Search

This article presents information on sociologist Norbert Elias's issue on figrational sociology. Elias's work has consistently highlighted the omnipresence of power in relations between human beings. The first paper by Norbert Elias featured in this issue deals with "The Retreat of Sociologists into the Present" and disputes the current preoccupation with contemporary social problems and conflicts. Not that these are not important and pressing, but our ability to comprehend these problems and conflicts and therefore our capacity to act or caution against action, is immensely enriched by an understanding of the long-term processes, the development which through the dynamic of unintended forces brings about changes which move in a specific direction. It enables us to see, in his words, that this present into which sociologists are retreating constitutes just one small momentary phase within the vast stream of humanity's development. This paper, with its blend of theoretical and social historical synthesis, represents the ideal rejoinder to the misplaced charges of empiricism.

The notion of dialogue in sociological thinking is drawn mainly from sociologist G.H. Mead's insight that dialogue is essentially a process of taking the role of the other specific others and a "generalized other" through which one becomes social. The reflexive ability of the self is explained in terms of others' responses that are embedded in a common system of meanings. The distance whence any perspective on the self is taken is, however, ignored. The present paper offers a critical examination of this view and suggests that to restore a complete notion of dialogue the self should be regarded not only as a manifestation of the social, but also in its separate otherness, the inevitable other side of "being social." The paper focuses on the experience of "being-other" which is offered as a dialectical counterpoint to the above view. This experience is explored through the process of "making the self strange," where the individual must withhold common meaning and regard the self as other. This results in opening a dialogic-distance from others and within the self, which both threatens and activates the dialogue.

In this paper authors look at divorce in the Old Icelandic Commonwealth, to produce a record of early organizational activity regarding norms of domesticity and also to display an interactionist approach to history. "Divorce" originated in Iceland in 1930. That is, society organized itself in such a way, both in its proclaimed normative strictures, law, and in its remembered societal reactions, so as to regulate marital dissolution. Divorce was rendered problematic tout court. This paper both describes the emergence and management of this particular societal problem and employs a procedure for studying this tenth and eleventh-century era from a radically distant time, i.e. the present. Central to this difficult effort are elements of the procedure that consider the conditions of the historical object's own production, storage, and dissenunation of information. These conditions include referential behaviors that are qualitatively like the behaviors of the reconstruction. This symmetry allows retention of the integrity of the historical object and a basis for the people's commonality with it. To sociologist Rene Descartes' cogito authors offer a sociological analog: "I make reference, therefore I am social."

This paper examines research on the diffusion of innovation, the final stage in the process of technological change. The focus rests primarily on two traditions in diffusion research: that of economists and that of sociologists. Diffusion researchers in these and related disciplines have made significant contributions to the understanding of the dynamics of processes of change; yet the state of the art in diffusion research is not equal to the sum of its parts. This is due in large measure to disciplinary parochialism: scholars have concentrated on those innovations, diffusion environments, explanatory variables, and analytical methodologies which are most compatible with their particular disciplines, despite the fact that diffusion is not a discipline-specific phenomenon. Deficiencies in current understanding of diffusion are examined in the context of this and other significant problems. The paper concludes by considering the policy relevance of diffusion research and suggesting issues with which future research might productively be concerned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article comments on R.E. Pahl's paper on the adequacy of theory in urban and regional research. The paper displays all the characteristics usually associated with that particular mode of argumentation. Sweeping charges are leveled against targets who are never clearly identified. All of the substantive propositions are asserted rather than demonstrated. Many of his detailed allegations are actually open to empirical test although most of the evidence known contradicts Pahl's conclusions. His account of class analysis is alternately misleading and fanciful. And finally, the paper is impenetrably vague about what, if anything, provides a more satisfactory alternative.

The article comments on R.E. Pahl's paper on the use of class theory in urban and regional research. The title of Pahl's paper refers to the adequacy of sociological theory in urban and regional research, the paper is usually a critical discussion of the adequacy of social class as an explanatory concept. More specifically, it is a criticism of an approach within sociology which first takes the employment structure to represent classes and then proceeds to derive explanations and interpretations of social behavior from this class structure. Some of his criticisms of some aspects of class analysis are valid, they do not justify the rejection of class analysis in its entirety. An extensive range of topics and different approaches are encompassed within sociological discussions of social class and Pahl's discussion does not always make clear which aspect he is concerned to reject. Pahl may have criticized class analysis for failing to specify the links in the chain, but there are some very important missing links in his own argument.

The article presents information about a view from Eastern Europe on the International Sociological Association Cooperation that was organized from September 26-30, 1989 in Moscow. This was an important and unusual conference, held at a significant place and time. The conference seemed to have several levels-which nowadays is true of all conferences-but in Moscow, Autumn 1989, this feeling was unusually strong. Traditional academic sessions focusing on papers and discussions were penetrated by processes of the perestroika itself, expressed in informal talks with Russian sociologists, as well as with members of political clubs, planners, architects, workers in new research institutions and new co-operatives. Quietness was not a feature of this conference and the usual tension caused by the large number of papers and lack of time was sharpened by an awareness of the urgency and seriousness of the problems facing Russian society. Some of these problems were expressed in the opening speeches of three representatives of Russian sociology and will be mentioned briefly below. The author had the impression that all three speakers were explicitly trying to establish keynote themes for the whole conference.

