(PDF) The origins of ‘mainstream sociology’ and other issues in the history of American sociology

I .

.. 1 i

l.

!

\

I

.SOCIALEPISTEMOLO

GY

, 1994, VOJ..

8,

!"

O.J

,

41-67

Symposium

on

the

his

tory

of

Americ

an

soci

o

lOg)!

portra;•ed in

The

Impos

sible Science

by

Stephen

Turner

a

nd

j o

nathan

Turner

The

authors

resp

o

nd

The

origins

of

'mainstream

sociology'

and

other

issues

in

the

history

of

American

sociology

STEPHEN

TURNER

Th

e

wntmg

of

history

ty pi

ca

lly involves opu11ons

that

c

an

not

be

es

tablished

by

hi-

storical

ev

iden

ce.

This

'

in

vol

ve

ment'

take

s two mai n forms: first,

th

e

intimation

of

evaluative

op

ini

o

ns

is often

the

point

of

historical

:tnd

seco

nd

, as

Web

er

maintain

e

d,

o

pini

on

pla

ys

a collslitu/

ive

ro

le-the

iden till c:ttio n

of

histo

rical

ob

j

ec

ts,

of

explanatory

pro

bl

ems,

and

perh

a ps ev en

th

e

se

lection

of

so

lu

tio

ns

to th

ese

pr

ob

-

lem

s is

governed

by

opinion

s

or

commitmen

ts

that

cann

o t

be

prov

en

his t

or

ically .

Th

e co

mment

s

of

both

Bulm

e r a

nd

Cami

c, for c

xompl

c,

presume

the

validity

of

opinions

abo

ut

w

hat

was

and

wa

s n ot

imjJortaul

in

th

e:

his

or

Amer

ica

n

soc

iology.

I reject

these

o

ions.

In

th

e

book,

the

re

je

c

tion

intimat

e

d.

· ·

Perhaps

th

e

most

us

e

fu

l

thing

l

can

do

in

this re

pl

y is

to

identify

and

sh

arpe

n

:

some

o f th e differen

ces

in

unprovabl

e o pinions

bet

ween

myself

and

the

critics -

.

though

I

mu

st

say

thor

the

y we re c

haritable

a

nd

mild

criti

cs

i

nde

e

d-

and

make

explic

it

so

me

of

the

things

tha

t I w is

hed

to i

ntim

atc in

the

historical

discu

ss

ion

but

could

not

prove

.

Th

er

e

arc

two re:t s

ons

for do

ing

this. M

os

t

of

the

que

s

ti

ons r

aised

· by e

ach

of

th

e

com

menta

to

rs c

an

be

more

ea

sily

addr

essed if

these

hidden

them

es

and

differences

of

opini

on a

rc

made

mor

e e

xpl

icit. A m ore

impor

t

ant

reason

is this:

·.·some

of

th

es

e conflicts

might

be

turn

ed

int

o

:tnsw

cn1ble

historical

pro

bl

ems.

My

sense is t

hat

conv

e

ntional

Am e

rican

cli

sscr

t:t tion

histori

og

ra ph y

ha

s been

·generally

unsucces

sful in

dealin

g wit h

the

history

of s

ocial

sc

ience.

It

ha

s

pr

o

duced

an historical

literatur

e w

ithout

sati

sfactoril y d efining

an

y signiftca

nt

histori

ca

l

prob-

.

The

quest

for

an

ea

sily s

ummarized

histo

rical

narrat

ive

that

is c

hara

ct

-

.,

....,

:.

•.

,

,on,.uc

of

con

v

entional

histor

ical

narrative

pr

o

duc

es a

situation

in

w

hi

ch

each

new

.

work

forces

th

e ma terial

int

o a p

rocru

s

tean

bed,

an

d,

wo rse,

each

n

ew

pr

oc

rustean

thesis

is

la

rg

ely i

rr

elev

ant

to

the

pr

evio us

one.

Ev

en

the

most

di

s

tingu

i

sh

ed a nd

· A•lhor:

Ste

p

hen

Turn

er, De

partment

of

Philo

s

ophy,

Un

ivasily

of So,

orh

Flo ri

da

, 336

20-j550

,

USA

.

All

referen

ce

.< in

1h<o

ICXI,

unl

ess o 1h

crw

isr ci1cd,

ar

c to

Tu

i<,..

F.

R, S. P.

and

T

t:KI<F.

K,

J.

H.

Tltr

lmpo

ssiblt

Srimct

: An lnsli

f!lli

onnl

Ana

(>

•.ris

of

A

mrr

icnn So

ciolug

•,

Sa

ge

Pu b

li

c

ations,

N

ewbury

Park, CA

(1990) .

42

SYM

POSIUM

ON H I

!::

HIST OHY

OF

MIERICAN

SOCIOLOGY

co

mpetent historians

trapp

ed

by

th is.

The

main

flaw

or

Dorothy

Ross

's

s

tud

y

(1991),

menti

oned by

:1s

:1

model,

is

precisely this.

To

mak

e

the

work a

history it nee

ded

a thesis,

an

easily

su

m

ma

r

izablc

point th

:1t

th

e book

could

be

said by h

is

tor

y s

tudents

to

hav

e es

tab

lished!

I3ut the thes is -

that

Am cri-

social science esp

ec

ially

American

cxccpti

ona

lis

m-i

s

just

wrong.

The

Germa

ns

and

Frenc

h were as

or

more

conc

erned

with

national

distinctiveness.

Moreover, Ross

must

torture

the

texts to

mak

e this thesis work.

The

prob

l

em,

in

my

view,

is

in

the

rh

etoric

of

American

historical writi

ng

,

which

r

eq

uir

es s

uch

a

'thesis'.

It

is

also a

matter

of

the

stage

or

deve

l

opme

nt

of

the

his t

or

ic

al

li

teratur

e: in

the

face

of

a

hu

ge

m:lss

of

undig

est

ed

ma

tcri:ll, a s

implif

y

in

g

narrative

the

sis is

:1

rhetorical

necessit

y.

Howe

ver, I

th

ink th

at

one

gets

be

tter

his t

ory

when

th

e licld moves

into

a

d

ebate

format, in w hic h conOicting

basic

hist

orical

intuit

ions

abou

t

the

material

dclinc the historical '

pro

blem'.

Th

e

pn

:scn t could he

lp

to d c linc a

se

t

of

issues, and

in

this re

ply

1 hope to

identif

y

so

me

thing

s I

think

arc

worth

a r

guing

about.

The

lmpossibft

Scie

nce

did

n

ot

have

a

simple

narrativ

e

th

esis, thou

gh

it

did

a u

cmpt

.

bot

h to

employ

a

perspec

tive -

'resource

pr

o

blem

s'

-and

to convey

various

judg-

ments

. T he historical

argument

obscure.

Much

of it

was

buried

in the footnotcs.2

There

wa

s,

however, a

reason

for

th

is.

Jon

Turn

er

and

I

agreed

that

to

mak

e

the

historical

arguments

pa rt

of

th e

body

or

t

he

text

would

mak

e it

unr

ea

dable

for

th

e

larger

aud

ien

ce

of sociologists

whose

interests in

the

discipline

arc

no t

primari

ly

and

whom

we

hop

ed

would

read

the book

as,

so

to

speak

,

of

the

disc

ipline.

This

co

mpr

omise

worked.

The

book

did

indeed

r

each

thi

s

audience

,

and

it

obv

iously rcsonatr.d

with

people

with

very diverse

exper

iences

of

the

field.

Howev

er

, the fo

rmat

led to pr

oblems

with

the

audience

of

hi

sto

rian:s

and

perhaps

obscured

what

was

histori

ca

lly novel

abou

t

the

rcsu

lt

s.3 I will the

ref

ore

restate

wha

t

l take to be 1 he novel results.

Histo

ry is

11

0 1

jusr

for All

or

the

co

mme

nts,

and

es

pecia

ll

y those

of

Schuman

a nd

Dc

m

crath,

imp

li

ci

tl y

rais

e a

crucia

l hi

sto

ri

ograph

ic

problem

that

I

w

ill

also

addr

ess:

whe

th

er

o

ne

can

or

sho

uld

separate

judgmm

ls

of

di

sc

iplines,

and

especially

opinio

ns

ba

sed

on

consider

at

i

ons

int

erna

l to the discipline itself,

fr

om

historical

accounts

of

them.

SchunHttl

and

Demcrath

rai

se

th

e crucial issue in

this

regard. from the

point

of

view

of

r

eaders

who

arc

fr

an

kl

y

di

sciplin e m

em

be rs r

ather

th

an

It

is

:111

iss

ue

that

must

be

f."tccd.

by per

so

ns

who

think

th

at

they

arc

co

nc

erned

with

the

histo

ry

of

clisciplincs r

at

h

er

1han discipli

nar

y

history.

I.

II()

'S

I!1:1•

qf

!ftc

origius

of

the

maillS/

ream

Bo

th

Carn

ic

and

Bulmer

have

wh

at

l

would

ca

ll

a Chic.."lgo-ccntric

picture

of

the

hist

or

y

of

sociology.

The

major

'

hidden'

th

eme

of this vol

ume

was

th

at

the

Chicag

o-c

entr

ic

pi

c

tur

e

is

funda

m ent ally false.

The

big

drama

of the history

of

Ame

ric

an

sociology, as 1 sec it,

is

the

l

ong

q u

est

to create a

quantitative

science, a

quest

that

largely fail ed inte

ll

ectu

ally

and

brgcly succcc

cl

cd

The

po

lit-

ical success, whi ch

ma

y yc 1 prove

Pyrrhic,

was

the crc.ttion

of

a d

omi

n

ant

fac1

ion in

the

di

sc

ip line,

namely

'mains

tr

eam

soc

iol

ogy'.

Th

e failure

wa

s a fai

lu

re to

pr

o

duce

any

results

th

a t we re 'scicntirtc' in any very fancy sen

se

, s uch

as

the

es

ta

blishment

of

Tlil:: O

lliC

INS

OF

·MAINS.I'Iti:J\1\1 S

OC

IOLOGY.

43

scientific principl

es

.

To

be sure, m

ethods

a

nd

of

sociolo!('v

pro

du

ced results ,

som

e

of

which

had

prac.:

tic

al

Ho

wever ,

th

r

cncc'

pa

rt

remained

elusive,

and

total

political

domination

re

main

ed elusive.

Tbe

b

oo

k

thus

asked why

no

group

achieved

thei r

vi

sion o r

soc

iol

ogy

, a

nd

<tn

swc

rcd

the

question

in terms

of

resources

and

institutions.

.

book

a different view

of

the hi

story

or

sociologr

.

F:

an

k.

hn

G t

ddmgs,

:1

ltgure

n

eg

lec

ted,

a

bused,

or igno red by the whole

lus

roncal

lttc

rntur

c

produced

by sociologists o n

Am

er

ican sociology, is sugge

st

ed to

be

1h

c htclclcn

sou

r

er.

of

sociology'. book shows 1ha t

the

lin

es

of

personal

influe nce

fl

owing

from G i

ddings,

especia

ll

y

thr

ou

gh

the

rel

atio

ns

of

t

eacher

and

pupi

l, arc pervas ive in

mainstre

a m sociology: his

st

u

de

nt

s

and

the s tud ents

of

his

arc

to be f

ou

nd-t

o this

day

- in

man

y o r the

crit

i

ca

l positions

of

power

m soc10l

ogy

and

th

e Social Science

Res

earch

Council.

The

key i

deas

they

shar

ed

come

fr

om G i

dding

s' s

ideas

a bo

ut

the

mrtric

i

zation

or

sociology and his

correla-

ti

onal

approach

to

thinking

about

causal

re

lations

in the social

'.

:c

alm

. T he

se

id

eas

were far fro m be ing

inh

erently

reasonabl

e

and

ob\'iously

true-th

e,·

we

re

in

dee

d

un iq ue.

in

the

history

of sociology,

share

d by

no

ot

her facti

on

of a ny-

where

tn

th

e worl

d.

They

ha d to

be

struggled

fo

r

as

well

as

intell

ectually,

and

the

struggle was

of

ten

brutal.

Yet in the

end

these id eas s

ur

vived a

lb

eit in

rn

odilicd forms.

The

traditio n

absorbe

d

some

of

the

views

of

its

comp e titors to b

eco

me

'

main

s

tream

sociology'.

How

ever, did

no

t succ

ee

d in

excluding

its rivals from

the

discip

line.

''

.

It

wo.uld

be

u

se

ful t? st

ate

m y basic historic

al

acco

unt

of

G

iddings

's

role

tn

rc!att

on

to rnams

trcam

soctology' a t

some

length, because i1 was buried

in

th e

text,

and

can

be

told m

ore

si mply

if

a few things ilrc

added.

The

sc

ene

.in the 1880s

was as A l

arge

numb

er

of

reform movem

ents

hnd develo p

ed,

usually

with

a

cadc

m1

c ltnks.

Of

these,

the

mos

t irnp

or

tnn l

source

fo

r

th

e

main

s

tr

eam

-to-

be

or

soci?logy was coop

era

ti vism.

The

pr

ob

lem

of

<tcting

on

pr

inciples of

cooperatio

n ratscd all

the

big theoreti

cal

qucsl i

ons

of

sociology, such

as

the

condi

-

tions for

con

fl

ict

and

consensus,

th

e role

of

soc

ializati

on,

and

the

v

aria

bili tv of

h

uman

natu

r

e.

Coopc

r

ativism

was

closely associated with onicial l

abo

r

statis

;i

cs.

Gidd

in

gs was

th

en

a

jo

urnalist

and

coop

crati

vist

propagandist.

H oweve r,

Giddings

proved

10

be no s

impl

e

ref

or

m ideo lo

gue

,

and

ind

eed t.tlkc

cl

himself

0\lt

or

his

original

views.

He

wr

ote o r

rather

ghost

ed

th e

Massachuscus

Bur

eau

of

L

abo

r

Statistics

r

epo

rt

on prolit

sharing

, a work

of

genuine

subst

ance

and

sophisticatio n

(Gidd

ings, 1

886).

Giddings

lea

rned

that

in

f."le

t was often

regarded

by

its la

rg

ely a s a

tempor

ar

y cxpcdicn1 before they

mastered

the business s ide

of

cou

ld set

up

th

eir

ow

n

shop.

Gid

di

ngs

also

wro1.:,

as

an

cconor

msl,

a sttll-cllcd

cnltquc

of

prolit

sharing

that

showed

whv

this

scheme

would

n

ever

provide e n

ough

returns

to significantl

y,

altcr

bcnelits to \:

•o

rkcrs

(Gid

-

din

gs, 1

887a)

.

As a in early professional

economic

dcb

.llcs

(and

auth

or

rcfonn

such

as

indexa

tion

of

pri

ces

to inllation (sec also Gi

ddin

gs, 1877

)),

he

was

wttncss to

the

meth

odological

st

ru

ggles

of

early cconolllics,

and

C

:ll1

H'

tn

br

to

meth

odo logica l q uestions. \Vi th o ut f

ormal

train

i

ng

in

either

economics o r the

'offi

cia

l

trad

iti

on

,

he

recep

ti

ve to

the

met

hodological id eas

oC

the earl y 1890s, when he his

ca

rrrr.

5

lnllur

nccd

!)"

,\·J

ae

h

and

th

e !3rilish and1ropol

og

ist

Ty

or,

who

had

cn

gaRrd

in a vasl co

m:

-

l:tli

ona

l projec t in

the

s

tud

y

ofk

i

nship

evolutio n

(T

yl

or,

l8U9),

he

was r

lc

ctrilled

(a

s

44

ON

TH!;

JIIST

OK\'

OF

AM!;Ill(.;t\N

S

OCI

O

LO

G Y

many

Europ

e

an

intellect ua ls also were)

by

the

pu

bl

i

cation

(originally

in

1893)

or

Karl

Pear

so

n'

s

Grammar

of

Science

{ 1900). He became a fervent follower

and

a ppli

er

of

Pearson's

ideas,

not

on

ly to

methodological

questions,

but

to

substantive

ques-

tions in social theory.

T h

is

was

the

ba

sic stuff

of

which

mains

t

ream

soc

iology

was

made

.

It

s ori

ginary

text

is

Giddings's

1

90

1 book, lnduclive Sociology, whi.

ch

build

s on

but

goes beyond

Pearson.

The

book

pioneered

the

specification

or

the

concepts

or

so

cial theory in

quantitativ

e an d p recise

desc

ri

ptive

terms.

This

huge

clfort reflec

ted

G i

ddings's

accep

tance

of

P

ea

rso

n's

version

of

Comt

c's

l

aw

or

th

e

three

stages

in which

mc

tr ic-

ization

wa

s the

last

st

ag

e

and

goal

of

science.

Gi

dd

in

gs

ac

tually b

eg

an

to

car

ry

out

t

he

Pcar

sonian

proj

ec

t

fo

r sociology by m

etric

i

zing

soci al concep

ts

.

Others

provide

d

sociological i

nt

erpreta

tion s

of

s tatistics.

Gi

dd

ings provid

ed

s

tatis

ti

ca

l

measures

f

or

sociological

co

n

cepts.

T

he

chang

e

tha

t this

produced

in

the

wa

y social

fa

cts wer e conceived, t

he

way

in

which

id

eas were

made

me

asurable

and

explanat

ions

ma

de

subject

to test,

was

t

he

r

ea

l

Copc

rn it:a n R evo

lution

in

sociology. Like t

ru

e

Copernican

R

evo

l

utions,

we

accept

now

as

natural

and

routi

ne

a

way

of

th

inking

that

was

once

speculative,

difficult, a

ucl

unn

atural. Gi

dding

s' s

painfu

l efforts to find indices f

or

common

te r

ms

in

soc

i

al

analysis sh

ow

h

ow

diffic

ult

it was to

ca

rr

y

out

this

program,

and

how

awkward

the

first st

eps

wcrc.6

His

stu

dent s,

such

as

Ch

a p

in

, were emplo

ye

d in th is

v

ast

effort to find m

ore

pr

ecise

substitutes

or

specificati

ons

of

conce

pt

s o r

soc

ial

the

ory

and

reform

commentary.

was

Giddings's

ma

in

co

ntributio

n.

Th

e te ll-talc sign

of

the

hand

of

Gidd

ings is in

dex

numbers

, wh

ich

fasci

nat

ed

Giddings

thr

oug

hout

his

ca

reer. His

indc

.x

of

social he te

rogene

i

ty

is

paradi

g

mati

c

of

his efforts.

It

was used to

ask

a

question t

hat

is

as

m

ea

n

in

gful tOday as i t was

in

Gidd

i

ngs's

time:

what

is

the

clf

cct

of

he

teroge neity

on

po

liti

ca

l

progr

essive ness?

Too

much

or

too l

itt

le

he

t

erog

eneity,

G

id

dings

showed

st

atist

ically, was associa ted w

ith

a

lac

k

of

progressiveness.

It

is

often di!ll

cult

to trace ' influ ences' i n this

do

mai

n. O t

he

r

sta

tis t

ica

l sociologists m

ay

not h ave been

in

spir

ed

by G idd ings's

examp

le, a

nd

Giddings's

students

had

oth

er

sources

ofi

ns

pira

tion.

How

ever, s

om

e

co

ntinuities a rc

very

striking. C h

apin

' s li

ving

room

sca

le

or

cla

ss

produced

t

hr

ee

decade

s

later,

for

example,

closely resembles

Giddi

n

gs's

early efforts.

Under

Giddings's

infl

uence

th

e

absorpt

ion

or

correlational

statistical

techniques

by sociologists

pr

ocee

ded

rapidl

y. B y 1920

multiple

regress i

on

a

nal

ysis

was

an

est

abli

shed

pa

rt

of

Co

l

umbia

sociology.

Giddings

taug

ht

statistics

him

self

lOr

a

while,

and

was

proud

to be a Fellow

or

the

American

Statistical

Association,

but

the

m

os

t gifted st

ati

sti

cian

in

the

Co

lu

mbia

faculty was t

he

pr

oto-e

co

no me t rician

H.

L.

Moore,

an d M

oo

re

trained

G i

ddings's

studen

ts well.

Moore

is

justly

cel

ebrated

in

Morgan

( 1990:

26-34).

'v\'ill

iam

Fielding

O

gburn

an d

lat

er

Frank

Ross,

both

Gid

-

dings's proteges,

edited

the Joumal

of

th

e Ameri

ca

n Statistical Associaliou.

did

so

f

or

man

y years.

The

dominant

sta

tis tic

al

method

s in

so

ciology

today

ar

c

vanant

s o n

these

mult

iple

cor

relation

and

regressio n

met

h

ods

and

th

ere

arc

dire

ct s

tu

dent-

teac

he

r

li

nks fr

om

th e

ea

rl

y corrclationa!ists to leading fig ures in c

on

te

mpo

ra ry

sociol

ogy

mc

th o

do

.logy.

Th

e

Pcarsonian

legacy,

howe

ver , was deeply

troub

l

ed.

T he

fu

nd a men

ta

l a

pp

eal

of

correla t

io

n a nd regression

ana

lysis was

th

at

co

rr

ela ti o n h

ad an

i

ntui

ti

ve

si

mi

la rity to

'cause'

and

p

art

ialling

ha

d

an

intuitive

sim

il

ari

ty to

(or

at

leas t

cou

ld

be

int

e

rpr

et ed,

in

some

contexts,

as

analogous

t

o)

int

erve

nin

g.

Th

ese id

eas

a rc

perhaps

the

two

T i l

l·:

O lti(.; INS

OF

SO(;JOl.O

t.:

\"

f5

cruc

ial

exp

l

anatory

ideas in science (sec

Hackin

g,

190:1).

Till'

sign

ifi

cance

of

tht·

idea

that

co

rrela

ti

on was a k

ind

of

equivalent

of

cause

wns

that

causa

l

claims

co

uld

be 'scientifically'

subs

t

antia

ted

in

the

absen

ce

of

a

proper

scie ntific law. '

Law'

w

as

an

ideal

rhat

was clearly

out

of

reach

fo

r social it

was

repcntcdh-

invok

cd

by

Giddings's

socia

l

statistician

pr

edecessor

s,

who

spoke

or

statistics

as

prel

im

ina ry to

the

discovery

of

un

de

rl

ying

laws,

and

his soriolol!'ical conlt'lll-

porarics,

such

as

Durkh

ei

m.

