Routledge Revivals

Sociology in Action

This book, first published in 1976, discusses four classical paradigms for sociology — the positivism of Saint-Simon and Comte, Durkheim, Marx and Weber — and four contemporary developments or revisions of them — the sociologie active of Dumazedier and his colleagues in France, sociology in Socialist Poland, the work of Dahrendorf and the ‘new sociology’ of Mills and his successors. Christopher Bryant suggests that no neutral language exists in which to compare the characteristics of these different paradigms, yet highlights those features which are common to all of them. Unique in its approach and analysis of the relationship between sociology and action, this book is of value and interest to students of sociology and theory and professional sociolo­ gists. This page intentionally left blank Sociology in Action A Critique of Selected Conceptions of the Social Role of the Sociologist

Christopher G. A. Bryant First published in 1976 by George Allen & Unwin Ltd

This edition first published in 2013 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 1976 Christopher G. A. Bryant

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Publisher’s Note The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent.

D isclaim er The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and welcomes correspondence from those they have been unable to contact.

A Library of Congress record exists under LC control number: 76372935

ISBN 13: 978-0-415-83164-2 (hbk) ISBN 13: 978-0-203-76893-8 (ebk) Sociology in Action

A Critique of Selected Conceptions of the Social Role of the Sociologist

CHRISTOPHER G. A. BRYANT

London George Allen & Unwin Ltd Ruskin House Museum Street First published in 1976

This book is copyright under the Berne Convention. All rights are reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, 1956, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, electrical, chemical, mechanical, optical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be addressed to the publishers.

© George Allen & Unwin Ltd 1976

ISBN 0 04 300058 4

Printed in Great Britain in 10 point Times Roman type by Redwood Burn Limited Trowbridge & Esher For Elizabeth This page intentionally left blank Acknowledgements

I wish to thank: The Nuffield Foundation for supporting this study financially; The Polish Government for a bursary which enabled me to visit Warsaw in April 1971, and the twenty-two sociologists at the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Sociology of the University of Warsaw who discussed their work with me on that occasion, especially my host Dr Edmund Mokrzycki; Professor Ralf Dahrendorf for giving me an interview in Brussels in February 1971 and for his comments on an earlier draft of Chapter 8; Professor Joffre Dumazedier and Mme Nicole Samuel for giving me an interview in Paris in June 1971; Professor Maurice Broady and Professor John Smith, my successive Ph.D supervisors, for their help and encouragement; Colleagues and students in the University of Southampton, where I have lectured since 1966, and the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University of Frankfurt am Main, which I have visited four times since 1970, for their witting and unwitting help over the years. C.G.A.B. Southampton, March 1974 This page intentionally left blank Contents

Acknowledgements page 9

1 Introduction 15

I The multi-paradigmatic state o f sociology 15 II The choice o f paradigms for discussion 17 III The sociology o f knowledge or sociology in action? 21 IV Social development and macrosociology 23 V The deterministic and active components o f action 25 V i Consciousness and the problem o f strategy 2 5 VII The relation between sociology and philosophy 27

2 Positivism 30

I Introduction 30 II Saint-Simon and Comte 31 a The relation between Saint-Simon and Comte 31 b The law of the three stages 33 c The positive philosophy and sociology 39 d The positive polity: Saint-Simon 42 e The Saint-Simonians 45 f Comte’s life and his vision of the positive polity 47 g Saint-Simon: an assessment 51 h Comte: an assessment 55 III Coda 57 a The basic tenets of (Comtean) positivism 58 b Comte and Lundberg 60 3 Durkheim page 66

I Introduction 66 II The crisis o f modern societies 67 a The division of labour 67 b The pathological forms of the division of labour 68 c Moral facts 71 d Crime 79 e Suicide 81 III Towards social reconstruction and moral regeneration 83 a Occupational associations 83 b Education 88 c Religion 91 IV Durkheim’s sociology: some general comments 94 V Durkheim’s life and politics 108 VI Durkheim: an assessment 119

4 La Sociologie active 127

I Introduction 127 II Intellectual sources 128 a Planification franqaise 128 b Positivism 135 c Marx 135 d Sartre 136 III Basic principles 138 IV Work completed and in progress 144 V La sociologie active:an assessment 147

5 Marx 150 I Introduction 150 II Conservatism and criticism 15 2 III Alienation and liberation 162 IV Materialism and praxis 167 a The material basis of society and the super­ structure 168 b The qualified rejection of determinism 171 c The link between the concept of praxis and Marx’s epistemology 174 V Marx’s praxis 178 VI Marx: an assessment 188 6 Sociology in a Socialist Society page The Case of Poland 196