The thesis of this paper contends that many sociologists who have attempted to apply Kuhn's argument in analyzing the status of sociology have misunderstood, or have refused to accept, the central meaning of his paradigm concept. In this paper we first clarify the notion of paradigm as explicated by Kuhn and by Margaret Masterman, and note that the "exemplar" is the central element in the concept. We then analyze the usage of the concept by sociologists who have attempted to ascertain the paradigmatic status of sociology and we focus in particular on the work of Friedrichs and that of Ritzer. In so doing, we show that they have concentrated almost exclusively on the less important, more general meanings of the paradigm concept and thus lose the major thrust of Kuhn's argument. Possible reasons for this misuse are discussed. Finally, we argue that sociology has relatively few exemplars, lacks a clear-cut puzzle-solving tradition, and tends to operate from discipline-wide perspectives. In this regard, sociology is not a mature science; attempts to treat it as such within Kuhn's framework are misdirected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a reply to the comments made by sociologists Pat Lauderdale and Gerald Larson on their paper discussing the Marxian conflict and the sociology of law. The authors express their discontent on the comments and clarify that their paper primarily reviewed the conflict-consensus debate and the Marxian perspective on crime and law that has emerged. Lauderdale and Larson are concerned with the conclusion that the version of the Marxian perspective examined in the paper is (1) prone to logical errors, (2) largely unconfirmed, (3) often unconformable and (4) possibly quite frequently false. They argue that the charge that the perspective is unconformable raises the thorny issue of what are considered testable hypotheses within the perspective. It is opined that rather than presenting evidence on this issue, Lauderdale and Larson simply ignore it. Further, in their comments on the paper, Lauderdale and Larson are concerned that the paper has confused the external and internal validity of sociologist Anthony Platt's findings. However, it is Platt, if anyone, who confuses the issue of internal and external validity.

The article focuses on a recent paper in the journal "Social Studies of Science," in which sociologist Edward Nadel proposes an operationalization of incommensurability in terms of citation behavior. According to Nadel this operationalization should be of service in evaluating the relative historical adequacy of sociologist S. Kuhn's view of competition between theories, according to which incommensurability is an influential factor, as compared to views that deny a role of such a factor. In this response, the author argues that the validity of the operationalization and its merits for discriminating between theories of scientific development under discussion, are throughout in doubt. Kuhn's notion of incommensurability is characterized by Nadel , as incommensurability is an inability on the part of individual scientists or groups of scientists to compare competing theories, due to differences between those scientists in the perception and meaning of various cognitive elements. As a preliminary remark it should be pointed out that, in view of the rest of Nadel's paper, this characterization is not entirely adequate.

The article presents the reply of social scientist Pnina Abir-Am to the responses of other social scientists on her recent paper on the role of the Rockfeller Foundation in molecular biology research. According to Pnina Abir-Am, her questioning of the received view which held that the research policy of the Rockefeller Foundation (RFD) in the 1930's had a direct impact upon the rise of molecular biology, a generation later, seems to have shocked the social studies of science community, or at least its historically minded section. In her reply she argues that all the respondents have missed the basic point that her paper challenged, not only the specific contents of the received view, but also the validity of the accepted procedures for evaluating, on one hand the impact of policy upon scientific change and on the other, the histography of molecular biology. She had addressed the themes which were common to several responses and few unique to a given response. They included the issue whether the physical scientist grantees of the RFD were opportunistic respondents to its policy, or were they genuinely interested in biology.

The article presents author's reply to Larry Lauden's paper titled "Note on Collins' Blend on Relativism and Empiricism," published in the February 1, 1982 issue of the journal "Social Studies of Science." The paper is like some fruits one can buy in supermarkets, shiny crisp and generally appetizing in appearance, but disappointingly soggy when you bite into it. Sociologist Laudan accuses the author of an apparent contradiction, simultaneous espousal of two incompatible points of view. For a variety of reasons, the author does not advice sociologists of science to act on the assumption that the natural world in no way constrains what is believed to be. The author understands why Laudan and others might think that he preaches relativism and empiricism. No claims of reflexivity made in his works. Reflexivity is explicitly disavowed. The author's recommendation is that the social scientist should go about finding out things about the natural world. A relativistic attitude to the natural world, on the part of social scientist, will encourage attentiveness and will help to observe the way that an apparently fixed reality is built up in the community of natural science.