Giddings

was in

this

crucial

regnr

cl

-

witl;

his

ab

andon

-

ment

of'law'-thc

firs t

'modern'

statistical sociologist.

Th

e l

ong

hi

sto

ry

or

troubles

with

cau

sality in the st;ttisti cal

tradition

in

th

e

nin

etee

nth

ce

ntury

has

been discussed

at

leng th in

such

works

as

tha

t by

Porter

( 1

986,

sec a l

s.o

Turn

er , 198 6

a).

Pear

son's

so

luti

on

was

attr

acti

w.

fl y claiming t

hat

the b ws

or

sc

t

cncc

wer

e the m

se

lves

mere

idea

l

ization

s,

and

th

at

in empirical fact a

ll

the

re

wa

s

in

th

e

wor

ld were

cor

r

elations

with

grentcr

or

smaller

nmounts

of

vari-

in

dicated a

path

ou

t

or

these

tr

oubles. Scientific laws, in

emp

ir

ica

l

rcaltty, were

JUSt

corrclattons.

H

owever

,

the

blessings

of

the

intuitive

idea

of

the

si

milarit

y

between

cause

in

the

llllt

ndan

c

sense

of

manipul

ati

on

an

d

corrcbdon

:1nd

between

panialling

a

nd

intervention

came

at

a price.

Th

ere

was a

qu

esti

on

or

what

correlations

meant,

and

whether

one

co

uld

call a

cor

rel

ation

c

au

sal

without

im

po

rt-

mg s

om

ething

non-empirical

or

making

assumptions.

In

prac

tice,

some

correlatio

ns

and

so':'c

partials

could

be

rea d ily

interpreted

because

there

was

no

intelligible

altcrnattvc

to

the

obvio

us

interp

r

etation.

H

ow

ev

er,

where

ther e

werr

alternatives

they

co

uld n

ot

always

be

e

limina

t

ed

em

pir

ica

lly. '

!h

e legacy

of.

t

he

1920s

was

the

key

id

ea

that,

so

me

ti mes

atlcnst,

when

you

had

a

suttablc

you

had

a

subs

ti

tut

e for

and

that,

sometimes,

when

you

h

ad

a

parttal

correlation

you

had

identified

an

in

terve

nin

g

or

co

nd

iti

oni

ng

caus

al

relati

ons

hip

.

Giddings

had

a ki

nd

or

sol

ution

to the

problem

or

which

cor

r

elations

arc

really

causal

(Gid

dings, 1924), a so

lut

io

n

recently

revived by

Stanley

Licbcrson

{1985). s

tudents,

such

as

Ogburn,

strug

gled

en d lessly with the

problem,

unde

r

such

hcad tngs as the

problem

of

int

erpreting

partials.

Th

e

presenc

e or

th

ese

explanatory.

idc.as a nd a naly t ic

techniques

,

plus

the :tgonizing over the

pro

bl

ems

t

ha

t

come

wn

h 11,

arc

the

ma

rk

or

the

presence

of

th

is

tr

adition.

had

a

grea

t e ffect

on

his

stude

nts.

No

soc

iologist

since,

with

the

posstble cxc

cptt

on

of

Pa

rsons, was to

so

de

eply

mar

k his

stu

de n ts,

and

none

includ

-

i

ng

Pa

rson

s,

had

so

man

y successful stud en ts. Yet

althou

gh

th e links

between

Giddings

and

his s

tudents

arc

easy to

dem

ons

tr

a te,

an

d alt

hough

th

ere

is a

degree

of

co

nt

inu

it

y w

it

h respect to topics nn d

nagging

p r

oble

ms, it is

d1fli

cu

lt to

put

bou

nd

aries

on

the

notion

or

ma ins

tr

eam

sociology

and

to

put

lim

its

on

was

and

was no t a

natural

devel

opme

nt or

the

Giddings

tra

d iti

on.

J will

say

a

btt

m

ore

abom

my

historiographic

strategy

in

the face

or

th

ese p r

oblems

in

t

he

The

main

subs

t

antive

historical

pr

ob

l

em

for this g

en

era

l thesis is t he

fa

ct

that

o

ther

statistica

l a

nd

measurem

en

t tech

niqu

es we re, f

rom

th e l

ate

192

0s

on

imported

from

applie

d psychology, often by

Giddings's

students.

I th ink

that

imp

or

tation was, in

pa

rt,

a n

at

ural

step,

espec

ially

when

it was m

otiva

ted

and

c

ontro

ll

_cd

b.y

the.

problems

of

meas

ur

ement

and

causa

l

ity

with

which

Giddi

ngs

began.

fh

c 1ssuc

ts

muddled,

h

owe

ver, o n

an

hi

sto

ricnl le vel, ll\· the f;tc t tha t

some

or

the

i':'po

rtcrs

of

these

me

th

ods were

not

only n ot

in

the G

idd

ings succession but

:vcrc

no

1sy o

ppon

ents of

corrc

la tiona!

analys

is as

pr

acticed by G i

dd

ings's

students

m

th

e 1920s.

Lazar

sfcld is the

pr

ima

ry

c

ase

, th

ough

n confusi

ng

one, for Lazarsfcld

lea

rne

d his

alternat

ive co

nting

e

nc

y t

ab

le

anal)

'sis from a s

tudent

of

16

ON

TilE

HISTO

RY

OF

SOCI

OI.OC\'

Og

bu

rn, a

nd

was he lped

by

Fr

y,

a s

tud

e

nt

of

G i

ddi

n

gs

. In

th

e

en

d

th

e

r

evolt

w

ent

n

owhe

re,

but

it c

ann

ot

be i

gno

r

cd.

7 H

owever,

the

qu

es

ti

on

o f wh

et

he r

to

classif}' it as a

case

of civi l w

ar

wi thin a

tr

ad

ition o r

as

a

ge

nuin

e alt

ernat

ive

see

ms

to

11

1C

111

orc

sn

u;ut

tk

th

an

s u bsta n tive.

Su ffice it to

say

th

at

corrc

l

:nio

na l me t

hods,

plu s

vario

us

mcthocis

impo

rt

ed f

ro

m

app

lied

psych

o

iO!,

')',

arc

now 1hc

conu

n

on

co

re of

'mainstrc;ull

sociology'

.

The

sta

t-

istical

techniques

imported

fr

om

<tppl

icd

psychol

o

gy

have

all

the

s

ame

prob

l

ems

over

c

ausality

, (;Jt

least

in

thei

r s

ociological,

non-

cl\pc

rim

c

ntal

appli

ca

tion

s) as

cor

-

relalional

;Jnalysis

docs

.

Some

of

th

e

measu

r

ement

t

ec

h niq ues,

such

as

attitude

a rc

!!Cil

lli lll'ly

di

lfcrcut -

but

th

ey n

ever

lived

ur>

to 1 he

promises

orig

ina

ll

y

I(Jr them,

by

Stou

ll

cr

, to

th

e

dkc

t

th

at

th

C}'

wo

uld

a ste p tow.1rd h igh

science. T h

ey

wer e n'

t.

To

d;J)', q uic k

ci

it·ty t

echn

iq u

es

like t he Li k

ert

pr c

ci

omina

te. T he a

ct

ua l usc

of

till' tec

hniqu

es

th

us

fi

ts G

iddin

gs's

i

dcns

a bo

ut

measu

r

eme

nt

rat

her

th

a n L

aza

rsfcld

's

.u

T h

ey

arc

co

n

ven

ien t

metr

i

cizatio

ns

or

re-

searchers'

not

p r ecise m

easures

of

s

uppo

se

d

in

ne r

attitudin:

li

rea

lities.

Nev

ertheless,

despite

the

fact

that

'mains

t

ream

sociology'

es

t

ablish

ed

itself in

the

major

journa

ls

and

the

large

graduate

departments,

the

res t

of

th e

discipline

did

no

t

go al

ong

gently

.

As

the

aci

v

antagc

of

its

special

access to

funding

has

weakened,

the

abi

l

ity

or

main

s

tream

socio

l

og

ists

to

suppress

nl

tcrnativc

soc

iol

ogies

h

as

a l

so

weakene

d .

This w

as

th

e st

ory

I wished to

intim

a te in the tex

t.

Th

e

basic

his

torical

st ory

line

of

Tlu Imp

ossible

Scimce, h

owever

concealed,

is the s to ry

of

th e

rise

n

nd

triumph

of

mainstr

eam

sociology

. C hi

cago

sociology

und

er

Park,

th

e

Lazarsfc

ld

-M

c

rt

on-

Il

AS

R

survey

model

,

and

Pa

r

sonsia

ni

sm,

by

im

p

li

c

ati

on,

were

sid

es

h

ows-

temporary,

fue l

ed

by

f

ouncbtion

m

oney,

b

ut

of

little lon

g-

tc

nn

sig nificance.

This

is

n

ot

rca!ly a p r

ovable

thesis-too

many

of

its

terms

arc

contestable

v

ague.

H

owever

,

so

arc

the

claims

made

against

it, a nd

made

for alt

ernative

p i

ctures

of

the

hist

ory

of

American

sociol

ogy.

I t

was

th

ese eq

ua

ll

y

unprovab

le

op

inions

th

a t I

wis h

ed

to

coun

t

er.

Exa

mp

les o f rh c

op

inio ns J h

ad

in m i

nd

as

t

nrge

ts

can

be f

ou

nd in t he

co

mm

ents.

Carnic

and

De

m c rn

th

b

ot

h w rite

as

though there is a

co

mm

o n

core

o f p r

ese

n t

sociology, the pr

od

uct ,

as

Cnmic

says,

'of

choices

la

id d

ow

n i n

ea

rli

er

decades'.

I

th

ink t

hat

th

ere

is

something

to

this

,

obv

io us ly.

My

candidate

fo

r th e

so

ur

ces

arc

di!l'crcnt,

how

ever,

as

is

my

candidate

for

the

'co

re'

stulf. I

think

t

ha

t

suc

h

major

themes

as

conflict

co

nsen

su

s,

socializat

i

on,

individualism,

cthnicity,

status

and

the

like

ar

c

present

in

Giddings

others)

very

e

arly,

a nd

that

these

concerns,

together

with

the

rncthod

s or

correlational

analysis

and

the

usc

of

sur

r

ogate

measur

es

for

th

ese

th

ings

, wh ich a rc

present

in Gidd

in

gs

a l

one

by

1

90

I,

arc

pretty

mu

ch

what

mak

e

up

sociology.

If

someon

e else

wo

ul

d

articu

la te an a

lt

erna

tive

acco

un

t o r

th

e or igins or

the

core

o f

soc

iology,

we

wo

uld

have

a

fruitf

ul , defin

ing

hi

sto

ri

ca

l

pr

obl

em fo r t

he

hist

ory

of

SO

Ci

o l

ogy

tO

add

r

ess

: a

problem

(ike t he ni

ne

t

een

th

CC

ntUI

)'

p

rob

le m o f th e

SO

Ur

CC

Of

the N ile.

How

eve r,

vag

ue

hin

ts wo n ' t

do

. C

arn

ic's s ug g

es

ti

on

th

at

th

e tel

eo

l

og

i

ca

l

mod

el

or

action

in Pa r

sons

is

an

ac

hie ve m e

nt

tha t

became

p

ar

t

of

some

so

rt

of

com

mon so

cio

l

ogica

l

core,

I th ink,

fa

il

s a

ba

sic

te

s

t.

It

w

as

never

r

ece

i

ved

in

a w

ay

th

at

ma

d e it a p:l

rt

or

socio

logi cal

anal

ysi

s.

fe

w

peop

le o

ut

si

de

circle

of

st

ud cm s

ever

grasped

th

is mo de l,

to

th

e

exte

n t

th

at

it

was

disti

ncti ve,

mu

ch

less

used

it

so

ciol

ogica

!ly. B

ut

these arc his t

orica

l

questions,

a

nd

wort

h

arg

u

ing

ove

r in a

se

ri

ous

historica l

way

.

nm

OR

IGINS

Of

SOC

IOLOGY"

47

'2

.

Idea

s

n.s

'units

of

anai)'Si

i '

Uot h

Camic

13u

lm

er t

hin

k

tha

t

th

e ' idea s'

or

soc

iol

ogy

h

:l\'c:

ha

c!

signiri

ean

t

in

fl

uence on t

he

developme

n t o f so

cio

logy,

an

d

co

n

sc

qu

c

ml

y

li

nd o ur

whi

ch

no

t

organized

these lim it

eci

.

The

cii,·

ergent

in-

terpretation

s they

prop

ose reflect oi ncre m views o r t his

his

tory.

Camic's

pictur

e is

one

wh i

ch

th

inkers li

ke\\'.

I. T

homas

( 1927)

Pnr

sons in venl

big

co

nc

epts

and

mfluence people.

of

"·

hieh

leads

to

sha

1·ed ,·i

ewpo

in ts

and

pcr

-

spcc

ti\'C

S.

1hus

tha

t c

on

cep

ts a

nd

mc

thocis

'e

n

ter

the

bo

o k

,,

·it hollt

expl

ana

t

ion'

cr

eat

ing

the

i

mp

ression "th a t suc h id eas a rc si m p

lv

the

nat

11

ra

l

uni

ts for

sociological 110 1 1:1 tcful

ch

oices fro m

:1

on

ce:

"·

ider ric

her

ar

ra,

·

or

op

ti

o ns ' . ·

As it I th ink

th

is is a int

en

tions , 1

difT

e r from i t i n one

partic

ular.

In

the

boo

k,

th

e

and

ol

Pcarsonian

ancl the

C>Jnnic

t bet

ween

the

corrclati

o

na

lists

and

La l<trsl'

dd

:.-oc

carefully

sp

eci

fi

ed.

Tlust w

ere,

at

least before 19+5,

importa

nt.

In

generaL

however

, I

think

that

'ideas· have

not

bee

n i

mpot

·

tant

in

the

hi

sw

ry

or

So

I

think

my

approach

is ju5tilied

and

his

is

nor. I

fo

cmcd

on things

th

a t

maHer.

In n

ovations

in 'ide

as'

ge nerally,

in

mv

,-icw,

hav

e

not

matlered

.

and

fc

,,·

of

the idc.

1s

arc

th

e

so

rt

s

of

dra

m

atic

t

hin

gs

one

co

uld m ake ' fateful c

ho

i

ces'

o,

·e r. l

dc

n ti f,·ing

so

ur

ce

s

of

i

dea

s

is

an

a

mu

si

ng

hi

swrica

l

ga

me.

In

the

histor y

of

:\

m

ai

ca

n

atlcast,

it is almos t a l

ways

£>n

[r a g

am

e. ;\·lost o f

th

e

'idea

s·, ex

plan

aton

·

mo,·cs.

:1-n

-d

eve n the ' t

ec

hnique

s'

o f sociolo

gy

a

rc

si m ple analogies, ex ten sions

or

co-m

m

on

and

th

e like, lyi

ng

aro

u

nd

" ·

aitin

g-

to

be

used .

It

is

an

o ld

ste

r

eo

type

\hat

in the

bus

iness

of

restating

rhc obviou s in f

ancy

li

ngo

('d

iffere

nt

ia

l

as

the

exp

lan ati on f

or

de

linqu

ency'

ra

t

her

th

an

·ha

n

ging

around

,,·it h

b.1

d

boys'). U n

fonunatch·,

the stereot

ype

is

lar

gel y

tr

ue, a nd

th

e hi

sto

n ·

:t

s

th

oug h it is n o t i

,;

to ,,·ri

le

his

wr

)'

fal

sch

·.

Like it

or

not.

i

m·cming

"t

heo

r

.:

t

.ic

al'

co

nce

pt

s is

no

t

:1

big

part

of sociology.

:\-f

or

cover, the re is no profou

nd

,

cnco

mp

3.s

-

sing

tr

;J

dit ion

tha

t sociol

og

is ts

tr

a nsform o r

co

ntr

ibu te to.

1\.s

Cam

ic

poims

ou

t, t hi; d i

sm

issal or

fa

n

cy

co

n

cep

tu

al

see ms

10

b<'

:1

s

tr

an

ge

t

hing

to

come

from

my

pen, as I

wriuc

n a

dea

l

on

subtle

t

heoretical

clistin.:tions. I h:l\·

.:

a lso

'niuen

o n

the

wan

in wh

ic

h d

is

ti nc-

tions

arc

lo

st

on

""

it h d iflcrcnt

purpose

s intcllcctu:-tl

tradi

tions.

Thi

s

w.1s

one

of

llll'ssn

gcs

of

the

rece

ption

-his

tor

y

of\\"

versi

on

of

th

t

f:-tc

t-n

lue

distinct

i

on

that

I

,,

·r

otc

,,-ith Regis f

:J.c

tor

(

Turner

a.

nd

Factor.

19

84).

In

t

ht

o(

the

history

ol

· :;oriolog}' generally, 1

think

, t

here

is little

fo

r theorc<ical

or

conceptual

subt!ny.

exce

pt

prophylac

tically, to

avoid

the

inappropria

te

lumpi

ng

togethe

r tha t "hi:;torians

of

discip

li

nes' sqtl'lct irn es

do

in sear ch

of

a

narra

t

in:

t

hem(

.

My

view is th

at

$OCiologis ts " ·e ren ' t ,-cr,- su

bt

le a nd

th

n·

didn

't sociolo"''.

in

a

su

btl

e way. Su

bdc

ty

was

lost o n thern,

if

indeed

'i

t

wa

s p

rac

ticed

on

C a

mi

c cit es h i;

o"·n

acco

unt

of

th

e

demise

or

th e

co

n

cep

t

of

h:-t

bit an d t he rist

of

a ttitudcs

as

an

examp

le of the kind

of

a he wou ld

li

ke

to sec,

and

it is

indeed

a

goo

d case ,,·

ith

"·h

ich to frame sc,·cra l his t

or

i

ograph

ic issues. i

dea

of

a

ttitud

<·

may

we

ll

be th.: best,

aod

maybe c,·cn

th

e o nl y,

fo

r the kin d

of

rr

ca

t

nwH

tha t C arn ic ,,·oul d like 10 g k .:.

It

is a 'co nce

pt

'

that

had a d istin c t i,

·c

f

ormulati

or, , in

The

Pol

ish Pea

san

t

(Tho

m

as

a nd Z n a ne ic

ki

, 1910), was s u

bseq

ue n tly tu

rn

ed

int

o the

f

oc

us

of

a vast

l'

ffo

rt

a t meas

ur

eme

nt,

and

in this

form

was the s

ubj

ec t

of

a ,

-:lSI

co n troversy that l:ts t

cd

a c lea

st

un

til

lh e 1970s (see al

so

De

utscher , 1

9/3).

As

a

48

Sn

ii'O

SIUM

0:-

THE

HISTORY OF AMERICAN SOCIOLOGY

ps

y.c

hological con

ce

pt

it conflicted

with

or

seemed

to

displa

ce

the

co

ncept

of

habit,

wlu

ch

was a pervasive

par\

or

the

pre-e

xisting

literature.

The

problem

is

that

it is n ot

mu

ch of a concept.

With

the

co

ncept

of

the

Ruther-

ford

ian

atom

or

Carte

s

ian

vortices,

say,

one

ca

n

write

a nice

history,

ratcful

cho

ices

and

all. However,

'allitudc'

is

not

such

a

concept.

It

is a

word

that

beca

me fas

hion-

able

to describe

things

th

at

were a

lr

eady

descr

ibed

by

such

ter

ms

as

preferences,

prejudices,

and

the

like.

This

wa

s well

understood

by

the

people

who

used

the

te

rm.

Lapicrc's

classic

paper

on

the

subject

begins

by

mak

i

ng

run

of

the

large

numb

er

of

e:-.:

ta nt 'dcf111ition

s'

of

the

concept

( 1

934),

fc'"

of

which

arc

mu

ch

of

an

ad

va

nce

on

co

mm

on sense.

Thus

the

innovat

i

on

in ideas was

liulc

more

than

and

not

a '

conccprual'

advance.

To

take G

iddings

a l

one,

l

ma

r n ot e

th

at,

wh

ile still a

cooperati

v

is

t Back,

Gid-

dings

wrote

or

the

need

for

members

of

cooperatives to

have

'

learned

experimentally

to

understand

tru

e c

ooperation

and

to

appreciate

its

advantages'

(Giddings,

1886,

p.

1)

. Docs this so

und

like a

conce

pt

ofall

itudc

change?

l

th

ink so.

Gidd

in

gs

later

w

as

fascinated

by T<1rde's

proposa

ls for

preference

s,

<1nd

devised a

paper

and

pencil test for ethni c

prejudice

t

hat

is contai

ned

in his

own

method

s book

of

the

1

920s

(Gidd

in

gs,

1924).

Whe

th

er

he u sed the

term

'a

ttitud

e' or

not

seems

to be

beside

the

point.

He

h<1d

a

concept

of

wh<ll

"·as

later

called

altitude.

Indeed

,

now

that

rational

c ho ice thcOiy

has

ma

de 'prefer

enc

e'

the t

er

m

or

pre

fe r

ence

for

describ-

ing

th

ese

thing

s

and

T h

eodore

Ncwco

mb

c-sty lc social psychology has

gone

into

a

deep

decline

in

the

race

of

the

challenge

of

cognitive

psychology

, it s

eems

like a

sig

n

of

prescience th a t

Gidd

ing

s d id not

ado

pt

this

dubious

tcrminologic«l

innovation.

The

poin t, l

th

in k,

can

be

gcnc

r31izcd to most

of

the

othe

r

'theoretical'

concepts

u

sed

by sociologists. I

am

impressed

with

how difficult

it

is

to

find

anything

distinct-

ively

new

in sociological conce

pts

.

The

organic

analogy

is a

case

in poi

nt.

I n the

sociol

ogic

a l cases

worth

there

is s

im

ply

not

eno

ugh

of

a diflcrence

between

conce

pts

fo

r

anyone

to

distinguish

them

in a

historically

re

levant

way,

and

consequently

a his

tory

of

soc

iology as a series

or

c

onceptual

innovat

i

ons

is

not

possible. I

think

th

a t m y

historiographic

opinions

on this

point

arc

contestab

le,

however,

and

l

am

happy

to

throw

down

the

gauntlet.

