Search

Copyright of Papeles del CEIC is the property of Centro de Estudios sobra la Identidad Colectiva, Facultas de Ciencias Sociales and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article discusses the circulation of knowledge in sociology through a case study based on the transnational exchanges between North-American sociologist Irving L. Horowitz and Latin American sociologists and intellectuals in the sixties. We explore his letters with three figures who played pivotal roles in the institutionalization of sociology in Latin America: Gino Germani, an Italian born sociologist who became a pioneer figure for establishing scientific sociology in Argentina; the Mexican sociologist Pablo González Casanova, who performed a similar role in his country; and Arnaldo Orfila Reynal, a prestigious editor in the region, who headed two of the most powerful publishing houses in the Latin American market for the social sciences and humanities in the 1960s and 1970s - Fondo de Cultura Económica (FCE) and Siglo XXI. We argue that while these exchanges happened under unequal conditions produced by the structural inequalities of the global system of knowledge production that emerged after World War II, the works of Latin American intellectuals were relevant for Horowitz's project of critical sociology for two main reasons: they provided intellectual sources for radical theorization on development and modernization, and they represented strategic assets for Horowitz present himself as a mediator between Third World problems and North-American audiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

In this article analyse the development of a sociological critical thinking in social movement in Chile during last decade. In the article I explore how this thought manage to mix some of the features of the four sociological trends in Latin America described by Torres. The article analyses the case of new think tanks that emerged from Chilean student movements in 2006 and 2011. These think tanks have a distinctive critical thinking that highlight the role of political economic analysis, the role of knowledge based on evidence, and incumbent vocation that connect intellectual projects with different political practices, closely related to social movements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review article analyses six texts within the sociology of organizations published in the early decades of the twenty-first century, with a view to exploring what they tell us about the key issues and developmental trajectories the former will follow as this century unfolds. It suggests that the sociology of organizations is in good intellectual shape and continues to speak to issues which are central to our lives today and tomorrow. However, it also indicates that intellectual rejuvenation through contestation must be sustained within the field – particularly in the face of pressures towards intellectual closure and conformity – if it is to retain its relevance at a time when instability and uncertainty seem to be pervasive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Sociology, a discipline nearly 200 years old, dates back to 1914. The year that sociology was started to be taught in Dârülfünun is very significant for the institutionalization of sociology. However, sociological thought began penetrating the Ottoman world with the Tanzimat Era. Sociology, which was seen as an important tool in the solution of social problems in the disintegration of the Empire, was quickly adopted; circles of intellectuals that adopted different sociological perspectives emerged. Among these circles, the group formed in Thessaloniki between 1910 and 1912 made important contributions to the emergence of the discipline of sociology in terms of methodical knowledge production about society. Although Thessaloniki was a significant place in the development of Turkish sociological thought, it has not been adequately discussed. In this context, the study first reveals the social, economic, and political features that make Thessaloniki an intellectual center, discusses the intellectual milieu in the city, and then focuses on the sociological interest of The Thessaloniki Circle, and lastly evaluates the sociological thoughts that emerged in this context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses the significance and the challenges of various decolonized practices in research and in social science training methods in Mexico and, particularly, in Chiapas, based on a Latin American approach to the field of studies conducted by intellectuals and activists involved in social movement struggles. We analyze different forms of intercultural dialogues used in decolonizing research in terms of social, ethnic and gender relationships, according to the contexts and the knowledge production of popular and indigenous movements facing politics, education and epistemic racism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

The purpose of this article is to offer an approach to Michael Löwy's Latin American Marxism. In my hypothesis, Löwy's Marxism is marked by a radical critique of Eurocentrism and lies in permanent dialogue with the "warm currents" of European Marxism. Applying the theoretical approach of the sociology of revolutionary intellectuals and through a qualitative methodology of hermeneutical nature, we will analyze two central dialogic knots in Löwy's work, expressed in the affinities between León Trotsky and Ernesto Guevara, such as those of José Carlos Mariátegui and Walter Benjamin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The psychoanalysts, as intellectuals, unwittingly might have the role of "useful idiots", i.e., in the sense of serving the interests of a given system of power or values which they apparently oppose, thus abandoning a critical conception of psychoanalysis. As is well known, the expression "useful idiots" is attributed to Stalin, who used it to define a certain type of intellectuals. The possible role of psychoanalysts as "useful idiots" is discussed in detail in its various declinations and implications, also in the light of the vicissitudes of the movement of leftist psychoanalysts. This paper was read at the Third Meeting of the "International Psychoanalytic Network" (Internationale Psychoanalytische Vernetzung) entitled "Are idiots still useful?", held at the Palazzo delle Stelline, Milan, Italy, June 3-4, 1988. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mariuccia Salvati dedicates the last chapter of the volume to the “almost” two lives of Camillo Pellizzi, the first characterized by militant adherence to fascism, the second by the “pure” study of society. This article mainly deals with this last phase, the phase of maturity, which coincides with the first decades of the second post-war period. The role of sociologist played by Pellizzi, in many ways original and innovative, was however not always recognized and appreciated by the Italian sociological culture which, more generally, supported the irrelevance of sociology in the Fascist period. The article asks some questions about the reasons for this lack of consideration and underlines elements of continuity, as far as the sociological approach is concerned, between the two phases of Pellizzi’s biography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