I Introduction 196 II The history o f sociology in the Soviet Union and Poland 197 III Polish theoretical sociology 204 IV The sociologies o f class and occupations in Poland 207 V Future prospects for Polish sociology 214 VI The functions o f sociology in socialist societies 219

7 Weber 228

I Introduction 228 II Values and social science 230 a The choice of objects of investigation 230 b The formation of theories and ideological dis­ tortion 234 c The investigation of values 240 d The practical application of social science 242 III Politics and science as vocations 245 IV Weber's life and politics 250 V Weber: an assessment 259

8 Dahrendorf 268

I Introduction 268 II Class and conflict ^69 III Class and inequality 275 IV Class, contest and change 278 V Society and democracy in Germany 280 VI Uncertainty, science and politics 286 VII The social role o f the sociologist 290 VIII Dahrendorf s life and politics 296 IX Dahrendorf: an assessment 302 9 The New Sociology page 308

I Introduction 308 II Personal troubles o f milieu and public issues o f social structure 309 III Criticism and independence 312 IV The bureaucratic ethos 321 V Sociology: profession or discipline ? 323 VI The new sociology and reflexivity: an assessment 328

10 Conclusions 336 I The non-availability o f a neutral language for the discussion o f sociology in action 336 II Criticism and choice 340 III Concepts, commensurability and action 343 IV The need for strategy 344

Bibliography 349 1 Introduction

I THE MULTI-PARADIGMATIC STATE OF SOCIOLOGY Sociological research and teaching cannot be hermetically sealed off from other social processes: they both affect them and are affected by them. In the interests of simplicity the relations between sociology and society may be said to divide into three categories. Firstly, there are social influences upon the formation of sociological thought. Secondly, there is the influence of sociological thought upon other social processes. In either case establishing empirically the nature of these relationships poses enormous problems of research design, but if there are ever to be sociological accounts of sociological practice they will have to be faced. Thirdly, there is the question of what sociologists themselves think the object of their labours is, what they think their social role is and what social, political and economic developments they would seem to facilitate or obstruct by the very ways they construct their sociologies. It is with this third question that I am principally concerned. In referring to the construction of sociologies in the plural I wish to insist from the outset upon the multi-paradigmatic state of sociology in the past, the present and the foreseeable future. The term ‘paradigm’ is an old one but it has found a new vogue following the publication of Kuhn’s The Structure o f Scientific Revolutions in 1962.1 It is used in the latter in many different ways and it has been further varied subsequently.2 Kuhn now suggests that in a general sense a paradigm is an ‘entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by the members of a given community’, i.e. a disciplinary matrix of concepts, assumptions, basic laws, proven methods and other objects of commitment common to all practitioners of a specified discipline or a sub-discipline which may or may not be necessarily related but which certainly require individual specification.3 In a more restricted sense, however, a paradigm refers to one element in the matrix,the exemplar, 16 Sociology in Action the concrete problem solution which provides a model for subsequent inquiry. Typically the exemplar takes the form of a symbolic generalisation, a law-sketch, like f-m a (Newton’s Second Law), which has to be ‘rewritten in a different symbolic form for each physical problem before a logical and mathematical deduction are applied to it’.4 According to Kuhn, ‘physicists share few rules, explicit or implicit, by which they make the transition from law-sketch to the specific symbolic forms demanded by individual problems. Instead, exposure to a series of exemplary problem solutions teaches them to see different situations as like each other.’5 I doubt whether there are many exemplars in sociology. Sometimes particular books, Durkheim’s Suicide and Lynd’sMiddletown are favourite examples, or particular research instruments, for instance the sample survey, or particular generalisations, such as ‘the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle’, have