This paper, coauthored by an anthropologist, a psychologist, and a sociologist, presents reflections on conducting a collaborative and interdisciplinary in-house study of students who left other occupations for teaching Data for this account include two jointly constructed interview protocols, memos to students and other faculty members, and field notes taken by all three investigators as participant observers in a variety of contexts at the field site. We describe and analyze four dimensions of our qualitative mode of inquiry: initiation of the internal interdisciplinary collaboration, external collaboration with faculty advisors; external collaboration with students, and internal collaboration in the construction of the research narrative The paper concludes with observations and recommendations on what facilitates and constrains the successful conduct of collaborative interdisciplinary research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes some major consequences of doing fieldwork in schools over an extended period of time. Using Powdermaker's distinction of "stranger and friend," the paper traces the balance between these two roles and perspectives in knits of role, reciprocity, and receptivity through a description of the author's two year study of student life in a junior high school. The paper first describes the evolution from stranger to friend by examining role relationships between the fieldworker and his informants. It then focuses upon the problem of the fieldworker having to take on some of the characteristics of the groups he is studying. Finally the paper discusses both the beneficial and counter-productive tendencies of these positions for the fieldworker's receptivity to insights about a "familiar" setting. Conclusions center around the dynamic interaction between stranger and friend in long term fieldwork in educational settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper describes a frame of reference for rural development research with an emphasis on identification and assessment of consequences for people and communities of programs and policies undertaken in the name of rural development. It is suggested that rural development research is not an academic specialty in the traditional sense and that a tendency to regard it as such should be avoided. Development is political and concerned with values, and rural development research must be cognizant of those features. It is contended in the paper chat many of the features of a the prevailing ideology of development have produced outcomes which cannot be regarded as developmental: for example, vulnerability, excessive dependency, social costs associated with an emphasis on efficiency, inequality, excessive centralization of decision-making and control, and so on. Attention is also directed to the nature of knowledge produced by rural sociologists with an emphasis on the need for greater integration of knowledge around major policy and development issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why was the "American Sociological Review" so atheoretical? The principal aim was to improve both the quality and quantity of theory in the Review. One possible answer is that the reviewers are defining theory too narrowly, that there was more theory in the Review than met their eyes. The term is ambiguous, with many different meanings for different sociologists. The limits to the powers of an editor are best seen by working backwards through these six stages. One would suppose that at least in deciding what is published the editor has great powers. He does-over about a third of the manuscripts submitted. An important principle on which any journal is founded is that decisions to publish are the collaborative product of intersubjective agreement on what is fact and what is reasoned inference. This means that the power of an editor to decide the fate of a paper is limited to those instances where referees disagree or those where they agree that a paper should be revised and resubmitted.

This paper introduces and reviews the use of focus group methodology across the social sciences, identifying three different research traditions within which it has been used. It examines some key considerations affecting the use of focus groups, and highlights three central features of focus group research: providing access to participants' own language, concepts and concerns; encouraging the production of more fully articulated accounts; and offering an opportunity to observe the process of collective sense-making in action. Finally, the paper outlines some of the issues in the analysis of focus group data-an area with considerable potential for future development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on the premise that evangelicalism is an important contemporary phenomenon that has been slighted by sociologists, this paper analyzes three cognitive biases that prevent its understanding, The three biases, or "theoretical barriers," are the identification of evangelicalism with social class, political, and historical correlates. The paper argues against the assumption that evangelicalism is in essence the religion of the disinherited, the conservative, or the atavistic, especially if we are to understand the resurgence of evangelicalism in mainline and middle-class churches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

American civil religion has been the subject of recent scholarly interest among American sociologists of religion, leading to a sociological debate. This paper examines the sociological literature concerning American civil religion in an attempt to order the literature into a coherent, comprehensive, and logical set of definitions and assumptions open to empirical investigation. Four basic propositions adapted from the work of John A. Coleman are framed to address the crucial questions most often asked by contemporary sociologists of American civil religion: (a) American civil religion is the religious symbol system which relates the citizen's role and American society's place in space, time, and history to the conditions of ultimate existence and meaning; (b) American civil religion is structurally differentiated from both the political community and the religious community; (c) American civil religion performs specialized religious functions performed neither by church nor state; and (d) the differentiation of American civil religion follows the general direction of cultural evolution. Review of the American civil religion literature reveals sufficient logical and empirical support for these propositions to recommend that they be used to guide further scientific inquiry.
This paper has attempted to trace the intellectual development of the concept, "American civil religion," and to organize theory and research about it into a set of testable propositions. A survey of the literature reveals that the current state of knowledge is primarily theoretical.
Probably the best-known sociological treatments of American civil religion (Robert Bellah, 1967, 1975), has stimulated the greatest amount of empirical research, but the best empirical test of the American civil religion propositions may not come from traditional modes of civil religion research. Symbolic studies, individual belief studies, and content analyses have typically been limited to a single... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports some of the problems which occurred and possibilities for publication in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, so that potential authors might be better informed. First is a consideration of the types of articles being submitted. The usual focus of both empirical and theoretical papers has been either the nature of religious phenomena or correlates of being religious. The empirical and theoretical papers on the nature of religion reflect the two major traditions within the Society, defining religion in a fairly classical sense concerned either with personal experience or with institutional involvement, or using a broader definition concerned with the search for meaning and ultimates. Most of the other empirical papers sought to establish concomitant correlates of religious phenomena with a host of variables ranging from mental health to demographics. The research methods used in the Journal vary widely because of the breadth of disciplines and topics. But the majority of papers are from sociologists and psychologists, and so the present discussion is of such studies.

