Search

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]

This article examines the critical responses to Talcott Parsons' first major work, The Structure of Social Action (1937), and his two subsequent books, Toward a General Theory of Action and The Social System (both 1951). Because Parsons' work was the subject of such virulent debate, we cannot fully understand Parsons' impact on the discipline of sociology without understanding the source and nature of those early criticisms. I trace the responses to Parsons, first through book reviews and private letters and then in the more substantial statements of C. Wright Mills, George Homans, and Alvin Gouldner, from the largely positive but superficial reception of Structure to the polemics that followed Parsons' 1951 works. In the late 1930s and 1940s, Parsons' reputation grew steadily but there remained no careful reception of Structure, fostering resentment toward Parsons in some quarters while precluding a sophisticated understanding of his work. After 1951, a few critics capitalized on that tension, writing sweeping rejections of Parsons' work that spoke to a much broader audience of sociologists. That dynamic, coupled with Parsons' own indifference toward his harshest critics, produced a situation in which many sociologists simply chose not to read Parsons in the 1950s and 1960s, reinforcing a caricature and distorting perceptions of Parsons' place in mid-twentieth-century American sociology. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alvin W. Gouldner (1920–1980) was a prolific sociologist of the post-World War II era who spent the early part of his career (the 1950s) in the field of industrial sociology. A case study of Gouldner's early life and career is useful insofar as it intertwines with the development of industrial sociology as a distinct subfield within sociology. Through this analysis we are also better able to understand how and in what ways a burgeoning organizational studies program developed at Columbia University during the 1940s. This analysis of the historical and cultural contexts within which Gouldner came to prominence as an industrial sociologist at Columbia, and the intellectual program that resulted, can also help shed light on more recent trends in organizational studies. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alvin Gouldner's oeuvre is examined in terms of its confrontation with and critical appropriation of both empirical social research and Marxism. Traversing an enormous range of diverse topics—the sociology of knowledge; industrial sociology; problems of bureaucracy and democracy; studies in leadership; the role of intellectuals and ideologies; sociolinguistics; functionalism, Marxism, Stalinism, and anarchism; and studies of Plato, Saint-Simon, Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Parsons—Gouldner's work retains a basic thematic focus. This work is neither a harmonious synthesis of these various topics nor does it remain totally consistent with any topic taken individually. Nonetheless there is a thematic continuity underlying the creative tensions and contradictions in his work. This continuity is identified as the classical political and historical mission of social theory; namely, the Enlightenment quest for rational discourse and the establishment of the social conditions for a truly humane society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]