sign in sign up
<<
Home , Macrosociology, Reinhard Bendix

Parsons' "Structure" in American Author(s): Jeffrey C. Alexander Source: , Vol. 6, No. 1 (Spring, 1988), pp. 96-102 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/201917 Accessed: 26/05/2010 11:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

John Wiley & Sons and American Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Theory.

http://www.jstor.org PARSONS' "STRUCTURE" IN AMERICAN SOCIOLOGY1

JEFFREY C. ALEXANDER U.C.L.A.

At the annual meetings of the American the model, if ever it had. Those leading this Sociological Association in 1987, a session struggle-theorists like Gouldner, Garfinkel, held to commemoratethe fiftieth anniversary Blumer, Giddens, Collins-believed that the of the publication of the The Structure of theory articulatedby Structurewas something Social Action drew a large and interested social science should, and probably would, audience. Had the commemorationbeen held safely leave behind. it is that it would 20 years earlier, quite likely Yet here we are, anotherten years later, still have occurred within the framework entirely talkingabout Structure and, indeed, commem- of Structure itself. would have Speakers orating it. The announcementof Structure's treated the work as an exercise in general deathturns out to have been as was as a successful to premature, theory, hugely attempt the announcementof Parsons'. In fact, it is provide an explanatoryframework for empir- possible that, with the exception of Habermas, ical sociology. They would have assessed the no post-classical sociological theorist is more box score of empirical and theoretical talked about today in Europe and the United "progress" since its publication in 1937; States than Parsonshimself, this talk is about "recent developments" in the though spoken more reflective and selective than it field; and probably would have concluded- certainly was And since I have with an importantdissent registeredhere and twentyyears ago. brought make the obvious there-that in the thirty years following its up Habermas,let me point: in devil appearancesignificant accumulationand elab- Who could possibly know what the oration had occurred. The Structure, in other Habermasis talkingabout if they did not know words, would at that time have been taken as Parsons work? In the last decade Habermas a founding event in a relatively consensual, has decided that Parsons must not only be his proto-scientificdiscipline. For even as late as Hegel but his Ricardo, that it is Parsonswhose the mid-1960s, Structure was still seen as ideas he must internalize and dispute (Alex- Parsons had originally presented it: as a ander 1985; cf. Sciulli 1985), if his new ver- frameworkof accumulatedtheoretical knowl- sion of is going to fly. edge, on the basis of which predictionscould Why now, why still? To honor the be made and compared(favorably) with what publication of Structure-Parsons' first and social scientists had subsequently discovered finest single work-we must answer these fact. about empirical questions. The first answer is ratherobvious: such a Ten years ago, by contrast, we find that sociologists are still talking about commemorationwould not have taken place. their empiricalproblems in explicit relation- The at that time was involved in a profession both positive and negative-to the problems massive effort to overthrowStructure in and, that Structure first Jonathan Turner, what was posed. doing so, to free itself from thought one of in the ASA be the influence of functionalist my partners symposium, to pernicious has The Structure was still viewed as an just published of thought. Interaction His title is not fortuitous. exercise in (1988). general explanatory theory- has written his new as an document as well- It signals that Turner though ideological book to what he claims to be a but it was now felt by many that argue against widely monistic bias in the Parsonian to contemporaryempirical reality no longer fit approach action. Turner is confident, moreover, that Parsons' title of is still so well 1 on his fifty years ago This paper is dedicated to Bernard Barber, known that his on words will be retirementfrom BarnardCollege and Columbia Univer- play sity, in recognition of his theoretical achievements and immediately recognized. The same evidence with gratitudefor his personal and intellectual collegial- that Structureremains our contemporarycan ity. This paper was prepared, at Bernard Barber's be found in the work of