been treated in an exemplificatory way but they still lack the concreteness and the authority of exemplars in natural science.6 On the other hand it is incontrovertible that there are a number of paradigms in the sense of disciplinary matrices extant in sociology: structural functionalism, social evolutionism, conflict theory, action theory, phenomenological soci­ ology, ethnomethodology (though some would dispute that it is a soci­ ology), to say nothing of the continuing presence of Marx, Durkheim and Weber, are only the most conspicuous. In each case we have before us a distinct constellation of values, axioms, concepts, methods and basic theories which constitutes the object world of sociology in a particular way and points up the work which needs to be done. Three further comments on the usage of the term ‘paradigm’ followed here are called for. Firstly, it is not suggested that all the elements in each sociological matrix are peculiar to it. Some may be common to more than one paradigm. Eclectic combinations of elements derived from different sociological paradigms, some ingenious, others ingenuous, are also to be found. Secondly, it is not assumed that before a paradigm can be properly so called it must, in the words of Martins, be ‘monopolistic, hegemonic and exclusive for a stretch of time’. It is enough that it provides a model for subsequent work.7 Thirdly, the term ‘paradigm-candidate’ is sometimes used to refer not to all ‘paradigms’ in sociology (Martins’ usage) but to ‘paradigms’ which have the necessary elements to orient subsequent work but which have not as yet informed much work other than that of their instigators. The multi-paradigmatic state of sociology means that it is marked by highly organised disagreement, not a disordered profusion of different views. For the most part sociologists of different persuasions are able to Introduction 17 understand one another, up to a point, even when they disagree, because they conventionally present their ideas in relation to one or more extant paradigms whose basic features are known, again up to a point, to all sociologists whether they endorse or reject them. It is this which enables sociologists to recognise themselves as such when to outsiders they seem so often to differ. Other social scientists, historians, philosophers, journalists, novelists, etc., frequently offer comments of great interest to sociologists, but their inability, and their unconcern, to relate them to sociological paradigms ensures that they remain outsiders, stimulating colleagues in other disciplines. It must not be thought that in speaking of the existence of more than one paradigm for sociology I am of necessity saying that all paradigms are incommensurable nor that one is as good as any other. But it should be recognised that conceptual discontinuities between paradigms do make comparisons difficult. Similarly they complicate assessments of progress in the succession of paradigms. I shall return to these problems in the Conclusions. My objective in this study is to describe, and where possible to criticise, those aspects of the paradigms selected for consideration which bear directly on the problem of the social role of the sociologist. Even if paradigms for sociology are not mutually exclusive in every respect, fundamental differences persist despite the best efforts of the synthesists.8 Those discussed below differ significantly in their onto­ logical, epistemological and methodological assumptions. They all acknowledge a deterministic and a voluntaristic dimension to social life but they differ on whether the world is one or many, whether it can be known by scientific or any other means, whether or not there are laws of history. They differ too on what regularity in social life resides in and on the nature of man’s subjection or consent to these regularities. They differ on whether the future will happen or is to be made, on whether the enlightened consciousness of the sociologist or anyone else can make any difference to it and consequently on what the responsibilities of the sociologist are. Finally, they differ on the relation between ‘is’ and ‘ought’, on the place of values in social science, on the possibilities of criticism and on strategies for the realisation of any proposals they advance. These differences figure prominently in the next eight chapters because they inspire or suggest quite different conceptions of the relations between sociology and society.

