Search

An unexamined problem in the history of American sociology is how to understand cross-societal transference of theoretical structures. The case study considered here is that of the cultural migration of refugee scholars from Nazi Germany to the United States. This paper treats this event as a problem in the sociology of theory structures. Habermas' work on the social character of scientific knowledge aids in conceptualizing our frame- work. A major substantive contribution concerns the use for the first time of data sources previously unknown or ignored in the existent literature on refugee scholars. The analysis focuses particularly on the comparative depletions of theoretical structures from German universities. Sociology emerges as one of the early disciplines to feel the impact of the Third Reich in terms of depletion rates and losses of senior faculty. It also ranks very high in the percentage of refugee scholars already in the United States by 1937. Two other aspects of this problem are considered in less detail: the character of sociology remaining in the Third Reich and the examination of a `deviant' case in the cross-societal transference of theory structure in sociology from Germany to the United States. The paper ends with additional reflections on the study of theory structures and general issues in the history of sociology in the context of examining theory structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article informs about the articles in the "Journal of Sociology." One conclusion which becomes absolutely inescapable as one reads the series of articles comprising this issue of the Journal , largely written by sociologists teaching in universities in the South, is that the theoretical aim of having a "different" South, a region which performs essentially agricultural functions for the rest of a more highly industrialized nation, has now finally disappeared. The social sciences, and particularly sociology at this time in its history, find themselves confronted with the need for theories of social change adequate to the task of explaining the varied and often bewildering panorama of the "third world" countries as well as the upheavals in race relations in the United States. Another theoretical orientation of a more historical bent has been in and out of favor and, under the pressure of recent events, is again becoming current. There are some who have a demurrer even here, especially those concerned with the possibility of the emergence of anomic and mass society in the late stages of industrialization and urbanization.

This article discusses some contributions of American psychological sociology to social and political theory. Lester F. Ward made notable contributions to a systematization of psychological sociology. His psychological interpretation of society was clear, logical and consistent. His contributions to psychological sociology may be summed up under the headings of a classification of the social forces, the psychology of social forces, the explanation of the dualistic nature of the psychic factors operative in society, and the emphasis upon the overwhelming importance of conscious social effort at improvement. Ward divides social forces into two major types: physical and spiritual or psychic. The psychology of the individual mind and the psychology of society are dualistic in nature. The psychology of the individual may be viewed as that of feeling and thought, as affective and perceptive psychology, or as subjective and objective psychology. Simon N. Patten in a characteristically paradoxical manner, denies that sociology has any relation to psychology and then proceeds to develop his theoretical sociology along almost strictly psychological lines. There are, according to Patten, two neuro-psychic systems which operate in the individual and society: the motor and the sensory. The motor system is evolved by the pursuit of pleasure, while the sensory has developed to avoid and decrease the sources of pain.

This article focuses on the institutionalization of sociology in the United States. It attempts to indicate certain religious themes which have been embedded in the sociological tradition from the very beginning. One can make a good case for treating sociology as a functional alternative for traditional religions. The article draws some analogies and parallelisms. Second, it attempts to discuss the institutionalization of sociology in the United States. This institutionalization process, which has been very successful, has emphasized different ideologies over time. Many of the problems of the present time have been pointed out. While sociology has always had a theodicy of failure, it has never had a theodicy of success. As one looks to the future of sociology, it is now likely that one may again be comfortable with the success of failure since failure will reaffirm the sectarian identity. The article concludes by discussing some of the likely problems of the future. The article, however, begins by discussing the ways in which sociology can be seen, from a historical perspective, as one substitute for the disintegration of traditional religion.

The relationship between sociology and history has interested scholars from both disciplines for a long time. By now a considerable library of materials is available on the subject ranging from involved philosophical essays on the nature of the borderline separating the two fields to ceremonial addresses of various kinds urging a greater volume of traffic across that line. Literature from the sociological side of the border, at least, has been almost unanimous in its insistence that sociologists should devote more attention to history so much so that the argument would appear to have lost much of its urgency for simple lack of opposition. Yet, for all of that, sociology in the United States continues to lack historical focus. Sociology in the United States has generally leaned in the more positivistic of those directions, developing a form of scientism that no longer seems to resemble the natural science models from which it derived. There have been unmistakable signs in recent years, however, of a swing in the opposite direction toward a species of radical skepticism in which persons distrust their own intelligence and all the established apparatus of sociology for fear of the various class and racial and ideological biases that might be hidden within them.