HaroldGarfinkel, and with his for the annual my suggestion encouragement, other on the of the ASA meetings of the American Sociological Association in partner platform Chicago, Ill., August 1987. commemoration, whose paper is being pub- 96 Sociological Theory, 1988, Vol. 6 (Spring:96-102) PARSONS' "STRUCTURE" 97 lished alongside mine in this journal. As postwarera and the close of the classical age, Garfinkelattests in this paper, it is impossible Structure functioned both as dividing water- to understandthe theoretical significance of shed and integratingbridge. It did so in two ethnomethodologywithout understandingthat distinctiveways. First, it constructed-through it has developed in dialogue with Parsons' selection and interpretation-the classical early work. Indeed, Garfinkelstill insists that heritage from which subsequent theoretical to properly understandthe microfoundations and empiricalsociology would draw. Second, of social order we must understandjust why it translatedthe "classics" into a particular Structureexplained it in the wrong way. As I conceptual vocabulary, one which is still will suggest later in this essay, there are largely in force today. It is for both of these numerous other contemporary works that reason that Structureis still a living and vital continue to present and justify their findings theoretical work. It has, indeed, become a in the same way. classic in its own right.2 But there are even more importantreasons I will take up each of these pathways to for the continuing contemporaryrelevance of classical ascension in turn. I begin with the Parsons' early work. It is not only that there translationof earlier theorizing-what Struc- continue to be importantdiscussions about, ture taughtus to call "classical" theorizing- and in relation to, Structure's earlier con- into a new and eventually omnipresent cepts. It is also that we can now understand theoretical vocabulary. Parsons' goal in the influence of Structurein a more reflective Structure was not simply to recount, either and more accurate way. Armed with the historically or hermeneutically, the "real post-empiricistphilosophy, history, and soci- meaning" of Durkheim, Weber, Pareto, and ology of science, we understandtheorizing Marshall. He wanted, rather, to demonstrate differently that we once did. We are less that they had established a new conceptual inclined to see theory as a pragmatictest shot scheme. It is revealing that, before he ever at empirical targets, the reality of which are got to these writers, Parsons spent more than taken for granted. To the contrary, we now one-hundredpages laying this scheme out. He understandthat theory has an importantrole made three points. in creating the objects as well as their (1) Sociology is about the problem of explanation. order. What Parsons called the Hobbesian Twice-removed from the period in which problem can be understood in the following the concepts of Structure were taken to be way: What holds society together?Is it force identical with society as such, we are and fraud-in which case the Hobbesian beginning to appreciatethat it was Structure problem is avoided-some common commit- that itself helped to invent-not simply ment to values, or both? discover-the empiricaluniverse within which (2) Any solution to the order problem postwar sociology lived and within which, by involves an approach to action. To avoid and large, it continues to live today. Sociol- Hobbes' Leviathan, the essential liberty of ogy, therefore, has not escaped from Struc- action, what Parsons' called "voluntarism," ture by arguing against its propositions, must be maintained.This can only be done if concepts, or even its intellectual history. The the interpretive (nonrational) character of reason is that it has done so largely within the action is accepted: actors strive for meaning. frame of reference that Structurehad such a (3) Parsons' third point ties together his huge part in establishing. If contemporary first and second. If actors strive for meaning, sociology is a language game, albeit one with they orient themselves toward norms that rational and scientific aspirations, it was provide standards of evaluation. Insofar as Structurethat gave to this language some of these standardsare shared, they can be called its most importantwords. values. Insofar as values are internalized, By virtue of its intrinsic power and they solve the problem of order in an extrinsic intellectual influence, Structure anti-Hobbesianway. played a key role, perhaps the key