Search

Tins paper is intended as an effort at taking-stock of the reference group concept after nearly three decades of use, the latter two of which have been marked by its more than ample employment. Its popularity indeed has so frequently led to its serving as an all-purpose post hoc explanation of behavior that it has led to the wry definition, "Your reference group is a group that you behave like and you behave like them because they're your reference group" (Cohen, 1962: 104). The inconsistencies, lack of clarity, but also areas of agreement which have marked the varied formulations of the concept, will be apparent from the following review and commentary. The Final discussion indicates some of the matters still to be considered in the use of thin important but perhaps overworked concept. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The supporters of general systems theory see it as a major revolution in scientific methodology. Its critics tend to view it as a harmless albeit pointless exercise in philosophy of science. The purpose of this paper will be to argue that, when taken seriously, general systems theory is far from harmless. There is little chance that this view of science will have any noticeable effect on physics or biology. But just as strict operationism found its only fertile ground in psychology, a literal interpretation of general systems theory might well have similarly pernicious effects in one of the social sciences. In fact, one sociologist, Hugo Engelmann, has already developed a highly articulated social theory which he says "incorporates the basic approach of general systems theory" (1966:231). Of course, since no one has yet set out the principles which hold for all systems as such, Engelmann's Systemic Dynamic Social Theory cannot be an application of these principles to social phenomena. Rather the source of his orientation is quantum theory. Systemic dynamic social theory is "essentially a statistical theory of psychology and social organization akin to field and particle theoretical approaches in physical theory" (1965a:156). In the succeeding sections of this paper, systemic dynamic social theory will be investigated, both for its own sake and as an example of the general systems approach to science. Since Professor Engelmann counters some fairly obvious criticisms of his theory by recourse to his views on proper scientific methodology, this paper will also be concerned in large measure with the problems surrounding the verification and falsification of hypotheses embedded in a highly articulated theory. Similar though less ambitious attempts at axiomatizing social theory can be found in the works of Homans (1950) and Simon (1957). For a sympathetic discussion of these formalisms, which nevertheless sets out many of the same criticisms presented in this paper, see Kyburg (1968). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ordinarily an anniversary occasions the reification of an artificial period. In this case however, there is a certain juncture in the history of the point of view which makes of the past quarter-century something worthy of consideration for symbolic interactionism as well as for our celebration of the founding of the Midwest Sociological Society. The year 1937 lies virtually in the middle of a four-year period which saw the publication of Mind, Self, and Society, Movements of Thought in the Nineteenth Century, and The Philosophy of the Act. It would represent the greatest naiveté to suggest that thus the year 1937 represented the introduction of symbolic interactionism. We are all aware of the long development: from James, Baldwin, and Cooley to Thomas, Faris, Dewey, Blumer, and Young. Even the Tardean imitation and suggestion which underlay Ross's Social Psychology contributed a good deal ordinarily not credited to him in the development of interaction theory. Nor is it the fact that Mead represents the fullest development of the orientation that makes so significant the posthumous publication of his works (for which we may conveniently take 1937 as an anchoring point). Mead's ideas had been known for a very long time. He had taught University of Chicago students from 1893 to 1931. His notions were bruited about in classes and seminars wherever there were professors conducting them who had studied at the University of Chicago—not least in the great heartland included in the Mid-west of our Society. Some of Mead's students had published their versions of his ideas or quotations from some of his philosophical papers—Kimbali Young's Source Book in Social Psychology of a decade earlier contained a paper by Mead, and his Social Psychology bore the strong imprint of Meadian interactionism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a paper on the significance of socialization constructs to the teaching methods of teachers. Studying the way how teachers teach seems to be socialization theory. The importance of the socialization construct is that it centers on processes which acts as a go-between the individual's personality and the role expectations of the institution. Conflict and bargaining are the two general patterns of interaction that have been delineated. The four processes of socialization are anticipatory socialization, reference groups, the training period, and the world of work.

