Search

Historians of sociology have long recognized the Protestant ambience within which the discipline emerged in the United States. Autobiographies elicited by L. L. Bernard in the 1920s and 1930s provide insight into the impact of this background on early American sociologists. In addition to confirming the importance of mainstream Protestantism, the autobiographies reveal a multitude of identity strategies adopted by those who came to call themselves sociologists. In negotiating the relation of religious and secular spheres, some abandoned religion en route to a sociological career. Others became sociologists of religion, separated value-laden (religious) aspects of their lives from value-neutral (sociological) endeavors, created a sociologically informed mode of Protestantism, or molded a Protestant sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Excerpted from my book Generally Speaking, this paper introduces "concept‐driven sociology," a special way of theorizing designed to reveal abstract social patterns. As such, it examines the methodological process by which we can "distill" generic patterns from the culturally, historically, and situationally specific contexts in which we encounter them. It thus champions a "generic sociology" that is pronouncedly transcontextual (transcultural, transhistorical, transsituational, and translevel) in its scope. In order to uncover generic, transcontextual social patterns, we need to collect our data in a wide range of social contexts. Such contextual diversity is manifested multi‐culturally, multihistorically, multisituationally, as well as at multiple levels of social aggregation. True to its message, the book illustrates generic social patterns by drawing on numerous examples from diverse cultural contexts and historical periods and a wide range of diverse social domains, as well as by disregarding scale. Emphasizing cross‐contextual commonality, concept‐driven sociology tries to reveal formal "parallels" across seemingly disparate contexts. The paper features the four main types of cross‐contextual analogies concept‐driven sociologists tend to use—cross‐cultural, cross‐historical, cross‐domain, as well as cross‐level—disregarding conventionally noted substantive differences in order to note conventionally disregarded formal equivalences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociology has long been interested in innovating solutions to social problems. However, this desire has also been a source of controversy as it can conflict with the discipline's ambition also to be recognized as a hard science. This paper critically reviews sociological contributions to the study of social innovation. It first contextualizes these contributions by discussing the origins of sociology's interest in transforming society, the growing tension between that interest and sociology's other aspiration to create objective knowledge about the social world, and how more sociologists have relocated to business schools where most research on social innovation is now being conducted. Next, it summarizes sociologists' contributions, which emphasize how social innovation is organized by institutions, networks, social movements, and organizations themselves. It then discusses criticisms of this work and responses to these critiques. It concludes by asking whether sociologists' research on social innovation has advanced their discipline's dual mission of reforming and explaining society and what additional studies are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The discipline is at a crossroads. Will sociology answer ASA past president Aldon Morris' call for an emancipatory sociology? Or will sociology, as Morris puts it, "continue pretending to be an aloof, objective, detached science"? Recently, Hirschman and Garbes issued a call for an economic sociology of race, wherein they contend that race and racism are not central to economic sociology and that economic sociologists don't engage with contemporary race scholarship. In this paper, I assess and build upon their call. I argue that while the article importantly calls for understanding race and racism in economic sociology, in practice, it—used here as an example of a broader pattern within economic sociology—re‐centers whiteness and men, reifies elitism, and erases marginalized scholars and their contributions. I set forth an alternative perspective. To rise to the Du Boisian challenge, scholars need to critique racialized modernity as Itzigsohn and Brown importantly argue. We must also root our sociological consciousness, citation practices, and conversations in existing, yet marginalized, research. Failure to do so means future research risks reproducing inequities in the discipline and continuing to marginalize the very people, theories, and research that an emancipatory sociology is meant to address. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The trajectory of the academic discipline of sociology is an attestation to the quest for civility and sociability. We believe that the promise of public sociology will rejuvenate scholars to commit to better engagement with one another and with the public. We situate and draw from the scholarly contributions of Michael Burawoy to reflect on sociology's longstanding critical imagination, hoping that the world could be different. We place ourselves on the continuum of what is and what ought to be for better lived experiences and a sustainable planet. We draw from the work of sociologists in India, which continues to guide us to amplify the voices of the unheard and the issues of public concern. To be inclusive, sustainable, democratic, and humane, we need to move beyond structurally ingrained processes within academia and make bridges that are open to all. The deliberation furthered in this paper will encourage young scholars to be more concerned for engaging multiple publics and, thereby, help the discipline of sociology itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociologists tend to see G. H. Mead's conceptualization of self as fundamentally correct. In this paper, we develop a critique of Mead's notion of the self as constituted through social interactions. Our focus will be on Mead's categorial distinction between the socially constructed self and subjective experience, as well as on the tendency of post‐Meadian sociologists to push Mead's position in ever more radical directions. Drawing inspiration from a multifaceted understanding of selfhood that can be found in Husserlian phenomenology, we