This article provides a sociological explanation for the global emergence of Slavoj Žižek as a public intellectual. It presents an integrative account encompassing both personal and institutional aspects. Drawing on positioning theory and performative frameworks, the article contributes to the sociology of intellectuals, as well as to the vast 'Žižek-literature' that focuses on his philosophical content or political activities. We analyse the distinctiveness of Žižek's performances, arguing that Žižek acts as a 'sacrificial intellectual': he plays 'the fool' and relies on irony to undermine the traditional role of the authoritative intellectual. Within the context of the digital public sphere and declining intellectual authority, Žižek's unique form of positioning has been particularly effective and has contributed to his celebrity status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents the notions of ethos and eidos as field level concepts for the sociology of morality and the anthropology of ethics. This is accomplished in the context of Bourdieuan social theory and, therefore, from the broad standpoint of practice theory. In the first instance these terms are used to refer to the normative structures of social fields and are conceived so as to represent the way in which such structures fall between two planes, that of the implicit and the explicit. Subsequently, they are used to further understand a distinction between morality—roughly, the implicit moral order of a social field—and ethics—the more explicit and often codified elements of a social field's normative structure. When presented in relation to academic philosophical inquiries into the ethical issues in healthcare and the life sciences—meaning the disciplines of applied ethics in general and applied (bio)ethics in particular—the analytic perspective these terms facilitate enables us to represent the fundamental conditions required for academic enquiry; taken together the ethos and eidos of an intellectual field constitute the requisite background of its normative epistemic and methodological commitments, thereby providing the structures of disciplined intellectual practices. Seen in this light it not only becomes possible to grasp applied (bio)ethics as a socially structured practice but to understand it in terms that can also be used to frame our everyday moral practices. In this way applied (bio)ethics can be acknowledged as a relatively unique part of our contemporary moral culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The collage of Bourdieu's debates and polemics (Signals of Lights ~ Signals of Lights 2) most expressively illustrates how sociology of knowledge is organically connected with political sociology, or sociology of symbolic power his work;; the unity of theory and practice is achieved in an aspiration to reaffirm the engaged role of the sociologist's profession, renew the role of intellectuals and form a new European social movement. Although he thought that today "it is not always easy to achieve the ideal of the collective intellectual", which he aspired to identify with, Bourdieu hoped that his critical reflections and polemical interventions, as the "lit signals of lights", may "serve as a useful weapon to all those who are trying to resist the neoliberal scourge… if not hoping to move a mobilization… at least to destroy the impression of unanimity that constitutes the essence of the symbolic picture of the dominant discourse" (Bourdieu, 2019, pp. 41-42).