II THE CHOICE OF PARADIGMS FOR DISCUSSION 1920, the year of Max Weber’s death, is often regarded as a watershed 18 Sociology in Action

in the development of sociology. The century or so before that date had seen the construction of a number of paradigms for a science of society; four of these are discussed in the following chapters, the French positivists, Marx’s, Durkheim’s and Weber’s. The first of them, the positivism of Saint-Simon and Comte might seem only of historical interest inasmuch as very few contemporary sociologists profess to being Comteans, but some of the basic tenets of positivism have survived incorporated in other paradigms and in the universal com­ mitment to empirical sociology.9 The other three offered paradigms which have endured in that they are still taught in courses of sociological theory, not as historical curiosities, but as constructions of continuing relevance. In addition countless monographs have concerned themselves with applications, extensions or refutations of their ideas and many more refer to them, particularly in introductory sections, in a way which indicates to the reader what the research is about. The nineteenth-century writers who founded sociology were not interested in it for its own sake. Like the natural scientists who had set up the Royal Society of London two centuries earlier, they expected their work to solve practical problems.10 But unlike them they applied themselves not to important but limited problems such as the calculation of longitude in navigation, but to problems as all-embracing as the establishment of a new basis for order in modern society. There can be no doubt that the French Revolution and its aftermath and implications were experienced as truly revolutionary by the precursors and founders of sociology. Old economic, political and social relations had been so destroyed or so compromised that no revival could re-establish their authority. At the same time there was little agreement on the new institutions which should take their place. Both Comte and Marx, in their very distinctive ways, believed that an end could be put to what Comte called ‘the intellectual anarchy’ of the times by scientifically demonstrating what was wrong and how to put it right.11 Durkheim, who both extended and broke with the positivist tradition, was not so imperious in his ambitions as Comte. He acknowledged his limitations and those of contemporary sociology and he cautioned against the premature application of inadequately substantiated knowledge. Nevertheless he still stressed the practical uses of sociology: ‘Why strive for knowledge of reality if this knowledge cannot serve us in life?’12 Weber’s position was more complicated. Because he believed in the existence of alternative basic values which inform different policies and thus necessitate choice, his sociology cannot hope to demonstrate what must necessarily be done in any situation. Instead he proposed more subtle relations between sociology Introduction 19 and decision making, and between the calling of the scholar and that of the politician, which it is highly instructive to explore, particularly as they have so often been misunderstood. Since 1920 (Parsonian) structural-functionalism has probably com­ manded more attention than any other paradigm. I shall discuss Parsons’ ideas in relation to certain other developments in America, but it should be acknowledged at once that he is singularly unhelpful on the problem of the relation between analysis and action. The question thus arises of whether any contemporary schools of thought represent an advance on the classical paradigms. For the most part they do not, though there are partial exceptions of importance; what they do offer is a renewed insistence that the problem of analysis and action be restored to the forefront of sociological concern. I shall discuss four paradigms and paradigm-candidates: the new sociology of Mills, Horowitz and Gouldner, etc., in America; sociology in socialist societies, especially Poland;sociologie active, the brainchild of a small group of researchers led by Dumazedier at the Centre d’Etudes Sociologiques of theCNRS in Paris; and the work of Dahrendorf who has a claim to being the most distinguished contemporary sociologist to have (temporarily) forsaken academic life for politics and high office. These choices are far from self-explanatory and some comment is called for. It is often argued that commitment to practical problems, to changing the world, to action, was lost in the American sociology of the 1930s (the Chicago school excepted), the 40s and the 50s. Instead there evolved an empirical sociology, obsessed with fidelity to scientific method, which confined itself to small-scale problems of little social significance in order to attain greater methodological reliability. In time there also developed abstract conceptual ‘grand theory’, of which Parsons was the leading exponent. ‘Grand theory’ could hardly be more removed from American empiricism but it, too, was unhelpful on the problem of analysis and action. (I am not convinced that this is the whole truth about American sociology in this period but that is not the point at issue.)13 According to Mills these parallel developments of ‘abstracted empiricism’ and ‘grand theory’ were not unrelated, and in opposition to them he elaborated an alternative sociology which he claimed to be heir to the classical traditions but which Horowitz subsequently dubbed ‘the new sociology’. This sociology is dedicated to the identification of connections between the experience, hopes and fears of individuals and general developments in social structures and cultures in the belief that, once popularised, these will enable the common man to exercise greater control over his own future. It has gained in influence since Mills’ death in 1962, and it is revealing to 20 Sociology in Action examine the work of some of his successors in order to expose some of the ambiguities concealed within it and the very different developments it has proved capable of underwriting. The emergence of the new sociology in America has coincided with a great growth of sociological activity in Europe. In Britain the London School of Economics possessed the only chairs of sociology until the end of the 50s but in the next decade an extraordinary expansion saw the creation of more than thirty chairs in universities throughout the country.14 At the same time there were significant developments in Germany and France. The Polish October of 1956 made possible the re-establishment of sociology in that country and this proved the prelude to its emergence throughout eastern Europe.15 In western Europe the classical concern of Marx, Durkheim and Weber with the development of national societies had been sustained through a long period of relative inactivity; it was now coupled to a somewhat inchoate belief in a sociological contribution to the renewal of European societies. Sociology was heralded as a subject fit for our times. The inclusion ofsociologie active for discussion reflects its concern with problems of national planning and the anticipation of the future; that of Dahrendorf is interesting for his liberalism, the application of a theory of conflict to the exercise of political and moral choice, and for his translation from the scholar’s calling to that of the politician; and that of sociology in socialist societies for the problem of its relationship to Marxism-Leninism and the insufficiencies of socialist theory. I shall present the four classical paradigms and their four contem­ porary successors in three sequences: (1) the positivists, Durkheim and sociologie active, which serves to emphasise continuities in the positivist tradition; (2) Marx and sociology in socialist societies, because socialist societies are allegedly founded upon Marx’s teaching; and (3) Weber, Dahrendorf and the new sociology, because Weberian problems of the place of values in sociology and politics preoccupy both modern schools. I do not pretend that the contemporary sociologists in each group only develop and extend their respective classical forebears. Sociologie active also derives inspiration from Marx (and Sartre). Polish sociologists read Weber and respond to achievements in American sociology; they are also aware of ‘the new sociology’. Dahrendorf has formed many of his ideas in a debate with the ghost of Marx (aided by Popper and Friedman). Finally, the new sociologists acknowledge their debt to Marx (and to Veblen and Lynd). The comparison of classical and contemporary thought omits discussion of intervening figures such as Lynd, Mannheim and Myrdal. Introduction 21