This paper discusses the reasons why Edward Westermarck's reputation as a sociologist began to decline in the 1920s. It begins with some personal recollections of Westermarck, who was the author's great-uncle. Then follows an account of how Westermarck in both The History of Human Marriage and The Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas made original contributions to the discussion concerning several issues, which were at that time regarded as central in the sociological debate. Although Westermarck and Durkheim held very similar ideas concerning some of these problems, they disagreed on other important points. Of particular consequence for the subsequent development of sociology was Durkheim's utter rejection of Westermarck's and the other comparativists' method of quoting examples from various societies which were detached from their context as support for their theories. During the inter-war decades Durkheim's ideas were taken up and championed by Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski, with the effect that Westermarck's comparative method was definitely regarded as passé when he died in 1939. Also other factors, which are discussed in some detail in sections V and VI of the paper contributed to this development. The paper ends with the conclusion that Westermarck's magna opera are today mainly of historical interest, whereas his Moroccan monographs and his Ethical Relativity will retain their value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on dogmatic trends in marxist sociology. In this paper marxist sociology will be discussed. First the article tries to demonstrate that certain theses of marxist sociologists have the consequence that a critique of marxist sociology becomes impossible. Second, the paper tries to show some difficulties of such a dogmatization. The starting point is the book "Historischer Materialismus und marxistische Soziologie," by Erich Hahn. This seems legitimate because Hahn proposes theses which are widely accepted by German-speaking marxist sociologists. Thus, Hahn's book represents at least one influential branch of marxist sociology. The discussion implies in no way that there are no strategies to immunize theories against critique in nonmarxist sociology; rather the contrary is correct. The exact kind of relation between marxist sociology and historical materialism, however, remains unclear. There may be a logical relation between marxist sociology and historical materialism, i.e. marxist sociology is a system of sentences which can be deduced from another system of sentences. Because a confrontation of marxist and nonmarxist theories is a certain kind of criticism, it follows that marxist and nonmarxist theories should be confronted and thus may be parts of explanations.

The article presents a comment on the article "Definitional Dependency Is Dead. Does Chaos Still Reign? A Possible Resolution of the Ratio-Correlation Dilemma," by Alexandar MacMillan and Richard L. Daft that appeared in the June 1984 issue of the journal "Social Forces." Authors welcome MacMillan and Daft's effort to reconcile and integrate authors' results with theirs. Their three recommendations, taken by themselves, seem quite appropriate, but not necessarily sufficient, for dealing with the ratio-correlation problem. Authors still disagree with some important points in their discussion of these recommendations, and so they are happy to have this additional chance to address the issues involved and to provide some clarification and possible resolution of the dilemma. MacMillan and Daft are correct about definitional dependency; it does not seem to be a problem because no inherent bias or systematic distortion exists in the relationship between organization size and measures of the administrative component. That seems clear from MacMillan and Daft's first paper and from authors. Definitional dependency, once thought to be problematic, now seems to be a dead issue. Despite the demise of definitional dependency, authors' paper highlighted a related issue that remains serious. It concerns the potential lack of consistency among the inferences about scale relationships that one using different analytic techniques on the same samples.

The article presents the author's response to the comments made by sociologists Walter Gove and Michael Swafford, to his article "Sex Differences in the Use of Psychiatric Outpatient Facilities," published in the December issue of the journal "Social Forces." Gove and Swafford claim that neither the data reported in our paper nor the more general literature supports the view that women have a greater likelihood of seeking psychiatric help than men when self-defined degree of impairment is controlled. According to the author, in the student data it is quite clear that women have a higher probability of seeking psychiatric help than men with the same levels of self-defined distress. No complicated analysis is required to demonstrate this fact. Moreover, according to the author, Gove and Swafford do document serious errors in the log-linear analyses reported in our original paper, analyses which tried to estimate the extent to which one particular aspect of propensity to seek help, an index of willingness to seek, plays a part in the greater probability of women than men seeking help at comparable problem levels.

ABSTRACT This paper tests two divergent explanations of income: one model based on human capital variables, the other based on neo-Marxian, structural variables. In particular, our paper extends the work of political economists and the very recent work of sociologists (especially, Bibb and Form, Beck et al., and Wright and Perrone). Our sample was a national one drawn from a larger study conducted by the National Opinion Research Center; the final sample consisted of 763 members of the labor force (415 males and 348 females). While the human capital variables produced greater explained variance than the structural variables, in a combined model the structural variables increased the explanatory power by 27 percent. The structural model worked better for men; the human capital model worked better for women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study which examined the relationship between the area, expanse of societies, the development of communication and transportation technologies and the size of their governments. Sociologists and ecologists have long discussed the important effects social density is presumed to have on major dimensions of social organization and recently a theoretical paper, implied that a social system's conduciveness to interaction might be estimated on the basis of three structural parameters, population size, the average distance between people and the technology available for overcoming distance. This paper will extend evaluation of the "structural conduciveness" approach, and its utility in explicating this aspect of organizational structure, by examining the effects of area-distance and contact technology on the relative size of governments. These two system parameters are presumed to have effects on social density which will be reflected in the relative size of the subsystems charged with monitoring and regulating system activity. The measure of administrative intensity to be used in this study is the percent of total population employed in government. This figure is analogous to the administrative intensity has been used as an index of administrative intensity in organization research.

