Search

The article presents information on the work of sociologist Vilfredo Pareto. In 1866, at the age of 18, Vilfredo Pareto published his first article on the applications of axionometric design. A year later, he received his B.S. in mathematics from the University of Turin and matriculated in mechanical engineering. In 1870, he graduated as an engineer maxima cum laude upon defending a doctoral thesis on "Fundamental Principles on the Theory of Elasticity of Solid Bodies and Basic Research on the Integration of the Equations That Differentiate the Equilibrium." The next 10 years in Pareto's life were full of varied occupational, intellectual and political experiences. For four years he worked as a consulting engineer in the railways of the new Kingdom. Later he was for six years general superintendent of three iron mines. During this period he became interested in economics, noting that there was much to read about it but altogether too little science in it. In 1880 he became general director of the Italian Society of Iron Works.

In the history of science it has often happened that a scholar's ideas are denied full recognition because of that scholar's real or assumed connection to some controversial ideology. The position accorded to Vilfredo Pareto is one illustration of such practice in present-day sociology. This scholar is often said to have been a "Newton of the Moral World," or altogether a fascist ideologist. So Faris informs us that "The book [The Mind and Society] formulates the implicit philosophy of Italian Fascism, advocating the right of the strong to take what they want without apology or appeal to moral principles." In tracing the development of social thought, Bogardus devotes an entire chapter to "Pareto and Fascist Thought," and authoritatively argues that "While fascism has some of its roots in Nietzsche's concepts and other roots in Machiavellianism, yet Pareto's ideas come even closer to giving an adequate basis." Zanden, in turn, interprets Pareto's sociology to be "a philosophy of society, a social creed, determined mainly by violent and ever purely personal passions. The logical fulfillment of this political manifesto is fascism." We need not continue further; analogous affirmations are bountiful in the literature. To be sure, not all sociologists accept this view, but to date little or no systematic effort has been made to resolve the controversy, with the result that many students of sociology are unwitting victims of one of the most cruel intellectual hoaxes perpetrated against their discipline and one of their kind. The present paper proposes to offer a clarification with respect to the alleged connection between Pareto's sociology and fascist ideology. Our approach takes us in two major directions: first, an examination of Pareto's Treatise, his chief sociological work, and second, an examination of a series of letters written to his great friend Pantaleoni during the period when fascism was a political reality in Italy. Before proceeding to present our argument, it may be useful to inquire briefly about the meaning of "fascism," as his critics tend to use that word. A rapid glance at the literature reveals that the following are generally believed to be among the chief characteristics of fascist ideology: distrust of reason, a code of behavior based on "race" and violence, belligerent nationalism, government by an elite, and totalitarianism. Characteristically, these then provide the basis for accusing Pareto of "antirationalism," "anti-intellectualism," "contempt for democracy," and approval of the use of force at all costs. The major portion of this paper will be concerned, therefore, with explicating Pareto's position on these four issues. We shall begin by considering Pareto's alleged antirationalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Edward E. Harris explored the association between a nationally derived scale of socio-economic status and the variables of prestige, reward, skill and functional importance. He attempted to provide a view on the functional theory of stratification as stated by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore. Prestige refers to a sociopsychological phenomenon. The Davis-Moore theory argues that prestige is dependent on functional importance. The Davis-Moore conceptualization failed to become an explicit theory of human behavior.

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]