These omissions, and others from the contemporary scene, are perhaps excusable inasmuch as I make no claims to comprehensive coverage and only include what seem to me the most important classical paradigms plus a selection of contemporary materials sufficiently broad to indicate most of the problems which attend the relation between sociology and action. The three most obvious contemporary omissions are perhaps the third world scene, Yugoslav sociology (instead of, or as well as, Polish sociology) and the British scene. With respect to the first I can only plead ignorance and lack of time to face the daunting task of overcoming it, but for the other two more elaborate justifications are possible. I cannot read Serbo-Croat and there are insufficient Yugoslav materials in English. The Yugoslavs do not publish an English language journal (like The Polish Sociological Bulletin) nor is there an American translation journal devoted specifically to their work (likeSoviet Sociology). There is no chapter on ‘the British school’ because there patently is not one. The British scene has been formed by a motley collection of influences including: the legacy of English individualistic positivism and social evolutionary thought; the English penchant for empirical studies including the Booth—Rowntree heritage; the develop­ ment of the British school of social anthropology; and the absorption of a host of middle European exiles, often Jewish, who were carriers of such macrosociologies as Weber’s. With all these influences the British scene has never shaken down into a single school or shown any inclination to do so. This accounts for some of its vitality, or perhaps its disarray, but makes it too confusing an object for this study. The issues are set out more clearly elsewhere. After offering critical exegesis and comparison of the eight para­ digms and paradigm-candidates with special reference to problems of sociology in action, I shall return in the Conclusions to general problems of sociology in action and the social role of the sociologist. I shall also give further thought to the notion of paradigms in sociology and to some of the differences between the sociological paradigms listed above. For the moment, however, I wish to indicate why this study is not offered as a contribution to the sociology of knowledge. This is also the appropriate point to introduce four of the themes which recur in the next eight chapters.

Ill THE SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE OR SOCIOLOGY IN ACTION? This study is not a contribution to the sociology of knowledge as it is conceived in Merton’s famous paradigm for the sub-discipline.16 Merton 22 Sociology in Action sets out the issues raised by the work of Marx, Durkheim, Scheler, Mannheim, etc. - figures who assumed for heuristic purposes a disjunction between a social or existential basis of knowledge and the structure and content of knowledge itself. In consequence they tended also to minimise voluntarism in social life. Although it is instructive to identify, say, the class or generational basis of ideas, the distortions involved in the separation of social bases from ideas are sometimes unacceptable. To refer to a class structure is to refer to a particular structure of social relations which in turn refers to the way men act towards one another. Any analysis of action must take into account the actor’s definition of his situation, including the presence of other actors, his goals and the norms and expectations of him which he acknowledges. Definitions of the situation, goals, norms and expectations are all ideas (‘knowledge’ to the sociologist of knowledge) and components of social relations. The social bases of ideas and ideas themselves cannot be easily separated because the social basis is constituted by institutions, structures of social relations, of which ideas are a component. In Parsonian terms there is an inter­ penetration of the social system (social structure) and the cultural system (ideas).17 In choosing a title for this work, I wanted to allude to the possibility of sociological ideas interpenetrating social relations. Sociology in Action does this so succinctly that I decided to use it even though it is not original. (Shostak employed it for a collection of essays on the contribution of sociology to the elaboration of social welfare programmes and social work policies.)18 It would be wrong to imply that all ideas interpenetrate social relations to an equal extent. Some ideas have many implications for action, others few. Some change the way men consider themselves, other men, and the world about them; others are irrelevant or incomprehensible. But because ideas do, in varying degrees, become part of social relations, then reflection upon alternative ideas may change social relations, and sociological ideas are bound to be contested. It is true, however, that most men engage in most action without thinking about it and considering other possibilities. Interest­ ingly both Durkheim and Weber made reflection, and the awareness of alternatives, the distinguishing characteristic of rational action, and both regarded rational action as exceptional (though they earnestly hoped that secularisation and the expansion of education would make it less so). The fact that man is a conscious being does not mean that he is equally conscious about everything all the time. His consciousness is often only potential, or dormant, effectively in abeyance. Sociologists of knowledge are probably justified in assuming that the forms which Introduction 23 ideas take are sufficiently regularly related to variations in social structure for the active potential of man’s consciousness to be ignored. In addition they are often concerned with the past, even if that was only seconds ago, and in the past the open character of human possibility has been closed for ever. Such opportunities for choice as existed have all been exercised — or not, which amounts to the same thing inasmuch as failure to choose is itself a kind of choice with consequences of its own. Sociologists are reluctant to concede that any act is totally inexplicable: there are no unmoved movers. Sociologists considering the past thus tend to try and explain all so that not only is the past closed but it seems that it was never open. The future, in contrast, is open to the extent that reflection and circumstance permit choice, and in the longer term even circumstances may be changed. The sociologist who seeks to change the world, whether he means to transform it totally or reform it little by little or whatever, must pin his faith on stimulating reflection, influencing choice and mobilising action. The Mertonian paradigm for the sociology of knowledge does not provide for this possibility and in consequence is of little help to this inquiry.