A theory is formulated with which to analyze transactions in social relationships. Economic types of exchange characterized by calculation and self-interest on the part of the actors are contrasted with more "social" forms of transaction such as occur in the cases of role relationships with interlocking rights and obligations and persons strongly attached to one another. The social factors and conditions determining the types of transaction likely to occur between actors are examined in the paper. The key idea in this respect is that the structural and temporal context of interaction, including the past and anticipated character of their relationship, affects actors' orientations toward one another, their preferences, decisions and interaction patterns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper began with an attempt to formalize the Davis-Moore functional theory of social stratification. It was found that the theory could be represented by a static model consisting of two algebraic equations with appropriate constraints on the functions. Then the tools of path analysis were used to evaluate the empirical adequacy of the Davis-Moore and Parsonian functional theories of social stratification as representations of cultural beliefs about stratification. Because of the likely presence of measurement and sampling errors, it was impossible to reject definitely either of the models. However, the estimated path coefficients were more consistent with the Parsonian theory than the Davis-Moore theory. This led to an inquiry into the conditions under which one model would be a better representation than the other. It was argued that the Davis-Moore scheme would provide a more accurate representation of cultural beliefs under conditions of high organizational interdependence whereas the Parsonian framework would give a better representation under conditions of low interdependence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the book "Sociology Today, Problems and Prospects," edited by Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom, Leonard S. Cottrell. Twenty-six different authors wrote the book. Each contributor's chapter is assessed independently. These twenty-six papers discussed in the book will serve many generations of graduate students as sources of topics for theses and dissertations. No matter from what vantage point a problem has been sighted first and no matter what philosophy has suggested the hypotheses first that tentatively answer them, if they are going to be investigated along the lines of an empirical methodology, they will necessarily contribute to the store of scientific knowledge. One can, however, hardly help wondering whether the structural-functional theory, which many of the authors try to embrace, does really lead them to a deeper penetration of the various fields. The reading of the book leaves one with a feeling of the woeful inadequacy of our factual information. That the papers were intended to clarify problems rather than to summarize factual knowledge can only in part account for this impression. The book is a must in the sociologist's library.

This article replies to David L. Hull's article entitled "Systemic Dynamic Social Theory". It was observed that Hull deplores the assertion that underlying processes cannot be inferred from single overt performances. Overt performance is a small part of total behavior, thus, process-performance relations are not invariant. Contentiously, Hull transfers complexity-intensity relations, posited for psychological phenomena, to societal phenomena. Wave length is related to color - for light waves, but not for radio waves. Similarly, complexity applies to societal and psychological, intensity only to psychological phenomena. Constancy of societal complexity, given invariance of biological base, is a theoretical conclusion.

This paper suggests possible implications of a study of clothing fashion leadership for current sociological theory in regard to the process of fashion diffusion. Theory of the diffusion of innovations was chosen as the framework for the investigation. Fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership were studied in relation to selected social, psychological, and economic variables. Since the test of collective selection occurs in the local social system it would seem appropriate that theories regarding the operation of the fashion process account more fully for the rate and degree of acceptance and rejection of innovations in the local social system, and for the functions of local participants in the process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports further replications designed to test the additions and modifications to L.F. Carter's theory stemming from the study by E.F. Borgatta, L.S. Cottrell and J.H. Mann (BCM). The studies reported attempt to find the same structure of behavioral characteristics that are previously reported and also to examine the more general proposition that people tend to view interaction characteristics with the same frame of reference, whether they rate themselves or others. Carter reported that in a series of studies, and also in studies reported by others, there appeared to be three factors that recurred in the ratings and other descriptive measures of the interaction characteristics of individuals. He described the factors by the following names: (a) individual prominence and achievement, (b) aiding attainment by the group, and (c) sociability. Two of the factors appeared to replicate clearly in the BCM study. In particular, one that was identified as individual assertiveness and one called sociability.