The article presents information about "International Newsletter on Migration." "The International Newsletter on Migration," is a publication of the Research Committee on Migration of the International Sociological Association. During the 15th Pacific Science Congress of February 1982, a series of papers on "Mobility Identity and Policy" was presented alongside a second series of papers on urbanization in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, in a session convened by sociologist R. Bedford. In addition to this, this article presents names of editors and other officials of the newsletter.

Sociologists have typically defined "sect" and "church" or "denomination", the polar opposites of church-sect theory, in terms of multiple characteristics. Stark and Bainbridge, noting that competing lists of characteristics have caused confusion and that the use of several characteristics has limited the ability to measure transition from sect to denomination, proposed focusing instead on a single dimension, the religious group's tension with society. This paper tests the usefulness of this reformulation by exploring one such source of tension: holding a deviant position on military service when a state imposes conscription. Since part of the process of reducing tension between sect and state is accommodation by one or both parties, the paper also examines relations between a religious group and governments in a conflict situation, and the process of accommodation-or failure to come to terms-between them. It considers when accommodation occurs, which side accommodates, and the conditions under which failure to come to terms occurs. The vehicle used in this study is the evolution of the Seventh-day Adventist position on military service over the past 130 years. The Adventist position has been transformed during this period. The paper considers how successfully this measures Adventism's shift from sect towards denomination. Since church-sect theory has typically focused on a single country, but Adventism is a highly centralized international denomination, the paper introduces a new dimension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Sociology is the property of Canadian Journal of Sociology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article presents a comment on a previous article that appeared in a previous issue of the Canadian Journal of Sociology. According to the author, the central points of his article were: (a) that an extensive body of ignored research had shown that the methodologies adopted by the original Vertical Mosaic school of thought on elites probably exaggerated the exclusivity of Canadian elites to a considerable degree; (b) that the finding of elite membership that was unrepresentative of the social composition of the population did not indicate a shocking anomaly that demanded immediate remedy. This pattern is referred to in the international literature as the law of increasing disproportion; (c) that, in any case, research conducted using other methodologies, and research conducted since the original publication of The Vertical Mosaic, indicates that the Canadian pattern is in transition. Sociologist Harvey Rich argues that the measures of middle class used in the Vertical Mosaic tradition, and uncritically adopted in author's paper, are far too narrow and would apply to what most would designate as the upper middle class. Consequently, Rich argues that author's guesstimate about the possible proportion of those of working-class origins in the elites was too high. Rich is correct. It is also correct to suggest that author's paper sometimes confused sociologist Wallace Clement's position with sociologist John Porter's position and that its discussion suffered accordingly.

The article presents the response to a critical study related to sociology. Sociologist Michael W. Gillespie argues that the papers prepared by the sociologists K.W. Taylor and N.L. Chappell provide the misleading description of the log-linear methods and advocate a defective alternative method. The paper presents no tests of statistical importance and also fails to point out the inherent ambiguities shared by multiple association analysis with all variation partition schemes. The author says that Gillespie is correct in pointing out the potential ambiguities introduced into association coefficients because of correlated independent variables. Analysts who suspect that the raw frequency based coefficients are affected by nonorthogonal independent variables can analyze the percentaged data and compare both set of coefficients. If the relative magnitudes are similar, the nonorthogonality can be ignored. But if the relative magnitudes do not match, they must be more cautious in interpreting the frequency based coefficients.

The article presents a comment on a previous article related to occupational mobility and work orientation that appeared in the April 1979 issue of the Canadian Journal of Sociology. According to the author, Professor Michael Smith raises certain objections to his reading of data taken from a survey of industrial workers conducted by sociologists J. Loubser and M. Fullan. The principal argument upon which Professor Smith's remarks center is his belief that tended to misrepresent the extent to which results contradict the findings in the book The Affluent Worker, by sociologist John H. Goldthorpe. Despite the commendably straightforward manner in which Professor Smith presents his case, matters are not as straightforward as they may seem. The author feels that it is Professor Smith who has "tended to misrepresent," or perhaps misunderstand, the nature of the author's paper, and that this arises from a rather selective and overly confined reading of both the author's paper and the Goldthorpe study. No doubt Professor Smith will remain unconvinced by author's assessment of his critique, according to the author; Smith writes in a way, which suggests he is wed to his methodological views with a conviction that prevents his recognizing their partiality.

The article presents information on the relevance of poetry for sociology. The author was inspired to write this paper by the appearance of in a recent issue of the periodical Teaching Sociology, of an article on using poetry in the classroom. Most of the authors fellow sociologists regard his interest in poetry as an illness from which they hope he would soon recover. So it was a source of comfort to the author to find that there is at least one other sociologist with a similar interest. This is not a research paper, many problems and issues are discussed in an impressionistic and evocative rather than in a scholarly way. The purpose of the author is not to convince any reader of the truth of his impressionistic arguments and assertions; what he does hope to convey is the great benefits to be gained from integrating poetry into the teaching of sociology. For this paper the author has added another section which discusses the uses of poetry in teaching sociology in more general terms. The potential value of poetry in teaching sociology has not been recognized by either sociologists or poets.