Turn

the issue

of

authorial

origina

litv

into

an

historical

prob

l

em.

Ask some

tou

gh

questions

about

ho'''

no,·cl

id

eas

were received. I

think

that

the

recepti

on

test-

co

unting

as rcJc,·a

nt

only

tho

se

di

stinctio

ns

that

were

understood

by

readers-

is a

hurdl

e

that

few

thcorctic3\

subtleties

ca

n

leap

. l

also

think

that

my

spc

cillc

claims,

for

example

th

at

Parsons

's

and

Menon

's

th

eoretical

ideas

wer

e

re3d

fo r

the

m

ost

part

as

res

ta

t

ements

of

what

people

already

knew

(Turn

er, 1990.

p.

113-20},

will

prevail.

3.

Afainslrcam

s

ociology

liS

11

mttltOd

ologr

tradition

Metho

dological

ideas,

3t

lea

st

th

e

ideas

associated

wit

h

part

icu

lar

meth

o

ds

of

data

analysis

and

modes

of

mctri

ci

zation

.

arc

d iffe re

nt,

historiographically,

from

the

o-

retical

'id

eas'.

id e

as

are

both

mor

e re

ad

il

y

distinguishable

as

no,

·cl-

tics

and,

I

th

ink,

arc

mo re often

gen

uin

ely no,·e l, a t

leas

t in the

sense

that

new

com

binati

on s

of

cleme

nt

s

lead,

in

methodological

co

ntexts,

to

new

results

,

meaning

nevJ

ranges

or possible

appli

ca

tion .

Cons

e

quentl

y it is

po

ss

ible to

cons

truct

'p

r

ogress'

n a

rr

atives

with

respect

to

methodolog

ica l

idea

s

without

s

tret

ching

the

TilL:

OR

ilii

NS

()

F

SOCi

lli

,U(

, \

..

facts. I n

the

case

or

a t ti tu

de,

f

or

c:-.:a

mp

!c,

while

th

ere

is

no

dea

r

'theoretical'

difference

be

t

wee

n

var

ious

attitude

-like u

sages

th

ose

of\\".

1.

Th

o-

rhet c is a ve

ry

de

ar

dill

crcncc

wh en one

turns

to

the

question

or

evidence

[or

attitudes.

Giddings

thinks

or

auitudcs

as

prclcr

cnccs,

the

method

s

he

reveal

pref

e re n ces

by

mak

i

ng

the s

ubj

ec

t

make

a

choice

be

t

we

en in a

na

t

ura

lis tic

cho

i

c:r.

Thr

trst

nwnt

io

n<

·d

is <Ill

<"'(<'r<"

isc in

wh

i

<"

h

cnts

arc to

alloca

te 100

immigr.uion

places

to

various

na

t

ionalities

125) .

chlncul;y

fa

ced

by t

he

historian

of

mcthodolog}· is

tha

t m e

thodol

og

ica l in-

d on t u

su

ally

have

the

form

of

'

ideas

'.

T h

ry

de

p

end

on

t

hat

at:d

not,

much

less g

iven

elaborate

public

c:-.:pl

a -

nattons

and

.JU

Sllfl

cat

tons. S

ev

eral

chffc•·enccs bet

ween

Giddings's

I

\10

I l

ndurt

i1

•r

Soci-

and

Firld

Wo

rk

( 1

920

) a rc

ob

vio u

s,

and

can

pi

c.

k

ou

t s

on

1c

cv1dencc

of

progress',

for

ex

ampl

e

by

lo

okin!_.{

at

the

way

pl"i

n

tc

d

survcv

'blan

ks'

constructed.

Th

ere a rc few s

harp

brea

ks,

how

ever

,

and

typica

lly

no

OJ;l:l.nations

arc

g t

vcn

for

th

e ch

ang-

r.s

. So

meth

ing si

mila

r h

olds

for

ca

usal

thi

n ki

np;

.

Cnr

rc la tio n

an

d

as

well as. <'Olltin!(Cilcy

tahln

;

arc

nuci.d

J

llctht

l

cls

or

rcpn·s

1•1uin!(

Jcl

at

Jo ns or

ex

plana

tions

tha

t c

an

lw

prcci

>e

ly

iden

t

il

ic

d .

The

t

ab

les a

nd

c:

qua

uons

arr

dill

"c-rc

nt in f

orm

. b

ut

sh

ifts in

nf

tll

('

tl

l<lCb

arc

g radu<d, a

nd

h

ad

to

trace.

In

t

he

ca

se or

inno,·a

ti

ons

the

problem

is

dee

p

and

p

ervasi

ve.

T_t"{

Ji

cal(

t·

th

en·

is a i

on

).:"

p

er

i

od

be

twee

n t

he

!ir

s;

formulat

i

on

or

a st«t istical id

ea

an

d

it

s com i

ng

in to st·ttlrcl u5t"

as

an

mstrumcnt

of

applied

In

the

intcrvcnin.l!;

peri

od

th

er

e is a

t.?;r

eat

deal

or

co

nfusion,

misunderstanding,

and

La

zarsfeld

and

SOil

;C

or

his

st

u-

de

n Is rcststccl tcsti

ll!(

1\

u·

lllu

n·

t

han

tl

mT

de

c;Jd

cs

:l

i"

tcr

th t· sLtnd

ard

:acce

ptan

ce'

\vas

introduced,

but

a t

th

ey

wrote

about

the

subject.

Th

ere

no r

CCOI

:

cl

of

th<:

evolution

of

'applied'

undcrstanclill!-!;S

of

lllilll

)'

lllajor

td

c:as

. f

or

the his t

or

i

<t

n, it is

these

undcrsta

ndin

.l{s

th

at

ha

vt

l

ar

.

t.?;clv

unclc

rpmn

ccl

and

dell

ned

'ma

instrc:un

.Ill

·

My

p

icture

is

that.

there

is a

tncthod

olog

ical

tra

d ition,

carrie

d

la

rg

ely

thr

o

u!-!;h

student

-

teac

h

er

r

cla

uo

ns, th

at

be

ca

me

mai

nstream

soc

iolo

g)

' -

an

d

wh

ich

some

l"rotn

other

sour

ces,

but

on

its o

wn

terms.

\\"ha t

so

rt o[ lus

loncal

evidence

is

relevant

to

this

Wh

at

is

th<:

't

radi

tio

n'?

Th

e

tra

d iti

on

is in

th<

: u

nderst

anding

an

cJu

sr.

or

;

1n

d

lllC'

:JSlii"C'lll<'tH

to

formulate

t'csrarchablc

p ro ble

ms

and

conclude

that

thq

' h;1vc

pro,

·isio na

lh"

an

swe

red.

S

uch

a

tacit

is

toug

h to c

hara

cte

riz

e,

but

I

think

it

ther

e

or

less, I

i.t

c

.a

n b e

seen

b

est

by

compari

ng to

tho

se

of

adpc

cnl

dtsclphncs,

such

as

econometrics

and

psychological

stat

istics. U

n-

fortunately,

from t

he

point

of

view

of

hist

orical

neatness.

the

re

ha,

·c

bo.:e

n,

as

I

ha,·c

s

uggested

,

interactions

wi

th

the

se

other

areas,

so

it is clillicult t o iclt n

ti

f\· d

iiT

crcnccs

the

in

wh

ich

th

ere

was

a

great

cleat

or

com

mon

work,

su

ch

du

ring

t

he

htg h

pcn

od

of

sowd

psychologr

( 1945

-1

970

),

a

pe

riod

in

whic

h

both

so<"io

l

ot.?;

ists

and

s

ocial

were

enamored

or

inli:rcn 1 i;ll ies. '

Po

lan

yi's

i

de

a

of

tacit

know1e<lf:C

in

science

was

eonnectc

cl

\0 his

idea

that

scie

n

ce

w

as

an

'Apostolic

succes

sio

n

',

in

which

an

endowment

or

wc

tt

kno,vlcdgc

pc.rsonal

apprenti

ces

hip.

O ne

way

I

It

:

\\

'(

' or t

he

li

nes

o f

mO

ucn

cc

m

Amcn

c

an

so c tolo

gy,

whi

ch Pn l

anyi

's

of

scie

n

ce

as

an

apostohc

succession,

to

lines o r

doct

o

ral

patcrnit)

',

and

to

run

these Jincs

ba

c

.k

to

the

llrst

person

in

the

succession

to b e

trained

in

something

other

than

soctology-ca

ll

thes

e ' disci

plin

:1

ry

imn

l

igrants'

. .

Th

is prodtll:cs

so

me

50

ON

'J'J

JJ;

t!I

ST()

t!\

'

Or

MIEHJ(;,\N

S()Ct

OI.Ot;\'

t

hO

ll

g h

sometimes

wei

rd,

results. T he

students

of

Parso

ns, f

or

example

,

arc

'

fi

rst

ge

nera

ti

o n'

as

Parson

s

was

himse

lf n

ot

tr:tincd :ts

:1

sociologist. 1-lughcs,

if

he w:ts

by

P:trk,

(t

he r

ecords

or

the

Univcrsi1y

of

Chi

cago

uc

not

easily

adapted

to

th

e

purp

ose

or

trac

i

ng

the

se

links,

un

fonun:ttcly),

who

was

him

self

an

immigrant

from

phil

osophy

and

r

efo

rmism

,

would

al

so

ha

ve

been

a first

ge

n

eration

·sociologist'.

The

m11in

st

r

cam

peers

of Hug-hes,

such

as

Sto

ullc r,

(if

he

wa_s

actually

'Og

burn's

studc

n1'),

would

be

'second

gcncr:tti

on'

sociologists,

as

was

13ill

Sewell,

th e siUdcnt

of

Chapin,

wh o

was

the

student

ofGiddings.

Lazarsfcld

,

in

contrast,

was

•r

· • · 1 · II

an

im

migrant,

Merton

:1

11r

st

generatiO

n soc1o ogtsl.

This

wav

of

thinking

high

lig

ht

s

th

e

problem

of

me

th

odo

l

ogica

l conti

nuities,

as

well

as

th

c.

n

otio

n

of

'mai

ns

tr

ea

m

socio

l

ogy

'.

Consid

er

a few A

present

e

dit

o r

of

the

jo

urnal

of

thr.

:!

mtrican

Sialistiml Assocint

ior1,

CliO

or

d C l

ogg,

wh o is a

specia

lis t in

correla

tiona

l ;tnalysis,

was

the

best

s

tudcm

of

Ogburn'

s

own

best

s

tu

dent,

0.

D.

Dunca

n. D

un

can

grasped

th

a t

Sewall

\\'ri

g

ht

's

m e th

od

of

p:lth-analy

sis

was

a

sol

u-

tion

to

Ogbu

rn

's

l

ong

obsession wi1h

th

e

int

e

rpr

eta

tion

of

partial

cor

relations.

Path

analysis

re

vi

ved

corrcbtional

ana

lysis in

socio

l

ogy.

The

Giddings-Ogburn

-

Dunc:t

n-

C l

ogg

successio

n is

mer

el y

one

in

a lar

ge

set

of

si mil

ar

cont

inuit

i

es

th

at

may

be

trace

d in

Am

erica

n

soc

iol

ogy.

The

line

fro m G

id-

dings

to

Chapin

goes o n to Sewell a

nd

t h

en

to

the

many

socio

lo

gists

who

began

t h

ei

r

caree

rs in

the

status

atLa

inm

cnt

literature

. T he

int

ellectual

co

ntinuitie

s

in

the

case

of

status-att

ainment

arc

also

impressive.

From

F

rank

Ross's

multiple

cor

relati

on

dis

-

sertation

on

school

attendance

in

O hio in 1920

(Ross,

1924), to

Chapin's

living

room

scale o f t

he

1

930s

and

his

$tu

di

cs

of

the

effects

of

education

o n

subsequent

eco

no

mic

status,

to

Sewell's

interest

in t

he

1930s

in

th

e st

andard

question

of

rural

sociology-wh

o left

the

farm

an

d

why?

-

to

th

e

status

nuainmcnt

literature

of

the

last

few

decades,

there

arc

commo

n

problems,

especia

ll

y

over

e

ducati

o n

and

class,

common

m

ethods,

a

nd

a

commo

n

se

t

of

preferen

ces

for

par

ticul

ar

forms

of

ev

id

ence.

Ar c these

cases

of t

he

transf'

crc

ncc

of

tacit

un

derstandings

thr

ough

th

e

Apos

to lic

succession

of

app

r

enticesh

ip

? I

th

in

k

that

th

ey

arc,

and

I

think

th

at

the

body

of

be

gins

in

a rccogniz

;-,bl

y

contin

uo us fo

rm

with

G

iddi

ngs. Acc

ord

ing

to his

ow

n

apprentice

s,

Giddi

n

gs

w

as

ad

ept

at

inve

ntin

g altcr11

ativc

hy

pothe

ses

to

at:wu

nt

for correl

at

ion s

or

differen

ces

in

categorized

data

-th

e

basic

skill

of

quantitati

ve

sociology. 12 I rc:tdily

grant

tha t

wha

t I

have

said

her

e

and

in

the

boo

k

about

the

comm

onali

ties

that

mltkc

up

th

is

tr

a

dit

ion

docs

not

to

much-

it is a

weak

r

eed;

but

I

think

that

it

can

be

st

r

engthe

n

ed

by

adding

to

it

a

series

of

ot

h

er

reeds,

each

si

milarly

weak

, whi c h collectively do

support

the

idea

that

mainstream

soci-

ology is a

distinctive

tradition.

One

su ch reed is

the

actu:t

l

published

methodological

pronouncements

of

ligures

like

Ogbu

rn

,

which

show

a s

tr

o ng

continuity

from

the

P

carsonia

n

id

eas

prop

ounded

by

Giddings,

and

:trc

very

diOc r

cnt

from

what

one

finds in

psycho

l

ogy.

As

I

have

co

nc

eded,

it is

und

cn i:lblc

that

th

e s

tud

e

nt

s in this s uccess

ion

also

imported

other

sta

tis

ti

cal

and

measur

eme

nt t

ech

niques

into

sociology.

Chapin

was

very

excited

by

attitude

measurement,

and

his

majo

r

methodol

ogica

l

work

D

es

ign

s

in

Soc

iolog

ical

R

ese

arch

( 1

94

7)

was

an

attempt

to

re

co

ncile

Gidding

si

an

corrc

la

lionalism

with

th

e

app

li

ed

psyc

h o lo

gy

ca

t

egorica

l

analysis

tech

niques

imp

or

t

ed

by

Sto

uff

er

and

Thi

s too is s u

ggestive.

Gidd

ing

s's

students

we

re

n

ot

m

ind

less

up-

holders

o r a

dogma

,

but

Oc

x

ib

lc

an

d

open,

at

l

east

w

ith

.

respe

ct to m

atte

rs o f

slatis

ti

ca

l t

ec

hni

que

tha

i

were

consisten

t wi th

their

g-eneral

understandin

g of

soc

i-

ology.

HIE

Oil)(.;

INS O F

51

Another

reed o n

which

the

1hcsis rests

:-trc

COillin11i

!ies in high poli-

tics.

The

network

thai

began

in

the

1900s

as

the

FHG

C l

ub

(

Giddings's

beer

an

d

pretzel

evenings

for

hb

s

wd

cnts

a n d

ot

h

er

New

York

social

:tnd

lhink

-

crs)

became

the

Giddings

reunion

dinners

in

the

1

920s,

and

evolved in

the

1930s

und

er

C

hapin

's

aegis

into

the

Sociological Res

earch

Association.

Th

is o r

ganization

continues

to th

is

day

as

an

exclusive,

honorific

organization

for

mainstream

sociolo-

gists.

It

is

striking

that

this

particular

club

su

rvived,

preserved

its

exclusiv

it

y,

a

nd

assured

it

s leg

itima

cy

as

an

eli te

organ

izat

ion by

securing

the

assent

of

people

like

Pa

rsons,

Sorokin,

and

Lazarsfclcl,

each

of

who

m

accepted

the

honor

of

member-

ship-in

sp

ite

of

the

fact

th

at

t

he

organization

was

do

m

inat

ed

by

the

8tu

cl

c

nt

s

of

Gidding

s.

The

ce

nter

of

g r

av

i

ty

of

th is

organizat

ion w:ts

remarka

bly

s

tab

le.

It

did

not

become

Parson

ia n

or

L

azarsf

c

ldian,

a nd h

as

not

to

thb

d:ty.

I

gra

nt

that

this

is n

ot

the

id

ea

l '

tr

ad

iti

on'

narrative.

Ouc

lakt·

the

hist

orical

mater

ial

as

it is

given,

h

owever,

and

practica

l s t

atistical

metho

dological t

radi

tio

ns

of

this

sort

do

not,

I

think

, l

eave

much

of

a r

ecor

d .

There

is

co

ns i

derable

evidence

of

lively

and

so

phi

sticated

discussions

of

methodological

in

the

Lundberg

pa

-

pers,

and

co

n

siderable

evide

nce

that

,

despite

later

self-rep

resen

tati

ons,

he

was

an

active

pa

rt

y

to

these

disc

us

sio

ns,

which

reach

ba

ck wi

rh

no

'discontinuity'

to

Giddings

himself.

The

lcllcrs

don't

tell us

very

IIlllCh

about

the

or

statis

tical

interpretation,

h

owever.

They

contain

a

lot

of

posi

ti

vist

philosophy

of

science,

but

lillie

of

it

can

be

directly

connected

to

t

he

actual

st:ttistical

interpretive

problems

these

writers

faced.

The

evidence

in

th

e

end

is

thcrclorc

indir

ec

t.

Perhaps

journa

l

editoria

l files,

if

they

arc

ever

opened,

will

provide

more

evidence

one

way

or

another.

The

mnjor

archival

source,

for

th

e

American

jou111al

of

Sociology,

is

closed,

and

the

edito

rial

cor

r

es

ponden

ce

I

have

seen

in, l

or

example

,

th

e

Stoullcr

p:tprrs.

is

unr

evea

ling.

Some

at

te

ntion

is b e

ing

given

by

ASA

edi

t

ors

and

the

i\S

A

arch

ives

commiltee

to t.hc p

roblem

of

editOrial files,

an

d

one

h

opes

th:u

records

of

current

practi

ce

will

someday

be

available,

bur

mu

ch

is

probably

los t.

4.

Thtworld

of

funding nnd fundtrs

The

question

of

th

e

cncct

of

fu

nd in

g,

and

the

relative

effects

or

intellectual

co

n-

si

derations

and

fu

nd

ing

on

th

e devel

opment

of

a ficiJ, a rc dinl cult to

even

fo

nn

ul-

atc

. I c:tn

expbin

wh:ll I

did

,

and

why;

how

ever,

it is

pcrh:tps

bc

u

cr

to firs t

explain

what

I

did

not

do,

and

why.

Consider

the

f

ollowing

banalit)

',

ta

ken

from

Prophets

and

Patron

s:

For

most fields 10 develop,

three

funda

mental

rlrmcnts

a1e essential: J;ood

to

build on .

and

11.dcq

ua

tc insti

tu

tio

nal

support

(Clark,

19i3,

p.

Such

fo

rmul

ae

arc

essentially useless for hi

sto

r

ians

of

science

o r

soc

ia

l

science.

All

th

e

evalua

tive te

rm

s

used

here

arc

re

lati

ve,

and

most

of

them

arc

con

t

esta

ble. \·

Vh:-tt

is a

good

idea?

Wha

t is

enough

funding?

Ph

il

osophe

rs

of

science ,

who

arc

obsessed

with

the

idea

of

success,

have

fou

nd

it

impo

ssible

to

say

:tnyth

ing

very

intell i

gent

ah

ou t

success

othe

r th

an

to

re

state

t

he

concept

of

suc

cess

to

make

it fit

the

vi

rtu

es

of

th

e

act

ua l vir.tors.

M y i

nt

er

est

lay

in a

mo

re

stra

ightforwar

dly

question.

The

questi

on was

52

ON

Tll

E

lllSTORY

OF

AMElUC:i\N

SOCIOLOGY

indicated

by

my

paper

'forms

of

patronage',

which

stressed

that

for

scientists

to sell

their

prollliscs to

funding

agcnci\'S

there

had

to

be

an

established

system

of

assur·

anccs,

of

mc<tm

by

which

scicnLi,-ts

could

cslablish

Lhcir

boua

fides,

and

thaL

these

systems

typically

originated

in

personal

bonds

between

scicnLists

and

patrons

(Turner,

1990).

\\'hal

I

asked

in

ihr

lmjJoHiblt:

Science

was

what

forms

of

patronage

relation

had

suslaim:d

various

or

ofsociologisls.

The

quc:;Lion

of

wh)·

some

people

could

esLablish rclaLionships

with

certain

funclcrs

i.r

a

question

that

admits

of

an

his

Lori

cal

answer.

My

model

of

the

early

stages

of

patronage

relations

is this.

Patronage

requires

trust.

It

also

requires

a

:wnc

or

common

interests-

things

that

the

patron

wants

and

that

the

scientist

wanls.

These

interests

arc

open

to a

great

deal

of

invention,

rc1·ision ,

and

rcconccp!Ualiz;llion.

Change

in

'interests'

is

fi·cqucnt,

and

the

initia·

til'e fur

change-new

sales

pitches

fur

science,

new

purposes

for

science

to

serve-

may

come

rrom

cithrr

the

patron

or

the

patronized.

A

relationship

of

trust

enables

the >cicntists to

persuade

the

fundcr

of

particular

visions

of

what

shou!d

be

clone

and

the

merits

of

particular

persons

or

particular

means

of

realizing

this

vision.

Tvpically.

in

the

initial

of

the

rlcvclopmcn

t

of

a

form

oC

patronage,

one

of

two

things

takes

place:

an

individual

who

is

credible

in

two

realms,

that

of

the

fundcrs

and

that

of

the

sciences,

serves

as

<tn

intermediary

trusted

b)'

both

sides,

or

the

same

clYcct is

achieved

by a

personal

relationship

between

a

scientist

and

someone

on

the

other

side

(Turner,

1990).

Tht·

kcv

articles

on

this

model

dealt

with

geology,

agriculture,

and

physics

(sec

Tuntcr

, 1987). It

has

been

applied

10

recent

state

government

initiatives

to

support

science

(Senter.

