Search

Analyses the role of industrialization in creating social disturbances and disorders. Fundamental ways in which industrialization brings social disorder; Manifestations of the condition of social disorganization; Relation of early industrialization to disorganization and disorder.

This article presents the author's comments on an article about George Herbert Mead written by Gerald Chasin. As per Chasin, when the individual developed a social "mind" his thinking would never conflict with the values of a society, thus assuring social unity. The author doesn't understand what is meant by the term "a social mind." The fact that the individual incorporates the values of his groups through role taking does not mean that there cannot be conflicts between these values. He does not understand how Chasin leaps to a conclusion that in George Herbert Mead's thought the incorporation of such conflicting values within the individual establishes unity between the conflicting groups. One has the right to expect a better rendition of Mead's thought. "There is no mention of power and force in the process of the development of "meaning," because in Mead's scheme there simply was no room for these concepts." He was acutely aware of the growing complexity of the modern world with the increase of divergent groups acting along continuously new and divergent lines.

Twice in recent years the Society has made single awards, supported by unsolicited special gifts. The Edward Bernays Award for an essay dealing with the social effects of television and a grant-in-aid of research supported by the Britt Foundation. Also, the Society has accepted and now has in its possession a fund of some $3,000 designated as the Maclver Award fund. This fund was initiated by Professor Theodore Abel, who asked the Society to administer it. An informal canvass of several other professional associations reveals that several of them administer various awards for achievement in their respective fields. Of particular interest are the two prizes of $1,000 each awarded annually by the American Political Science Association for outstanding books published during the year, and the lectureship of $500 offered by the American Psychological Association in recognition of contributions to methods of discovering talent among children.

The article profiles sociologists Joseph D. Lohman, Joseph Obrebski, and John F. Thaden. Lohman was the Dean of the School of Criminology of the University of California, Berkeley, California, died on April 28,1968 as a result of a heart attack. He had a most unusual and illustrious career. He spent his youth in Denver, Colorado. He was forceful and catalytic teacher, inspiring large numbers of students. On the graduate level he trained scores of competent criminologists who are to be found today in major universities, in law enforcement agencies, and in correctional institutions. Obrebski died on December 28, 1967 in Louis, New York, from the aftereffects of an accident. He was at that time an associate professor in the department of sociology and anthropology at the C.W. Post College of Long Island University, whose faculty he had joined in 1962. His wide learning, scholarly commitment, and intellectual integrity, together with his enthusiasm for teaching, made a deep impact on his students and his colleagues alike. Thaden, Professor Emeritus, Michigan State University, died March 13, 1968. Although he retired from the Department of Sociology after 32 years of service, Thaden's retirement was nominal for he continued to work until a few months before his death. His primary interest was in demography, especially in population estimates and projections for small areas. He authored more than 75 articles, bulletins, and reports, principally concerned with the analysis of population trends, school district reorganization, and small community trade areas.

The work of the 1956-57 Committee on Relations with Sociologists in Other Countries was concerned with exploratory efforts to conceive ways through which the Society might promote better relations with foreign sociologists. On the basis of suggestions submitted by various Committee members a set of eight proposals were circulated among the 14 members of the Committee. Judgments were secured from 11 of the members. It is clear that further study of the proposals is required before definitive recommendations would be in order. Hence, the Committee has only a single recommendation that the present report be transmitted to the 1957-58 Committee for further inquiry and action. All of the 11 responding members agreed that such a roster would be of value. Its uses might be many. It would convey a picture of the extent of sociological interest abroad that few members of the Society possess. It could be helpful to American sociologists planning visits abroad. It could be of aid to American sociologists seeking information through correspondence. It might have subsidiary value to members of our Society interested in possible exchange relations.