The papers by Mauksch and Baker posed two fundamental questions: (1) How can academic culture be changed to recognize the critical importance of instruction in higher education? and (2) How can academic culture be changed to recognize teaching as a reputable professional activity of obvious significance to institutions of higher education? Most of the discussion of the two papers centered on policies or theories of action. With the exception of Baker's small-win strategies, we did not discuss specific tactics through which the principal goals night be achieved. Perhaps it was unrealistic to expect that this symposium would or could have done so. But an agenda of goals has been laid out, together with a handful of policies or strategies to attain them. Now it is time to operationalize those policies, and we invite all sociologists, or other readers who share these interests, to consider specific activities to serve that end. The lime is mole propitious than it has been for decades. The publication of, and widespread media attention to, national reports critical of instruction and curriculum in undergraduate education has opened a window of opportunity. These reports have received attention, critical attention, in many states. Action is almost sure to follow. If the academic profession wishes to remain in control of its own house, it must act as well, and quickly. Teaching Sociology, which is now published by he ASA and which replaces the Teaching Newsletter, is one vehicle through which suggestions and programs can be circulated. We sincerely hope that the coming months will see them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the recent job crunch in sociology From a historical perspective the current glut of Ph.D's is seen not as a temporary aberration in an otherwise healthy economic system, but rather as a recurring phenomenon with the conditions that foster the oversupply of Ph.D's likely to continue well into the future We show how most proposed solutions to the unemployment and underemployment problems faced by sociologists are limited by the failure to examine the Historical origins and structural characteristics that have given rise to current imbalances. Prevailing conditions and opportunity structures are accepted as given. This uncritical and atheoretical approach limits our understanding of current employment problems and restricts the range of potential solutions that are considered. The paper lays out an alternative framework for analyzing the sociology job market and suggests new directions for research into this social problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates the relevance of both formal training and current career conditions for the professional activity of an academic. We focus on the socialization of a sample of Ph.D. sociologists submitting papers for publication. Using regression procedures, we relate productivity of the training faculty, current publication pressures, sex, and year of degree to publication-related activity. We find that current publication pressures is a better predictor of professional activity than it productivity of the training faculty. In addition, sex appears to mediate professional socialization experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper examines the review process currently in vogue in process currently in vogue in the social sciences and contends that the process is in need of reform. The authors propose multiple submissions of extended abstracts as a possibility. The paper tests this alternative and presents an analysis of the results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Only recently have sociologists begun to examine the social origins of educational mismatches in more detail. This research not only repeatedly found, but also investigated why individuals from lower social origin more often have a higher level of education than required for their job (overeducation), and why individuals from a higher social origin more often realize high positions despite having a lower level of education than required for their job (undereducation). While these studies provide additional and valuable empirical insights into the effect of social origin on both types of mismatch separately, to date there has been no investigation on general sociological meaningful conditions, under which the social origin unfolds an effect on undereducation and overeducation in the first place. This paper addresses this gap by examining the relevance of intergenerational stability for the effect of social origin on mismatches. It does so by drawing on arguments from sociological theories on intergenerational (im-)mobility, data from the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) for the period 1990–2017, and two different measurement methods for educational mismatches. The empirical results show evidence of substantial heterogeneity in the effect of social origin on educational mismatches: A higher parental status is found to be advantageous only for employees with intergenerational stability in social classes and/or occupational tasks. This indicates that the intergenerational transmission of class-specific traits and occupational skills contribute to the effect of social origin on mismatches. The results show no effect of parental status on educational mismatches among employees who are intergenerationally mobile and make up half of the German labor force under investigation. Since this heterogeneity is also found among workers who immigrated to Germany as adults, parental networks within Germany and the corresponding social capital can be ruled out as the main driver behind this finding. Although educational attainment is the most important pathway of intergenerational status maintenance, the results suggest that educational mismatches offer a means of identifying systematic deviations from this pathway. Individuals who follow in the footsteps of their high-status parents are more likely to be employed either at or above their level of education. In the light of the strong heterogeneity revealed, complementary explanations and routes for further research to investigate the link between intergenerational (im-)mobility, social origin and educational mismatches are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