role, in Parsons went on to demonstrate inge establishing the base line vocabulary for moder sociology. It is in the post-world war 2 II that this "modern" For an analysis of how social science disciplines are period contemporary, constructed via discourse about the be said to have writings and sociology may begun. subsequent interpretationsof figures who are given a Published in the no man's land between this classical status, see Alexander 1987b. 98 SOCIOLOGICALTHEORY niously and brilliantly, if often quite mistak- ries, by contrast, emphasized instrumental enly, that Durkheim, Weber, Pareto, and action, power, and disorder. In the next Marshall each discovered and promulgated generation, macrosociologists like Michael these very points. Mann, , , and In the half century after Structure,Parsons' Theda Skocpol elaboratedconflict and "struc- answers to these three central questions- tural" sociologies that sought to build exclu- order, action, and values-became three of sively upon this anti-voluntaristic, anti- the most central and contentious notions in culturalbase. Their results are open to debate. empirical and theoretical sociology. That the In my own work (e.g., Alexander 1988a), I relation of these concepts to classical sociol- have argued that in dismissing culture and ogy has become just as central and vexing to subjectivitythese theoristshave made serious the emerging field that is called the history of mistakes. What is importantin this context, sociology is a topic to which I will return. I however, is to see that the sources of the want initially to take up the argument "structuralism"so hegemonic in contempo- generated by these concepts in and of rary macrosociology are directly if dialecti- themselves. cally linked to Parsons' publication of fifty According to an understanding of this years ago. conceptual scheme that become increasingly The second dichotomy that Structure ap- widespread, Structure had addressed these peared to have established was between points in a manner that created two central action and order. Throughhis notion of value dichotomies. internalization,Parsons tied individual effort The first was conflict versus order. Before to the orderingpower of social structure.Was Parsons wrote Structure, there was no such there, his critics wondered, any truly individ- beast as "conflict theory." Certainly there ual action left? In my view, once again, this is were theorists who emphasized conflict, like by no means an accurate rendition of what Marx, and others who emphasized order and Parsons was up to. The theorist whose consensus, like Durkheim. But the problem intention was to save subjectivity, and who had never been posed in terms of "theories called his work "the theory of action," could of" either one. While this was not how hardly have intended to eliminate individual Parsons himself had actually posed the action as such. Still, it is quite possible to problem, there is a powerful subtext in his read Structure in this way and, again, an argument that does allow this dichotomy entire generationof microsociologists did just between order and consensus to be drawn. this.4 Between 1950 and 1960, Ralf Dahrendorf, For HerbertBlumer, George Homans, the David Lockwood, John Rex, Alvin Gouldner, early , the later Garfinkel, and C. Wright Mills wrote that there were Ralph Turner, and Aaron Cicourel, the only and order theories and that way to emphasize the importanceof individ- the choice between them defined the futureof ual, contingent action was to neutralize the macrosociology.3 Order theories, in their influence of values and prior social structure view, talked exclusively about nonrational as such. The result was a brilliant body of action, values and equilibrium;conflict theo- work that elaboratedthe interactivestrategies, rational and interpretiveintentions, and cre- ative of individual 3 structuring capabilities In his early essays, Gouldner (e.g., 1960) tried to draw the line in a more subtle way, developing a "left functionalism." He (1970) later adopted the more 4 See Twenty Lectures: Sociological Theory since conventionalline. Lockwood's developing theory goes in World War II (Alexander 1987a) for an extensive the opposite direction, drawing back from the overly analysis of the dialogue between Parsons' action theory simple dichotomy between conflict and orderhe asserted and his micro critics, on the one side, and his so forcefully in his earliest work (Lockwood 1956) to the macro-conflict critics, on the other. I