In recent decades in some Latin American countries there has been a renewed social, political and cultural mobilization by indigenous communities. In order to frame this mobilization historically, this article makes a historical sociology of the so-called indigenous question related to the first peoples in Hispanic American contemporary history. eoretically, within the relations between the social, political, economic and cultural orders, a sociology of the cultural-interpretative order is proposed, understood as a legitimating base of the social, economic and politicolegal orders. e analysis focuses on the coevolution of two aspects: a) the relation between the cultural-interpretative order and the socioeconomic conflicts affecting indigenous groups, with special attention to the land issue; and b) the external factors that have shaped region's internal dynamics in the cultural-interpretative order. Divided in eight periods since independence until now, it is analyzed how in three domains in the dominant cultural-order (the modernizing politico-intellectual elite, the modern and contemporary literature, and the social science) there has been no adequate understanding of the indigenous problem, and no promotion of ways to accommodate them within their respective nation-states. e recent indigenous mobilization in the cultural-interpretative order must be understood as a response to that historical marginalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Akiwowo's work is examined in the context of the global economy of knowledge and the postcolonial turn in social science. The global economy of knowledge, the problems of extraversion and dependence, and recent work that develops southern perspectives, are introduced. Akiwowo offered an original approach to social-science concept formation, drawing on ritual poetry in the Yoruba language. The debate about this innovation raises questions of wide relevance. The tasks of intellectuals in the postcolonial world are considered, and an interactive approach to knowledge is defended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chief J.A. Ayọrinde explains that 'all chiefs and prominent personalities have oríkì describing their character and achievements, which serve, as it were, as their "signature tunes" to announce their approach or presence', and indeed that 'no child is given a name without being given an oríkì, which is an important adjunct to any name ... ' The fact that Western academic traditions have not recognised the place of oríkì in the retrieval of the histories and accomplishments of Yorùbá intellectuals should not lead us to conclude that Yorùbá society thinks that they are anonymous. A Yorùbá òwe (dramatic figures of speech) points us in the right direction: Àńkì í Àńsà á Ó ní òun ò mẹni tókú Ońgbọ́ 'ikú mẹ́rù Ọ̀pàgá Abisutabíòdòdó Alábàọkà Arokofẹ́yẹjẹ' O ní 'Àgbẹ̀ lókú ni tàbí ọ̀nájà?' Translation: We recite someone's oríkì We intone his attributes But an ignorant person says he does not know who has died. He hears 'Death has taken a renowned man A titled man Whose-yams-spread-like-petals Who-possesses-a-barn-of-corn Whose-fields-are-a-bounty-for-birds,' The [ignorant] person still asks 'Is the dead man a farmer or a trader?' (Owomoyela 2005 96) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

This research note uses in-depth interviews, ethnographic observations, and archival records to examine the self-understandings of think tank-affiliated policy experts. I argue that policy experts draw on a series of idioms—those of the academic scholar, the political aide, the entrepreneur, and the media specialist—to construct a unique albeit synthetic professional identity. The essence of the policy expert’s role lies in a continuous effort to balance and reconcile the contradictory imperatives associated with these idioms. An analysis of the policy expert’s mixed “professional psyche” offers a useful point of entry into the objective social structure of the think tank.

This introduction to the Special Section on public intellectual engagement has three objectives. First, to explore the different meanings that the polysemic term 'strategy' can hold in relation to intellectuals. In the process, we showcase both this concept's potential theoretical yield and its capacity to bridge the 'performative' and event-oriented study of intellectuals more common in English-speaking sociology with longue durée career-oriented analyses more associated with French sociology. The second objective is to reassess some of the main contributions to the sociology of intellectuals by reference to this notion of 'strategy', especially concerning issues of political allegiance and group membership. The final objective is to illustrate the potential of this approach in empirical work on intellectual engagement and introduce the articles that comprise the Special Section. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As of late, the sociology of intellectuals has made important inroads into its object of study. Much of this has been achieved by problematising the modes of engagement intellectuals undertake and multiplying the types of actor that can be considered to have intellectual authority, going beyond the traditional mould of the 'authoritative' public intellectual. However, relatively few have theorised how intellectuals associate themselves in groups: how collectives, whether in the form of institutions or not, negotiate their public interventions and position themselves as a group in the public debate. This article delves into this issue, with an emphasis on how 'intellectual collectives' reach a common identity and decide who can intervene 'on their behalf' – what we call prosopopoeia. Informed by positioning theory, and based on two variables (presence of a single organisational basis and purported intellectual cohesiveness), this article contributes to current debates on the sociology of intellectuals by analysing how collectives of intellectuals intervene in the public debate, reach some form of coordination with their peers, police the boundaries of their collective identity, and, in the process, attain a common position across audiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Early twentieth-century China, as with other post-imperial states, faced the challenge of creating a nation encompassing different social groups and cultures. How to identify ethnic groups living in the borderlands and generate nationwide social cohesion became a fundamental question that concerned multiple intellectual communities. This article traces the formation of two approaches to ethnicity—ethnology and sociology—at that time. These two approaches, configuring "ethnic differences" in dissimilar ways, were received differently by the public. In the end, the ethnological approach prevailed and the sociological approach was marginalized. This outcome exemplifies a possible hierarchy of knowledge, but also involves the politics of knowledge. This article shows that the disparate visions of "ethnic others" were produced by intellectuals differently positioned within the social context of post-imperial China. The positionalities of these disciplines explain much of their intellectual alignment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The sociological study of intellectual recognition has tended to focus on highly cited and highly acclaimed authors and perspectives, while reserving some interest for those who are "forgotten." We know much less about the liminal cases: authors who are in-between fame and oblivion. This paper proposes a way to study intellectual recognition, by examining the liminal case of sociologist Charles H. Cooley. Based on a multilayered (quantitative and qualitative) citation analysis of Cooley's classic work, Human Nature and the Social Order (HNSO), we study the role of intellectual deference in accounting for this liminality. Specifically, we identify two distinct deference processes: acknowledgment and involvement. We argue that Cooley has survived intellectual oblivion by standing on the shoulders of citers, as he has received substantial acknowledgment but decreasing involvement. In the conclusion, we discuss the implications of our paper for the understanding of the making of sociological theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociologists have treated intellectuals and their ideas for a long time as mere products of external social structures. Recently, however, researchers shifted their focus to cultural explanations, appreciating more fully the role cultural structures play in shaping their biographical trajectories and success. At the same time, I argue that these theories do not fully integrate the insight of performance theories and focus usually on textual self‐presentation of intellectuals. Although such an approach is valuable, I propose that sociologists should pay attention also to the processes of meaning‐making that make up intellectual appeal on stage. In the second part of the paper, I argue that the sociology of intellectuals has been for too long obsessed with questions of success and prestige, and I propose that sociologists should shift their attention to the underappreciated and marginalised among intellectuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