then propose that the most basic level of selfhood is anchored in irreducible subjective experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper responds to Nick Gane's "Against a descriptive turn". I argue that descriptive research strategies are more open and inclusive than those which purport to be causal where explanatory adequacy is assessed by expert insiders. I also show how open descriptive strategies can assist a wider explanatory purpose when these are conceived in non‐positivist ways. I argue that epochalist sociology lacks an adequate temporal ontology because it collapses descriptive specificity back into overarching epoch descriptions. Finally, I argue that if the entire range of publications associated with the Great British Class Survey are considered, that it has demonstrated a productive way of recognising the significance of class which has facilitated major research advances in its wake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the Chicago sociologist William F. Ogburn's (1886–1959) views about technological unemployment, which were intimately connected to his analysis of the social impacts of technological developments and resulting social problems due to cultural lag. We trace the development of his views as seen through his well‐known 1922 book, Social Change with Respect to Culture and Original Nature, his important contributions to the President's Research Committee on Social Trends (1933), and his lesser‐known pamphlets designed for a broader audience—Living with Machines (1933), You and Machines (1934), and Machines and Tomorrow's World (1938). He used these pamphlets to educate the public about the dangers of new machines and technological unemployment. In doing so, he drew upon sociological analysis in his professional scholarly writings and his long‐standing personal interests in social betterment and social reform. Our analysis also calls into question the adequacy of existing scholarship on Ogburn that has emphasized his commitment to a statistical, dispassionate, and "objectivist" approach to social science research. We call for a revised, richer, and more complex view of Ogburn's work and legacy as one of the nation's leading social scientists during the first half of the 20th century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The sudden emergence of the discipline 'neuroethics' is an intriguing event from the perspective of the sociologies of medicine, science and bioethics. Despite calls for greater social science engagement with neuroethics, it has so far received little attention. So that sociologists might consider how to engage with the field, and in order to simultaneously contribute towards a sociology of neuroethics, this paper explores neuroethics' disciplinary identity via a critical analysis of literature defining neuroethics' scope and role. Drawing on the sociologies of bioethics and expectations, I argue that in setting the neuroethical agenda, neuroethicists construct expectations about the future of neuroscience. In doing so, they align themselves with neuroscience, rather than maintaining a critical distance. Similar critiques have been made of bioethics, but in its efforts to distinguish itself from bioethics, neuroethics appears to exacerbate many of the attributes which sociologists have found problematic. This reinforces the need for critical social science perspectives to inform neuroethics, and also shows how neuroethics is potentially an interesting area of empirical study for sociology. However, the paper concludes by calling for critical reflexivity in sociology's engagement with neuroethics, in light of recent debates surrounding the relationship between social science, bioethics, bioscience and expectations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Robert Fine was among the most original social theorists in Britain of the past 30 years, and the aim of this paper is to offer a first systematic assessment of his intellectual contribution. There are sound intellectual reasons to explore Fine's scholarship. He maintained a problematic relation with mainstream sociology and, against the reduction of sociology to questions of method, culture, or class, he argued that sociologists must continue to ask difficult normative questions as part of the social world they ought to explain. And there are also pressing political concerns that justify a reconsideration of his writings. Global politics is currently marked by a populist wave that decries the very ideas and values that were central to Fine's social theory: the need to uphold the rule of law at home and abroad, the politics of cosmopolitan solidarity, and the significance of antisemitism and its relationships with different forms of authoritarian politics. My main argument is that there is a dialectics of universality that drives forward Fine's intellectual project. By this, I mean that a universalistic idea of humanity—an all‐inclusive conception of all human beings—is the most important normative intuition of modern times. This idea of humanity moves forward in history through a dual process of emancipation and domination: successful forms of social, legal, and political inclusion help make visible previous dynamics of exclusion but may also create or recreate discriminatory practices. Building on the work of French historian Michael Löwy on heterodox Jewish thinkers, I explain the three main tenets of Fine's work: (a) his reconstruction of critical social theory; (b) the notion of cosmopolitan solidarity; and (c) the significance and main features of modern antisemitism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article responds to sociologist Andy Pickering's comments, partly because of the inherent intellectual stimulation of exchanging ideas with such a distinguished colleague, but partly also because of the need for much greater interchange between the two fields, the sociology of environment and technology, on the one hand and the sociology of science on the other. Pickering's comments raise three important points about the analysis of Iron Mountain, Michigan. First, he praises what he calls papers symmetry in noting the importance of physical⁄environmental as well as social factors in understanding social outcomes. Second, he argues that people have not taken this point far enough, in large part because, he believes, the social is not sufficiently at stake in papers. Third, he argues that a fruitful antidote would be to trace the evolution of actual practices, in detail, over time.