Interest in the diffusion of innovations has, in the last twenty years, produced a plethora of research findings, which have been summarized by a number of writers (e.g., Lionberger, 1960; Rogers, 1962, 1967 and 1968; Katz et al., 1963; Jones, 1967; Bohlen, 1064). However, these summaries are basically taxonomic and programmatic rather than theoretic in nature. As the paucity of theoretical work in diffusion studies has been well recognized (cf. Bogers, 1962:300; Robinson and Bailey, 1965:332), there exists a real need for us to search for a general theory pertinent to this field. The aim of the present paper is to discuss a recurrent theme running through many diffusion studies, namely the old concept of adopter-innovation compatibility, and to show how this concept looms as highly suggestive of its utility as a theoretical approach to the studies in the diffusion of innovations and social change. The notion of adopter-innovation compatibility has been utilized in recent diffusion research in two general ways: explicitly and implicitly. We shall therefore discuss first these two different modes in which it has been used and then its implications as a general theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is intended as an effort at taking stock of the reference group concept after three decades of use in sociological research. The inconsistencies and some areas of agreement shared by social scientists are presented. Throughout its history, the phenomena of the reference group have been described by the idea of social groups, namely in-groups and out-groups, primary groups and significant others. The crucial problem in the reference group theory is stated as that of "ascertaining how a person defines such a situation, which perspective he uses in arriving in a definition, and who constitutes the audience whose responses provide the necessary confirmation and support for his position." The value of the reference group concept in specifying the types of others "represents a vast simplification and fairly sharp specification of the idea of the other" and the idea that groups other than one's own may serve to shape one's frame of reference is economically articulated by the concept.

This article focuses on an article by Hugh Dalziel Duncan, which discussed the uses and misuses of Max Weber's types of legitimationin American sociology. The author of this article said that he delivered a critical paper on the social theory of Talcott Parsons, the substance of which was a rather stern injunction for him to realize that social action was better conceived of as symbolic interaction, and that man's propensity for selection and creativeness made social process out of what he thought was social system. Since the true breadth of Duncan's theoretical perspective may unwittingly have been obscured by a rather heavily developed critique of Parsons, it might be pointed out that at a time when the social organizational and social psychological dimensions of our field are increasingly subject to disparate analysis, Duncan's function has been to mount a campaign for their reintegration through an expanded and improved synmbolic interaction approach.

It has been almost twenty years since Davis and Moore published their famed theory of stratification. During this period, the discussions which it has engendered have been numerous and highly instructive. It is now time to address ourselves to problems which concern the testability of the theory and its experimental validity. This paper reports the results of an empirical study of one of the basic issues raised by Davis and Moore. A major proposition of their theory argues that in the final analysis, social stratification arises in a society because of differential rewards for performance in the social positions therein. These rewards can be of several types. For our purposes, two are of major importance: symbolic and economic rewards, hereafter referred to as "prestige" and "reward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ethnocentrism as a concept, defined as a sociopsychological syndrome, has functioned as an integral part of sociological theory at least since the time of Gumplowicz. The plausibility of Gumplowicz's "natural theory of the State" was predicated on the assumption of the mutual hostility of heterogeneous groups. The concept passed into the substance of American sociological theory construction primarily through the influence of W. G. Sumner. Since the beginning of the century it has become a commonplace in the literature, and among his last papers Alfredo Niceforo made the "law" of the "attraction of similars and repulsion of dissimilars" one of the "invariable facts" of intergroup relations. In the work of Corrado Gini ethnocentrism occupies a central role in a general theory of race formation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The failure of those whose work falls within the boundaries of the labeling tradition to develop typologies that indicate which particular kinds of social deviance can be most fruitfully understood by using the concepts of labeling theory is a serious shortcoming which prevents evaluating the significance of their research. While labeling theorists may think they are only applying the principles of the labeling perspective to one form of deviation, their incidental endorsements of generalizability to other forms of deviant behavior make tho critic wary of "straw men" arguments when he attempts to project the implications of specific research for general theory. Those who write about 'deviance from the labeling perspective, whether they feel they are being general theorists or not, should welcome an attempt to consider the limits of their model for explaining career deviance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transition theory emerged about forty years ago. In the decades after 1930, the theory was elaborated and used by a wide variety of demographers and students of population. Some of the criticisms of transition theory have been widely quoted and apparently influential. One criticism of the theory questions the nature of the changes in birth and death rates during the early stages of modernization. Some critics have argued that population growth during the early years of modernization was caused more by an increase in fertility than a decrease in mortality. While particular historical demographers argue on both sides of the issue, their evidence is largely deduced from various social, economic, or medical facts. The demographic evidence for European countries is difficult to find, although in both Norway and Sweden—with good quality demographic data covering the early stages of modernization—the evidence points toward the prior decline of mortality as the more important factor in population growth. Japan is a non-European case that appears to support the same conclusion although critics of transition theory have used it as contrary evidence. They have done so by using official Japanese statistics and ignoring a more sophisticated analysis which has highlighted the biasing effects of under-registration during the early Meiji period. When these biases are corrected the Japanese case is quite consistent with the theory of the modem demographic transition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a discussion on speculations regarding prospects of human survival, adapted from the transcripts of talks on "The Problem of the Survival of Human Society," during the Third Symposium on Science and Society. It clarifies that survival is connected to the structured nature of ecological systems. In addition, it cites several elements causing indeterminacy of human survival which include the deteriorating consumption-production system, knowledge pollution, and the joint production of good and bad.