This paper explores the ways nationalism has been theorised in classical and contemporary sociology. More specifically, the author analyses the relevance of Randall Collins's contribution to theories of nationalism. Since Collins's work is firmly rooted in the classical tradition, including the reinterpretation and synthesis of Weber, Durkheim and Goffman, the first part of this paper zooms in on the classics of sociology and their treatment of nations and nationalism. The second part of the paper outlines the key features of Collins's approach and identifies the strengths and weaknesses of this position. The final part builds on the footsteps of Collins and others to articulate an alternative approach focused on the coercive organisational, ideological and micro-interactional grounding of nationalisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nathan Glazer's intellectual journey may have left him at the margins of academic sociology but tookhim to the heart of one of the most politically influential circles of American writers, policy analysts, andthinkers of the twentieth century. Yet he was not a political person, but a uniquely honest and humble socialcritic and analyst. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the advances in knowledge from pervasive social problems. Science has been regarded as an alien realm of technical knowledge by humanistic intellectuals. The backwardness of social knowledge is marked in its division into independent and isolated branches of learning. The problem of knowledge isolation and specialization has been left at all levels of education. A kind of political positioning, rather than an inherent condition is reflected in tensions between pure and applied knowledge. The rich heritage of literature in the curriculum field and literature in education creates the need for knowledge interdependence and synthesis.

This article charts the development of the sociology of culture in France. First, it examines the hypothesis of a French model, putting into perspective the correlation between cultural policies and dedicated sociological inquiries at the end of the 1950s. ‘Culture’ is one of the oldest fields of research in France, and current research still derives from the same anthropological matrix. Yet French sociologists present themselves as part of a divided and competitive academic domain. This article, based on an encompassing review of the literature as well as on in-depth interviews, accordingly distinguishes eight different ‘schools’ – organized around pre-eminent academics, concept producers and resource providers – as well as circles of collaboration. Whilst these circles organize their theoretical activity around emblems (with the word ‘culture’ referring to different conceptual sets) the social relations in their midst are organized around dyads, which usually transition from positive collaboration to rivalry. The article highlights the importance of these divisions as a fractal process and as boundary work for scientific production. From this perspective, the sociology of culture in France could be described as a large and extensive system of concepts and collaborations developed within small groups, within and between which, as with all ‘cultural’ matters, symbolic activity is the key basis for social status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents the figure of Peter Abelard, from the concept of "total intelectual", for this reason we dare to propose a reading of "History Calamitatum" (The Story of My Misfortunes) based on the studies of Sociology of Literature, of Pierre Bourdieu and Jacques Dubois is a somewhat complex task. To understand the proposal we present: Abelard: The twelfth century intellectual, it is necessary to bear in mind that this hypothesis hides three fundamental questions. The first one is about the concept of Total Intellectual; the second, refers to the intellectual trajectory of Peter Abelard based on the works on literary posture of Jêrome Meizoz, and the third is based on a comparison, a little more daring, between the historical conditions, of the twelfth century and the end of the nineteenth century, in Paris. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The journal Cahiers pour l'Analyse was founded in 1966 and disappeared in the aftermath of May 1968. At the time the intellectual and publishing world was dominated by texts that were broadly characterized as "structuralist." Edited by a board of students at the prestigious École normale supérieure (Jacques-Alain Miller, François Régnault, Alain Grosrichard and Jean-Claude Milner), with the participation of Alain Badiou in its later stages, the journal accorded great importance to Jacques Lacan and to psychoanalysis in general. But it also played a role in Althusser's political and intellectual strategy a year after the publication of For Marx and Reading Capital. Cahiers pour l'Analyse represents, then, the most complete example of the politicization of structuralism on the eve of May 1968. Yet it also had a focus on political philosophers, such as Machiavelli and Rousseau, and the political writings of classical philosophers such as Hume and Descartes. The editors also favoured the philosophy of the concept (Canguilhem) over phenomenology (particularly in its Sartrean interpretation). Analyzing the content of the journal and published interviews with its authors, this article indicates how the broad aim was to restore primacy of place to philosophy at a point when it was under challenge from the social sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