argue that while later distinction between system and social integration, critical problems in Parsons' work made these criticisms which criticized Parsons' treatmentof order in a more partially legitimate, and the counter-programs they nuanced and sophisticated way and, indeed, actually offered partially progressive, these critics made Parsons stood on the shoulders of Parsons' earlier work into a straw man and offered one-dimensionaltheories in (Lockwood 1964). While Coser (1956) accused Parson turn. Future progress in sociological theory, I suggest, himself of being simply an order theorist, he argued that must go beyond these critics and Parsons' himself. functionalismin a more generic form could successfully Efforts at developing a new synthesis is what the handle the problem of social conflict (see especially contemporary,"third phase" of postwar macrosociolog- Coser 1967). ical theorizing is all about (see Alexander 1988b). PARSONS' "STRUCTURE" 99 actors. This work decisively illuminated a that in opposing arguments that deny the whole range of empirical domains. It did so, centrality of values, Archer's (forthcoming) however, by cutting sociology in half. effort to formulate a theoretical framework Because they understood Structure in a for cultural sociology returns to Parsons' distinctive way, these studies of individual fundamentaldistinction between culture and interaction significantly deepened and rein- social system (cf., Eisenstadt 1986 and forced the micro-macro divide. Still, in the Alexander 1984).5 present context whether they misunderstood I argued earlier that the influence of Parsons is not the point; without the frame- Parsons' conceptual translation of earlier work of Structure, they would not have thought was not the only reason for Struc- formulated their revolutionaryideas in any- ture's classical status. There is also the fact thing like the same way.4 that, in the course of this great book, Parsons I have suggested that contemporarytheoriz- selected and interpreted what came to be ing and research in macro and micro sociology's classical pantheon.It is important sociology has been generated within the to understand that Parsons did not present rubric of Parsons' founding work. The Structure as an interpretation but as an dichotomies around which this theorizing empirical discovery. In calling it an interpre- revolves continue to inspire, and to confuse, tation, I am making the contrary claim: new theoreticalefforts today. For example, a Parsons' portraits of classical writers were new subdiscipline of cultural sociology is in constructed, not discovered. His theorizing the course of being established. If sociologists about these writers, therefore, must be working in this area want to emphasize deconstructedin turn. contingent activity and social conflict, will The theorists who were the subjects of they feel that they have to sacrifice a focus on Structurewere not accorded classical status, values and cultural structure?Following the in English-speakingsociology at least, before polemically constructeddichotomies of macro Parsons wrote. Parsons made them so and he and micro sociology, many have argued read them in a creative, contingent, and (e.g., Swidler 1986) that this must, indeed, highly variable way. Social science disci- be the case. plines are hermeneutic, not only discovering If these false dichotomies in macro and enterprises. Their explanatory, discovering micro theorizing rest upon partially flawed theories are embedded in earlier, convention- interpretationsof Parsons' work, efforts to go alized understandingsof pivotal texts. To put beyond them will continue to draw upon, it anotherway, social science discoveries are criticize, and revise Parsons' founding effort textually mediatedby classics. It follows that as well. It should not be surprising,therefore, debate about who the classics are and what their works mean is critical to the develop- 4 Garfinkelcontinues the argumentin his accompany- ment of even the most empirical social ing essay, arguing that in StructureParsons ignored the science field. "concrete" individual and that he recommended that Structure came to be seen as the most sociology focus only on the analytically abstracted"unit of for several act." In my view, what Parsons intended to argue was sophisticatedhistory sociology something very different. His point was that, when the decades after its publication. This meant that "concrete"-living, breathing,irredeemable, etc.