The article focuses on Scandinavian sociology. Sociology in the Scandinavian countries that is Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden does not have its roots in national traditions of speculative theorizing about the nature of man and society. The absence of a long intellectual history of significant social philosophy and macrosociological speculation is a conspicuous feature of the four countries. This characteristic of both Scandinavian sociology and the Scandinavian societies can to some extent be explained sociologically. To state that Scandinavian sociology does not rest on national traditions of social speculation is not to say that sociology in these four countries is without national roots. It is, however, striking that the forerunners of present-day sociology belonged to a strongly empirical tradition. In all four Scandinavian countries there is a long and honorable record of studies in government, statistics, social welfare, and ethnography dealing with sociological problems. When sociology in its present form was established at the Scandinavian universities after World War II, it developed in an academic milieu with a strongly positivistic orientation.

The article focuses on methods and theory in sociology. Research problems can derive from many sources, but to state a view that is especially important in this context: If a science does not get its problems to a rather large extent from without, that is, from sources outside the research milieu itself, danger is in the making. Sociology, and especially those fields which are considered the most advanced in professional circles, is particularly prone to this danger, inasmuch as this form of sociology tends to raise primarily those problems that can be handled with a given set of methods. These methods, which In a certain sense are the best, to a large extent determine the way problems are formulated. If such methods had demonstrated, over a long and rich tradition, their capacity to answer questions originating from without, there would be no cause for any special concern. In physics and chemistry, not to mention mathematics, this is indeed often the case. These disciplines have an established system that both generates new problems and develops methods to solve them. But the most highly regarded sociological methods have largely been borrowed from the natural sciences.

