of sociological findings that would continue to grow until, someday, the discipline had obtained reasonably complete and perfect knowledge about the workings of society. He says that others held more sensible versions of this image, but the hope that scientific research could be cumulative was for-ever destroyed by Thomas Kuhns, a sociologist, finding that the paradigmatic atoms that underlie everyday normal science are overthrown and replaced periodically. He says that empirical researchers regularly carry out research that repeats findings already reported by earlier sociologists. Moreover, they do so not to replicate previous findings. He further says that only social theory seems to be exempt from this rule, for theoretical writings often build on the ideas of past major theorists.

Calling attention to the relatively few contributions made by sociologists to the study of nuclear issues, a political scientist suggests a number of areas and questions that sociology may be particularly well equipped to deal with. The study is divided into a canvas of questions that come from the first 45 years of the nuclear age, and then assesses the questions that may emerge in an evolving "post-Cold War" era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The original young Turks, political reformers and ardent nationalists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, gave a term that for some time has had a wide and varied usage. In America, voices of young Turks have often been heard and sometimes heeded, in political parties, Congress, labor unions, professional and scholarly organizations. Frequently young Turks are taken to be merely youthful dissenters or youngsters on the rise. In the 1970s, Marxism and neo-Marxism flourished in history and the social sciences, especially among graduate students and young academics. Marxist sociologists are young Turks only in a restricted sense. The main target of their revolt lies in the area of scholarship, not in the organizational status quo. In research and theoretical writings they are bent to demonstrate the scientific validity of a Marxist approach and to challenge opposing conceptions and findings.

The article presents the author's opinions on the relation between entrepreneurs and the field of social sciences. While Great Britain has lagged behind countries like the U.S. and Japan in giving explicit recognition to the subject of business history, professors in business schools have made important contributions to business history. There has, indeed, been a rich variety of traditions of analysis in the study of business institutions, ranging from the general theories of the economist to the case studies of the historian. The kind of questions on which I would expect business historians to be able to throw some light overlap quite naturally with questions to which industrial economists or industrial sociologists address themselves. In the case of historians, their isolation from the mainstream of social scientific study is, at least partly, self-imposed. Business historians have not been proof against this. Like their historical colleagues in other fields of specialization, they remain inveterate empiricists, obsessed with setting the record straight, telling the story as it really was, but eschewing general theories. The logical consequence of granting entrepreneurs the creative role in transforming production and consumption functions is, in fact, to reduce the determinacy of their actions, and hence to increase the difficulty of modeling them in a way that captures their essence.

Falk and Zhao (1989) have recently suggested that increased theoretical diversity characterizes the last decade of published research in Rural Sociology. We suggest that this claim is premature, given paradigmatic trends in the larger discipline of sociology. From a reanalysis of data sources and the use of an analytical framework based on the partial paradigm concept, we conclude that rural sociology is attempting to further integrate theory, methodology, and image of the subject matter within a positivistic partial paradigm framework. We further suggest that rural sociologists continue their pursuit of a reflexive understanding of the practice of social science as an integral part of their research agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The sociologist has for a number of decades been called upon to render practical service in fields of social maladjustment, especially in the fields of crime and poverty, and has for many years conducted researches and written books in the fields of normal social behavior and conditions, but by and large it has been only during the last eight years, beginning with the Hoover Commissions, and greatly increasing during the New Deal, that he has been called upon to render actual counsel and service in studying and guiding large public activity programs. Concerning the criticism and censure of sociology and the sociologist by other social scientists, there are probably two broad generalizations which will cover the situation. In the first place, sociology is always dealing with phenomena, which are also at least partially the phenomena of other social sciences, and sometimes with biological phenomena. The sociologist must therefore expect and should welcome the critical judgment on his work of these other scientists.

The reductionist position of Homans and Skinner has generated substantial debate among sociologists over the past two decades. Much of the debate can be resolved by examining the issues in light of the history of science. A historical analysis suggests that modern sociology has little to lose—and something to gain—by reevaluating its traditional stance on reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Weber's interpretive sociology requires the understanding of motives, affectual states, and actions. These are understandable because they themselves represent or embody interpretations. The Weberian statements are shown to be compatible with a conception of the human individual as a being who interprets subjective experiences in terms of cultural categories and guides his conduct by such interpretations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on the life story of Jack Seeley as a sociologist. A proper study of Seeley's sociology as a lived practice would be sympathetic in a precise sense, it would honor the terms of that sociology, attempting to understand integrally the full spectrum of personal and social meanings encoded in his life and the dimensions of purpose and tragedy; it would be fully critical and advocative, an agency of loving justice. Each man's life is a gesture of meaning in the social cosmos, and Seeley's life provides one definition of sociology-a definition in the flesh rather than the word, as true definitions are, grown in the day's circumstance rather than inherited. One theme of Seeley's work is to recognize the integrity of the way the personal and the social nestle together, in intimate conjugation, in each human circumstance. Analysis gave Seeley a much richer sense of the complexity of motives which underlie the practices of scholarship and an integral sense of the relation between private and public drama, which came increasingly to be reflected in his work.