1992).

Originally

I

had

no

thought

of

applications

to

social

science,

but

there

were

applications.

The

case

of

Chic<1.go

sociology

in the

late

1920s

con-

forms

precisely

to

this

pattern.

A

political

scientist

and

sometime

civic

reform

politician

(he

had

been

an

unsucccssf"ul

candidate

for

Mayor

of

Chicago),

Robert

J'vicrriam,

the

academic

whose

juclgcmcn1 the

Rockefeller

philanthropists

tntsLed

and

under

\vhose

'community

studies'

umbrcll<1.

Chicago

sociology

flouri-

shed-umil

the

plug

was

pulled·

in

the

early

1930s. 1vkrri;lm

is

a

paradigm

case

of

the kind

or

figure

that

I

discussed

in

'Forms

of

patronage',

a

person

wi

t.h

a foot

both

in

the

world

of

politics

and

in

the

acadcm"1c

world.

I

also

showed

how

L.JZarsfcld

dealt

with

I'\ew

York

corporate

executives

and

indicated

why

this

was

crucia!

to

the

>ucccss

of

the

BASR.

Bulmer

ha> a

somewhat

di!fcrent

model,

which

the

idea

that

there

is·

a

set

uf'

COilllllOII

!Jdil'fs,

or

iltlcJict:lll;\1 dyll;tlllics,

which

inllucucccJ

both

fnundation

oOi·

ccrs

and

social

scientists.

This

is

:tn

apparently

small

dilfercncc

or

emphasis-!

agree

that

there

\vcrc

some

widely-held

bclicls,

notably

that

science

should

be

wore

or

'sckntil1c'-that

were

shared

by

the

quantilkrs

and

the

fundcrs.

I !o\I"<'ITr, ll11illlcr

thi11b

that

and

socinlo!-?;ists

snrcumbed

lo

the

same

Ztitgeist. I

think,

in

c0ntra,t,

that

was

bdicved

to

be

in con1mon

was

largely

\l'ithout

substance.

People

like 13cardslcy

Rtnnl,

for

example,

were

talcnt

who

understood

littk

about

social

science

or

'methodology'.

V\'hal

the

book

sho\\'s, as

one

rn·iewcr

stressed,

is

that

the

scientists

and

f'undcrs

had

endless

cliflicultics

figuring

out

one

another

and

nrriving

at

common

interests

(Shroetcr,

p. :\79).

tlly

gt·nc,·;d is th;tt

interests,

such

as

'preserving

Glpitalism'

and

ideas,

such

as

'realistic

study'.

wctT

secondary,

and

that

personal

relations

thai

enabled

sociologists

to

sell

their

acti1·itics

and

acUust

them

10

patron's

needs,

were

primary.

Tl

II:

OIUGI,'jt;

OF

SOGIOLlJ(;y·

In

the

book,

a

great

deal

was

made

of

the

fact tb;tt

there

was

a New

York

foundation

community

that

had

a

place

for >uciologists

(e.g.,

Turner,

1990,

p.

18J).

The

climate

of

opinion

in

the

highly

inbred

profcssion;tl

community

of

foundation

orllcia!s

that

developed

in

the

1930s

had

a

great

deal

to

do

with

what

was

funded,

because

this

community

provided

standards

of

success

in

roundation

careers,

which

in

turn

came

to

define

the

interests

lh:tt officials

pursued.

Hmvc\"Cr, I

would

strrss

that

this

community

was

not

a

bunch

uf

intellectuals.

In

the

inter-war

period,

at

least,

the

grant

who

actually

had

some

power

rarely

'thought'

vcrv

Etr

beyond

Eugenics

or

the

dcnatmccl

Chrislian

Socialism

that

the

or

the

Protestant

libcra!ism

of

the

cby-thc

kind

one

cuulcl

imbibe

by

rrading

The

Chri.1lian

Cenl111J'

or

by

attending

the

Riverside

Church.

as

mam·

of

them

in fact

did.

Thcv

were

men

of

alfairs,

knuwlcdgcablc

in

the

hard

of

action-or

so the;·

saw

themselves.

TJ1cy

repcatcd!y

refused

to

back

'basic'

social

science,

on

<H

least

moving

in

the

direction

of

practical

problem-solving

as

soon

as

possibk.

and

saw

research

as a

means

to a

practical

end.

In

the

period

after

\\"oriel

\\'ar

II

things

were

dilfercn

t. A few

roundation

officials

were

more

or

Jess

willing

to

l;O

alona

with

the

great

Parsons-Mcrlon-Stoufkr

gamble

to

make

sociology

t\s

ists

they

saw

a

chance

to

make

their

mark,

but

thcv

soon

gave

up

when

it b<tcamc

evident

lhat

Parsons

was

no

Messiah,

that.

<t

quantitative

sociology

devoted

to

refining

measurement

was

no

panacea,

and

they

could

not

build

a

reputation

by

funding

these

ideas.

Gunnar

Myrdal's

The

;lmeriwn Dilemma,

the

!ast

and

best

product

of

inter-war

philanthropy

in sociology, is

an

unusual

case

of

1hc usc

of

social

scientists

tu

carrv

out

tasks

designed

by

philanthropists

for

preconceived

social

propaganda

purpose;.

Myrda!

did

not

think

up

the

project;

he

had

to

be

begged

to

do

the

project,

which

had

been

dreamed

up

by

a

retired

reform

m;tyor

un

the

board

or

the

C<trnegic

foundation.

He

was

selected

because

or

the

propagandistic

purposes

1 he

book

was

w

serve:

someone

who

was

neither

a

Southerner

nor

a

Yankee

was

more

Jikclv to

be

heeded.

Nothing

was

ordinary

abou

1 the

way

the

book

was

produced,

including

the

rockstar

salary

Myrdal

was

paid

and

his

long

abscnc('S to

pursue

politica!

career

in

Sweden.

Myrclal

was

a tOugh

cookie

who

knew

how

to

deal

with

people

who

depended

on

him

as

a

front

man

more

than

he

depended

on

t!1cm.

His

American

counterparts

were

never

in

this

position.

They

were

supplicants

who

be

havre!

ac·

cordingly.

The

big

idea

or

Myrdal's

book,

that

there

was

a conflict

between

racial

discrimi·

nation

was

h;1rdly a lri11mph ol'

socio!ogkal

insight

(il'

indeed

it

was

'sociological'

at

all).

The

abolitionists,

the

to

the

Social

Gospel

movement,

made

the

same

point

endlessly,

and

il Colllinucrl to

be

mack

in

the

social

gospel

period.

Nor

was

the

impact

of

the

book

a

simple

case

of

the

masses

being

'influenced'

by

S0cio!o)!;ical

wisdom.

Th('

\ucccss'

or

Ill<'

book

was

plannrd

down

to

the

bsl

detail.

Newspapers

were

even

j)aid to induce'

them

to ITvicw

it

in

their

pages,

as

I

recall.

If

anything,

then,

this

was

a

masterful

usc

of

foundation

resources

lor

propagand·

istic

purposes

under

the

guise

of

social

science

by

people

who

knew

exactly

what

they

were

doing,

a

paradigm

of

behind-the-scenes

foundation

intervention

and

not

an

accident

in

the

slightest.

If

it

went

bcy0nd

ChriJlian

Cmtw

:J>

lihcralisrn

it

did

not

do

so

in

a

way

that

was

noticeable

to

the

attendees

of

the

Riverside

Church-it

simply

va!idatcd

what

they

already

believed,

and

prcsc:ntcd

these

beliefs to the

broader

public

with

lhc

imjnimalur ol"5cicncc,

at

least

with

the

aura

0fobjcctivity.

UM

ON

Til

E IIIS'

J'Oil\'

OF

5. Thinking

causa/0•

ab

out fundi

ng

T here is a

danger

in in

iCrring

int

ellec

tual

d y

nami

cs

fro

nl

J: tc ts

that

ar

c

l.>roclu

ct

of efforts

to

promote

develop

m e

nt

s

of

some

ki

n

d.

These

c(fo

rt

s c

reate

the

tll

uswn

of a

trend

as

th

ey

arc

intended

to.

Of

t

en

th

e

illusi

on

is

'rea

l

in

its

co

nsequ

ences'.

1t

rnig

h;

see

m

;hat

Pa

rson

s'

s

The

Struct

ttre

of

Social

Action.

Myrd

a

l's

Dilnnma (

19H)

arc

evidence

or

th

e '

int

ellectual

dynam

i

CS

of

th

e

SOC

ial

H

oweve

r,

the

y

wer

e bo

th

dep

e

nd

ent

on

fu

nd

in

g,

an

d

wou

ld ? n

ot

have

p

nnt

wit

hout

it

.

Which

we

re

ca

u

ses

and

wh

ich

we

re

consequences

. B ul

mer

thmks

that

th

e

id

eas

we

re

th

e c

auses

. I

think

th

at

th

e

problem

can't

be

usefully

appro

ach

ed

in

these

terms,

but

th

at

infonna

l

io

n

about

fun

din

g is r

elevan

t

to

a

nsw

e

ring

some

pr

o

perly

framed

qu

es

t io

ns.

. .

Consider

three

main

research

t

radition

s (

in

addition

to

th

e

mamstrca

m

SOC

I

O-

l

ogical

tr

aditi

on

that

I id e

nti

fy

w

ith

G

idd

ings

and

his

st

ud

ents):

C

hicag

o Sociol.ogy

of'

the

Park-H

ughes

t

ype,

Laz

a

r·

sfcld's

ve

r

sio

n

of

su

r

vey

resea

r c h,

and

Par

sons

lan-

ism.

The

striking

f

ea

tur

e

of

eac

h o f

these

three

move

m

ents

was

th

at

ll1ey.

were

e

ach

lav

ish!"

funded

f

or

a p

eriod

b

ut

subseq

u e

ntly

bur

ned o

ut

or

collapsed

mt

o

some

-

thing

dis

tincti

ve

a nd

less

dis

tin

guis

he d .

Ea

ch

failed

to

li

ve

up

to

its o.wn- visi

on

for

th

e

future

of

socio

l

ogy

.

Th

e

int

e

re

s

tin

g

hi

s t

or

i

ca

l

pr

oblem

that

th1s

patt

e

rn

prese

n

ts

is t

his.

What

is

th

e

explana

tion

for t

he

burs

ts

..

of

gl

ory

,

creativity,

a

nd

acad

emic

vis ibi l

ity

that

occ

urr

ed

with

each

of

these

thr

ee

!allur

es?

P:tn

of

the

answer

to

t

his

ques

ti

on,

iL

became

dea

r

to

m

e,

was

money.

Int

e

lle

ctu

al

proje

ct

s,

like

arm

i

es,

m

arc

h

on

th

eir

st o m

ac

hs.

The

rcso.

ur

ccs

need

ed

and

the

me

an

s of

th

ei

r u

se

vary

according

to a

nu

mb

e r

of

conllngc

nc 1

es

chat

arc

local

a

nd

hi

storica

ll y

limi

t

ed,

a

nd

the

to

be

derived

from

funding

aecor

d.1ng

to

the

com

p

et

iti

ve

situation.

T he

sums

that

Par

so

ns

go

t for

his

th

corc

u

ca

l

pr

oJect

were

unprecede

nted

and

uniqu

e.

They

en

ab

led

him

an

d

his

s

tudents

to ho ld co

nfer-

e n ces,

em

pl

oy

peop

le to

cont

r

ibute

to

th

e

proje

ct,

and

to

pubh

sh

books

thr

o ug.h

The

Free

P

ress,

a

swcct

hc

:t

rt

arrangement.

T h is c r

ea

ted

a

kind

of

mo

n

opo

ly

Ill

t

heo

ry

busine

ss.

Parson

s's

competitors

in

th

e 1

950s

we re

co

m.pcll

cd

.to

sell thc1r

ideas

un

der

the

gu

i

se

of

t

extboo

k

s.

The

wo

rld

has

cha

nged.

It

IS

poss

tblc

tod

ay

to

compete

by

pub

lis

hin

g

with

ou

t

su

bsidies

,

so

th

e ad

va

n

tages

had

w

ould

n

ot

be

great

advan

ta

ges

wday.

13

H o

wev

e

r,

what

a

moveme

nt

r

cqturcs

de

p

ends

o n wh

at

it

d

ocs.

Quantitati

ve

soc

iology

,

in

the

p

ast,

required

a

large

s ta

lf

o f cl?r

k.s.

Be fore

co

mputers,

correla

tion

a n

alysis

was

practica

ble

o

nl

y

with

a s

calf

of

s t

attsllcal

help-

en

. .

\

Yhat

docs

one

do

with

this

in

sight?

'vVh<tt

docs

one

do

with

all

th

e

in

formation

that

is

ava

il

able

ab

o u t

funding

,

subs

id i

es

for

publi

ca

tion,

and

th

e like? <?bvio us ly

on e

wou

ld like

to

usc

them

to

ma

ke

historical

causal

assertio

n s

of

some

k

md

,

or

a t

l

eas

t to i

nt

i

mate

th

em.

W h

at

I

attempt

ed

to

do

was

to

pr

ov

id

e

the

kinds

of

fac ts

whic

h ,

togethe

r

with

the

re

ader'

s

working

kn

ow

le

dge

of

the

ways

of

the

would

e

nabl

e a r

eade

r to form

judg

me

nts

of

some

inter

es

ting

co

ntr

af

ac

t

ua

l

qucs

uon

s

o n

tht'ir

own.

In

the

case

of

Par

s

on

s

(cl

i

se

ussccl

in

m o re

detail

in

Bux

t

on

and

Tu

rner,

19

92},

o n e

m ig

ht

ask

whether

The

St

mc

ture

of

Social

Acti

o11

wuuld

have

ever

appeare

d

in

pri

nt

-in

f

ac

t it

was

subsidi7.e

cl

by

H enc\ c1·son's

gran.

t-and

Par

so

ns

wo

uld

h

ave

been

ke

pt

on

at

Harv

a r

d,

a nd

wh

e

th

e r

the

h1

s to r y o(

soc

1

ology

wo

uld

ha

ve

b

een

cli

!fercnt.

1

thi

nk

it

wo

uld

ha

ve

.

The

boo

k w

ou

ld n

ot

have

be

en

pub

li

shed

w

ith

Otlt a

subsidy.

H:t

d

Par

sons

bee

n

di

sp

laced

from

H a r

var

d a

nd

wuund

up

as

an

economi

cs tea che r

at,

say,

Mari

cua

Co

lleg

e

we

wo

uld

p

t•

rh:q

Js h;l\'c h e

ard

of

him

again,

for

there

is no de n

ying

his

talent

J(,r ;1cadrmie

and

his

drive.

It

would

n

ot

have,;

as

th

e '

Grand

Tlu

.:u

rist',

anti

not

a of' a

Car

n

eg

ie

grant,

with

all its

conseque

n

ces.

·

T h is

rath

er

wild

' f

or

-

wan

t-of-a

-nail'

kin

d

of

hi

stor

i

ca

l

que

stio n is

not

th

e m

os

t

int

eresti

ng

co

ntr

afa

ctua

l

pro

ble m

posed

by

the

s

tr

a

ng

e

history

of

funding

in

soci-

ology,

and

wa

s n o t

the

f

oc

us

of

t he b

oo

k. T he

mos

t

interest

ing

qu

estio

n,

and

the

question

to w h

ic

h I

th

in

k r

eaders

resp

o

nded

,

is

the

questi

o n

of\hc

histo

r

ical

ca

u

se

of

th

e

di

s

tinctiv

e

aw

fuln

ess

of

soci

ology'

s

int

e

rn

eci

ne

squabbl

in

g,

and

th

e

hook

's

frank

dep

icti

on

o f

gene

ra ti

ons

of

biller

co

nfli

ct

bet

ween

a

quanti

ta t

ive

'mainstream'

mino,·ity

th

at

would

like

to

cxti

r

rate

those

w ho

disagree

with

it

and

a la

rg:

ch ·

anti

-q

uant

itative

academic

und

c

rcla

ss

that

surv

ives a nd

persist

s

in

sp

it

e

or

th

e lJcs.t

c!f

orts

of

the

e

lit

e to

reform

or

excl

ude

th

em.

The

boo

k

se

rved

to

exp

l

ain

t

hi

s

marriag

e

mad

e

in

he ll

in

term

s of

the

mo re

or

less

self

-

co

n

scio

u s

cflorts

of t he

v

ari

o us

individuals

involved

in

socio

l

ogy

a

nd

in

funding

soc

iolog)' to

ge

t

the

ir

wa\',

and

the

ob

stacles

th

e y e

ach

faced . ·

Bulmer

has

a

somewhat

diff

e re

nt

but

no

less

intr

i

guing

con

trafa

c

tu

al i n m

ind

when

h.c

tha

t

qua

ntific

ati

on

'owe

d

mu

c h

mor

e to

the

int

ell

ec

tual

dynam

ics

of

the

soc

t

al

SCiences

as

a

wh

o l

e'

th

an

to fu

ndin

g.

What

he

t

ake

s

th

e

book

to

be

sav

in

(?;

is

t.h

at

quan

tifi

ca

tion

o

wed

' m

ore'

to

funding.

I do no t s

ec

h

ow

suc

h

tau

vc

q u

est

ion

s

of

'

more'

or

'

le

ss'

c

au

sa

l

influe

n

ce

ca

n

be

sculccl,

other

t

han

in

the

way

we

r e

app

r

oach

ed

in

th

e

book-namely

by

pro

vid

ing

readers

w

ith

e

nou

gh

mf

o

rmall

on t o

mak

e a

judgm

ent

on

the

ir

own.

I

do

n't

know

h

ow

a

reade

r m i

ght

h

ave

decid

ed

a '

mor

e'

or

'less'

ques

ti

on;

but

1

think

it

is

clear

from

the

book

th

at

funding

was a n

ec

essar

y

co

nditi

on

for

th

e s

tr

e

ngth

o f

the

q

uant

i

fi

e rs in the strug-!rlc

for t

he

co

ntrol

of

th

e

dis

c

ip

lin

e, a

nd

of

the

ris

e of th e C

hi

ca

go

School,

t

he

a

nd

t

he

Par

s

on

s

gro

up

. '

Soci

<tl

Sc

ien

ce

Rese

arc

h

Co

un

cil ,

wel

l-financed

b y

th

e Rockefell

er

ph

ilan

-

t

hr

op•

cs,

rele

ntl

essly

pr

o m o t

ed

quan

tifi

ca

tio n

th

rou

g h

grants,

sc

heme

s,

fellows

hip

s,

and

net

wor

k

and

conse

n

sus

building

mee

t

ings.

\

Ncrc

they

wasti

n g

their

time

and

I d o

ubt

i.

L.

I

that

th

e p

eo

ple

wh

o

ra

n

the

SSRC

wer

e

jttd

gcs

of

the

poh

ll

cs

of

the S

ltu

auon,

that

th

ey

u

sed

th

eir

mass

i

ve

resou

rces

rdativclv

c!fcctivclv

the

y

partially

won

a

[Qu

gh

str

u

gg

le

that

sha

ped

th

e

di

sc

iplin

a.ry

\\'O

riel

mha

b

1t.

1

th

mk

th

a t

ha

v

in

g

some

ev

iden

ce

of

t

he

effort

they

expe

nd

ed

and

h

ow

t

hey

th

ought

abo

ut

th

e

ir

po

l

itical

task

in

ref

orm

in

g

socio

l

og

y

sup

pons

my

int

e

rpr

e t

ation.

Th

e fact

that

movemen

ts a nd

th

er efore

id

eas

arc

supponcd

di

ll

i:rcn

ti:tll\'

mav

seem

like

a

pr

o

mising

s

tart

f

or

a

kind

of

a n a l

ys

is

that

re

duced

the

ri

se

and'

fall

in

soci

olog

y to

materia

l r

eso

u

rces.

Some

re

ad

ers

obviously

expected

tO

be

giVen s

uch

an

acco

unt

and

com

plained

th

a t n o

th

eo

ry

of

the

,v

av

r

esou

r

ces

influ

e n

ce

'idea

s'

was

gi

ven

(sec

R

ocher,

1

99!).

Per

h

aps

what

t he}'

ha

ve.

in

mind

is

the

.k

ind

of

m

echanica

l

Mar

x ist r

ed

ucti

on

of

ideas

to cl:lss

int

ere

st

s p io

neered

by

H

cssc

n

o:

to

s.e

ie ntifLc

'inte

r

es

ts'

in

th

e

sense

of

th

e

'strong

lll'ogrn

mm

c

in

th

e

soc1o

lo

gy

of

sctcncc

. lt

1s

co

rre

ct

to

say

th

at

ther

e is n

ot

hin

g

res

em

bling

suc

h a

the

ory

in

th

e b

oo

k.

T here

should

be

no

i

llu

s i

ons

abou

t

the

na

tu

re

of

the

c

ausal

claims

n1ade

in

the

boo

k

abo11

t

th

e

rela

ti

on

sh

ip

b

et

we

en

funding

an

d

th

e s u

ccess

of

these

mov

em

ents

in

soeio.logy. I d o n ot bcl.icvc t

hat

t h ere is

any

theory

tha

t

can

predict

or

ex

p

lain

the

re

lati

ons

fun

dmg

sources

an

d t

he

idea

s

th

at

they

'

influence'

, for

one

si

mrlc

r

easo

n.

ju

s t

as

m

tc

ll

cc

tu

als

arc

c r

ea

ti

ve

in

the

ir

scholar

ly

they

arc

cre:11-

SG

0

;\

Ti

l l

·:

IIJS

'J

011\'

OJ'

SUCIOLOCY

ivc

in for

their

projects

hy

wh

i

ch

they

ca

n _justi fy

the

pro

tn is

es

thev

m:tke

to fu

nding.

T his

'po

liti

cal

crea

ti

v

it

y'

of m

ea

ns t h

;H

one

can.not

predict

wh

at

will

or

can

l

in

d s u

pport

any

mo

r e

th

an

one

can

what

will be

disco

1·cr

cd.

i\s

1

ha

ve

in

t

crcs

ls

:trc

m;tl

lca

bl

c,

a

nd

sctc

n

ttsts

arc

highly

cr

c:n

i1·l'

in

producing

of

future

and and

hence

in

(l'flflin.t;

new

i

nt

e r

ests

and

bo

n

ds

Wit

h (unclcrs.