The Greek word praxis means 'action', and praxis (practice) and action are central concepts in two important theories, Marxism and the sociological theory of action. In an analysis of the concept of action in Parsons, Weber, and Homans, and of the practice concept in Marx's works the two concepts and theories are compared. The conclusion is that the theory of action is the opposite of the theory of practice. In a critique of Gouldner et al. the author finds that neither in the development of the "voluntaristic theory of action" nor in that of dialectical materialism did any distinction of active vs. passive images of man play any vital role. Finally, a hypothesis is submitted about the magical function of some recent normative sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On the basis of balance theory, certain distinct typologies of modernization combining both individual and system variables were developed in the study. Of primary concern was the interaction between the two variables of modernizing characteristics in attempting to predict the extent of modernity of different social systems. Three hypotheses generated on this basis were tested and were found to have been borne out by the data. Results indicated a substantial degree of interaction between the two variables of modernizing characteristics. individuals high on both individual and system variables displayed more modernity than those who were high on one type of variable and low on the other, or those who were low on both variables. In the case of imbalanced situations (that is, when an individual variable is high but the system variable is low, and vice versa), system effects seemed to predominate over individual effects, and the dominance was greater when individual effects were lower. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three emphases in theories of intelligence are outlined. The first is seen to seek for invariant causal relationships underlying performance on cognitive tasks that are highly valued in an individualistic, western society. The second is concerned with the mapping of multidimensional human parameters of learning and cognition, with the use of tests that may or may not be socially useful; and the third is concerned with the relationship of skills that are indigenous in nonwestern societies to skills that have been imported from the western industrial states. The role of factor analysis in setting up a model for testing the interrelationships of three kinds of tests associated with the main theoretical emphases is examined. Dimensions of indigenous, and possibly affective, behavior for one African society are outlined, and it is concluded that theories of intelligence are incomplete without reference to the centrality of affect and values in determining the directions that human abilities will follow in different societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study described here is one in a series of studies proposed by the author designed to vary systematically factors relevant to changes in self-conceptions. Although experimental studies of this type are hampered by the several difficulties apparent in this report, the valuable manipulative power that the investigator has over his variables allows crucial tests which could not be accomplished by other methods. The need for systematic empirical support or investigation of social psychological theory is recognized by all. This study has attempted to provide that type of support for the Mead-Cooley notions about the self-concept. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Geography is sometimes looked upon as a youthful plant in the field of learning, having a definitely bifurcated root system which it pushes into feeding grounds of the natural and social sciences respectively. Scientific techniques, budding from the parent stem of Renaissance cosmography grew into branches seeking the light, each of its own direction. The subjective theses of the Ratezelian school have given way, but not without contributing their elements of truth. The geomorphologists have studied objectively and analytically the physical configuration of the earth's surface, and their task is far behind finished. Environmentalists of various shades of positiveness have attacked the subject of a general world geography only to find themselves all too often postulating things they were to discover and then discovering them, regardless of contradictory evidence.

The labeling, or interactionist, theory of deviance is reviewed and critically evaluated with brief attention focused on alternative formulations as these have influenced the labeling conception. Dissatisfaction with the present state of the theory emphasizes its overconcern with deviant categories with a subsequent failure to adequately account for social control. A reconsideration of the Lemert-Becker and, recently, Quinney formulations redirects attention to an organization-centered sociology, a neglected component in most labeling research. This posits social control as an organizational problem of (1) adaptation to change, and (2) management of conflict within and between groups and associations. A paradigm is presented to organize the variety of approaches to deviance and social control. It summarizes the differences in the alternative perspectives, herein called structure, interaction, and control. The underlying assumptions, modes of analysis, and theoretical and conceptual content provide the dimensions for assessing these categories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Let me begin with three assertions. First, causal analysis is an important and viable method for theory construction in sociology. Second, the Merton variety of functional analysis in sociology is a unique method of theory construction and is the major alternative to causal analysis. Third, inherent methodological difficulties in Mertonian functional analysis in sociology argument for its abandonment. The first of the above assertions constitutes my reason for this attempt to spell out a notion of causal analysis as a method for theory construction in sociology. The appreciation of the second and third assertions requires some discussion of the work of Robert K. Merton and Kingsley Davis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Parsons' conceptual analysis of social stratification is representative of the several well-known functional analyses of stratification. A heated controversy has occurred over the functional approach to stratification, yet almost no analysis of Parsons' contribution appears in the literature. Since Parsons' work on stratification is beset by problems similar to other functional analyses of stratification, a critical analysis of Parsons' approach may also help to clarify some of the problems faced by other functional analyses. Our concern here, however, is particularly with Parsons and specifically with his "Revised Analytical Approach to the Theory of Social Stratification." Our task will be to examine in detail Parsons' revised theory and to offer some comments upon it. Analysis of the theory and comments will be strictly separated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ALTHOUGH in sociological theories, norm and status are construed as properties of social systems, they tend to be treated empirically as properties of individuals. In empirical studies, norms are usually measured by asking group members for their opinions of what ought or ought not be done. If some specified proportion of the members hold a given opinion, a social norm is judged to exist. Similarly, status is typically defined in terms of the average of the sum of ranks assigned to a member by group members. The member who receives the highest average rank is the member of highest status in the group. Such a treatment of norms is not sociological but psychological, employing a type of "modal" psychology. It is futile to be concerned with the issue of whether a norm does or does not arbitrarily exist. What is of importance is the actual proportion of members who hold a particular normative opinion. Similarly, it is the distribution of assigned ranks and not the mean rank that matters sociologically. The proportion, or level of consensus about norms and ranks within a group is the distinctly sociological dimension that has potency within sociological theory. To give substance to this argument, Homans' rank-conformity hypothesis is critically examined for the confusion between psychological and sociological levels of analysis. Empirical evidence bearing upon the theoretical discussion is also presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article determines the extent and kind of value judgments, implicit or explicit, which are present in reports of recent research on migration. It assesses the effect of these judgments upon the research and the conclusions which are drawn from it. Early sociological theories relating to mobility were almost unanimous in the conclusion that mobility was disorganizing to the individual, to the family and to the community. It should be pointed out, however, that those theories and the substantiating research came about largely under the intellectual aegis of the University of Chicago, particularly sociologist W.I. Thomas, whose theories derived in relation to international migration led to an exaggerated emphasis upon mobility in a complex situation of which mobility was but one factor. During the 1920's and 1930's, relying chiefly upon the method of ecological correlation, many scholars contributed to a great mass of evidence that the high mobility areas of cities were also characterized by high rates of unemployment, divorce and family disorganization, vice, venereal disease, delinquency, child dependency, mental illness, and suicide.

