Search

The article presents a speech by the president of the Sociological Society Edward Brabrook, during its annual meeting in London, England. The president addressed few words on the occasion of the annual meeting of the society. He paid tribute to physician J.H. Bridges, one of the most efficient member of the society. The production of three volumes of sociological papers, and of the first volume of quarterly "Sociological Review" were further discussed. In the first volume, published in 1904, V.V. Branford, honorary secretary and founder of the society traced the origin and the use of the word sociology. The twofold method by which the study is to be pursued was broadly defined. In the second volume its relation to the philosophy of history and its relation to ethics were stated, while the third volume fitly closes with the paradox of H.G. Wells, that sociology is not a science. The other sections discussed in the speech were progress report of the "Sociological Review," various meetings of the society in the past, finance, eugenics, civics, education and social economy.

This paper was originally planned as an abstract of the introduction to a book on the coordination of the social sciences. It was written out in its present form as a contribution to the discussions at the conference on the same topic, held at Oxford, England, in October 1922. Unfortunately it arrived just too late for use at the conference; but it was kept in hand. The task of preparing the paper for the printer has not been altogether easy; for the author is now in India, and it has been impossible to consult him on a number of points, some of them important. The author has not hesitated to make slight changes in choice and order of words, and arrangement of matter, where he seemed to see clearly that improvement was possible. In some other respects slight changes have been necessary to meet printing difficulties. The author trusts, however, that the ideas, which the author is earnest to place before his readers, have in no way been obscured by these changes. It is impossible to foretell how far a contribution on such original lines will have authority with the sociologists of to-day.

This article provides information on the biennial conference of the British Sociological Association at Queen Elizabeth College in London, England on March 22 to 24, 1957. The theme Sociology in Retrospect and Prospect was an appropriate one in view of the increasingly felt need to undertake a systematic re-assessment and clarification of the main issues involved in sociological theory and practice. A large theme of this nature could not be pursued in exhaustive detail, but the papers in both the plenary and the group sessions were such as to stimulate much thought, and the degree of interest shown in the conference was such as to suggest that this theme was one of central concern to all. The attendance was greater than had been anticipated. Although not central to the theme of the conference, perhaps one of the most significant facts about it was that it became the basis for a consciously contrived effort to begin and foster co-operative relations between the British Association and the American Sociological Society. Another encouraging feature was that 39 students were sufficiently interested to become student members of the association. The executive officers were very helpful throughout, and finally it proved possible to send over a small delegation.

This article highlights the first conference of the British Sociological Association held in London, England on March 27-29, 1953. The conference was attended by 233 persons of whom 125 were members of the Association. The theme was Social Policy and the Social Sciences. The conference opened with a plenary session which was addressed by Myrdal on the Relation Between Social Theory and Social Policy. For the second day the conference divided into three groups, each of which devoted its attention to a topic chosen to illustrate the general theme. The three topics chosen for group discussion were: health; design and planning of buildings, towns and countryside; needs and standards in the social services.

The article focuses on the lecture "The Obstacles to Eugenics" delivered by C.W. Saloeby during the meeting of the Sociological Society in London, England.

The article presents information on events and meetings held related to the field of sociology. The first joint meeting was held in conjunction with the S.E. Union of Scientific Societies, and the Regional Association on April 22, 1921, at the rooms of the Linnean Society, Burlington House, London. Joint meetings with the Regional Association were also held on May 12, 1921 and June 2, 1921. Discussion on "Co-operation in Social Studies" and "Municipal Survey of Sheffield" was done. Also, a meeting on the study of "La Science Sociale" was held on June 29, 1921 where discussion on "Comment la Route crée le Type social" was done. Also, lectures on Civics an Sociology was given during May and early part of June and discussion on "Education in Its Wider Aspects and on its Various Levels," was done on July 12, 14, 19 and 21 respectively. Furthermore, a meeting on June 14, 1921 in the rooms of the Royal Society was held where there was a discussion on "The Non-Co-operation Movement in India."