The article presents author's reply to sociologist John Lovering comments on the paper on flexible production organization and regional development. Lovering does not dispute the internal logic of the analysis of the relationship between market uncertainty and vertical disintegration. He merely asserts that firms are complex phenomena and might respond in ways different from those that author proposed depending on context and that the author's analysis is of necessity closed to these alternative possibilities. The claim that wider social and political influences are banished from author's analysis by ceteris paribus assumptions is incorrect. Lovering criticizes the work for its presumed insensitivity to the contingencies of real empirical outcomes.

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

Conferences play a pivotal role in the production and circulation of knowledge and in shaping and establishing academic and professional disciplines. As collective events, they facilitate intense moments of interaction where scientific and medical knowledge can be observed in the making. This paper calls attention to conferences as fascinating sites for sociologists of science, technology and medicine. By bringing together authors who look at conferences from different areas within the social sciences and using a variety of data gathering methods, this paper provides a comprehensive introduction to the field of conference studies and hopes to inspire greater reflection about the nature of conferences and their potential within research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues for the importance of a broad sociological engagement with bioethics. It begins by considering why sociologists should be interested in bioethics and then goes on to explore the cognitive critique of bioethics developed by ethnographers. Some of these authors have also suggested that a more robust bioethics might emerge through the incorporation of the tools of ethnographic analysis. In this paper, it is argued that this is an important claim which needs to be analysed further and that Foucault's concept of discursive formations provides a useful framework for doing so. Once bioethics is redescribed as a discursive formation, the paper explores the challenges and obstacles that sociology and ethnography face in their attempt to open up a space for themselves in bioethics. The paper concludes by suggesting that sociologists and ethnographers need to reflect on the ways in which they might democratically secure legitimacy for their own claims in the field of social ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Empathy is an increasingly popular term in the public sphere and in academia. Although the common belief is that empathy is a 'psychological' topic, sociologists have made important contributions to this conversation. The goal of this article is to provide a theoretical effort in advancing the sociology of empathy. In the first part of the paper, I review classical and contemporary statements on empathy. I identify Charles H. Cooley as an important precursor of the sociology of empathy, and discuss how contemporary interactionists have further developed this notion. Based on these previous insights, I next propose a preliminary framework for the study of the social construction of empathy. This framework is presented in two steps. First, I introduce a vocabulary based on interpretivist concepts: empathy frames, empathy rules, and empathy performances. Next, I coin the idea of empathy paths. I theorize three ideal-typical empathy paths: self-transcendent, therapeutic, and instrumental. Throughout this presentation, I use empirical cases to illustrate the applicability of this framework. In the conclusion, I show how sociologists can inform public understandings of the meaning of empathy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper draws on a wide range of researches to stress the importance of social context to the sociological understanding of religious experiences. It argues that individualistic definitions fail to take into account real group experiences such as those resulting from the reforms of Vatican II. For the sociologist, it is important to explore general patterns of group experiences and the meanings attributed to them. The paper discusses some of the methodological and conceptual problems in this area before considering evidence for the patterning of religious experience according to differences of generation, gender, class, level of urbanization, institutional involvement, and status inconsistency. The paper concludes by locating religious experiences in the context of modernity. In contrast to related theories of secularization, it draws attention to the recent work of Hervieu-Léger which suggests that utopian future expectations create space which can only be met by new forms of religious experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on news related to the field of sociology. Dean Hoge has accepted an appointment as Associate Professor in the Sociology Department of Catholic University. Information on recent publications in this field have been presented. Theology and Depth-Theology: a Heschel Distinction by S. Daniel Breslauer, An Interview With Karl Menninger: Pastoral Psychiatrist by David M. Moss. The annual meeting International Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations to be held at the Center for International Studies, University of Pittsburgh. The topics of sessions planned include analytical problems in the study of civilizations, Islam in civilizational perspective and others. Interested scholars have been invited to submit papers on these and allied topics for presentation at sessions reserved for such contributions. There will be a special session on history and sociology of religion at the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion meetings in Milwaukee, Wiconsin.