How did Rational Choice Theory (RCT), traditionally rejected by sociologists for its economic individualism, rise rapidly in the 1980s and the 1990s to theoretical and institutional prominence within sociology? Drawing on Frickel and Gross’ (American Sociological Association, 70(2):204–232 2005) framework for the emergence of scientific/intellectual movements (SIMs), we argue that RCT rose to prominence in sociology in conjunction with: 1) high status actors’ criticism of the previously dominant paradigm, structural functionalism; 2) favorable structural conditions that provided entrepreneurial access to key resources; 3) proliferation through micromobilization contexts; and 4) the ability of those espousing RCT for sociology to draw on dominant cultural motifs outside of academia. The rise of RCT in American sociology provides a case study for how scientific/intellectual movements can find an audience in academic contexts that are predisposed to oppose them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From the time of its refoundation in 1957, sociology did not seem to take the form of a mere technocratic proposal or a restricted academicism. Both the anti-peronist modernist impulse of Gino Germani, and the determined spirit of transformation of the generations immediately after, locate these founding sociologists far from the profile of the traditional academic. In this article, Lucas Rubinich analyzes the relations between sociology and politics, identifying three moments during the "sixties". The first moment refers to the institutional affirmation and the emergence of the first conflicts between the "old" and the "new" sociologist. The second has to do with the extreme radicalization of a strip of the new group, while the third one begins with the institutional realization of politicization in the "montonera" university, between 1973 and 1974. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The stress process model in the sociological study of stress has changed over the thirty years of its use, developed continually to reflect changes in society and to include intellectual refinement. This paper represents a review that aims to do the same, filling the gaps in the original model with the inclusion of major developments in its structure and new social dimensions. An examination of the model's key components reveals: its causes and manifestations, the intervention of resources that moderate its effects, and its consequences on an individual in terms of mental health and social adversities. In visitation of the dynamics of the stress process, I present a critical analysis that involves an investigation of the findings of research literature while considering recent trends, including the decline of the nuclear family and the influence of non-Western cultures among immigrants and minority groups. Thus, asserted on the case that the considerations undertaken by literature are again at a point requiring intellectual reform, this critique endeavours to articulate an updated, foundational version of the original model and to offer appraisals that could lend themselves as points for further development and study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates the intellectual biography of the American philosopher and anthropologist Lawrence Krader (1919-1998) as a contribution to the sociology of intellectuals and history of ideas. We trace Krader's career trajectory to his intellectual self-concept, his scholarly and political worldviews, and his financial independence. Krader entertained a self-concept of a lone pioneer that led him to reject the competition for attention as highlighted in the current literature, dominated as it is by an emphasis on field, habitus, the accumulation and reproduction of power, and symbolic capital. His self-concept and his happier financial circumstance kept him relatively aloof from key intellectual networks and narrow institutional constraints. Our paper seeks to combine the new sociology of ideas with its focus on institutions and networks with traditional Wissenssoziologie that emphasized the role of class, status, and worldviews to explain the rise and fall of theories and thinkers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]