IV SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND MACROSOCIOLOGY Each of the paradigms and paradigm-candidates discussed possesses two features which would seem indispensable for any sociology which seeks to influence social development. Firstly, each locates social relations in an historical, developmental or evolutionary framework, and secondly, each approaches them at a macrolevel. Whatever their differences on the status and nature of historical laws or trends, on the dialectic in history, the logic of industrialism, etc., each is agreed that if one is to change the world one must first ascertain the position from which one starts, and to do that one must establish how the world came to be what it is and what it will become in the future in the absence of any social intervention. Inquiries of this kind almost inevitably proceed at the macrolevel. I do not intend to specify what counts as a macrolevel — world, nation, region, culture area, international economic system, all these and others are possible; but that the writers discussed think big is made plain enough by the questions they ask. How can the triumph of communism be facilitated? How can the moral regeneration of France be secured? How can the workers be integrated in the German nation? What kind of future do the people of France want and what can they have? Can liberal democracy at last take root in Germany? Whatever happened to 24 Sociology in Action democracy in America? From Saint-Simon to Dahrendorf they pursue the questions which matter and refuse to confine the substance of their work to what the received methods of exact social science permit. This is not to say that they are indifferent to scientific procedure; on the contrary, they are methodological innovators who try to devise methods to match their objectives. None of this is to claim that historically informed macrosociology is necessarily detached from microlevel work and more formal theorising. Far from it: there are often possibilities of movement between levels and between more historical and more abstract theories. To take an example, Moynihan has pointed to the filiation of ideas from Durkheim’s theory of anomie to the (American) Economic Oppor­ tunity Act of 1964.19 Durkheim’s conception of anomie inSuicide differs from that inThe Division o f Labour, but in both cases it is related to a theory of increasing structural differentiation which can be stated formally but which was nonetheless worked out with the experience of particular societies in mind. Durkheim was moved to identify the pathological forms of the division of labour in response to the development of{laissez-faire) capitalism in France and Britain. Merton’s essay on ‘Social Structure and Anomie’ (1938) assumes the internalisation by all Americans of certain values and goals concerning economic success and then considers possible responses to a lack of legitimate means (or opportunities) for realising them.20 Cloward and Ohlin in Delinquency and Opportunity make use of the concept of opportunity in their attempt to account for the extent and character of juvenile delinquency in America.21 Finally, the Economic Opportunity Act offered a package of programmes as part of the war on poverty the original objective of which was to provide legitimate opportunities for economic and social betterment to youths who might otherwise pass into delinquency. In this example it is not easy to specify where historically informed macroanalysis relating economic, political and social processes ends and formal and/or microlevel analyses of means—ends relationships, motiva­ tion and self-esteem, the formation of consciousness among particular groups at particular times, etc., begins. But unless the big questions are put, and not forgotten, it is hard to see how intellectual activity can ever lead to radical change. Kennedy’s new frontiersmen who framed the Economic Opportunity Act, for example, continued to accept the economic and social system which gave rise to the lack of opportunity. They settled for measures external to the system itself which promised to divert potential delinquents from unacceptable activity. The Act was a palliative that failed. Introduction 25