The article traces the career of the concept scientific community through three discernible stages. The formative stages is presented by Ludwik Fleck's Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. It was learned that one of the early expositions of the theme that scientific knowledge is socially conditioned, Fleck's work revolves around the correlative concepts of thought collective and thought style. Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, was discussed. Stage three in the career of the concept scientific community is marked by criticism and the development of alternative models. During the 1960s and 70s, the view prevailed among metascientists that scientific knowledge is produced by communities of specialists. In the works of leading contemporary philosophers of science, as in many historical studies, the existence of scientific communities was assumed without question or argument. Kuhn's paper represents a watershed in the histories of both the concept itself and the entire discipline of sociology of science. Social integration in science was considered a result of a consensus about strategic norms or standards. Findings on the examination of the concept scientific community through the related works of Kuhn and Fleck, the Polish scientist and scientist knowledge, was presented.

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

This article presents two reports on the Eleventh World Congress of Sociology, that was organized in New Delhi in August 1986. If there is any unity across cultures among sociologists or others working in this field, it is provided neither by shared theories or concepts, nor by a common choice of topic studied, except in a very loose sense. Rather the international research community in our field is sustained through the sharing of a general perspective on society, a methodology and a more or less common Marxist-leftist political attitude. Political attitude is at least as important as the other two features, and is perhaps the key to a characterization of the events at the Delhi conference. The attitude of socio-political concern and engagement seems to be most productive in research terms when it is a counter-strategy, working in opposition to the dominant economic-political tendencies of a given society. This position was largely absent from the first world research reported. On the other hand, the moment it either becomes part of the political power structure or finds itself paralleling the efforts of the dominating parts it formerly saw as opponents, it faces a crisis. Such positions characterized the first and second world research presented.

This guide accompanies the following article: Dena T. Smith, 'A Sociological Alternative to the Psychiatric Conceptualization of Mental Suffering', Sociology Compass 5/5 (2011): 351-363, [DOI]. . Author's introduction This article provides an introduction to the utility of sociology for studying suffering, particularly mental suffering. Further, this paper highlights the differences between the sociological and psychiatric approaches to understanding mental illness and mental suffering. The study of suffering is a longstanding tradition in sociology; Macro sociological studies focus on the likelihood to suffer under certain social conditions, while the micro-level approach attends to definitions, and experiences of suffering. It is the ability to study both the macro and micro that make sociology so well-equipped to address the complex concept of suffering. In short, this paper highlights the importance of a multidimensional perspective on suffering. As an example of the crucial role for sociologists in fully explicating suffering, I describe the narrow conceptualization of mental suffering (as mental illness) in contemporary psychiatry. While mental illness refers to specific symptom sets as defined by The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), mental suffering is something much more general and elusive to define and needs an explanation that extends beyond illness. This article provides: a broad overview of sociological understandings of suffering, a brief survey of sociological explanations of mental illness and mental suffering, and an exploration of biological psychiatry's approach to understanding mental strife. Author recommends [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu has been an extraordinarily influential figure in the sociology of music. For over three decades, his concepts have helped to generate both empirical and theoretical interventions in the field of study. His impact on the sociology of music taste, in particular, has been profound, his ideas directly informing our understandings of how musical preferences reflect and reproduce inequalities between social classes. But, recently his legacy has been under question and newer approaches to the music/society problematic have emerged. These have made important claims about the nature of the sociological enterprise when confronted with the specificity of cultural works, as well as how social change impacts on our relations with musical forms. This paper takes stock of the impact of Bourdieu's ideas on the sociology of music, the debates sparked in their wake and the attempt at something like a 'post-Bourdieusian' sociology more faithful to music's material properties. It will ask to what extent Bourdieu's claims about social stratification and music consumption are still relevant and whether they are sophisticated enough to deal with the specific ways that we interact with musical forms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Uncovering both the structural causes and experiences of suffering is a central sociological endeavor. Sociologists study many different kinds of suffering; after all, strife is experienced both physically and emotionally, because of internal factors such as illness, due to external factors such as trauma, and as a result of economic, political or natural environments. In this paper, I address one form of suffering: mental suffering. In particular, I describe the medicalization of mental suffering in biological psychiatry, which focuses on the genetic factors of illness and equates mental suffering with mental illness. The psychiatric concept of mental illness highlights the continuing, crucial role for sociology in both understanding the experience and identifying the structural roots of suffering. Since the dominant conceptualization of mental suffering is as a medical concept, it is vital for sociology to offer alternative explanations and contribute to a multidimensional analysis. The roots of mental suffering are much more than biological; social comparison, social inequality, and other social stressors are equally important etiological considerations. Therefore, a true understanding of mental suffering requires multiple perspectives, and sociological constructs guard against a total medicalization of mental suffering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article responds to M. Bittman and J. Pixley's paper "Equality and Gender, Divided Versus Multiple Subjectivity: A Response to Allon J. Uhlmann's The Sociology of Subjectivity, and Subjectivity of Sociologists" in volume 55, issue number 3 of the "British Journal of Sociology." The criticism of Bittman and Pixley's book "The Double Life of the Family" focused on a number of selected texts in order to expose some of the analytical dynamics that prevail in the sociology of the Australian family. The book served as an example of a class-unconscious discussion of the family. It was argued that the book overlook systemic differences in subjectivity across class and gender, and did not consider the sociological significance of the variation in the contexts in which members of different classes lead their lives. Bittman and Pixley's response skirts the main issues which have been the focus of the critique.