in this area. A radical re-tooling of some of his earlier definitions and concepts seems to be needed, if these are to become more appreciated and useful in future research. In short, while he undoubtedly knew his empirical evidence very well, Weber, like many other scientists, experienced some painful difficulties in attempting to classify and label it. The major modification tentatively suggested in this paper is that it is necessary to pay close attention to an extremely sharp contrast between the two variants of the traditionalist concept of domination, patrimonialism vs. feudalism. This basic contrast, crucial in his scientific investigation of cultural differentiations, runs most consistently through an unbelievable wealth of research material accumulated by him. It is an empirical typology of two sets of contradictory historical experiences concerning the origin and development of domination and legitimacy. There is another rather significant and frequently overlooked scientific contribution of Max Weber within the context of this paper. Albert Salomon's witty comment from the 1930's on the Me-long dialogue of Max Weber with the ghost of Karl Marx is now very popular among many radical, establishment, and the-rest-of-us sociologists. In spite of being fashionable to refer to it through the 1960's, no serious attempts were made to account for this many-faceted dialogue. This paper will try to settle one of the very much alive aspects of the same dialogue— hopefully to the lasting satisfaction of all. One morning numerous and valuable conceptual tools suggested by Max Weber, a typological dichotomy of patrimonialism vs. feudalism, has not been sufficiently utilized in modem research and obviously for good reasons. But the theoretical potentialities of this dichotomy seem to be imperative and still go begging particularly in an ever-increasing number of fascinating comparative analyses of durable and large political systems in time as well as in space. A consensus seems to be growing that the former is indispensable for the understanding of the latter, because the durability of patterning, found only in the comparison of things in time, is one of the most crucial prerequisites for contemporary studies of comparing things in space. Wesson (1967) and Eisenstadt (1963) in their admirable generalizing sweep of great historical empires, Blum (1964) and Jacobs (1958) in their specialized areas, could have immensely facilitated their formidable tasks if Weber's dichotomy had been available to them, thus only increasing the welldeserved impact of their contributions. Indeed, this dichotomy of Weber's, similarly to some others, does need just about a total rescue if not resurrection, and no student should be blamed for not digging for it for his own needs. Patrimonial-feudal dichotomy is buried in Webers extremely rough-draft writings on the traditionalist type of domination. In addition to being by necessity a residual type—whatever did not qualify for charismatic or legal-rational types was hastily located here perhaps for the time being—the traditionalist type, as presented by Weber, is one of the most mettled and confusing segments of Ms writings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The problem of the kind of social organization necessary to bring about radical social change was raised by Marx in 1843-1844 in his essay on Hegel's philosophy of law. In this essay Marx specified the kind of social organization capable of bringing about the total, socialist revolution as the proletariat, a class, in society but not of it, conscious of itself and of its enemies, and organized as a party. (See also Marx and Engels, 1848). In the historical development of Marxism, Marx' answer was reinforced, but also narrowed and specified, by Lenin's classical (1902) formulation of the revolutionary cadre party. In a world in which many now talk of revolution, both in the "Third World," and even in modem industrialized countries, it may be of some use to re-examine the question of the kind of social organization involved in generating radical social change, and to reexamine the Marxist answer. My strategy in this paper is to attack the problem indirectly, by reexamining Max Weber's discussion of the role of certain kinds of Protestant groups in the rise of the capitalist world. I shall try to justify this indirect strategy at the paper's conclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the applicability of Parsonian "pattern-variables" in defining a constructed type. Specification of boundaries or cutting-off points of role relationships in Weber's three types of authority systems, while an intriguing problem, is a project too great in scope for a short paper. Instead, for this preliminary attempt, a social system has been selected in which a few crucial role relationships define its character. It is also a system familiar to sociologists. The setting selected is the educational institution at the university level. The type to be defined, "the seat of learning," is perhaps the most "ideal" of ideal types. A number of other constructed type educational institutions might be isolated, e.g., "marriage markets," "sources of status," "diploma mills," or, perhaps, "campus playgrounds." Sets of role relationships could be specified to define any of these types. For purposes of illustration, however, the definition of one type will be sufficient. Four steps are involved in defining the constructed type: (1) selection of the crucial role pairs; (2) the definition of the chosen role relationships by use of the pattern-variables; (3) measurement of the pattern- variable choices; and (4) establishment of boundary points for the pattern-variables themselves. The fourth step will not be completed in this paper; it is felt that the necessary methodological apparatuses are already available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper indicates the meaning of professionalization of science both in its ideal and in its actual empirical form. The paper also explores when it means to say that role of the sociologist is to be institutionalized in our society as though he were a scientist. For this, the author outlines the ideal image of the scientist's role, possible "pathological" deviations from that ideal, the gap between the goals of sociology as they have been formulated by sociologists and the aims which sociology is likely to pursue if it is institutionalized as science, the effect on sociology of the adoption of various pathological elements of scientific professionalization. Furthermore, the point of this paper is that the goal of professional recognition in the scientific community might push the sociologist in another and "pathological" direction. Such a view will not be popular amongst professional sociologists. It may, however, be sustained by a "liberal" journal editor.

This article focuses on the research papers published in this issue of the journal "Marriage and Family Living." The research paper "Research in family dynamics: A criticism and a proposal," focuses on the extensive use of questionnaires in the study of interpersonal family relations. The study suggests the clinical approach by family sociologists who have been trained in psychodynamics as a more appropriate technique which is also capable of progressive refinement. The research paper "Family-oriented treatment of marital problems," highlights the special aspects of family-oriented treatment of marital problems in a family agency focus attention on the interaction between husband and wife. A sound clinical understanding of each partner is essential, but it is equally important that the relationship between the partners be understood. Another research paper "Are educators afraid of sex?" attempts to show that there is a trend toward emotional withdrawal from sex instruction in family life education today.