The article focuses on value assumptions in family research. Family researchers share the assumptions of the scientific profession. With science in general, the family researcher is committed to the assumption that the world a real, natural world exists; that one can know the world through senses; that to know is better than not to know, hence activity in pursuit of knowledge is good. Furthermore, family researchers are concerned that change should emerge from facts, knowledge, and wisdom, not from fear, hysteria or loss of rational behavior. In other words, it is assumed that the world exists, and that man as a part of that world exists, that the world can be known to man, that to know is better than not to know and to know accurately. But this is not the limit of the American family researcher's intellectual rapprochement with the intelligent and informed public. It goes beyond the sharing of assumptions underlying science. To take a closer look at the assumptions of science and social philosophy as they find expression in the work of American family researchers, especially family sociologists, it is found that students have focused their attention on two criteria of success or goals for marriage.

The article examines whether sociology of knowledge existed in French thought before sociologist Karl Marx. As a historian of early nineteenth-century French thought and a student, though not a disciple, of the Saint-Simonists, the author has attempted to shed some light on the issue. The nonsociologist who approaches the literature of the sociology of knowledge is bewildered by the diversity of theories and methodologies. In a narrower sense, sociology of knowledge in the tradition of Marx implies the causal relationship of mental productions to isolable social factors and at least the theoretical assumption that the hypotheses of the sociology of knowledge must be empirically validated. The Saint-Simonists had their two principal intellectual roots in the Enlightenment and in early nineteenth century French counter-revolutionary Catholic thought. In a sense, the Enlightenment excluded a sociology of knowledge in its conception of natural law which rested on the assumption that certain universal ideas, like the natural rights of man, were subject to human cognition following correct rational thinking independently of time or milieu.