Th:-

or

th

e

fu

nding

r

elationship

arc

r

eal.

They

do

no

t,

however,

transb

tc 1nto

mtcllcctua

l

con-

s

train

ts

in

very

dir

ect

way.

G.

and of

ha

t!i.,

.-

ifllinr.•·

Camic

and

!3u

lm

r.

•·

bot

It

suggest

some

ovc

ra r

chinR

interp

r

eta

ti

ons

of

the

hi

s t

ory

or

socio

l

<'!-:'''

in n 1k i

n!-:'

disciplinar

y

compnition

tha

t t

hey

1hink

to h

;IV

c

taken

C;unic

1\H

'

ntions

'sociology's

1r1111111i

c inlemclion wi

th

drs

-

cip

lint·s

-o

vcr

r

rso

un:cs

a n d

over

idcas

-

:1s

th i

,s

unfo

ld

ed

on

tn t

cr-

disci

p!i

ground

of

th e

past:.

13ulmer wri

tcs

of

the

soc>•:.

'.

compc-

titi,·cncss

with

eac

h o the r

scrkmg

to

ga

1n

th

e

status

of

a

sc

>c n

cc

. C,lll

li

C

supp

!t

cs

:1

rcw

examples.

Parsons's

obsession

with

va

lu

es,

which

he

t,o

hi

s

str

u

ggle

with

econo

mi

cs

for Lcbcmranm for s ocio l

ogy

at

H

arva

r

d,

.s

with

th

e

behaviorists

in

psychology

in

th

e in te r

-war

years,

G t

dchngs

s

d

esire

fo

r

so

ciol

ogy

to

ca

tc h u p

to

hi

s

colleag

u

es

Caucl

l a nd

iloas

w

tth

r

es

p

ect

to

ion.

I

thin

k t

hl'sc

t'samplcs

arc

. .

Jn

the

p

ap

e r

cited

hy C a

mi

c, G i

ddi

ngs a pon>t

the

t

o,

the

one

Cam

ic

the

othe

r

soc

ial

were

c

at

chmg

up

to 'soc10lor;y by

bccomin!{

sta

tisti

ca

l. si nc e t

he

pi

oneer

st a ti stic ia

ns

of'

lite

n

in

et

een

th

cca:tu.ry, su

ch

as

Quctclct,

wcrr.

social

H e

wa

s ha

pp

y t

hat

t_h

csc

o t

h:

r

l_t

a d

seen

the

l

ig-

h

t.

Qf

course.

he

was

ba c k

handccl

)y p romOting

:1

SC\C

IHt!tt:, s t :tiiSl!Ca l

ickn

t

it

1·

10:-

H

istorical

ly,

he

was

ri

ght;

socia

l

came

first.

The

Parson.s I

thin

,k,

ha

d

to

do

with

Har

va

rd circumst;:t n

ccs

on

ly.

Such

cases

as

th e

bt•haviorist-ins

ti

nctualist

contro\'ersy

cut

acc

r

oss

d i

sc

ipl

in

es

.

1

agree

th

a t

wae

concerned

wi

th

the

ide

n

tity

or

the

d

iscip

l

ine

.

Howr

1

·cr.

1:

11

·

more

impo

rt

an

t

th

;111

Pa

r

so

n

s's

attempt

to

stake

o

ut

a

portaon

of

th

e

doma

in

of'action'

for

sociology

was

the

d

es

i

re

of

sociology

to

rid

itself

or

its

i

de

ntifi

cat

io n ll'i

th

\\'Ork. :Soci;d

problems

were

a

hu

ge

so

u

rce

of

st

ud

en

t

in

t

erest

but

the

topic

pl

aced

sociology

among

do-gooders

women.

T h

e_

'sc

icn-

ti li

r'

id r n til\• o f

co

ns

tru

cted to d i

sting

uish

socto

l

ogy

from

so c1a l

co

n-

cern.

0!-:'bu;·n's t

:unous'

presidential

in

wh

i

ch

th

e

science

w:1s

o p

posed

to

is a cl

as

sic

of

(O,:b

mn

, 1

930).

Pa r

sons

h im

sc!t'allcm

ptc

d

to

,nw

l..

,,

11

, hfl\1'

tn

h;n·t• t

he

lwndits

tlfstudent

in

terest

in

soc

i;1

l pro b

lem

s

with

ou t t

he

po

llu

ti

ng

cH

cc

ts

or

ideo

l

og

i

ca

l i

nt

erests

O

il

till:

_sc

i

ence

of

socio

i

O.!:D'·

p u t

e no r

mous

eOi.

orts i

nto

founding

ancl

even

runmng

schools

of

soc1al

work

1

11

o tclcr to

fin d a

place

el

sew

h

ere

lo

r

the

soft

al

h

carr

. . . .

Tins

pr

oblem

of

iden

ti

ty

w;ts

central

to

th e

book,

a nd

to.

the chsct_phne.

The

reaM>\\ for t h is

m:tdc

ckar

in

the

book.

1

he

•clcnut

y.

o f

:l

ll

tedat

es

the

disciplinary

org;miza

tio n

or

s

ocio

l

ogy

by II

Mil)'

yc:trs.

fh

c t

dcnt

at

y

was

,

roughl

y,

this:

a

'soc

i

ology'

was

a

syste

m a t

ic

d

octr

ine

or

based

on

fac.t

s.

T h e

labor

we

re p

ub

li

cly

desc

r

ibed

as

mcrtt

ng

the

need

for a

T

il

E ORIGI

NS

Of

' MAINS TREAM

SOCIO

LOGY'

57

soc

io logy.

Th

e S

ocial

Gosp

el

mo

ve

men

t

used

th

e te rm

quite

fr

ee

ly: t h

ere

was

a

Christian

socio

l

ogy

before t

here

was

an

acade

m

ic

sociology.

The

p

rob

l

em

tliat

soc

iology h

ad

was

to

rid

it

self

of

the

i

de

ntit

y

it

inhc

r·

itcd

to r

ep

l

ace

this

identi

ty

w

ith

a m

ore

'scien

tir.

c'

one.

I t is this effo

rt

has

prove

n so

unsuccessful.

The

. p

ub

l

ic's

des

ir

e fo r

socio

l

ogy

to

d

ay

is s

imilar

to

wha t

it

was

:1

h

undred

years

ag

o. I t is

a

des

ire fo r

so

me

means

of

dea

li

ng

wit

h

the

\·arious

social

problems

b r

ought

into

rclid

by

char

ita b le

id

e

olog

ies a nd id

eas

of

soc

ial

ju

s

ti

ce. T he

thru

st

o f

th

e

book

is

that

t

hi

s

ident

ity

has

al

ways

b

een

a

problem

fo r

sociology

but

a l

so

the

ke

y

to

its

wealt

h

and

success.

I t is

whether

the

in

s

titu

tion a l

discip

line

of

soc

i-

o log y

could

surv

i

ve

w

ith

out

making

su

b

st

an

tial

claims

or

pr

om

i

ses

to

be

help

ful in

all

evia

ting

social

ill

s-

ills

co

n

ceived

as ' i

lls'

q u ite

apart

fro m

'socio

l

ogy',

b u t g i

ven

to

soc

iology as pr

ob

l

ems

to

be

stud

i

ed

and

solved.

The

problem

of

sociology's

prim

ar

y w

ith

'soc

i

al

p

roblems'

is

ove

rw h

elm-

ingly

impo

rt

ant.

Il

is

also

tr

ue

t

hat

th<'

re la

tions

between

and

other

di

sc

iplin

es

ha,·e

had

a

ro

le

in

the

dc,

·

clopmcm

of

soci(Jlug)',

tk

ll

t

he

bound<trics

ha

ve

m

oved

ar

ou

nd a

bit

, t

hat

sc

ho la rs

ha

ve

come

to

soc

iol

ogy

from

ot

he

r

r.

cl

ds,

a

nd

that

A1

ncrican

soc i

ology

differs f

ro

m,

say,

french

soc

iol

ogy

because

di

ff

ere

nt

t hi

ngs

get

coun

t

ed

as

socia

l

science

(suc

h

as

le

ga

l

st

ud

ies)

and

th

at

di

sp

utes

over

boundaries

a nd

personal

co

nOicts

or

alliances

with

m

embers

of

other

d i

scip

li

nes

at

va

rious

uni

versities s h

aped

the w

ay

sociol

ogy

was

st

u died in those

un

ivers

ities.

The

ques

t

io

n is,

whar

is

one

to

make

of

all

these

(and

many

ot

h

er

s

imil

ar)

facts

? !3oth

Ca

rn

ic

and

llu

lm

cr

like

the

m

etap

h

or

of

evolutiona ry

compe

t

ition,

b

ut

I m u

st

con

fe

ss

that

I

do

no

t se c

much

evide n

ce

of

a

Darwinia

n s

tru

ggle

betwee

n

socio

l

ogy

and

ot

h

er

discip

l

ines

for

uberura

u

nr.

T he

co

ntr

a ry

seems

to

be

t

ru

e.

Past

relatio

ns

wit

h

the

major

soc

ia l

sciences

were

genera

ll y fr

iendly,

and

there

h

as

b

ee

n a

long

ru

nning

two-way

tr

a!1ic

wit

h

so

m e

of

t hem .

Soc

iol

ogy

jour

na ls a re

cons

i

dered

hi

gh

p re

stige

pub

l

ica

ti

on

outlets

in

po

l

it

ic

al

science,

according

to

surveys

of

politica

l s

cie

ntist

s.

With

the

Am

erica

n Statistic.:tl

Asso

ciation

th e c on n

ec

t

ions

were even m

ore

close.

Socio

l

ogists

edited

th

e j o u

rnal

for

much

of

the

ce

n

tury,

and

one

docs

today

.

Parsons

h

ad

a

huge

imp

ac t

on

a r

ea

stud

ies, "·hic h

were

created

in th e

post-w

ar

period

by

f

und

i

ng

ini

ti

at

i

ves.

T

wo

of th e

Nobe

l La u rc:ttcs

in

Econo

mics,

Herbert

Simon

and

G

ary

Becker,

have

been

mem

-

bers

of

the

Ame

r

ican

Socio lo

gical

Associat

ion. B

ecker

h

as

an

a p

pointment

in

soci

-

ology

as

well

as

in

eco

n

omics.

The

lis t

cou

ld

go

on.

In

th e

ea

rly pa n

of

the

re l

atio

ns

"·ere

e,·en c l

oser.

Sociologists

of

the

generation

of O

gburn

and

Cha

p

in

t

hought

nothi

ng

of

using

wh

atc,·cr

l

abel

was

convenient

and

ident

ir.

ed

themse

lves a

nd

r

hought

of

thcmse

h'

cs

as

cconomisrs

or

statisticians

as ,,·ell

as

sociolog

ist s. T he

SSRC

in

its

early

years

thrived

on.

the

fact

that

ma

ny

of

its

lc:tding

ligh ts

were

pro

d

ucts

of

the

i

nte

r

disciplina

ry

facu

lty

of

Political Scien

ce

at

C

olumbia,

\,·hich

originall

y r

eq

uir

ed

its

st

udents

to

be

competent

in a (jcJd

other

t

han

t

heir

primary

The

tr

anscripts

or

the

Dartmo

uth

SSRC

m

eeti

n

gs

o f

the

1920s

sho

w a

great

dea

l

of

s

ympathetic

interdisc

ip l

ina

ry i

merest

and

exc

ha n

ge.

Tht"rc

has

b

een

a

good

deal

of

migra

t

ion

bct

,,·ccn fiel

ds.

as

in

th

e

case

of

E. A.

Ro

ss,

who

began

h is

career

as

an

econo

mist ,

or

Stua

rt

Rice,

who

11·ent

f

rom

Sociology

10

l'olitic:d

Science,

and

preac

h

ed

the

same

Gospe

l fro m

both

pulpit

s.

Th

e Rockefe

ll

er p

hilan

th r

opies

and

SSRC,

th

e

1va

r,

and

later

runding

efforts

broke

down

discip li

nary

boundaries

o n

purpose:

funders

saw

d i

scip

li

na

rit

y as

an

obstacle

to

th

e

dc

,·cl

opme

nt

o f

th

e

pr

oblem-solving

capac

ities o f

social

scie n

ce.

S8

sn

troSIUM

ON

Tl

Of

SOC

IOLOGY

The

fronti

er

wi

th

psyc

ho l

ogy

has

alwa

ys

b

een

ac!ivc,

but

reducing

the

activity

to

a p au

crn

is diOic

ult.

In

1h

c before

\-

Vorld

War

I,

sociologists

de

fin

ed

pr

ob

lem

s

as

psyc

h ol

og

i

ca

l,

and

ps

ychol

ogis

ts

gradually

tr

ied

to

so

lve

these

probl

ems

in

psy-

cholog

i

cal

t

erms

. Beh

av

iorism

was

a h

ot

issu e

in

bo

th

ftcl

ds

in

the

1920s.

Many

soc

i

ologists

were

eage

r fo r psyr.h ol

og

isls

to

deal

with

the

to

pi

cs

th a t

soc

i

ologis

ts

co

ns

ider

ed

to

be

soci

al

psy

ch

ology.

G

iddi

ngs

help

ed

ind

u

ce

Fl

oyd

Allport,

who

or

igina

lly to

pu

rs

ue

a m

ore

convcn

lion

al

in

p

syc

hology,

int

o taki

ng

a

new

)

,-

cr

ea

t

ed

pos

i1ion in

socia

l p

syc

hol

ogy

. H Tho: s

ub

sc

qu

cm

o f

socia

l

psycho

l

ogy

is

com

pic

:-;

-t

oo

complc:-;

to

re

du

ce

to

simple

fo

rmul

ae,

such

as

'dis-

ciplinary

imp

e

riali

sm'.

1 s

imp

ly d o

n't

sec

ho w

any

ve

ry

str

o

ng

asserti

o ns

ab

oul

dh

·

hi

s t

or

ic

ce

ntrality

of

disc

ip

lin

ary

co

mp

e

titi

o n

ca

n be

rec

o

nciled

with

th

ese

fa

e1

s.

Th<•

book

s

tr

esse

d

th

e

oppositc-

1h

c asc.onishi

ng

degree

to

which

non-s

ocio

l

og

ist

s.

rid

ing

on

a

wav

e of

lll

OH<''

..

could

bl

ish 1 hcm

sc

h-cs

as

major

res in

sociolo

gy

.

Th

is

is h

o,,·

1

sec

th

e cas.: o f

!'ars

o

ns.

tr

l'

;t

rsons

"·

i:.h<·d to

bc:

co

111

c a

eco

no

mi

cs

pr

orcsso

r, h e

ma

de a

fatal

ca

ree

r

erro

r by

stu

dyin

g in G e r

many.

Th

at

he

wa

s h

ire

d

a1

H a r

vard

at

nil is

so

mething

of

a mys1cry. T h

ere

is,

however,

no

mys

t

ery

abo

ut

what

happened

a

ft

er

wa

r

ds.

He

lacked

the

sk

ill s

and

b:-tc

k

grou

nd

to

m:-tk

c i1

as

:-tn

eco

nom

ist. So he

:H

tachcd

hims

clr

to on e o r t

he

G

rand

Du

k

es

at

H

an·ar

d , L J

Henderson,

who

ope

ne d

mall\

· d

oors

for

him.

incl

udi

ng

1h

e

do

or

10

'socio

l

ogy'.

Once

in

1he

door.

Pa

r

sons,

wi

th

1h

e ;tid

of

H e

nd

er

so

n a nd

others.

Soro

kin

. er

c:1

1ed a

nc,,·

unit

,

Soc

ial

Rei:Hions,

that

combined

so ci

ology

with

socia

l

The

social

''-ere

gl

a.

d

10

ge

t aw:-ty

rrom

!he

'

br

ass

in

slr

um

c

nt

boys'

in

psych

ology

, s u

ch

ass.

s.

StC\"C

il

S.

Th

us, b y

hard

admin

is

lr

a

ti,

·c wi r

e-pulling.

Parsons

s

ur

\'iv

cd

an

ea

rly

carel'r

er

ro r

1h

at

o

1hcrwis

e

would

have

bee

n

fatal.

In

the

cou

r

se

of

th

is

mancu

,·e

ring

h

o:

prod

u

ced

a.n

cbbor:uc

intcllecwal

ra1ion

alc

ro r his

projec

t, a

nd

wo

n

the

backing

o f

Ca

rn

egie

Co

rp

ora -

lio

n. l1 is

diOicult

to

find

muc

h

c,·id

c

ncc

thai

his rh

co

rc

ti

eal

pr

o

jec

t h

ad

a g

re

at

im

pact

in

soc

iol

ogv

b

eyo

nd

th

e i

mpact

n

ote

d

in

1h

c

book.

!

ha

t it he l

ped

a

cer

tain

g

enera

lio n

of

soc

io l

ogy

stu

de

nt

s to

dcr.

nc a

certain

ra n

ge

or d tc

orcli

ca

l

probl

em s

as

distincdy

's

ociologica

l

'.

\"one

of 1

hc

p

sy

ch

ol

og

i

sts

"·h

o

had

a n

yth

ing

10

do

w

ith

P:-tr

:;ons's

pro_i..-cl

or

the

Dcp:

trrm

cn

t

of

Social

Relation

s bo

ught

in

to th

e

model

.""

'

T

he

C:lSC

c.:nai

nl

y

illos

tr

:u es the Y

uln

e r

.1

biliry

or

soc

iol

ogy

10

inv

as

ion s

and

t

he

incrl'

dib

lc

malleab

i

lit

y

of

dep:-tr1mcn1al

and

s

tru

c

tu

res.

Th

ese

were

a)-

re a

d,-

c.:ntr:-tl t

hemes

of

the

bo

ok.

!1

is

unck

a r to me

tha

t

tl

ll'

Han•ard

c:-tsc

ho l

d;

other

!:!"<'ll

<'r:t

l l

essons.

i

rhink

.•

fr.;.m l

ooking

at

Duke.

lhl'

ofW

as

hi

n)!ton.

and

Chic

a

go.

that

in

rh,·

1930s.

:-tt

kast.

th..-

l

ocal

si

tu

a

ti

ons

at

soc i

ologv

department

s

di"crgcd

"id

cly

.

It

,,-otlld

be

n i

C<

'

tO

ha

\'c

some

s

er

ious

hi

swric'al

acconm

s of lh<

·se

loc

al

condi

t

ions,

an

d

th

.:

material

is th

cr<'-

Pn·s

id

.:nt

i;l l

pap

as.

,,

·h ich

arc

o f

ten

b

rut-

:-tlh-

c:-t

nd

icl,

C);

i

;t.

The

pape

rs o i d

cp:

unncnt

h

ea

ds

and

corres

pond-

en

ce

is a l

so

\-[y in

tuiti

ons

arc

obviously

diiTcr

o:

m f

ro

m

Cami

c's.

But

qu

estio

ns

of

ho"·

patt

e

rns

of

depa

rtm

e

nt

devel

opme

nt

and

th

e ro le

of

pe

rson

a l

and

l

oc

al

ad

min

is

tr:tli,

·c c

ir

cu

mstanccs-,,hi

ch [

"·ou

ld

ex

p

ec

t to

be :in' n •

sc

arc

l

nbk

hi

storical

prubk

llls.

Ca

mic

r:liS

<'$

the

ques

tio n or

,,-1

1\"

we

did

no t

CO

ill)J:lfl' soci

olog

y

lO

o

th

e r

di

s-

ciplin

es.

A

lt

ho

ugh

we

did

no l do

so

in t

he

text

, the i

ssue

was

:-tlw

ays

in

1h

c

back-

gro

u

nd

and

ind

e

ed

is

tr

ea

lcd

in

var

io

us

f

oot

note

s.

Th

er e

arc

ma

ny

ind

ex

entries

for

th

e

ot

h

er

discipli

n

es

in 1hc

soc

ial

sciences.

and

"·e

we

re

eage

r

to

ident

ify

O!<J(;JNS

OF

SOC

I

OL(J(;

y ·

i'n

flucnccs.

H

owever

,

we

m

ade

a 1ac1ical

de

cis

i

on

to

sy:.tcm:

11

ira

lly

co

m1

x,

rc

to

10 ckp

ic:rr·d

by

R

ir

hard

\-\"hi llr·y.

Jon

T

II

I

IICI

h,IS U

SCd

\o\

·

htl

Jcy tn

Ol

h cr COnlt'XIS, :q1d cit.-s SOI11C

ll

SCS itt

own

r

ep

ly; I

have

a v i

ew

or\-\'h

ilk

y.

The

o

bj

crtiun

I ha l

can

be

m

ade

co

1

crry

s

ronn

ula

ca

n

be

m:-t

clc t o

_v\"

hi

!ley

's

uf

st:ic

nce.

Th

cv

;rrr

pnlt:rps

l

nw

111

a v n T

sc

r1s

c.

l1

11

1

11t

.-

l t

-r

1

t1

, ,

11

,-

)1

.,,

1-1,

111

1

-1 .1. 1.

• • • • • .

•.

• .

CJ

••

• I

('

(U'

,.

•·cl_a

u

vc

IO

the

sprci

t1

c

sc

i

ences

a

nd

hi.;wrical

t•

)

whic

h

are

be1ng

appl

t

cd.

Th

e l

crms

a rc diffic

ult

10

tr:tn

s!a

re li·om uu

<·

r.

rtd

1

.-

, .

lJw

t

hcr

.

:llld

m

os

t

or

th

e m a rc

vague

eve

n

in

th

e

ir

a

pplicati

on

to

a

Clar

k'

· PI · h . "

_ s a • c. .

lYS

I

CS,

owevcr

,

rep

res

en

ts a

po

wc

rruJ i

dc:-t!

clecpl)· r

oo

l

e.d

in I h e

of

soc

1o l

ogy.

I t W<ts t

hcr

e r

ore

co

nvcni

c

n1

10

u

sc

th is

:-t

s a s

tand

:-tn:

!

or

co

m-

pan

s

on

.

Camic

al

so

a

sks

we

did

nol

consider

'

roads

110

1

t:tkrn'.