V THE DETERMINISTIC AND ACTIVE COMPONENTS OF ACTION Any sociologist seeking to change the world must inevitably, whether he so conceptualises it or not, include a deterministic and an active component in his work. His analysis of the interrelation of different social processes enables him to identify what is happening in contem­ porary societies, how it came about, and what may be expected in the future — or so at least he hopes. But he also believes, whatever determinism or materialism he may or may not subscribe to, that his analysis must, could, or might just possibly, make some sort of difference. If he did not believe this his labours would be redundant. He may meet with considerable, partial or negligible success, but he has to believe in the possibility of success. If the acts of man were wholly determined by internal and external forces beyond his control then to speak of his freedom would be nonsensical. There could be no hope of changing the world and man would have to resign himself to his fate. If, on the other hand, one assumes that authentic man would be totally free of all constraints, including conventional ones, then he would not be able to predict the consequences of his actions, for he could not anticipate the meaning other free men would place upon them. Nor could he embark on any project whose realisation depended upon others acting in expected ways for he could not anticipate the actions of totally free beings. In short he could not be held accountable for the consequences of his actions. As both freedom and accountability are very widely acclaimed as human values it is hardly surprising that all the paradigms and paradigm-candidates discussed below should seek some way of reconcil­ ing them.

VI CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE PROBLEM OF STRATEGY Sociologists and men of action have each made difficulties for themselves on numerous occasions by failing to distinguish between logical necessities, invariable laws, functional imperatives, norms and other sources of order and regularity in social life, for some of these may be overturned or amended more readily than others. Early this century Stammler gave a classic formulation to this problem when he challenged Marxists who believe that the coming of socialism is as inevitable as an eclipse of the sun to say why they should have to work so hard to bring it about.22 As Jordan notes, ‘If the advent of socialism is an inevitable event, it would be silly and absurd to say that people should exert themselves to bring it about. The 26 Sociology in Action

silliness and absurdity of this demand are due to the fact that a certain state of affairs is considered as both necessary, come what may, and as an event to be affected by what people do or fail to do.’23 It is possible, however, to argue that what is inevitable is that people will exert themselves to bring it about, and this is precisely what Bukharin did in his reply to Stammler:24 ‘An eclipse of the sun does not depend either directly or indirectly on human desires; in fact, it does not dependmen on at all... The case with social phenomena is entirely different, for they are accomplished through the will of men . . . Socialism will come inevitably because it is inevitable that men, definite classes of men, will stand for its realization, and they will do so under circumstances that will make their victory certain. Marxism does not deny the will, but explains it. When Marxists organize the Communist Party and lead it into battle, this action is also an expression of historial necessity, which finds its form precisely through the will and the actions of men.’ The adequacy of Bukharin’s reply to Stammler is a matter for debate but the exchange does serve to illustrate the difficulties of simultaneously giving the inevitabilities and the possibilities of social life their due. There are two other problems of consciousness in action which should be mentioned at once. One concerns the means whereby sociological ideas inform action and the strategies to be adopted by those whose goal this is. The positivists, for example, placed great faith in the demonstrable superiority of their conclusions and the power of education; Weber sought to influence influential men though he forsook some of the opportunities German universities offered for the promotion of political views among students; the proponents of sociologie active have associated themselves with the machinery of planification though they also cherish dreams of mass participation in making the future; etc., etc. The problem of strategy recurs in all the succeeding chapters although I shall argue in the Conclusions that nothing like enough attention is paid to it. The second problem is especially difficult and sometimes has sinister overtones. What is the sociologist to do if he believes that the publication of his work will have, or might have, harmful conse­ quences? Pareto found an easy solution. According to Aron: ‘... Pareto is very much aware that it is not science which causes men to act. He even writes somewhere that if he thought his writings were going to be widely read he would not publish them. For, he said, one cannot explain by means of the logico-experimental method what the Introduction 27 social order is without destroying its foundation. Society, he said, is held together only be feelings, which are not true but which are effective. If the sociologist shows people the wrong side of the embroidery or what goes on behind the scenes, he runs the risk of destroying indispensable illusions.’25 For Pareto sociology was saved from doing harm by the fact that no one took much notice of it. But suppose this is no longer so. What is the sociologist to do if he believes that his ideas might be used in some quarters for ends that are unacceptable to him? Press on regardless, keep quiet, or what? Or should the ‘truth’ be established ‘pragmatically’ anyway? Should those who produce ideas relate them to their social consequences and the responses they will elicit in others?

