Search

The points raised by professor Delbert C. Miller in his paper about the future direction of industrial sociology are analyzed. The critic agreed with the argument by Miller that industrial sociology needs to be reestablished as a separate discipline--separate from organizational sociology, sociology of occupations and sociology of work. Points in the history of industrial sociology are reviewed to support the grounds of Miller's paper. Along with industrial sociology and economics, sociology has successfully dealt with the central institution of economic life in the United States. Furthermore, industry was the scene of what seemed then to be the most important developments in American society: the rise of the labor movement and the intense conflicts between management and labor.

The paper written by Professor Delbert Miller about the future direction of industrial sociology is critiqued. Miller addressed the related two related themes which are the need for sociology departments to remodel offerings to compete for students in the educational marketplace and the importance of sharpening the discipline's identity as a specialization directed at business and industry. As a result of the proposed changes in the discipline, students would become viable candidates for personnel, human resources and industrial relations positions. Miller was not suggesting that sociology departments or industrial sociologists have absolutely avoided applications. Rather, neither has sufficiently developed such programs to brake the loss of sociology majors to university units that promise more marketable training.

The arguments presented by Professor Delbert C. Miller in his paper about the future direction of industrial sociology are examined. The paper manifests the espousal of applied interests. Miller has shown his desire to bring industrial sociology back to the glories of its past by raising the fundamental issues of what sociology is and is to become, which are issues at the heart of the contrast between the pure and the applied orientations. In one sense, it is a question of what kind of knowledge and theory is wanted. Applied interests, no matter how much they rely on deductive theory, are always single-case interests, the case that is here and now. Despite certain disclaimers, Miller sees industrial sociology as oriented toward the interests and problems of those who run industrial organizations and those whose job it is to keep the environment stable for such organizations.

An extensive monitoring of the Jones and Laughlin (J&L) steel mill in Hennepin, Illinois suggests that absentee-owned corporations have the ability to involve themselves in local community affairs while maintaining an illusion of non-involvement. Three techniques J&L employed to exert influence are described: unilateral actions, cooptation, and intervention. The failure of reputational leadership data to identify corporate influentials is used to suggest both the success J&L had in concealing corporate influence and the inadequacy of the reputational technique for fully identifying power structures in verticalized communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]