Th

r

fin:-tl

c h

apte

r

was

o

ur

consJd c r n li

on

o f 1he

poss

ible r

oads,

but

it

was

a

spcc

il

ic:-tlh·

lim

it

ed

nn

e _ \Vt· 1g n on:cl

of

1hc w

il

drr

al>otrl w

lr

a t

snci

11

)0,, , . coutci

lw.

\\"

cons1dcrcd

o I I · · f · .

-..

<:

n Y

t1

ose

VISIO

ns o

soc

tol

ogy

th

at

came

wid1 a nJOrl'

ur

c

ohen'n

l

an

swe

r to

the

q u

estion

o r

how

i1

would

p

ay

l

or

it

sel

f

an

d

who

would

lis t

en

10

it.

were

I

he:

'falcr

ul

c h

oices'.

None

or ll

wm.

as

WI'

1\l;ldt•

,-

lr

·ar.

\\

"

\'!"(

"

\"l'

l"\"

""<•d

op

tiOns. · "

7 ·

What

worked

and

didn

'I

work

in

the

of

and

whel/in this is a

prope

r

mbjt.c/

of

lh

t

nj

soc

iologr

pun

c h o r

the

was

exp

r

esse

d

in

;r

to

rtu

ous

an

d ra

shiu

n,

in

l

ar

ge

because

_H

wa

s d10

tc

ult

to su

mmar

ize

wh

a1

1hr 1

wn

:ll{r

ce

d

wll

h

ou

t r

cso

rlln

g

Jo

n

Tur

ner

thou

gh

!

that

th

e di

sc

iplina

rv

of

pr

evente

d

tllr

om

dev

el

oping

ax a

sc

ie

nce

. I

:-tg

r

cc

d wi 1h

th

is.:_b

ul 1 dicln

'l

agre

e W

llh

_

th

e

idea

th

at

th er e

\vas

a

conceivable

di

sc

iplin

arv

s

tr

11

cturc

1hat

wo u

ld

en

able

soc

10lo"y

to

:1

s · ,_, . 1 · ·

. _ " _ _ • c1e

nce.

• c

ag

r

c:c,

tn

s h

on,

o n llw rl'

:t

l

dlOi

t"cs

open

lo

so:

t

_o

l

og_y

l

heu

worldly

consequ

en

ces.

\·\ c

di

sagreed

about

a

hy

polllCJic:-tl-if

th:

dt

SCI

(ll tn,IJ '( wo

rld

or

.\OCIO

io

gy

was

radi

c

all

y

dil

kr

c

nt

, c:ould

IJC

Come

"t

nee?

_H

C:

sa1d 1

sa

id

If

1hc

c:o

uld b t•

answned

in

·l ;is

way,

th

:·

ook

dcscnbcs

a

t1ag

cd )'. I r

11

had

to

be

answered

in m,-

wav.

il

desc

ri b

es

a f

oo

l

's

er

ran

d . ' ·

Schuma

n

th

e

ha

s

hel

d 1he

science

clown,

and

o

bjcc

ls to t ht·

cla'm

o f

the

boo

k

's

titl

e I

hat

1he

scitt/Cf

i'

impossible.

Si n

ce

the

l

wo

co-_'

wl

ho rs !his

cl;titn

, it

wa

s 1

u

·vc:

r pa ri

of

th

e b

oo

k,

s?

me

commc

n1

s

on

o

ur

d 1ffcrcn

ccs

on 1hc

subjcc

1

wl'r

c

pa

n o f

the

introduc-

tt

on-w

ht

clt

W:tS

pr

oven

10

be

a

SOIIfCC:

o

fanxi

cly

J(>r

a

J<:w

pmpk

wi

t

ltout

:1

or

humor.

.

Pc

rh:-tps 1his

th

e

approp

ria1c

moment

to si

mpl

>·

state

my

opi

ni

on

this

su

iJ-

J

ec

l. l_d o_not

!h

a t

th

er

e_

ar

c

good

or

conv

in

ci

ng

in

princip

le

agai

ns t

quanltlatr

v:

soc

tol

ogy

o r

ag:-t

t

nst

th

e p

oss

ibilit

y o f n

scienc

e of

soc

i

cl,

..

On

1he o

th

er

I th1nk th:tl

the

f:

tilu

re

s uf

qu

a

milativl

' soc-iol;1

g-y

10

pr

nclurc

of

conse

qu

en

ce

_llwt

co

uld

bl'

called

a

sc

ienti

fic

rcsu

lt

-an

yl hing

th

at

rises

fa t

1h

c

co

ll

cc

tt

on

of

ra

cts

-is

pr

etly

s1ron

g

e,

·iclcn cc 1ha1 l h

l·

i

dea

,

ta

ntai-

IZ

m_g

as

.

tt

o n

ce

_was

to

m e

and

t

an1al

iz

ing

as

il b

lo

Sc

hu

man

and

Dcmcmtlr

is

a n

dl

us

•

on,

a

nllrag

c

th

a1

we

ca

n n

eve

r

rc

acl

1 Q

11

e -

tl

· k 1· J • · · '

, ' ·

In«)

llll 0 I

it

.\

:111

t'

ll1)>1rt

C

al

/

6('

S\'M

oS

I\

1

,\1

ON

TI-ll; JII

STO

K\'

OF

AMEKI

(;

AN

SOCI

OLOGY

fiudn

•f.·

" '

lllo

a!!

th:

of

cm

ptn

::;,.l

findi

ng

s:

socia

l

scien

ce

pursu

ed

many

,,

c:

d•scov<'IT(l no

oases

.

It

se

ems

reaso

nabl

e

on

ind

u

ctive

ground

s to

t

ha;

th

cr!·

an

:

no

oases

,

eve

n

whe

re

it

appears

that

th

ere

arc

. T h is

in

duc

-

uou

n"

'"

bt:

wrons

a

nd

a n

oasis

i

ndeed

be

on

the

ho ri

zon

,

perh

aps

the

hor

iz

on

of

expec

tation

th

eo

ri

sts

o r

so

m e

ot

her

su

ch

group.

S

ur

ely, h ow

eve

r, m a

ssi

ve

sk

CfJtlCISlll

is no\\'

warranted.

T <·

IJC

ver y

co

uci

se

about

it

, we ali -

eve

ry

co

ntribu

tor

to

this

sy

mp

os

ium-

disagrre

about

1h

csc

q u

estio

n

s.

Th

e

questi

on is w h e

th

er on e n

eeds

to

tak

e s

ides

on

thr.s

1·

non

- his t o ri

ca

l

questio

ns

in

orde

r to

wr

ite

the

histor

y

of

socio

l

ogy.

i\.

!v v

irw,

o

riginall

y,

w;1s

that

th

e

story

of

the

his to ry

of

the

co

nfli

ct

between

sociology's

re

sources

a

nd

its

'scicntill

<''

as

pirat

ions

co

uld

be tol d

with

o

ut

making

ab

o

ut

th

e m

eta

ph

ys

ic

al

epistemo

logi

cal

'

pos

sibilit

y'

of

a

sc

ientifi

c

and

!hat

tlH

:

claim

th

at

it

wa

: <d. historical i

111p

ossibilit

y,

giv

en

th

e ;ocrua!

ins(l[

uuonal

conditi

o

ns

of

soc

iology

as

;,

di

sci

plin

e

and

th

e ex t

an

t

int

e

ll

ec

tu

al

o r

sc

•

eutif

ic

in

so

ciology, is a suflic:icntl y

int

eresting

pr

op

os

itio n

on

it

s o

wn,

an

d

on

e o n

whic

h

we

mig

ht

actua

lly

agrcc

.

ln

practice

o

ur

dilf

crcnt

ideas

ab

o

ut

,,·ha t

wa

s

good

and

bad

in

soc

iol

ogy

were

an

obst

acle

to

agreement

in w rit

in

g

th

e

boo\...

Sch

um

a n

wit

h

claim

s

tha:

we

thoug

ht

we re

unprob

le

mati

c,

and

t his

can

se

rve

as

a t

es

t of'

this

ve

r y

large

histor

iographic

prob

l

em.

Sc

h u

man

that

we

e

rr

in

ou:· a

cc

ount

ofsignifica

n

cc

t

es

tin

g

when

it

is

sa

id

that

the

se

arc

we

ak

tes

ts

th

a t

allowed

r

es

ult

s

to

he

es

tab

li

sh

ed

w

ith

sa

mple

s.

In

we

were

c.1

rc ful 10

say

that

if

was

to

pr

oduce

sig

nificant-r

es

ult

s-

i

n-quot

es fr

om

s

mall

samples

(

Turner,

1990: 1

14-

16).

Th

e

claim

is

hi

s to r

ica

lly

impo

rt:111t

,

it

ex

plains

somethi

ng-

crucial

about

th

e

soc

ial o r

ga

nizati

o n of

re

se

ar

ch .

In

the

Labor

Swt

is

tics

wer

e ol'tcn

in

1h

e

th

ou

sa

nd

s,

it

wo

uld

ha

vr

b

een

impos

s

ib

le lo r a n o

rdinar

y

socio

iogist t O

out

s uch

sl<l

tisti

ca

l projcc1s

on

his

or

h

er

ow

n . G

idding

s, it is

often

sa

id,

did

no

resea

rc h .

If

o ne

co

nsid

e

rs

what

was

requir

ed

to

'do

researc

h'

at

the

time,

it

sheds

a

dil

fc rc

nt

li

ght

on

th

e

matte

r.

G

iddi

n

gs

rli

d a I te

mpt

to

do a l

arge

sca

lr

surv

ey of

work

e

r's

leisur

e

tim

e

in

co-o

p e

ra-

tion w

ith

lalHH'

but

thr

pr

q j

ec

t w

as

ab

ort

ed,

ow

in

g

to

practi

ca

l dif-

ficult ies.

In

the m

uc

h

res

ea

rc h

done

ty p ic-

ally wi

d1

the

he

lp

of

:1

dcrks.

I n s h

or

t, to do r

esearc

h

requi

red

a w e

ll

-fin

anced

l

acw

ry. T he c

hange

pr

od

uced

b y si

gnificance

tes

ting

wa

s

r

esea

rc h b

ec

ame

a

cottagr

indus

tr

y.

Every

Ph.D . stu

de

nt co

uld

be

expec

t

ed

to

d o

it

on

his

or her o

wn

,

if

nr.cd

be.

H

owever,

all

th

ese

'result

s'

co

uld

not

be m

ade

in

to

an

yth

in

g

theoreti

c

ally

co

h e re

nt,

which

is

not

surpr

isin

g,

giv

en thr. fa

cf

tha

t

th

e

hurdlr.

se

t

by

s

tati

st

i

ca

l is

quite

low

.

sees

thi

s

assertion

as

an

ex

ampl

e

of

our

unfa

mili

a

rit

y

with

' h

ypo

th

esis-

driven

A

cco

rding

to

him

, it

did

not

bec

om

e

'easy

' to

prod

u

ce

s

tati

sti

ca

l

res

ult

s.

E

s;

•c•ly the o

pp

os

it

e is true in

rr.

...

Ahhou

,K

h there are

p1

"1JI>

Icms

wi

1h

an

overemphasis on lest in s, with small th e o

rd

er to several hund

red

-

l>ol

h

sampling

.11

1d

non-

sa

mpling

typ

es

c.C

e

rror.

<end 10 ov

erwhelm

real rel

at

ion s

hip

s.

To

un

ck rs<·o

n'

the

point

tha

t

thi

s

kind

of' is n o t

ea

sy,

he

cl

01

im

s

that

'm

os

t

tests

of

in

te

r

es

ting

h

ypotheses

do

1101

pr

o

du

ce

s i

gn

i!i

ca

nt

r

es

ults

'.

H

oweve

r,

Schuman

<1

l

so

cit

es

him

self

in sll

pport

of

th

e

claim

that

'even

re

la ti

ve

ly

small

s

ur

,·eys courltJctccl

:11

no

cos

t

::l

t

ca

n

yield

"scien

tific

finding

s

"'

.

rl-11:

:

OIOG

IN

S

OF

SOC:IOLUt;Y'

·i l

.

The

issue

What

is a

'rea

l r

cl

ari,>nship':>

What

is

ol

fi

nd

in

,.,

\-\'

t?

deal

st.n

ct

l

.y

with

we

took

to

be

.t n

on-controversia

l

:a

t.:t

-th•:

tto

n or a

ccrt

;un

km

d o f r

esea

rc h,

the

kind

repo

rt

ed,

say,

in

Bcr

c1

son

and

<.;

1

1'in

·r'

.

I

nvento

ry

f

fi

d'

(

)96

4)

fi

. 1

'

. . . o 1ngs , a t

cr

the

;

fl

lffJ

oJ

IICtion

and

dilfusi•m

•>

f

Even

Sc

hum

an

pr<:

s•un

ably

would

..tf

tm 1t

!ha

t

:he

wc:n:

.ut

i_

of

these

stud1

es.

Pr

esumab

ly

he

wo

•1

i

ol

.tdmit

rh

al

..

111

,

..

_,

...,

'l

)

:t(k

il

IO

pr

od

u

ce

but

'w

mak

es

a

_jud

g;·m.:n1

•>

•t

.hc:s•: Ht'

that

so

m e of

th

em

'rc

:d n:lafion s

hip

s' , 1

nd

. (0;

11

1!

!his wit!;

:..mall

sam

pl

es,

th

o u

gh

poss1bl

r.

, is di(licult.

wh o

l.e

noti

o n o f ' r

ca

l r

elati

o

nships

'

in

this

dom

ain

is

h w

h!y

r:o

ntr

ovcrs

t

'a

l a 1

11

r

h1

s

1s

pr

cc l h k . d ' · ·

..,

· ' ' 1

·. I

SC

Y t e

1n

ot m c t

ap

h

ys

•c

a J

ab

out

chc .:h:u·:tc t

cr

•

>I'

the

world

that

I w

is

he d to avoid. P e

rh

ap

s

11

is

not

avoidable

.

one

of

the

of

socio

lo.

L(v

w

i1

ho

u t

ma

k

in

.

l!

S()mc

ha

rd

and

ro

nrr

o-

!wo

ta

ken {i·o

111

th

e 0r·

psyc

holot:v

Hera

cur

e.

Th

e first a

ppea

rs tn

an

autobfOj!'raphi cal st

ate

m e

nt

bv

R.

Dun

can

L u

cc.

· ·

class

Schuman

as

a

victim

of

m,1ss

dcccp1ion.

,'.j

()

ti cc

that

h..:

does

_, 0 011

.

Jr

. . s

that

slll)uld

be

cryi

n)!

to ·

mod

el is

:,:-oing

on '

rat

he r t

h.

tn

to

de

c

id

e

II

one

alfccts

.a

n

other'

cr

as

Sc

hu

man

would

-;

a

v.

tlli:•:ts

Thc

.y

dJs<lg:cc on

th

crr

()

hil

oso

p h y

0!'

sci1·n.:c:.

dnd

0

11

thc

1r

v1c

w o f

tnf

crcn

ual

s t

at

istics.

a

qu

o ta ti o n

!rom.

th

e hr

s•orv

o

r'

psychology

lit.:ra\IJrc.

'>'

' , J

o w lO

las

a l

so

m

ade

a tn:lj

or

co

mr

ibution

to

the

ut' ·

:taf;st

i.

C'S

uanz1gcr:

1 - · · ,

!<.nn

r:J;IaiJ

ii

.c;;

IJjn

g lhC

I}{

:110

n .

v

-..lu

c in

pra

cth:a l

"'

'hc•·c lhc

OVl'ral

i ··n· . ·,,·

,"

:' .

prac:I

I

CC

01

,,,.

..

,.(.,,

a

sscssc.

d

c·

I .,.

\:

C"C(S

ol

ncc:dl'd

lu

ne

·

1v

en I oe prev:

11

lcnd encv

10

n·i

fy

sta

l

i,

li

1 . • .

S(a

(i

StiC

al

\Villi

I'

C'

lf

ity

'I ·. . ,

olfll

..

.md

lhert:

forC

I

I)

l'

l)

llfu

:r-.

c

empl

oyed

as

"'

1

...

• r·'·

d.

. : • I

\\as

ll

alu

r

al

0 1' ·" i

l,!

l\l

fiC

ancc

lt.'.;

flll

l(

to

Ill.'

• '

..

Uu

.SIS

or

:t

bo

ur

"I

IC:

va

l'd't r I . I I

iaclors he

lp

ed IO I his .,.

,:

I

.'

' y o ·. . . . .

do

e

whi

ch

it

C"

n

co

u

ra

1

re

d, (

JC

:· t

IC't

•M

HI

IO

uM tl

:t.

:lt

l(

.>.n of

st

l

c.'nuh

..

·

tln·I

,\ IOil

111.\

k

in

g,

,..,

• '"' . • lllel

ltUJilC

(.

I

Or

C

fl't'I

H'I'

:t

iJy H

\"

· "

•.

'

rl•c dcm;m

<b

IU:tdc

Ull

r··.

. 'I'){ . ' '

,,,

::;

·•

JH·h

II

C:C'

r.

:

cf

uc

<'cl

never

l>

cen a ble

to

trC

I o

'ts

..

I I u •

;r.m

.

t{

-l>

t)!

trt

v ra . •

h.:.I

Ht"v•:

IIJ'''"

ll

·t

.i

..

;i .

...

. ·;ipli

nc

ll•a• had

,, JC.

cl

1ouse

rn

on N Us

n'

t · · t · ·r.

sta

nda

rd t

tdmiquc

lOr the r.orrobor · , · . r I . . . I s ,

,.s

the

genera

lly

regarded

\·o

fl

li

r.

mcd'

;r

': '•rpm nn ws •nc·:tnl •.

h:n

'

'"''"

ic-o;;

\

\'

t•n

.·

cr;.

vc.d• .

<,gll.:d

cotnp l

tlll

l

'lll

.

t.:

JI

,tJ

H:e .

vr

'he · .

hr·

uuH

62

Or\

TilE

0

1'

SOCIOLO

U

\'

could

be

cli

sco

nfirrncd.

Thi•

lro

v.-

ty

of

scientifi

c.

method

ce

rtainly

the

gr<)\\

'lh uf

:t

r<"scarch

indu

$;

t

ry

that offered

cm

pluymcn1

LO

many, even

\ho

ugh

Wi

p1ud.ucts

now

h

..:

contri

bull

'd

of

cilht.•r pr:h.·

tit.:a\

or

tlu

.:

ur

c

ti

c;.\

l

\·

a

hat.

:

..

Not

only

did t

hc

.

..

c odn·rrat

io

ns

a

wastr

t,

r

tmw,

rffort,

allcl

resource

s , the\' also confincd p.sycho l

og

i

c..,

l thcoriz.lng

in

an

1n

c

rca

s

Jugl)·

narr

uw

mold

, llms

dosi

ng

the

dour

ah

crna1ivc

tunccplu

ilti7

.:tt

ic

m s

practices

tha

t

miglu

h

:wc

reversed

th

e

pr

ocess

of

intcllcclUa!

decl

ine t

hnt

the

dis

c

ipline

was

no w to

sutTe1

:-

B

ec

ause

r_nt

:dwds

wt re almost regardl'd thl'ury-neutral

th

e

on

lhc_y

\\

'

l'rC'

ba

sed

we

re

able

to as

thcorctk

:d

mudehs

l

or

.

haste

t.lr thr reati 1y \Hltkr

Til

e murc

ri

gidly t

in:

_ demands

u!

a

stal

\:)l

ical methodology \\'ere cnfurcc

cl,

the more

cffel'tivcly

w

et'

c td c:\s

11ta1

dtd nul

Jn

. the

model rcmov

C"d

frum

sc

riutts

Such ideas had h

rs

t

to

be

lll

:t

thc

orl·iica.l rn

nfut

(u

th

e

reigning

mud

cl

hel'ore.

th

ey

could be

scnouslr

considered.

In

othe

r

words,

thcv

10

he eviscer

ated

10

the

puml

wher

e

th

ey

no

cons tituted a

tl

trC':tl

10

tlH•

dutninanl. o f

pn.:

cc

.mccpt\ons gu iding invc

sti,g;\tiVC

Thr

final

51

agr

l•f t

hi

s reach ed whe n the mvdch

on

had

ha.sccl

0,,·n prac

til'

C were dupHc

aLccl

in

th

ei r t

he

ories

ab

out huma n co

gn1L1on

111

gC1h

:

ra

l

(D

an

ziger, 1

!190

,

pp.

1:>•

1-l

j!,).

This

is a

pre

I

ty

har

s h

judgement,

but

it

co

uld

be

appli

e

d,

mulalis mulandiJ, to

1hc

sa

me

bo

dy

or

r

esea

rch

that

Sc

human

is

so

eager

lo

defen

d.

Schu-

man

1

vould

rej

ec

t

this

his1

orical

jud

geme

nt.

pr

e

cisely

would

he.

The

his

torical

evid e

nce?

Or

a

pan

icular,

cvaluativcly

l

oade

d

dcs

cnptJon

o f

tht

s

evid

en ce

and

the

philos

op

h y

of

scien

ce

on

whi

c h

it

is

ba

sed?

Our

comments

on

stali

stic

al

signific

anc

e w ere a

good

deal

Jnor

c

cow

ardly

than

Lucc's

or

Danziger's.

We

relicti o n a

famou

s

argument,

well

kn

o

wn

to

Schu

man

himself"

widely

r c pc·atcd in thr. li l

craturc

, first

nude

fam

o

us

by

Paul

Meehl

( 1967). Mee

hl

point

ed

ou

t

the

parad

ox

that

whereas

in

physics

mc!h

odolog

i

cal

mad

e

more

st

ringent,

in

t

he

bcha

vi

oral

sc

ien

ces

made

the m

weaker,

becaus

e

in

the

behavioral

sc

ie

nces

1h

c null h yp o

thesis

wa

s b e

in

g

te

sted.

O

bv

io

usly

w e Hras

ped

that

1herc

we re

peo

ple

in

our

po te

ntial

audience

wh

o

might

qui

bu

le

wi

th

this

argument.