ABSTRACT:In order to delimit the realm of social phenomena, sociologists refer implicitly or explicitly to a distinction between living human beings and other entities, that is, sociologists equate the social world with the world of living humans. This consensus has been questioned by only a few authors, such as Luckmann, and some scholars of science studies. According to these approaches, it would be ethnocentric to treat as self-evident the premise that only living human beings can be social actors. The methodological consequence of such critique is a radical deanthropologization of sociological research. It must be considered an open question whether or not only living human can be social actors. The paper starts with a discussion of the methodological problems posed by such an analysis of the borders of the social world, and presents the results of an empirical analysis of these borders in the fields of intensive care and neurological rehabilitation. Within these fields it must be determined whether a body is a living human body or a symbol using human body. The analysis of these elementary border phenomena challenges basic sociological concepts. The relevant contemporary sociological theories refer to a dyadic constellation as the systematic starting point of their concept of sociality. The complex relationship between at least two entities is understood as the basis of the development of a novel order that functions as a mediating structure between the involved parties. Based upon empirical data, I argue that it is necessary to change this foundational assumption. Not the dyad but the triad must be understood as the foundational constellation. This implies a new understanding of the third actor, which is distinct from the concepts developed by Simmel and Berger and Luckmann. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of 'identity' is central to much contemporary sociology, reflecting a crisis that manifests itself in two ways. Firstly, there is a view that identity is both vital and problematic in this period of high modernity. Secondly, while this awareness is reflected in sociology, its accounts of identity are inconsistent, under-theorized and incapable of bearing the analytical load required. As a result, there is an inherent contradiction between a valuing of identity as so fundamental as to be crucial to personal well-being, and a theorization of 'identity' that sees it as something constructed, fluid, multiple, impermanent and fragmentary. The contemporary crisis of identity thus expresses itself as both a crisis of society, and a crisis of theory. This paper explores the diverse ways in which 'identity' is deployed before turning to case-studies of its use by Anthony Giddens and Manuel Castells. This strategy demonstrates the widespread and diverse concern with identity before exploring how problematic it has become, even in the work of two of the world's leading sociologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this essay, I lay out my motivations for doing publicly engaged sociology, emphasizing both the joys and the challenges of this work, and some of the key lessons that I have learned. I explore my attempts to impact policy at the federal level and the local level of my university, as well as efforts to shape changes across academia during the COVID‐19 crisis. I have found it meaningful to be working toward all of these changes. Moreover, making sense of the spaces that I inhabit, collecting data, exploring patterns, and connecting it to social theory, has deepened my thinking as a sociologist, and bettered my research more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Du Bois is often regarded as an important scholar for his contributions to the development of sociology. However, less is known about his work in developing interactionist thought. This essay is an introduction to this special issue, and a small attempt to acknowledge the work of scholars of color within the interactionist tradition. The Du Bosian approach to sociology has for too long been dismissed out of hand. Scholars pursuing new areas of inquiry, topics outside the bounds of "mainstream sociology," are often met with fierce resistance—even today. Instead of building these scholars up, through mentorship and aid, so‐called "accomplished" scholars see fit to tear down the work of those not like them. The Du Bosian perspective celebrates the plurality of voices, advocates for mentorship, and sees sociological inquiry as rooted in the real needs and concerns of those so marginalized. As this collection of articles illustrates, even when conforming to scientific standards work in this tradition has a political dimension as it lays bare the inequities in society—even, at times, drawing government interference with their work. This issue also calls upon professional sociologists to reflect on the ways they reproduce these patterns within the discipline and higher education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides an overview of comments made by sociologists on sociologist R.E. Pahl's paper "Is the Emperor Naked? Some Questions on the Adequacy of Sociological Theory in Urban and Regional Research," published in the December 1989 issue of the journal "International Journal of Urban and Regional Research." The paper undertook a critique of the use of class theory in urban and regional research. The assumption was that those working in the latter field were prone to making simplistic analyses since they were not aware of debates going on in sociology.