-indi- any alternativeversion of sociological theory vidual is the topic of empirical analysis, it must be and researchhad to challenge its interpretive conceived in a manner that does not identify it with an claims. This is what has ensured atomized asocial individual. It was the latterthat Parsons precisely over the last odd called the "analyticalindividual," and it was only this he twenty years (Alexander wanted to avoid. Parsons used the notion of analytic 1987b). The battle has been waged not only, individualism, in other words, to restore to the concrete as Derridawould say, against the presences in individual-the real social actor-a fuller depth. Still, Parsons' text, but also against the absences. neitherin Structurenor at any later point in his work did It was in because Marx and Simmel Parsons actually examine the manner in which this real part social actor acts. I explore this paradox-which gives some credence to Garfinkel's critique while avoiding its 5 damagingreductionism-in my introductionand substan- Wuthnow's effort to establish a theoretical frame- tive contributionto The Micro-Macro Link (Alexander work for cultural sociology clearly falls within this 1987c, Alexander and Giessen 1987; cf. Alexander second approach, for while Wuthnow emphasizes the 1988c). For an extensive discussion of the slide toward significance of social structurehe argues for the need to reductionismin Garfinkel's work, see Alexander 1987a: construct relatively autonomous cultural patterns which 238-280. interactwith it (see especially Wuthnow 1988: 66-96). 100 SOCIOLOGICALTHEORY were notably absent from Structure that it constructed through a brilliantly selective became very difficult in the immediate reading. Weber is said to have been preoccu- post-war period to do Marxist and Simmelian pied with values: his Economy and Society sociology. The purpose of writers like received from Parsonsonly cursorytreatment. Gouldner, Giddens, and Zeitlin, on the one Parsons argued, moreover, that Weber's side, and Levine, Wolff, and Coser, on the concepts of "charisma" and "legitimation" other, was to make it possible to engage in were homologous with the concepts "sacred" these sociologies by re-establishingthe legiti- and "moral authority"in Durkheim's work. macy of their classical exemplars. Thrustand Shils (1982) made these interestingbut rather counter-thrustcan be followed in the long far-fetchedclaims central to his later theoret- decades of interpretiveargument about Marx's ical program of macrosociology, despite the and Simmel's work. Suffice it to say that, fact his Weber interpretationwas no more eventually, it became impossible to keep textually substantiated than Parsons' own. Marx, at least, out of the pantheon's central Eisenstadt continues to theorize within this core. My own book on Marx (Alexander "Weberian"justification today, arguing(e.g., 1982), for example, starts from just this Eisenstadt 1968) that in Weber's work "anti-Parsonian"premise, even while I criti- institution-buildinghas a sacred and charis- cize Marx's mature sociology in a manner matic basis. that complements what I take to be Struc- Bendix launched and organized the more ture's central concerns. strategic, conflict-orientedreading of Weber. More interesting than the efforts to over- It takes nothing away from the grandeurof his come the absences in Structure are the "intellectual biography" of Weber (Bendix attempts to redefine the presences. Despite 1962) to say that it was a brief for this the fact that Durkheim and Weber had lost anti-Parsonianposition. Later, Roth (1968) their centrality in their own national tradi- took on the burden of this scholarly agenda, tions, Parsons succeeded in establishingthem his introductionand translation of Economy at the center of sociology in a disciplinary and Society markingits exegetical apotheosis. sense. Rather than seeking to dislodge these Collins' (1968) early theorists, later challengers to Parsons worked rested upon Bendix's and Roth's interpreta- at reinterpretingthem. Every major theoreti- tion. When the Indiana group "deParsons- cal tradition in postParsoniansociology has ized" Weber in the early 1970s (Cohen et al. justified itself via some antiParsonianreinter- 1975), they merely formalized the most pretationof Weber and Durkheim,even those widely consensual of these claims. positivist traditionsthat have entirely rejected Parsons' (1937: 301-450) Durkheiminter- the scientific validity of interpretation. pretationwas as importantfor establishingthe Typically, these