It

miglu

even

be

the

cas

e

-though

I

would

be

su

r-

prised-that

the

view

s

Danzig

er

and

Lu

cc

objec

t to

so

vocif

erously

arc

stnndard

:1

mong

qu

a

ntilativc

so

ciologist

s,

as

Schum:1n

sugg

es

ts.

llut

l

Jhat

w

hen

this

pniod

of

the

his

wry

of

soci

olo

g y is

look

ed

back

up

on tn fifty

ye

ars

,

my

judg

c m

('

tH

th

a i

of

Dan

7.

igcr

Lucc

)

or

th

e_

rcsc_arch

pr

o

ducts

of

the

roman

ce

"·ith

in!

i:r

cntial

s

tatistics

will

be

co

nlirmed:

th

ey

sttll wtll

hav

e

led

n

owhe

re.

H ow

arc

such

conlli

cts

usuall

y

handkd

in

the

h isto

ry

or

sci

ence?

Reader

s

of

histor

ies

of

science

;m ;

not

expect

ed to

be

scien

tists.

Th

e

usual

reader

of

hi

s

tor

ie

s of

science

need

s a

peg

10

hold

th

e

narrative

o n is O

ul

sidc

th

e

re

s

earch

itself-for

ex

ample

so

me

dis

cove

ry,

lik

e

penicillin

,

that

hn

s

so

me

_larger

s

ignifican

ce.

Schuman,

however,

were

he

10

write

up

a

of

s_ocJal

sc

ien

ce

methodolo

gy

lils

with

hi

s m

od

el

or

!h

e

achie

ve

ments

of

soctal

sct

cn

cc

met

iH>dolo"\".

would

b

t·

tm

:

d1k

to

point

lo

<HI

)'

such

achiev

eme

nt.

Th

e

'real

rclall

t

m-

sh

ip

s'

co

uld

cbim

had

b

ee

n

cs

tablish

t:d

by

hi

s

so

ci<tl

scien

ce

tradition

arc

' r

ea

l'

only

if

one

accept

s

his

traditi

on's

peculiar

criteria

for

what

is a

'real

r e

lation-

s

hip'.

This

pl::tccs

the

hi

sto

ri:ln

in

a

clinicult

pos

llt

on.

One

can

:t

ss

umc

the

validity

of

this

u·adi!ion

's

criteria

and

mc!hods

,

but

the

aud

ienc

e

docs

no

t s

hare

the

se

so

su

ch a

hi

swry

would

be

unintelligible

to

th

ese

renders.

Alternatively,

on

e c

an

the

cr

ite

ria

and

th

eir

d

ev

el

o

pm

e

nt

in

a w a y

thai

is

intclligibl

c to a

<\udicn cc,

or

one

can

wri

tc

in

such

a

way

as

to

avoid

the

pr

o

blem.

Th

e

last

is

limiting.

Th

e

other

op

tion s

arc

full

of

trouble

too.

THE

ORIGIN

S

01'

:;o

<.;JO

LOGY'

63

Dcm

c

rath

pui

s

his

ringer

on

the

problem

with

our

approa

c h

to

th

ese

c

hoices

.

\\'c

simpl

y ig

nored

th

e

idea

1h a 1

sociology

w;ts a

prc.duccr

of

resear

ch

thai

esta

blished

' r e

al

relation

ships'.

WI'

told

tlw

ston·

nf

thr

:ltt

empt

to

socio

logy

a '

scien

ce'.

As

Dcmeralh

oul,

1his

narra

tive

fram

e

uses

a ni

nct

cc

lllh

cen

tury

visi

on

or

sociology

as a

'scie

nce'

and

pr

cse

nl

so

ciol

ogy

lo

it.

I migh t

point

OU

t

that

ihe

book

a({ually

111akes

lllliCh

oJ"

till

'

point

th:lt

dw

idea

I)(" >Cil'llCl'

that

soci

ol

og

i

sts

claimed

to

be

p

ursuing

changed

a

great

d

eal.

Elsewh

ere I

ha,

•c

devo

ted

a

chapter

to

hisloricizi

ng

Am

eri

ca

n

soci

ologists'

hope

s for

'th

eory'

(T

urn

e

r,

1992).

Dcmcraih

's

basic

p o

int

is

right;

our

acc

o

unt

depend

s on

imag

es

of'sciencc'

that

a rc

pari

of

the

soci

o

lo

gic

al

tradili

on

and

derive

from

the

ninctecnlh

century

.

It

co

uld

be

that

this

is

simply

the

wr

o

ng

fram

ework.

Socio

logy

ma\

·

be

a

sttc

cc

ss.

It

may

have

s u

ccess

fully

devel

oped

methods

or

gettin

g

'objective'

resu

lts,

eve

n

methods,

a s

Schuman

puis

it,

of

identif

yin

g

'real

re

lationshi

ps

'.

Th

e

standa

rd

of

success

we

e

mplo

yed,

tha

t d e ri

ved

l'rom

ninctccnlh

century

ide;ts o

i'

sc

ience,

ob-

I h e r

eal

of

sociol

ogy

.

If

t

his

so,

the

re

should

be

a

w:1y

of

tellin

g

this

su ccess

one

is

cont

e

nt

10

tell th e

stor

y

to

a n

audien

ce

limi

t

ed

10

those

p r

acti

li

oncrs

who

share

these

id

eas

of

'rc;tl re

lationshi

ps'

one

mu

s t

e:.j1lain

th

e

ideas

<tnd

their

hist

o

rical

d

ev

c:lop-

mclll

in

a

wa

y

that

outsiders

can

understand

.

\\'c

ccn;linly

did

no t

do

this

,

exce

pt

to

co

mment

on

vari

o

us

di

s

putes

be

tween

pra

ct

ilioncr

s,

notably

those

b

etween

Lazar-

sfcld

and

the

corr

cl:ttion

al

tra

dition.

Th

r.sc

dispu

t

es

incidentally

exhibit

so

me

o f 1hc

probl

ems

of

disentangling

th

e 's

cience'

s1ory !"rom

the

'succe

ss

ful

res

ea

r ch

tradition

'

story.

Lazarsfcld's

<lltcmpt

to

refine

measurcnl\'tll,

which

was

a

rias

m,

W<ts

nln·i-

ously

motiv:tt

cd

by

a

particular

m

odr

l

of

scientific

me

as

urcmcnl.

Precision

is, i n-

d

ee

d , t

he

paramount

nin

e

te

e

nth

ce

ntury

m e

thodologi

ca

l id

eal.

Scien

tific

id

ea

ls

of

one

kind

or

an

o

ther

arc

pervas

i

ve

in

prcsctll

day

qunnti

tativc

sociology.

It

is

unclear

that

one

can

tnak

c

sense

of

th

e d

eve

lopm

e

nt

of

the

se

metho

ds

without

in

vok

ing

.

romr

such

ideas.

It

is

hi

g

hly

plau

sible

to

me 1

hat

th

ere

is a

tradition

, a b

ody

of

ta

c

it

knowl

edge

about

t.hc

usc

o f

statislics

lo

praclical

infr.renccs

of

variou

s

kinds

!hat

arc

r e

liable,

relati

vely

robust

,

and

so

forlh

. I

th

i

nk

that

on

e

ca

n

glean

a

bit

of

th

,·

lore

from

the

writings

of

Donald

Camp

be

ll (

19

00),

especia

lly

hi

s

di

sc

ussions

of

ev

a lu-

ation

resear

ch. I

think

the

prud

cnli;tl

ntct

hndo!ogk<t

l

wischnn

gai

ned front

;t

n•tuur

y

or

pragm

atic

appropri:ltion

of

s

tatist

ical

ideas

and

t

ec

hniqu

es

for t

he

or

soc

ial

analysis

cons

t

itu

tes

a su

bst

antial

body,

:tnd

1hat

stu

d e

nts

can

acqu

ire

wisd

om.

Indeed

,

this

is

essentially

th

e

tht

:

.s

is

wi!h

which

I b

ega

n

this

rt>pl>

·:

the

t

ari

t

kn

owledge

model

of

mai

nstream

sociology.

Th

e

historio

gr

aphical

problems

p o

sed

by

this

tradi

tion,

espe

ciall y i n

its

post-

Wo

rld

W.-r J 1

phase

,

ar

c

formidable

,

howev

e

r.

To

explai

n

this

t

radition

to

outs

iders

o n e first

needs

to

arti

cu

la

!c

it:

ils

co

gnitiv

e p

urposes

(and

ho

w th

q·

have

changed

) ,

its

techniqu

es

and

th

e

changes

in

their

pm

ctic

al in

lc

rprctation

a

nd

usc,

the

ongoing

unsolved

irri

tant

s

and

probl

e m s

of

the

tradition

,

and

how

t h

ey

ha

ve

bee

n

coped

with

(I

would

think

that

causali1y,

th

e

inhe

re

nt

limitati

o ns

of

all t

echnica

l

devi

ces

for

de

a

ling

with

spurious

ness,

and

the problc1n o f

f.1cl

and

art

il

;11

.:

t

might

pr

ovi

de

unif

ying

the

mes).

Mary

M o r

gan

attempt

ed

to

do

something

like

this

l

or

econo

-

m e

trics,

but

s

he

could

not

r

ely

o n

the

wriltcn

rec

or

d . S

he

h:1d 10

irnag

inati1·cl\'

recons

truct

a

dialogu

e

hctwccn

rc

prcscnl

a

tivcs

of

di!T

crc

nt

:1ppronchcs.

Someth

in

g

s

im

i

lar

, l

think,

would

b e n

ecessa

ry

h('r

c.

To

wr

i

te

a histOr

y,

in

short,

one

woul

d

need

to

reconstr

u

ct

th

e self-

co

n

ce

p t

ion

or

mainstre

am

soc

iolo

gy

.

17

Sch

um

an

acco

unt

th

<lt

is

co

nsisten t wit h

<1nd

valid a t es his i

deas

about'.

·rc:ll relati

ons·

. I

would

like

to

sec

such

a

his

tory

wducn

-

an

accoun

t

of

the

,kw

l

opmcnt

or wisd

om

in

researc

h.

Th

is,

indeed,

is

the

kind

of

:,i

storv

that

has

to

be

wrillen

if

th e cla i

ms

made

by

Sc

hum

a n

about

th e

cog

niti ve

,ncccsses

0f

social

research

arc

to

be

s

ub

s

tantia

ted,

:tnd

if

Dc m

crath

's

poin

t

th

at

>flCi0

1ogy no lon

ger

rests

o n nine tee

nth

cen

tu

ry visi

ons

of

scie

n

ee

is to

be

vali

dat

ed,

.

md

if

we to det

ermine

th

at

'

un

derlyi

ng

co

mm

on

ali

ties',

as

C

ami

c

pu

ts it, exist

.n lf t

his

kind

of

hi

sto

ry wa s

wrin

en it

wo

uld

be

r

eadi

ly

see

n tha t

all

we

:

1avc

d•Jne in

our

b

ook

is

to m

ake

a co

ntributi

on to the hi

story

of

th

e

dem

ise of the

n

inner

nth

cen t

ur

y visio n of socioiogy as a

If

it ca

nn

ot be w

ritt

en ,

one

mu

st

ws

pcct

th

at

th

er e is

no

'co

r

e'

to

mainstr

ea m

soc

iology, 10 or

that

th

e

traditi

on th at I

;hink wa s c:trried by G

iddin

gs's

s

tudent

s n

ow

fr

agme

nt

ed

and

d

isa

pp

eare

d.

.Vole.r

0 . f

11

n>rr'$

..

ldmmn•

"'"'

( 1975) , .. o·crs ti·oo

n"

>imil:or pr o!ll

con.

:!.

Some

o f l

ht•

•ua in

lltcmcs

. ra n

be

best

rrom

1

hc

index

e

ntries,

suc

h

as

ch

ose

un

Giddings

ami

fullowcrs.

3.

Om

• , ,f lite .-ruci

:•l

po

uhkm

•

h.>d

to

cl

o

"·

ioh

the

s

cholarly

ar

r

aratus

itse

lf

. a point oncntion

ed

by

C:

u ouc .>nd •:nc.

>p<u

lat

cd

hy

Hrunb

Kukl

ic

k's claim ( 1992. p . I H )

thai

lloc

pa11c

rn

of

r

clcrwc

cs to

!\

Oitrt·cs

in

•he

boo

k

was

wl1

id'

)e

el

h

er

to J

uggcst

tha

t t he

book

was

a

co

ll

ec

t

io

n o f

f,,l"l:llt's-- thl' of

til}'

intent, ..tS will become clear

ill

1n)'

com

mC

n

l&

hduw.

t1

ul

i.•rt

uu.uc.·lr.

the-re

'"'

l'

rt

' p r

ohlr.ms

th

a i dictated this whi•ns ical str;Jtcgy.

Al

the

IHUillt.nl

.trrhival

C)

\IOLUiuu

.md

l'i

l

.tl

i

on

is under

it

Jrgal

cl

oud

as

:l

rcsutt

or

Ol

r

ecen

t

COUf(

C;ISC,

:ua l

:u

the l h.ll

the

bu

lk ur

the

rc<car

do

"

'as

done

, (

an

d

csrcc

ially t h

os

e holdin g or

:l.l

lnsHHIL'.d uu h:r

ia

l.,,

du.·

1H

a teriahi thai 11

:.

to

t)l(

: a tmus ph

c•c

a.s

well as

to

mak

e

\,r

many

doc:u

m

c-

n

ttl

bl

c

dt

"'

t

ails)

'n·rc

una

bl

e ur

10

relea

se

1n

atcrial

fu

r ci

ta.

tion

or

1\IIJI

:llio

n

:o.

to \

11

w

hi

ch

the

ln

:ttrri;d origi 1lally been g r;

uH

cc

l lo th e

co

ll

ec

tion .

in

olhc

r u

\.my

-l1

1c

duc

u111cnt

s

were

restric ted I

Jy

R

at

her Lhan n

ego

ti

ate ea

r.

h

li

ne

1hc iwirs,

a:-;

\t p

nNcd

nt·ct

.

"s

a

ry

w

do

in

Suciul<

•

.t:.'1

Rt.,p

mu

lf lo

Fa

JC

ism

(Turner and Kiislcr,

I ch

u!\t'

10

a m)nilnmn of ;

&r

c

hi

val citadons while making clear what tlh' majo r so urces

thai

\\':IS

dictat ed by the

Harvard·st

ylr cit atio n system c

mrl

oycd by the

publi

she r

Jll\''

'·

av

.

I.

:"l

;i, is ,

ol

su

the 1hcsis

uf

Rubo

rl

Sociologr

on

tl

SrirnfiSiu:

The

Qut

JI for Objr<fivi'J,

( l!lll7 ) . whic h I

wnsi

d

rr

tube

th

e

be.<t

historic.1l wurk uo1 A mer

ic

an

suciol

og

y

extan

t.

·,.

lo

mns

t .1ddcd. howcvo:r, thai

hh

wurk

with

t

he

hr

illia

ut

Mar.\:inal

is

t J.

ll

.

Cb

rk (

11)83)

on wh at

w.•s llu·n

..:altt'd

'eli="

II

ibutiun ·

{<l

ntl

i.i

how 'price theor

y')

, pro

lir·

sharin g

an:l

i

)'SCs,

a

nd

his

. mpurta nt

po

s

ilio

n head

or

puh

l

kal

iou.s

rur

the Arn

cr

i

c:1n

Economic

As5odation suggcsl that he

.

tdcu!

.J

S an <:t.onomisL-morc

so

th

an, .say.

Pa

r

sons

wa

.s.

His

co

mp

etence perhaps

sa

ved him

rforn

the!

itl-

t;u

('<l

intellectual

rmper

ia

li

sm

or

P

arsons's

model of

ac

tion.

6.

rur

thi•

hr

'"'"

pi

ll

uricd

in

such

hooks :ts

Ro

he

r>

fi

icrstcdt 's

.-l

m

trican

Socio/

ogitol

Theory

(1981).

' ·

SdHrmom

wit h o f L:Harsf(;ld. I think

1h

cre is a f.'l,cinating h ist

or

ical

;orohlcm

lw

o

c.

and

Sd n

oo

na n

m;oy

br. r

ight.

Th

e

who

le crucstion

of

L

aza

o·sfcld's

importance

is

in

pan

as

J.

cun

sc

qu

rncc

of

Lazarstfld's own i

nt

erventions

inw

the w

ri

ti

ng

of

the

history

.,(

soci:.l rcsr.:u

rh.

\\'Hh

ItS cla

ims

abuut

'd

i

st

unli

uu

itics'. his ' tudent Ob

enchall

has

·n4tlc

dcM

,

L.

ll<>nfcld's his

toricJI

cl

fo rts

were

mo

tivat ed

by

a

rrur

agandis

l

iC

p

urpose

-t

o pcrsu:l.de

<:u

r

opc.w,

1h

.H

soc

ia

l r

ese

arch was

not

'1

\mc

ri

ca

n'

(Oilcrschall,

t978, p. 204).

N

rr

dless

to

sav,

t lu s

ciT<)ft

had

the c

ll

cct

o f

obs

curing the

history

uf

:

\m

c

ri

can

sucial resea<ch,

of

h

is

own Hl(cl lcclu.d

dciJIS

, most

ir

npurt:\nl uf a

ll

, the ccntrid

hy

of currclatio naJ thinking.

'l.

Kurt

t

na

kcs t he us

ef

ul p

oi

n1

th

at

'b

)'

th e clusi

ng

years

or

t

he

nin eteen

th

ccnlury

it

was

cu11H

n

vn.

in

1h r U nited S tat

es

, lu

fo

rm

ulat

e tile hu

man

pro blems of

urb

a nization,

in

d11s

tr

ia l cun

ccn

lmli

on ,

and

in

t

er

ms of t he pru blem s

uf

c

on

ce

ived as

ancl thls w

..

'\s

:.

' fur th e

!\

hift in

th

e

i•H

cr·war yea

rs

fr

om the

llt

Hkl"

Ci

t:ua l itlg: ur in

<l

i\'id ual ( 0 lllc usc ur da

(;\

1 (D;uningcr,

;1.

1

:.!

0-

:!

i)

It was

ll

w

!'t)r

i.,l .sud t whu

c.:

rc

a1

cd

th

is

n

ecessa

ry

d

tt·

nu

t

io

n or individ 1

1a

b. :1s

of

w

it

h

:tn

Int

ernal

st

atis tical

d i

:!rotr

i

lHHlll

l\

c•l"

H, . . , ..

·'""

t•

l

sc

wl

u:

r

("

,

applied

the

soc

i.ll uttlity

or

dwir uwthut

l,.

h\"

11p

pru

h

lnns

n·

n,us

tthlh

'd

{(J

r tl

u.·m

hy

:t

nd

C:

unk's

,,,.su

nq

Hi

nu.

t\i.llt:H

:OOM't

l

lt<.:lnw

. th.u dcp r

nd

ed

011

ildvanccs

in

T HE

ORIC

IN!) OF SOC:IO

I.O

G\'

'

psyc

h

ologic.d

uses

or

smlis

li

t:"'.

ctict

-

l>

ul rhls impl•rl:\111

Ulll\'

l

t•

r a

tiJ11

t",

hi

dtc-

C:\f("ff.

'i

or

Stcturfrr

;tncl

I

;mel

lht

• llt

ry

l

rain

rtl . .

9.

l'ur

a di

scu.sion

of

the

i

ou

r

;o

n of Fi

shrrian

mudcls

of

inf

erence

which

t

Mkes

tl

oi

s 1

ouin

1

qui

cltarh

·.

scr

llart

lcu ( 1965). ·

10. I feel a bil a wkw:ord

emplo)'

i

ng

this Po lan

yi•n

give n

th:o1

I

lo

.

ovc

u

bjrc

t

cd

rather

vociferously to i t i n Tlu

Social

Dttory

of

P

ro<licu

(1994). Suffice l u t

ha

t I

dunk

the

point.' 1 wosi.

to t hi

'i

1n cthodolugic:l

l"

tr

aditinn may

hr

wi h h.1

1H

inh.'

thr

an·u

1m1 nl

l

ta

d itiun I )(ivc in this buok .

II.

As an cxati>plc

or

;o

wei

rd

r

c.<

uh

of

this

met

hod

, I migh t c

ite

myself.

My

wa;

"

urg4lutz:adona l sociologist, Ken Benson, w h

os<:

0\

\"

11

Duewr·r.llhc r

,,

. ., 5 Oic k

Hi

ll wlu

himself

a.

st

ud

en t .

.1t

I hr. U n ivcrs

il

r ul'

Was

hington

uf

<h

e u

owr

i

ou'

S. C. Dodd .

.,,

.

ll

nmlgr;llll wllh a

Pt"lll

(;(:

(oH 11u·

Univ

(:

l'

sity

of

and

ro

. thai

ma

ltcr

a

po-u

!>lc

on

with

th

e hisl

urical

u

sr

of the

fa

ct

of

cloctutal

pa

<c rn ily. lur p.

11

rrn

it

y.

"'

l

o::o

" i '

Wt!

\\'\S

h 10

US('

1C

'' for l n

lk•

th , )

j"

land

11

1

oll•c r dcp

tH

I

JOCI

H

S)

ccno

lin

w

en

;

di

spr

oportiona

tely

Jl

k

dy

to

clir

ccl dtssc

rt

ol

-

too

ns

..

F.vcn

lh

o_ugh

Ccurgc

L

un

dberg mig

ht

loavc

hccn

rx

p

cc

tr.d t u

l>c

th

e lead

liglo

l

"'

1

11

l;&

C'

I Dodd

chrc

c1c

cl VI rt

uall

y all

In

"'P

i

tt·

vf

this d

uh

i

t.)

u

!'l

p.u1

·ut:t

!o:"l'.

h

O\VCvc

r, l

C'..-1

11

COU

IH

tw

o

ar.

tual Ph.D . in mr

wh

ich H

l<.

l

kC:,

111

('

;I candid

.t

tl'

·,

Ill

the D.

A.R

.

1\

:.CUdt:n

l of. say, Robt:n

or

Me

rt

on I

JC

unc

dosc

1

to Cl

hs

ls

l

aoo

d,

and

•he

actual

>

tudc

n ts

of

l'

ar

sooos

1•ould

be

two cl

usrr.

12

.

Thc

rt were a few Riclunund

Mayo

-Smit h stud

en

ts.

uowh

ly

\\'.