'Why be quantitative?' Harold D. Lasswell asked that question several decades ago. His answer was: to take advantage of the rigor and precision that comes with quantification. Since then, quantification has spread across social science disciplines, putting qualitative approaches on the defensive. This paper examines the practices of quantitative sociologists m their study of historical processes. Much ritualism is found in those practices; much rhetoric m quantification. Alas, Lasswell's good intentions seem to have gone lost m a ritual called 'hypothesis testing.' The author reflects critically upon his own practices and on the forms of quantification and the strategies of explanations that he has adopted, [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The corpus of Alfred Schutz's methodological writings is directed at creating a scientific method which does not subjugate a meaning-endowing actor to objective, impersonal causal laws. Given the nature of this task, it is surprising that the list of Schutz's published writings is so small. It consists, in fact, of only one full-length book and numerous articles which have been compiled into a three-volume anthology. This relative paucity of published writings is partly due to the extreme care and meticulousness Schutz exhibits in writing and re-writing each work, and partly the result of a Jekyll-Hyde type of life in which days are spent pursuing money and success in the business world, leaving only nights to teach and write. In this paper I shall summarily describe Schutz's efforts and see if his phenomenologically defined notion of subjectivity is reasonably incorporated into a valid scientific method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper seeks to demonstrate the inherently practical intent of the Marshall Lectures. It argues that Parsons' views on the relationship between sociology and economics were presupposed by his broader vision of how the social sciences could contribute to the successful functioning of the social order. This conception of a new division of labor in the social sciences arose from Parsons' concern with the shortcomings of both utilitarian economics and Marxism. Evidence from Parsons' writings of the 1930s and 1940s is provided in support of these claims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper records the Polish aspects of P. F. Lazarsfeld's sociointellectual biography and examines his impact on Polish sociology. The analysis is divided into three chronological parts. In the 1930s, Lazarsfeld's empirical work inspired Polish sociologists in their studies on unemployment. In the late 1950s and 1960s, his model of empirical social research shaped the style of sociological practice in Poland. In the 1990s, some of Lazarsfeld's substantive contributions, mainly in the area of election studies, were taken up in Polish sociology. Lazarsfeld's influence on Polish sociology was conditioned by changes in Polish society and sociology, which is emphasized in this analysis. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mastery of esoteric knowledge is one of the central features assigned by sociologists to fully professionalised service occupations, together with an orientation towards public service. There are, nevertheless, different views about the best way in which this education and socialisation can be provided for new recruits for practitioner roles. Some maintain that the university provides an ideal training ground. Critics of this view, however, call for a rejection of 'university diploma mills' and a return to the type of apprenticeship socialisation common during the premodern era. This paper tests the usefulness of these perspectives in understanding the occupational socialisation of Newfoundland and Labrador midwives. Three major styles of training- traditional apprenticeship, vocational schooling and university education - can be discerned. In comparison to both apprenticeship and academic styles of occupational socialisation, only vocational training nicely blended the art and science of midwifery to produce competent and committed professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an overview of writer Rue Bucher's professional career in sociology. Rue's professional career in sociology began when, as a graduate student at the University of Chicago, she joined the National Opinion Research Center Disaster Team in 1952. This experience provided her with the data to write a thesis and one of her first publications, a paper entitled, Blame and Hostility in Disasters, which was published without revision by the American Journal of Sociology in 1957. In reading the body of Rue's work one cannot miss her fascination with the idea that the process of socialization exhibits the same features whether the person undergoing socialization is being inducted into the role of mental patient, graduate student in biochemistry or psychiatrist. The most clearly elaborated statement that Rue made in this context was that the structure of the organization in which the socialization process takes place is the factor which has the greatest effect on the outcome of the process.

In recent years, sociologists have lamented the fact that interdisciplinary exchange regarding Culture and Cognition has been largely asymmetrical. However, to date, no sociologist has empirically established the degree of interdisciplinary diffusion of Culture and Cognition scholarship. We add empirical detail to these discussions through a bibliographic analysis of 16 key Culture and Cognition articles, analyzing their citation patterns both within and beyond Sociology. Within Sociology, we find that citations of Culture and Cognition scholarship tend to cluster within culture, generalist, and theory journals. In terms of interdisciplinary diffusion, we find that while engagement with Culture and Cognition scholarship is indeed concentrated within sociology, almost half of the citations of this work come from other disciplines. This suggests that, while not entirely incorrect, the characterizations of Culture and Cognition's interdisciplinary uptake have been somewhat exaggerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociologists of the family have established that U.S. laws play a fundamental role in shaping the outcomes of family members. This article builds on this work by examining how immigration law is instrumental to the family formation processes of contemporary Latino/a immigrant families. Drawing on insights from sociology of the family and immigrant incorporation literature, I argue that immigration laws aid in the creation of family typologies among Latino/a immigrants. This argument is supported by providing a historical overview of key federal immigration laws that affect Latino/a immigrant families and a discussion of five Latino/a immigrant family typologies: citizen/lawful permanent resident families, transnational families, separated families, mixed‐status families, and undocumented families. This article concludes with implications for scholars, students, and policymakers on how laws can be used to create harm but can also undo harm against immigrant families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