Though widely used in the literature of sociology ideal types have received little systematic explication. One of the difficulties is the ambiguity surrounding the usage of types as theoretical or definitional statements. Beginning with the types constructed by Weber and his contemporaries the discussion proceeds by analyzing subsequent revisions as they relate to the subject matter of the social sciences. Suggestions for improving the explanatory powers of typologies are made based on the kinds of knowledge deemed relevant for observer and actor at differing levels of the social world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the relation between philosophy and education. Certainly few people would wish to deny that a system of metaphysical, epistemological and ethical beliefs that provides a theory of what is ultimately real and ultimately important in life must have some significant contribution to make to educational ideas and practice. Philosophical beliefs make their own distinctive contribution alongside social theory, psychological theory and so on. The traditional view that there is a direct connection between philosophy and educational practice either totally ignores, or heavily underestimates, the significance of educational theory in this sense. It fails to recognize the important truth that unless philosophical beliefs are to influence educational practice in a distorting manner, they must influence it indirectly through the medium of educational theory where they are considered conjointly with many other elements before any particular principles for educational practice are explicitly formulated. Philosophical beliefs and other branches of knowledge are said to contribute to this discipline but their contributions are assessed by criteria that arise within the theory itself.

The article evaluates the work of sociologist Alfred Schutz related to the interplay between phenomenology and contemporary sociological theory. Schutz's main efforts were devoted to the construction of a theoretical-conceptual framework for what may be called a phenomenological sociology. His frequent references to empirical matters, within this undertaking, served illustrative purposes. It is opined that while Schutz did not develop a comprehensive system of sociology of his own, he contributed to substantive sociological theory. His work is replete with implications for several areas of sociological interest. The main contribution made by Schutz is the exploration of the ramifications and implications of subjective orientations, intersubjective processes, interactional-situational involvements, cultural typifications, and the common-sense public knowledge. This helps the individual to builds his image of the social world and locate himself in it. This exploration laid the foundation of a theory of the social system as social process without sacrificing the interactional principle of interpretation.

The article presents sociologist Ernst Troeltsch's view on church, sect and ascetic Protestantism. Sociologist's Max Weber and Troeltsch constructed a church-sect typology with reference to a particular time in the history of Christianity. As such it is readily reified. Further, when a reified ideal type becomes unusable, new categories are created, frequently with reference to the characteristics, which are giving difficulty, rather than to the central characteristics of the type. The result is a multiplication of categories, differing in various dimensions of definition. Church and sect are types built upon the dimension of universalism-particularism and objectivity-subjectivity in the attainment of grace. Church and ascetic Protestantism are categories for which the significant dimension is the degree to which it is each man's duty to glorify God in his daily work. Ascetic Protestantism's commonly held social philosophy can, for its historical significance, be compared only to the social philosophy of the Church of the Middle Ages and possibly with Lutheranism. For Troeltsch, its influence on Western civilization is well-documented.

The article discusses ambivalence and its implications for sociological theory. Ambivalence, as defined by the author, is the simultaneous presence of contradictory tendencies in behavior. It is an inherent antimony or bipolarity or co-existence of opposing forces in social as well as non-social phenomena. The special relation between ambivalence and change justifies the claim that the concept of ambivalence is of central importance to sociological theory and a crucial problem for sociological research. The centrality of ambivalence leads to the recognition of analysis of social processes--rather than social structures--as the core of sociological theory and research. The central emphasis on ambivalence points to the efficient cause analysis as the starting point in sociological theorizing and research. This is implied in the focus on social processes. But it is also inherent in the assertion that change is perpetual. The final cause analysis presupposes the existence of a stable social world, and views change as a disturbance of normal conditions. The efficient cause analysis leads to the recognition of a variety of paths of development and outcomes.

This article responds to comments made on the author's article "Professionalization of Politics and Tension Management." The most important consideration for looking at the Soviet Union as a system of professionalized politics is that such a conception permits a neutral and nonbiased exploration of the country. By conceiving the Soviet Union as a system of professionalized politics, we are capable of integrating our knowledge within the framework of a traditional sociological theory. Moreover, we are able to utilize the already developed knowledge in the study of the professions and in our turn contribute insights to that knowledge.

This article presents a list of social science literature, including Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy, by K. Marx and edited by T. N. Bottomore and M. Rubel and Values in Social Science by G. Myrdal.