F.

W<

llcux ufCoroocll. 1

dw

wrute

:

uo

1

892

disscr

t

atiun

_cl

i

vurn:

. He

remaine

d es

sc

nt

i• lly a

aud

is

styli<tio.

ll

y

a h

lc

f

rom

the

Gulclongs

swdcnt

s

and

frum

their

stu

d

ents.

Nu

di«

inc tivc :vfdyorS>nilh tradit

i<>n

surv

ived .

13

. r.ublishing h;\s

beco

me important in

I"

CCCI

H yc;u, :.nd

h;a

."'

)(

tri:

cflt

:c

ts

Oil

dos

cu

ursc

· m l

hc

licld.

T/1(

Scima

been

s

tth

<

iol

it.cd. it

"'uuld

h:ow lwo

:o;

pr

uducn

l

wu hout

some

uf

tl1

c

an

n

oymg:

m the text and woui

<.J

h

:"vc

hecn puUii

,hrd

br

a

press

,

_as

w;u

th

e

rcc<.

oH

co

l

kctoooo

cditc<l hy

Ha

lli

day

a

nd

.J;nouwit x (

nut!

fl•

/'uhlirs

_(

lu .w h

och

Culmer

and

I cuntrohu

tcd),

wloidt Ml bsidizccl by

the

Src

n

rer

14.

rl

oos

os

au

I

on

ce

1u

Du

d ley Sh a ll(:rc u

smg

lhc

s

cr

cncc progresses

mu

ch I

ll

th

e way t

l.

at

we

IJy

walkiug

.llii

t

rcam

In·

rr

um

r

ock

to rock,

in

til

ac

I'

""

choices

or

rnr

ks limit ''"r

'!\

fUture

c.:lwi

ccs

r

oc

ks- _unc even

be

un;thlc _to sec paths

one

IOilowctl uuc pat h. Yet

th

e 1s

th

e o r

St.:\cncc

lnndmg,

and

11

cannot

hr.

validi

lt

cd hy anything more than

or con tmuong

10

be a ble tu

ma

ke n tw s l

rfl'

(T

u

rne

r. 19

11

GI>)

. I n

the

ca., r u l

Ulzan

f

cl

d s l

ug

I

WO

\I

Id

r •

•n

ir.

olarly the idea i

mpro,

·

rd

t

he:

p

al

h ,,.d

nowher

e-

at least b

c.,l

wr..

can sec. h b tlm

.s

rc

bti

vclr c a

s)-

· to say Hl rc lru5pcct th

at

t

here

was

nv

ncccs

"t

)' for

tlo

os pa r

uc

ula r dc vcloptncnl.

th

ai

h:od

nu t

tl>

c

onu

n

cv

h1

·c

n av ailable it

mig·h t

n.ot

aud

llt

:

\1

the money wo

ul

d h3vc been he

11

rr

spc11

1

S(lmc

thi ng o

th

er

than

dus

odd

tic

lour.

P:\rs

un.

c;.

i:a.n

isln au odd dc tnur as

\\

'

C'

r:w

best· s('r

at

pr esent (T unocr, 1

993\.o)

.

The

issue uf

<.va

lua

tiou, h

uwevc

r,

wi

ll

I

><·

d o

sc

ussccl in

on

urr

de

t

ai

l

hclow

.

15.

As ou t, man y of ideas

we

re in flue ntial

in

f

C..w1ning

the

pohhcal

\OC

iolotn' that

became

bas1c lo (he J

lOS(\\·a

r rJncrgcncc u

l'

the

Un

it

c·cl

Stalr!'i

as a

worJd

powe

r (Duxton, 1985) .

16.

Suc

h c:"51S

Gidd

i

ngs's

a

di

sscr1a1iu u hy

Ruhc

rt

r-.

Wa

ll

ace.

1s pr

cciseh

·

the ktnd

or

tl1s

sc

rtauon

thill

lus t

onan!t

wrllc

-

works

th;tt

e:m

lx

u!licd

as rcsourcc.s

b,

-o1hcr

Unfo

rt

un

tcly. we

have

few such

dissertations

in

thr

histO')

of

sociu

logy. ·

17

· I

tlunk

thai

<u ch a

rccou

st

ructiun

is long

ove

r

du

e.

There

is

crcdi

hlc defense ol t

hr

acti,·iti

cs

of

causal

tnodcllcrs

<h

al

disrcuscs

\vith

th

e

idea

t

hat

such

an

aly

>is

' t

heo

r

etical'

im

pli

ca

tion s

(G

i

y.nour,

1983).

Some

r

rconstruclion

of

th

e hi•t

ury

of

cruantii.Hivc srori

olr>)(V

.liOn!: tho·sr li

ne•

he

able

tu

salvage

suonc

'successes',

but

lhc

pr

i.:c huooltl

l><•

h

i)(

h.

Tl

us

dctcme

cunlli

cl'

radoc;o

ll

y

wit

h t he sclf-conccp

t>

uu I h

at

fo

r

Th

e ttlca of ·rc.tl rcl:l.tio nshi

ps'

goes. the

the

h

ope

uf

som e

surt

of

th eoretical r

ay·u[f

foo

this

fo

rm

uf

is

cxplocotly

by

tim defense.

The

re

s

ul

ts

of

st

atist

i

ca

l

ana

lysi

s,

tu

t his d efen se. c

an

't

be g.cnernh

zcd

, f

or

ha

vr

1\0

way

ur

in

grne

r.

ll

tlu

· (0\lditiun:.

111\

d

t•

r

wl

lich

;1

pa

rll

CU Ja r

C.'\

I COnf

igu

r a

ti

on holds.

1

0.

( ig

nor

e

Ca

mic's

sugges

tion

lhal

th

ere

is a

'th

eor

eti

cal'

core

uf

soone

sort-

tl>

ov

gh 1

wou

ld ()c

curi

ou

s to

sec

a

de

fen

se

or

th

e

cl

ai

Ill.

()()

0\"

Ti

l

1"

. I

ll

STl

II\\

'

01'

IC.-\.'i

SOC

I

OI.OGY

UMt'l'l.l

·:

r r. M.

S.

't<

.

1\

.

F1s

lll"

r

and

e}u · b

.oc

1 li h )' y•·.u ·s u l' s l ;

ll

i

Mi

t·a1

uwlh

oclol

o_t.;y',

jmtTJWI

o

.f

lh

r

.

\mni.ml

.\'111

11\

li

ml

r

;n:

UI:

Mf.

U

,t

)., .. U. ,1

nd

ST

I'

,

IS

O

t.

( ; ,

.-\.

11

!

11

;·}

1.

Jl

um

1m /

Jdlm

•i

01:

A u u.f

.,

\·urulijic H

art:ou

rt

,

U

ra

n: &

\\·,

,r

ld.

i'!<'"'

81

r.

KsTn

n . R.

(I

).

A

mninw

SociiJ!ttr;irn!

ThMfl'

' .I

Cuturd

:\r

Mirm

k

Pr

ess,

New

Yo

d.;.

,

Ut

'' '

"''·

\\"

. (

l!

'

II

Ft

}.

Talc"t•

ll

l'fll

,l•

l/t'

fl.llrlllrr

(.ilflidlvt

Slti/CJII·.\/(1/r: J',Jiti,·

u/

s,,.;u(••.t:.r

ll.i

,, St

ml

t

g.ir

l :

11in•

r,

i•y

of

T"

r•o

ll

tf

• p,.

:-.

,. Jh llla

tu

. . . . . .

H1

·x

IC

•s.

\\'.

:t

nd

'l

l

:l('

t-

:

t-:.

S.

1

'.

t

1:r11w

lv

/·

,'.

,·

fH'tll

.t

t'

'

SIJODfCJJ.!.l

'

tiJ

tt

111

,\,)(wln.l!.l'

1wrllt.' /'uMio :

·nr,.

/·";,,. ,,uJ

F,,,,.

,, T .

ll.\1.1.111

.\\

,tnd

hi

..

J., ,

"'.:n\\"IT/

. tt•d

s).

t=ni\'t'I

Si

t,·

ofChir.

H

:u

p p .

:\;

J-·H

);

.

•..

n.

T.

t l ,

\I,

J}r.J{!tdt•

.

r.:r

au

,/

.fiu

Sof'iul St'inlrt:

.\drrlnl

PnJ

II"fS.

lJn

i\.

'

('

f!iii

ty of

Ch

i,·a .

..:u

CHAI•I;\'

, F . f'j,.lt/ fli•d.·

11m/

Sar

iul

Ur.vtll

dl

. Cru1ury. Yv1k .

C H.

\1

'1

.\:.

F.

S. l l!t·l

il.

h'\Jit'rim

rul

tii /J

,..u

.t.:

m

111

,..,

·

,t

iulfl

.

t:;

,·

,,//lr

.

uu

rrlt.

Haq

wr ,

NC

\\' y

,.

,.t.;

.

Co

..

J. U.

am

i(;

""''

='

'

''

·

1'.

1-1

. i I

UIIIIJ,

'(/" .\

f,<tftm

lhs

l1

ibu1ir' l'rurr.

<r.

G!" " &

<.:u.

CL\KK.

T.

{

fHiiJht'!J.

•Wd

I'II

IT"

'

'·'

:

1/r,·

Frm

t/1

(

."

rm

·( r r

l!r

tm

,J

tht l

:.

m,·r

,e,t

u

ct'

{/1( ,

\,rwl

S.t:i

rm

o,

t.:n\n·

l'

si l

\'

Prf'

'iS,

C:lmh

ddt:•

'.

D.\:'\.l t

•:uc

( (,nnr.:tttulmg

flu

llulfm

t

tlf

Ur(cim

'

!I

/(t.u ar rh.

Pn

·-....;..

i\c·,,· '\ "ut'k .

l)u

·

r\(

1

11-.1c

t . lf1mt

(I

(

II(

On: Sfwtonml,, &

.lac

Sr

ot

l.

Glr.-

nvirw, tl!.

F

t'H"

I: K. U . r I'1

7.'•L

.·lt

/rfJ(Ofl'

& Ubjrrlirllr: .I

Crnn

iu

lhl'

/'

'ft•l"·

'.ti,nmli.:,alilltt

vf

Aw

ni,

m .\'ufhd Sru11u,

T'h

••

l'll

hT

rsit v K t

·ntut.-kv.

(;ll

lt)l:'\1 .

...

, r . H. •.

an

d··

··

!-4

1\'c•n .IS

\\

'

ndu

\ J'r,!f

il

a

nd

P

c.,l

l l

'l

Cu.

(iJI

JI1J.'\'t.s. F.

1-t

.

l1U7i:.

'

Th

nT

p i•.H·t'$

11f

tiw

I.

.I

K,

,.

qun-r

iut \: H. u·d r u rr

cnq·,'

IV

inJif<l

fCm

ll.)

1/o

uld

. 7 Sq

ucm

l)l'

t,

(.; ll

)tll

F. H . ( lUHi ·'

}.

·'fh,·

uf

p

n•ti

t

Qunrlolr

.Jmuno

l '!f I

::C(

IIIfJ

ittiO".

I:

3tt7-3

711.

(;uu

H

:'\

"

<·'·

F. 1·

1.

lHUi

h

l.

Th

•,.f;y

l'

n,lnpitJ

t?l

Cooftrllltim,,

Sl

tC'it'l )'

ul

:

\nwl'ic:;t,

Nc•,,·

York.

(;IIHH:-.•.:-.. 1'.

11

.

''

!M

)l 't. Jmlu,-tu,·

.-l

"'

,\J,.IItmfr . mu( CltJr;ffkotiuiiJ, ffml

!'tllt'iJimwfh· F

rmn

ulll

h'd Th··

:\l..nnii

LH'

c.unp.un

·.

:'ic·w Y

urk

.

l;

n11-l

:"-'·'·

1

:-.

H.

li't',!-1).

Tht

St,1rf_r

o/

llmm

111

T lu· Umn·r..;ity

11

1 l

'-'unh

C:.

n·ol\1

1.

1

C

lo

.>

pd

Hill. H. l ;ni\'\'r>

i"

·

"'"'-'·

!.

"

""

''"·

C.

"."'ur

i.d M'i t

'I

H

't

·

••

nd

1.1

l /Jduw;,,.,tf .Sdrttft'

:!

U:

l

:.?

ti-

3-L

t

l.\

cl-\1.'\C

i,

I. I

n•

tJJ).

NrJ•Uu•ttlut.

t:

mul

/nltTi

'

OJrJI,'!:

Tuf1

il'

,\

in tilt'

l'

lli

lu

!U

Jd!r

'!1'

N111Uifl

l

Soma.

C.u

nhr

idj:t'

li

u i

vrN

ih·

N.,.,,

.

H

t\T.I.I

H\\

. T .

an

d

J.

'

,;

,

,,

.,,

z.

;\

I.

lt'dsi l El!l:!l. nud /

(,,

/'u

Mio:

Tlu

f(lfiiiS

nnd

Fnlf

'J

'!(

DiJciJ

•

Ii

n

nr;r

Ot

t,•twi,:atitm.

of C h

k,

tJ.!'

l'

Prn,.

,,

l

't

1-

:..'

1

H'

l-\.

1-1

. 1 l 1

t!•:l1,

Rn·j(',\

·,

lti

.

.:

..

}71-.

pl.

1,., l•u: t<t', I\

IC:

II

\I

{ H

'I'

. t ( ·

:\

ttillld

cs

:

\t:

l iuu s ·. Soci

al

/: ,

,(fl,

1

3:

i .

s.

(l!

lH

:

)L

.

\l

atmt,

It

Cmml: t

hr

l

mf1

M

l'f

mrnl

'!

( ,

')

'l)(·iul

Un

rtlrdt mul l l ni\'CI'Sity

ur

c .•

lir,

..

·ui:o

p

,.

, .

.,_

lkrko·lr,·.

l.t 1:t . .

R.

1), t

..

S

t.ll

nHt

'lll

in

.l

;n

·

'"'

c-Mu,r:,

wf•l!

l'

, C.

l.l

i\' l

11

.

t-

:Y

(

rd.

). Y,.l.

\'

Ill

. V

ooi

wr,

it

y l'rt·ss.

PI

' · 2·Li-'1U9.

).

l n :t n .. P. E. \

l'ltii

l.

tt

':'\

tiu

!-!

:uu

l ph

y:-.

;..-

.,

: .\

Philo.rjJI!l'

o(S.-imrr. 1

1!3-ll.i

. .

:'\

I ( Tltt 1/ii/IJfr

nj'

ldrn

.1

, C.a

mlu

Uui\'t'l'

'-'

it

y

Nc.

•w \ o rk.

:\l\'o<Oo

.

\1

..

<.;

. (

1!

14-IJ, :\n :l

mmml

llot

P

rob

lrm

mul

.\foul"'' Ha rp.:r &

Ro"

'· Nc

,,·

Yurk.

O u >. K

,CI

-1:\

1.

1..

.\.

( 1!17

11\

. 1

',,/

1-'.

lhr

ll

i<l.,rr

of

l;mpiuml

S••

r111i

ll

ts

rn

rrl1.

1·1: . .

o,:ooL

"

-'"·

\\

'. F. ( 1\l:IU

].

'

Tiu

·

hol

kh·

:o

ys v

i"

:o

sr

it-

oo

tilic

<if

II" :l

mmt

nn

:>nro

ol

ot;r

cnl

Socim.

·1!1:

5!HH)

I ·,.

T.

,l.eooo

·r n,, S

lmt

lom /\lcGr.>w-Hill . New

Y<•rk

.

PE.-'""

's.

K. o (!I

UO

).

Tlrr

(;1111111111/t

v/

So

'ttll<'

, , 2

nd

c

rl

..

.-

\."'"I

C.

B

lad.

l.ontlutl.

l't Hi.TI-.1<,

T.

, l !tH()). Th,.

j(,

,,

'if Sttrt

i.

,tic

·tll Th

ir1ki

nK,.

Prin

cr

tun

Uni

\TU

il y

l'r('

M\,

Prin

cl'

IO U.

Ro

CHf.k.

Co.:\' (i!t9 1 ). K,•,·icw.

II

i: ·l:lh-!1.

Rc

....

D.

1

·nl

,. Orh:u"

,,f

.-

l

mrr

;t

mt

.\

'nmu.

C

amhr

id.

1.:'l'

Pr<

·ss, Yurk.

F.

:\.

t l !t2 H. .\ 1/;,nlmtr·,.

;,

/

!1

2tJ

. v. G PO

s1:." J t. K. R. t KO\

'C

I'I

I

IJ\(

'1)

1

fu

nd

nf

rl

"S

('a

rch

un

M.:ic

m:c l c

cl

mulo!!y -

f\

t'C}lOrt o n

Sl)(icJIIJ

ct

ul l

J-',Jc'IU.

2j

:

:it-

7:,.

S!l

fH

11

::

1

;:

K.

(;.

( · !\ l

i,'lot1

tl

l\t}

t•

ssi

iJ

i

c:

in j

utt

m<JI

of

t

llf

H

iJIO!

V

of

thr

!1d"''

"'

rtd

s,.,m,,

· •.

'(

i:

•-:UlCI.

Tt

!t

\\'.

1.

T/1,.

l'tn,m/1 iu

Futtlf'lt'

llllll.·

l mrricn.

:\

. ;

\.

t\.11

o p

t'.

Nl.'\\

' y

._,

r

\.;.

T1h1

:\

1

.,,.

\\'

.

1.

.

nu

l

i'.

.' .\:'\.1·

.1<

1".

\ I! H B

).

T

ft,·

l'ulul1 mttl

Amnira

•. of

{:)11,

.I

C,\1 1

1

1'

t'V\,

c:bh

,1

g11.

·1

K.

S . I' c \'!Ht,,•

).

'/Ju

,\'1

•,ltdl

./"

' ,, ,\/,-l(,,;,fllf

t•

.r,r

o{

.'w,-

,,

/

.\r

iml'

t,

t\.lu\\

'

C..:

f :\t•ttd

c!

•

ni..:

Pu!Jii,lll'l'S.

Ti

l E

()IU

! ; I XS o r S

(I(:

IO

I.

O(;y·

67

ll

ur

dr

n ·ht, l

lo

ll

;o

nd

an

d

ll.

Rd

<l.-1

. ll

<>

SI

\1

11

.

Tt

•H.

Nt

:

H.,

S . P . { I

!J

IUih),

'T

iu·

·"t..H"inlu.L;)

'

uf

sdt'th'C' ill its p

l;u

···· ( :

nttl11h'

OI •m

Sh:qwrc··.

s,;l'lltf

mu

/

·f:

1

5-

l

ll.

'I'UI<NUt,

S.

P. (19U7) ,

'Tht·

S\11

"\'

c)'

in

nim·t<'CIII

h · l.'

'-'

IH

II

f)

:

\ull'rit.IJI

Th,·

,.,

,,hlll

t111

1\•rm

11f

..

\l

i11rn

·n , 2.i, No. 3:

'1\ •w.'ft:K,

S.

P. (

'Fun

ns

of

in

'I

hc..:u

1

·i

·

·,

c

•l

St

it"

me.·

iu

\•w

ic·1

y.

S.

E. (

:f

•zll

-'"'

il

lld

T . f .

(

;ct.I

H 'N

(c

•fl

,)

.

Jncl

i.w

:c

Uui\'c:rsi' Y PI'· IB

."

1 :!

II

'ft

lltNI

·.

Il ,

S.

1'

. ( 1!)!)'2),

'Tht"

lili · ;

uul

hard

li

mc·

:c

ol

,·

o u c

qu

or'

II1

1'0f\'

in

:\

},

h,

tur

)'

uf

ht

,pe'

,

tu

:

11

ul

So

, i .

.l

Tl

.,.

..

l

)'.

S.

:uHI IJ.

Q,ro

o

·u.

pp.

101

-l:fl.

TtlltNP.

K,

S.

P. (19!13), '

The.

· e nd

of

fu nc1ion

••

li

sm:

ParMIIt.

.11ul

tlwir

,l

thr

:ioKitrl

S<"imw,

22!1

- ·l:l.

T

VMNE

II

, S.

1'

. (199•1) , T/u Social Tilror)•

of

l'm.-firr

s:

"fit(l/

1\n

nlf·ldxr

.

ftm/l'mllf•po

.

<iltml>

.

l'o

·ess, Oxfo

rd

. · .

T u M

NF.

It

,

s.

r.

:t

nd

F,\CTO

it,

R.

t\.

( 19H·I) .•

\I

n\

l

l'

rl•n

nnd

,,,,.

lhlfllllt

.,

:.,·,

N.

tct.tf

JII

!litd n Sllll{l' ill

Pililosoflkr,

Etltia.

anrll'ololics, & Kcxo u Paul. Lundom.

T u M

NF..

k , S. P. ;

u\d

1\.."\:\

I.

I·

:R, D .

(rd

s) (

10

9:!1

, N

,·

,,

·

p,mdl

lu

l.

, •JH

I•

•n

.

TY

I.O

K.

E.

D.

( 1689). ' O n

.,

:Vkt

h

O<

I o r l

ht

•

1)

,.,

...

1

11

p

lt

h'l1

1

lj

j'

IO.

"'

Iilll t

io

ns:

.\pp

llt;d

to

dii:

La w

.s

o r

Marr

i:l

gr.

and

Descent

',

_.\

u th r upiJi

tJ

"'i

c:

•l

(,/ B

ri

l

:ti

n a nd l n ·l

and

.

'2U:

245

-272.

\

V.

( 1909) , T Jw ln'il illtl i

(I

IJ

:.

d i

t.

:H

io

ll

a

1\

t

'\\'

l)j

,

fi

p

li

tll': d u· CaM' ul

Svc.

·i

...

•lo

:t!Y

ar

Cu

lum

bi01

Univ

cr.\il

)'

. I

H9

! - J!J3l. Pl

1.

D.

di

,.;:\

t

'l'l.

ll

io

u.

Co

iHIHiti: •

The origins of ‘mainstream sociology’ and other issues in the history of American sociology

Recommended publications

Origins and Legacy of Solidarist Economics: The Jesuit Connection

American Sociology

S hils, E dward

A Life in the First Half-Century of Sociology

Going Post-Normal: A Response to Baehr, Albert, Gross, and Townsley