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.

An unusual type of paper is under the title "The Need for Asylum Reform." That title expresses the purpose that moved sociologist H.S. Liveing to write the paper and seek publicity for it. But the proper channels for such publicity were found to be closed. In printing here the larger part of Mrs. Liveing's paper, authors may possibly hope for some slight effect on the movement towards Asylum Reform. But for the sociologist, experiences, such as are here offered, have a theoretical value, as "pointer facts." These mental observations bear significantly on those problems of inner disharmonies, or "endo-psychic conflicts," which have been brought to the front, and are being pressed home by the psychoanalytic school. The suggestion is that the sociologist should read Liveing's paper as evidence of certain environmental factors apt to be minimized, or even overlooked, in a purely psychological analysis of mental disintegration. Accepting the psychoanalysis' account of inner conflict as failure of the mind to integrate its own experience of life, the sociologist pleads for a fuller social analysis of the milieu, which makes up and constitutes the external half of the inner process. In particular he demands a fuller investigation, and heavier weighting, of the part played by the distracting urban milieu in maintaining, aggravating, and even originating, the mental conflicts which psychological abstraction is perhaps too much disposed to trace backwards into infantile impressions within the family circle.

This article focuses on the writings of John S. Stuart-Glennie, a famous historian and sociologist. Stuart-Glennie was educated at the Grammar School and the University of Aberdeen and at the University of Bonn. After graduating, he traveled widely in Europe and America, was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple, and practised in the court of his kinsman, the Vice-Chancellor Sir John Stuart. A nearer way of understanding his work and aims is by taking some of his early books and papers. Of these one of the earliest, his "Arthurian Scotland: Topographical and Traditional Evidences of the Historical Origin of Arthurian Romance"-though often little considered by the specialists in Arthurian romance, owes this neglect not a little to their deficiency on the side on which he was so strong-the side, namely, of concrete geographical research, of utilization and interpretation of the local traditions. Another interesting presentment of his work, is afforded by such a paper as his "Roman Origins and History," in the Proceedings of the British and American Archaeological Society of Rome, 1907.

The article presents the autobiography of the sociologist Jan Szczepanski on the tribulations of a Polish sociologist. He started to study philosophy and sociology in 1932 at the University of Poznan, Poland, under Florian Znaniecki. He received the M.A. degree on the basis of a paper on the semantics of Husserl, and the Ph.D. degree on the basis of a dissertation entitled "The Idea of the Milieu in Rural Sociology," written under the direction of Professor Znaniecki in 1939. Both these works, prepared for printing in 1939, were lost during the war and have never been published, only several articles appearing at that time. He brought with him from his home an interest in rural sociology. His father possessed a small farm in the mountain locality of Ustron in Silesia. Work on this farm was therefore his first experience of any social importance. Sociology in Poland was quickly reconstructed. During the first post-war years the author wrote two textbooks, "Development of the Methods of Sociology" and "History of Social Thought in the Nineteenth Century." However, after the turn towards Stalinism, the publication of the manuscripts proved impossible. Instead he published many papers, and wrote in the weeklies, taking part directly in political discussions and polemics.

This article reports on the Fifth World Congress of Sociology organised by the International Sociological Association (ISA), at the Shoreham Hotel, Washington D.C., during 2-8 September, 1962, under the auspices of UNESCO and in collaboration with the American Sociological Association. The meetings brought together 1,030 participants from fifty one countries. Three main themes dealt with were, sociologists, policy-makers and the public, the sociology of development, the nature and problems of sociological theory. Many of the 240 invited contributions and the main papers presented to the plenary sessions are being published in the periodical "Transactions," volumes I and II of which have already appeared. Volumes III and IV will be published during the spring of 1963 and will contain reports on the discussions, a representative selection of the shorter papers and a list of the participants. Grants from the American Council of Learned Societies, the National Science Foundation and the Social Science Research Council enabled the ISA to pay the travel expenses of most of the principal contributors and to offer free charter flight tickets to 80 young research workers from twenty countries.

The article presents news and information from the Department of Social Anthropology, Karnatak University, Dharwar, India. Senor Roberto Etchepareborda, the Argentinian Ambassador to India, on October 18, 1963, read a paper on the Gaucho literature of Argentina. Some excerpts of the paper are as follows. The paper reads that under Spanish rule, Argentina was undivided, and on the broad pampas roamed unnumbered wild horses and cattle, descendants of those brought over by the early settlers. These were the greatest source of wealth and gave rise to a body of fearless riders called Gauchos that made business of hunting wild cattle for their hides and tallow or driving them to "estancias" to be branded and gentled. Gauchos were the backbone of the armies. They fought the Portuguese invaders in 1771 and helped in 1807 to retake Buenos Aires from the British. A list of the visitors to the University has been provided. An acknowledgement from the editor to sociologists who helped in the preparation of notes and news section, has also been given.