'Abd al‐Rahman Ibn Khaldun (1332‐1406), the founder of the science of society, became known to modern sociologists during the formative period of sociology, that is, the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. There was something of a reception of Ibn Khaldun in Europe at that time by sociologists and other scholars who were not necessarily involved with Islamic or West Asian studies. In fact, the reception of Ibn Khaldun by modern scholars in the West can be differentiated into Eurocentric or Orientalist as opposed to more disciplinary attitudes. While much has been said about the Eurocentric reception of Ibn Khaldun, less is discussed about the disciplinary approach to Ibn Khaldun among thinkers who wrote when the modern science of sociology was emerging in Europe. This special issue on Ibn Khaldun in the Formative Period of Sociology provides English translations of six articles originally written in Italian, French, German, Polish, Spanish and Turkish between 1896 and 1934. Not all of these articles were written by sociologists. Together, they provide some background as to how Ibn Khaldun was conceived of in non‐area studies circles, in the social sciences and humanities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction to the thematic section is presented in which the authors discuss research practices of Canadian sociologists and scholars about committing sociology and topics including social phenomena, political correctness and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In recent decades, a burgeoning literature finds cultural sociologists incorporating ideas from the cognitive sciences—cognitive anthropology, cognitive psychology, linguistics, neuroscience, and philosophy——and significantly reshaping sociologists' approach to culture, both theoretically and methodologically. Elsewhere, we have reviewed the cognitive turn in cultural sociology (Cerulo, Leschziner and Shepherd, 2021). But in this special issue, authors capitalize on new directions in culture and cognition, providing 12 original articles that forward new theoretical ideas, offer novel methodologies, provide exciting empirical tests of current theories, and suggest possible applications of the culture and cognition lens to other sub‐disciplines in sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dorfman is eulogized as the creator and curator of the definitive account of Veblen's life and work. He argued that Veblen was the archetypal marginal man and that this explains his dissenting contribution. Dissemination of Dorfman's pathography of Veblen led to its hegemony - until now. Andrew Veblen was the first to challenge Dorfman's portrait of his younger brother's life in the mid 1920s. He asserted that his family were not linguistically, socially or economically deprived. However, it was not until Dorfman's private papers became publicly available in the 1990s, that his flawed view of Veblen became more widely and comprehensively contested. An alternative appreciation of Veblen is advanced with reference to his experiences in general and the works of Bellamy, Morris and Ibsen in particular. Data sources include Dorfman's original tome, Andrew Veblen's extensive correspondence with Dorfman, and Veblen's own writings. It is concluded that Veblen's radical views are entirely congruent with his life experiences during an era of capitalist transformation. The moral of this saga is that a dose of Veblenian scepticism is essential to intellectual health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is an attempt to evaluate the contribution of the late Erving Goffman to the field of Sociology. In doing so I have attempted to document some of the main commentaries upon Coffman's work — especially those of A. Dawe and A.W. Gouldner — and to evaluate their validity. This paper is presented within the framework of a general overview of Goffman's work and an elaboration of some of the salient themes within it. The intention of the author is to free Goffman from some of the crude overgeneralizations that his colleagues have used in evaluating his writings. In particular, I have attempted to show, in general terms, how Goffman's work is sensitive to ‘structural’ as well as ‘situational’ concerns and also to class, hierarchy and power. It is argued that Goffman's importance has been underestimated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Upon his death in 1920, at the age of 56, sociologist Max Weber left behind a huge and untidy mass of personal papers and scholarly manuscripts, some of the latter in the process of being edited for publication by Weber himself, others intended for intensive reworking, others yet superseded drafts. The intended characteristics of the book "Max Weber Gesamtausgabe," in the first of the publications listed below: they are those of a critical-historical edition, intended not to replace the several collections of Weber's writings currently available for the use of students, but rather to serve the needs of scholars, including the editors of such future collections. The edition is to include three sections: Writings and Speeches; Manuscripts of and notes from lecture courses. In the first section, the arrangement of material will embody a compromise between chronological and thematic grouping; that is, the numbering of volumes will reflect the shifts in the prevailing concerns of Weber's scholarly and publicistic activity, but each volume may contain again, in chronological sequence writings and speeches. From a number of years in so far as they bear on its chief theme. Each volume will contain editorial material which elucidates the circumstances of each piece of writing or speech, indicates the state of the relative sources and eventual discrepancies among them, and clarifies or corrects such parts or points in the text as might baffle or mislead even a relatively informed contemporary reader.