This article attempts to understand the relationship between sociology and history by examining of material relating to the position and development of sociology in Yugoslavia with the hope the distinctive nature of the position of sociology in society will be thrown into comparative relief. It must be made clear that in discussions of the relationship between history and sociology, one is dealing with highly organized professional groups, with a high level of articulate self-awareness. These groups tend to be relatively self-sufficient intellectually, and there is little cross-recruitment between them. One makes a career, in other words, as either a historian or as a sociologist. Under these circumstances the discussion about the relationship between sociology and history reads like a kind of academic diplomacy. But, like all diplomacy, it is dependent upon a highly specific set of political circumstances. One does not negotiate treaties to cover all circumstances, but only certain foreseen circumstances. A brief consideration of the position of sociology in Yugoslavia will serve to highlight just how specific and peculiar are the circumstances which govern our current understanding of the relationship between sociology and history.

The article discusses data-processing and sociological surveys. The results of any quantitative sociological survey can be transcribed on to a set of punched cards. In the major survey on archaic societies carried out by a sociologist, for example, the basic data relate to 250 units which, in this case, are societies. The same kind of information is collected for all societies. If one look at another sociological classic, "Suicide," one shall find a similar situation. In this case, the population considered is a body of individuals, namely, all those who committed suicide within a specific period. By and large, therefore, data collected in a sociological survey can, at least in theory, always be shown in table form composed of n rows and m columns, which may be termed a data matrix. Each row of the matrix corresponds to one of the units observed, each column to one of the data collected during the survey. There is no doubt that the work involved in interpreting sociological surveys is greatly facilitated by the use of data-processing. There are two reasons why sociologists frequently employ intuitive methods, both in the expression of raw data as variables and in the analysis of the structural properties of the matrix of variables. First, sociologists are often insufficiently trained in quantitative methodology. Second, it must be admitted that the application of the quantitative methods used in analyzing surveys is often an arduous task.

The article discusses on the sociology of literary creativity. The literary critic is a man who, lending his mind out, points to things that might otherwise be missed. His purpose is essentially revelatory. Literary critic helps communication to take place. This view of criticism as essentially revelatory does not, of course, exclude many of the functions, which critics have taken it upon themselves to perform in the past. It does not deny all value and relevance to the approach of a Sainte-Beuve. It may well be helpful to a reader to know something of an author's life. The literary critic's attitude towards sociology is, in this definition of his role, analogous to that which a physician adopts towards a histologist, a microbiologist, a medical statistician or a bacteriologist. The information which the specialist in literary genesis, in sociology or in the history of ideas, may offer to the literary critic in no way obliges the latter to adopt a particular attitude towards a work of art.

The problem of change has been of continuing interest to rural sociologists. However, most of the concern for change has been directed toward specific topics such as family living, farm technology, rural institutions, and industrialization. There has been little attempt to relate change in these specific areas to general theories of social change. This has probably been due no less to failings on the part of students of rural life than to the inadequacy of existing theories of change. In a recent article, Wilbert Moore, attempts to show that social change is a respectable topic of concern for sociologists. He would move the chapters on social change from the end to a more central position in textbooks of sociology. Talcott Parsons, after dealing with the structural aspects of society, has become more concerned with its dynamic aspects. He is now teaching a seminar on "Societal Evolution," which is certainly an innovation in the curricula of sociology. These and many other efforts indicate a growing concern for the study of change on the part of sociologists.

Extension work in rural sociology, carried on under the Smith-Lever Law enacted in 1914. is relatively new; the earliest efforts predated the enactment of the Law, however. Efforts under the law began earliest, probably, in New York Missouri, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Administrators are now lacing problems in human and group relationships as they never have before; the more specific and concrete the help offered by the rural sociologists, the more their assistance will be sought and used. Problems faced by extension rural sociologists (1) relate to the development of a program which will ñt into the terms of the Smith-Lever Law, (2) include efforts to reinterpret and make of practical use subject matter from the held of sociology which calls for judgment as to what subject matter to use, and (3) pertain to relating the work in rural sociology to other fields of extension work. The interests of the extension rural sociologist differ in degree only from those of the research worker or teacher; there is need for placing values upon findings so that they may be applied to practical situations in the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the relations between sociology and policy. A sociologist who is interested in the welfare of people -- and anyone who is not should not be a sociologist -- simply cannot be indifferent to the activities of governments which, to such a high degree, are decisive for the well-being of everyone. But if one is convinced that sociology really has an essential task in this respect, the question of the right relations between government and their agencies on the one hand and sociologists on the other hand, become so much the more urgent. One simply has to find a way for satisfactory collaboration. The problem of the unsatisfactory relations between the administration and the sociologists is, like most problems, a complicated one. Partly it is a question of maladjustment and insufficient understanding of each others functions and duties due to a lack of experience, which is natural after a short time of collaboration. Often government officials do not understand, that their practical questions as such do not constitute a research problem, and that these questions have first to be transposed into scientific terms before a sociologist can do something about it.