The article discusses kinship and geographical mobility in a sample from a London, England, middle-class area. The object of the study presented is to analyze the structure, and estimate the magnitude and social significance of the kinship systems of British middle-class families. Mobility in all generations, undictated by kinship ties, has led to a wide scatter of families all over the country and overseas. This mobility is largely a function of the sort of careers taken up by both the men and women. There are explicit attitudes, held by both children and parents, that they should be independent of one another at least in the daily functioning of their lives. Children often go to boarding schools, later to colleges and universities, and are prepared, for the latter, to live at great distances from their families. This does not mean that relationships are ineffective or necessarily distant between parents and children, or between other sorts of kin. Ties with kin outside the family of origin are maintained on a more selective basis, and they are often manifested only in contact of an intermittent nature.

One remark made more frequently by sociologists than by their gibing critics that sociology has not yet come to that development which commands from its adherents wholehearted agreement as to the objectives to be aimed at, the field to be limited, and the methods to be used. Not only is this lack of unanimity characteristic of the science as a whole, when viewed apart from national boundaries, but also even within each country there is still to be found great diversity of opinion as to the major concepts and abstractions of this field of inquiry. England seems to offer the one exception. It is not that English sociologists have consciously developed an agreement and so are working as a unified group for the advancement of their science, for they seem to be less aware of disagreement and of the controversial aspects of the situation than most workers in the field. It is rather that there seems to be a fairly general acceptance of the idea that there is something called a sociological point of view which can be applied to economics, anthropology, religion, or what not, but that point of view is infinitely elastic and does not cry to be defined nor elaborated into a separate discipline.

The study of national character describes the observed or deduced motives and values dominant within a given society at a given time in a way little different from that in which a study in primitive law describes the legal norms and sanctions operative in a given society at a given time. This article seeks to explore the hypothesis that the national character of a society may be modified or transformed over a given period through the selection of personnel for institutions that are in constant contact with the mass of the population and in a somewhat superordinate position, in a position of some authority. The institution proposed to be examined in detail are the English police forces.

The article focuses on the betting shop located in London, England's East End street market. A market in which the large number of stalls offer a rich variety of commodities, chiefly foodstuffs and apparel. The accent is on price, on repeatable bargains, clearance lines, bankrupt or fire stocks, with occasional innuendoes to bargains owing their value to stuff being nicked. The market is patronized largely by the local population, a heterogeneous mixture of White and Black, Gentile, Jew and Moslem, of firmly rooted and transient, locally born and bred and recently immigrated. They all seem to be able to count on their stable, regular clientele. Although punters, apart from other considerations affecting preferences, will after a prolonged unsuccessful run be inclined to switch custom. Naturally some punters will change under impact of external forces, new job, new home, a new set of mates, and many others, the floaters, will lay their bets at whichever betting shop happens to be most convenient at the time.

This article discusses the results of a survey for the Southampton, England which aims to construct a series of indices of social conditions for the various districts of the Town and to measure the distribution of income by classifying the population into income grades. The construction of this particular index was the largest of the tasks, and the method to arrive at it will be described in some detail. Some of social condition indices such as the infant mortality rate per ward and the census figures of persons per room, were already in existence. Others were made from data collected for the Southampton Civic Survey. These include, house density per acre of housing land, population per acre of housing land and public open space per person. The method used for ascertaining income distribution was that of the mass interview, while enquiry method was confined to families with dependent children, or strictly , children of all ages up to school-leaving age. The study selected infant mortality rate as representative of health conditions. The wards at Town, Saint Mary's, Notham and Trinity make distinctly the worst showing, in health, overcrowding, and with one exception, house density.

This article addresses the social and educational aspects of the Homecroft Movement in England. Homecrofting is a certain system of combining land cultivation with working-class housing. An actual model of a Homecroft settlement can be seen in its beginnings on a very small scale on the National Homecroft Association's land near Cheltenham, where a colony of 10 houses are provided by private capital for the sake of giving a concrete demonstration of the plan. Every family is to have its detached house and croft. The house is two-storied, has five apartments, is built substantially with cement blocks, and is in every way superior to what an unskilled labourer's wage would usually enable him to have. Yet it is intended that the ordinary wage-earning worker should find it possible to live there. As additional economic resource is put into his hands from which to find the rent. The croft is fitted out for providing the family with food. The sociological interest of these endeavours lies in the fact that the success which has already attended them may reasonably be expected to grow. In endeavouring to make the system economic, the principle followed was that of beginning with the likeliest land and people, with a view to advancing towards the less likely step by step, as methods became more completely mastered and experience grew.