Most sociologists encounter mathematics in their use of quantitative data, and it is clear that both descriptive and inferential statistics are essential to the enterprise of sociology. However, many sociologists are less aware of the value of mathematical thinking for understanding social structures and social processes. A few examples of mathematical thinking may illustrate how some mathematics can help to organize and extend sociological thinking. These topics provide only a few indications of how sociological thinking about a wide range of issues can benefit from mathematics. The distinguished authors in this special issue provide a few interesting perspectives on mathematical thinking in sociology. For a more comprehensive exploration of mathematical sociological theory, readers are referred to the special issue of the "Journal of Mathematical Sociology," that was devoted to that topic.

The author tries to show how sociology's failure to make the kind of progress characteristic of natural sciences, such as physics, is a result in part of differences in the type of phenomena studied and the fact that sociologists are more likely than physicists to use noncognitive criteria in selecting both their research problems and the solutions to those problems. In this article, the author says sociologists are more likely to use noncognitive criteria in selecting both problems and solutions to the problems, in part because they participate in the phenomena that they study. He sees one of the reasons why sociologists can not develop general laws as the rapid change in the social phenomena they study. A theory of gender inequality that may have been correct in the 1960s is not correct today because the phenomenon has changed. According to the author, another social scientist misportrays the natural sciences as having more consensus on terms and concepts than they actually do at the research frontier.

The article focuses on sociologist Peter L. Berger's definition of religion. In his stimulating article in the June 1974 issue of Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Berger presents an argument for reconsidering the kind of definition employed in the scientific study of religion. The major thread of his argument runs as follows. Concepts and definitions are tools fitted to the purposes of the investigator, like substantive or functional definitions of religion. Some use functional definitions for ideological purposes, that is to avoid specifically religious experience or to deny the transcendent. The scientific study of religion needs a reinvigorated substantive definition of religion from the phenomenological approaches of analysis of the numinous as religious experience and of model of multiple realities. The author agrees with Berger's approach while disagreeing with the impact of the total argument. The author holds that there are issues in the formation of concepts and definitions which are logically prior to the purposes of investigators.

Recent discussions in the philosophy of the social sciences exhibit a remarkable agreement about what has become one of the most urgent problems for sociological methodology. The situation may be summarized thus: ethnomethodological developments in interpretative sociology have shown that there can be no firm and certain basis on which to ground truth claims for our propositions. The conclusion drawn from this is that the traditional aspirations of conventional sociology — to be objective and scientific — cannot be attained. However, the programme of work promised by those who have developed ethnomethodology as a critique of ‘conventional sociology’ itself contains certain difficulties. Thus, the problem addressed by those writing in the philosophy of social science is this: given the contradictions in sociology as traditionally practiced, and given the problems in the programme offered by those largely responsible for discrediting it, whither sociology now? The purpose of my paper is to show that the question may be unnecessary. This is not so much because interpretative sociologists are mistaken in their understanding of the conditions in which research is undertaken, but rather because the positivist epistemological assumptions taken to be necessary for an objective scientific sociology, are not required for this and indeed are erroneous. I shall argue specifically that a Popperian account of (objective) science is wholly compatible with the understanding contemporary interpretative sociologists have of the research context, and indeed that there are striking similarities between this and Popper's ideas, most especially those developed in recent years. Thus, I shall go on to suggest that, by adopting a Popperian epistemology we may thereby recognize the validity of the fundamentals of the ethnomethodological position without being forced to abandon the effort to be objective and scientific; we may also sidestep the particular dif... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper compares one aspect of Max Weber's explicit conception of ‘interpretive sociology’ with his actual practices in his substantive investigations. It shows that Weber's overt emphasis on the importance of meanings and motives in causal explanation of social action does not correspond adequately with the true mode of explanation involved in his comparative-historical studies of the world religions. Rather, the ultimate level of causal explanation in Weber's substantive writings is that of the social-structural conditions under which certain forms of meaning and motivation can achieve historical efficacy. A model is developed to represent the actual nature of ‘Weberian sociology’. It is proposed that this internal comparative analysis and interpretation can have useful implications for contemporary sociological debates and approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]