new interpretations are normative, functional frameworkfor postwar presented as readings that have no axe to sociology as his reading of Weber. The grind. They seek to establish their validity as interpretivechallenge in this case took two "objectively better" interpretations rather forms. Scholars like Bendix (1971), Tilly than interpretationsthat have been inspiredby (1981), and Collins, accepting the gist of differenttheoretical interests. They have done Parsons' portrait, argued that the Durkheim- so by emphasizingtheir greateraccess to new ian approachwas pernicious to any effective texts, the accumulationof scholarly facts, the macrosociology. Interpreters like Gouldner advancementof interpretivemethodology. It (1958), Giddens (1972), and Traugott(1978), is not very difficult, however, to deconstruct on the other hand, argued that Parsons had these interpretive discussions. When we do ignored the real, institutionalDurkheim, who so, we can see that they are neither neutral had supposedly embraced a materialistic nor objective, in the positivist sense of these conflict approachhardly different from Marx's terms. Indeed, they are as far from these own. Once again, the Indiana group (Pope ideals as Parsons' originating interpretation 1973) representedthe apotheosis of this line itself. These encounters with the classics of interpretation in the effort to "dePar- never, in fact, confronted the "classics" in sonsize" Durkheim. and of themselves. They are themselves If I am right that that postwar interpretation textually mediated. The text is Parsons' of Weber and Durkheim has been a sotto Structure. voce, and not so sotto, dialogue with Parsons' (1937: 473-694) "Weber" was Structure, it should not be surprising that PARSONS' "STRUCTURE" 101 recent efforts to re-establish the cultural works-materialistic, individualistic, idealis- dimension of macrosociology should have tic-are abandoned. If the anxiety that turned more positively to Parsons' original surroundedthe creation of these works has arguments. Insofar as structural conflict abated, it has by no means disappeared.Their theory wanes, Weber takes on a different call for a new kind of social theory remainsas character.Thus, the recent German interpre- relevant today. That is why sociologists tations of Weber-by Schluchter, Munch, continue to read, to grapple with, and to and Habermas-are heavily indebted to Par- celebrate Parsons' first great work. sons, not only to his frameworkin Structure but to his later, evolutionaryhistory as well. The currentrevival of the "late Durkheim"as REFERENCES an exemplar for cultural sociology (e.g., Alexander also takes off from Par- Alexander, Jeffrey C. 1982. The Antinomiesof Classical 1988d) Marx and Durkheim. Vol. 2 of sons' into the Thought: Alexander, insight increasingly symbolic Theoretical Logic in Sociology. Berkeley and Los path of Durkheim's later work. Collins Angeles: University of CaliforniaPress. (1988), for example, takes a very positive line .1984. "Three Models of Culture and Society on this later of Durkheim,to the Relations: Toward an Analysis of Watergate." Socio- writing point 2:290-314. of with conditions, some logical Theory endorsing, key . 1985. "Habermas' New Critical Theory: Its elements in Parson's Durkheim-inspiredpolit- Promise and Problems." American Journal of Sociol- ical sociology. ogy 91:400-425. The Structureof Social Action is one of the . 1987a. Twenty Lectures: Sociological Theory works of twentieth since World War II. New York: truly exemplary century Press. social Like all of this theory. virtually . 1987b. "On the Centralityof the Classics," pp. century's seminar social thinkers, Parsons 11-57 in and JonathanTurner, eds., began this work with an alarmingsense of the Social Theory Today. Stanford: Stanford University crisis of his time. Disillusioned with the Press. shallow of nineteenth .1987c. "Action and Its Environments," pp. progressivism century 289-318 in Alexander, Bernhard Giessen, Richard thought, he distrustedreason in its narrowly Munch, and Neil J. Smelser, eds., The Micro-Macro positivist sense. He was also suspicious of Link. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of idealism in its naive, organicist form. His CaliforniaPress. .1988a. "Social Structural goal was to establish the possibility of reason Analysis: Presupposi- on a more realistic base.6 was tions, Ideologies, Empirical Debates," in Alexander, Keynes' goal Action and Its Environments:Toward a New Synthesis. much the same, and his General Theory, New York: Columbia University Press. published one year before Structure, resem- .1988b. "The New Theoretical Movement," in bles Parsons' own book in crucial ways. Neil J. Smelser, eds., The Handbookof Sociology. Los Angeles: Sage. Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, .1988c. Action and Its Environments:Towards a over composed roughly the same period, New Synthesis. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press. questions rationalistictheories from a remark- .1988d. (editor) Durkheimian Sociology: Cul- ably similar point of view and proposes a tural Studies. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press. conventionalized and alternative and BernhardGiessen. 1987. "FromReduction to interpretive The that exhibits distinctive to Parsons' Linkage: Long view of the Micro-MacroLink," parallels pp. 1-44 in Alexanderet al., The Micro-MacroLink. own. Husserl's CartesianMeditations presents Archer, Margaret. forthcoming. Culture and . another interwar approach to rationality that London:Cambridge University Press. Structureresembles in critical ways, despite Bendix, Reinhard. 1962. . New York: its clear in All Doubleday. equally departure others. these .1971. "Two works that freedom and rational- Sociological Traditions," pp. great argued 282-298 in Bendix and , Scholarship ity can be explained theoretically, and and Partisanship:Essays on Max Weber.Berkeley and sustained socially, only if earlier frame- Los Angeles: University of CaliforniaPress. Cohen, Jere, LawrenceE. Hazelrigg, and Whitney Pope. 1975. "De-ParsonizingWeber: A Critiqueof Parsons's 6 Parsons (1937: 5) writes that "various kinds of Interpretationof Weber's Sociology." AmericanSocio- individualism have been under increasingly heavy fire logical Review 40:229-241. [and] the role of reason, and the status of scientific Collins, Randall. 1968. "A ComparativeApproach to knowledge . . . have been attacked again and again." Political Sociology," pp. 42-67 in ReinhardBendix, From the right, the threat was Nazism-"we have been et. al., State and Society. Berkeley and Los Angeles: overwhelmed by a flood of anti-intellectualisttheories"; University of CaliforniaPress. from the left, it was communism-"socialistic, collectiv- . 1988. "The Conflict Traditionin Durkheimian istic, organic theories of all sorts." Sociology," in Jeffrey C. Alexander, ed., Durkheim- 102 SOCIOLOGICALTHEORY

ian Sociology: Cultural Studies. New York: Cam- Pope, Whitney. 1973. "Classic on Classic: Parsons' bridge University Press. Interpretationof Durkheim." American Sociological Coser, Lewis. 1956. The Functions of Social Conflict. Review 38:399-415. New York: Free Press. Roth, Guenther. 1968. "Introduction,"pp. xxxiii-cx in . 1967. "Introduction," pp. 1-14 in Coser, Roth and Claus Wittich, eds., Max Weber, Economy Continuitiesin the Studyof Social Conflict. New York: Free Press. and Society. New York: BedminsterPress. Eisenstadt, S.N. 1968. (editor) Max Weberon Charisma Sciulli, David. 1985. "The Practical Groundwork of and Institution Building. Chicago: University of Critical Theory: Bringing Parsons to Habermas (and Chicago Press. Vice-Versa)," pp. 21-50 in Jeffrey C. Alexander, ed., . 1986. "Cultureand Social StructureRevisited." Neofunctionalism.Beverly Hills and London: Sage. International 1:278-320. Sociology Shils, Edward. 1982. The Constitution of Society. Giddens, 1972. Capitalismand Modern Social Anthony. Chicago: Press. Theory. London: CambridgeUniversity Press. Swidler, Ann. 1986. "Culture in Action." American Gouldner, Alvin. 1958. "Introduction,"pp. v-xxix in Emile Durkheim, Socialism and Saint-Simon. Yellow Sociological Review 51:273-286. Springs, Ohio: Antioch. Tilly, Charles. 1981. "Useless Durkheim." In As . 1960. "The Norm of Reciprocity." American Sociology Meets History. New York: Academic Press. Sociological Review 25:161-178. Traugott, Mark. 1978. (editor) Emile Durkheim on . 1970. The Coming Crisis of WesternSociology. InstitutionalAnalysis. Chicago: University of Chicago New York: Equinox. Press. Lockwood, David. 1956. "Some Remarkson 'The Social Turner, Jonathan. 1988. The Structure of Social British Journal of Sociology 7:134-146. System'." Interaction. Stanford:Stanford Press. . 1964. "Social Integrationand System Integra- University Robert. 1988. and tion," pp. 244-257 in Geoerge K. Zollschen and Wuthnow, Meaning Moral Order. Walter Hirsch, eds., ExplorationsIn Social Change. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Boston: Little, Brown. Press.