VII THE RELATION BETWEEN SOCIOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY Many sociologists, Comte and Durkheim among them, have heralded the emancipation of sociology from philosophy. Philosophy, they declare, is a priori and speculative whereas sociology is empirical. Moreover sociologists (and social anthropologists) have elaborated a theory of social structure which, although not beyond philosophical endeavour, owes little to it. Sociology has acquiredde facto autonomy. Yet no sociologist can work without an epistemology and without taking a position on the ontological status of social reality. Unwilling­ ness to admit this has made many an exchange between contesting schools hollow. Some sociologists, Comte, Durkheim and Marx among them, have also pursued a sociology of politics and ethics which, though not preventing men from choosing error, is intended to identify sociologically the one right choice. Others, less bold, have insisted that the sociological contribution to the exercise of political and moral choice is strictly limited and have pondered the relation between sociology and philosophy in these fields too.

NOTES 1 According to Toulmin, the termparadeigma was introduced in the mid-eighteenth century by G.C. Lichtenburg to refer to fundamental patterns of explanation. See S. Toulmin,Human Understanding, vol 1, 1972, p 106. 2 M. Masterman, ‘The Nature of a Paradigm’, 1970, detects twenty-one different uses of the term ‘paradigm’ in T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1st ed, 1962. For subsequent developments of the term see Kuhn, ‘Reflections on 28 Sociology in Action

my Critics’, 1970a, and ‘Postscript - 1969’ to the 2nd ed, 1970b, of Kuhn 1962. 3 The quotation is from 1970b, p 175. The term ‘disciplinary matrix’ is introduced in 1970a, p 271. 4 1970a, p 272. 5 ibid, pp 272-3. 6 E. Durkheim, Suicide, (Fr 1897), Eng ed 1952; R.S. Lynd, Middletown, 1929. The quotation is from K. Marx and F. Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, (Germ 1848), inMESW, vol 1, p 34. 7 H. Martins, ‘The Khunian “Revolution” and its Implications for Sociology’, 1972, p 53. R.W. Friedrichs, A Sociology of Socio­ logy, 1970, takes a quite different view. He argues that (Parsonian) structural-functionalism did achieve a near- monopolistic status in American sociology but that the time has come for a revolution. A.W. Gouldner, The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, 1971, shares this view. See also C.G.A. Bryant, ‘Kuhn, Paradigms and Sociology’, 1975a. 8 I think the great influence of T. Parsons,The Structure of Social Action, 1937, has been particularly unfortunate in view of its dismissal of Marx, its confused treatment of positivism in Britain and France and its distortions of Durkheim and Weber. The convergence between the ‘positivist’ and ‘idealist’ traditions in sociology which it proclaims is largely spurious. 9 This is not to say that empirical social research originated in the rise of positivist theory. On the contrary, it had independent origins. See A. Oberschall (ed),The Establishment of Empirical Sociology, 1972, and C.G.A. Bryant, ‘Positivism Reconsidered’, 1975b. 10 See R.K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, 2nd rev ed 1957, ch 19. 11 H. Martineau (ed), The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte, 1853, vol l,p 22. 12 E. Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method, (Fr 1895), Eng ed 1938, p 48. 13 On the history of American sociology, see R.C. and G.J. Hinkle, The Development of Modern Sociology, 1954, and A. Oberschall, ‘The Institutionalization of American Sociology’, in Oberschall (ed), 1972. For information without much analysis see H.W. Odum, American Sociology, 1951. 14 There were, however, sociology chairs in fact if not in name at some other centres, notably Liverpool University. 15 The Yugoslavs had begun even earlier. 16 Merton, 2nd rev ed 1957, ch 12. 17 See T. Parsons, The Social System, 1951. 18 A.B. Shostak (ed), Sociology in Action: Case Studies in Social Problems and Directed Social Change, 1964. Introduction 29

19 D.P. Moynihan,Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding, 1969. 20 Merton, 2nd rev ed 1957, ch 4. In response to Merton, Hyman indicated that there are important differences in the value systems of different classes in America. See H.H. Hyman, ‘The Value Systems of Different Classes’, 1953. 21 R.A. Cloward and L. Ohlin,Delinquency and Opportunity, 1960. 22 See Z.A. Jordan,The Evolution of Dialectical Materialism, 1967, pp 386-9. 23 ibid, p 386. 24 N. Bukharin, Historial Materialism: a System of Sociology, (Russ 1921), Enged 1969, p 51. 25 R. Aron, Main Currents in Sociological Thought, vol 2, 1968, p 3. Aron also discusses this example in ‘Science et conscience de la societe’, 1960, p 3. Bibliography

Where two dates are given the first is that of the first edition (unless otherwise indicated) and the second is that of the reprint cited. Where no place of publication is given the book was published in London.

Abbreviations AJS American Journal of Sociology ASR American Sociological Review BJS British Journal of Sociology EJS European Journal o f Sociology MESW Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Selected works, q.v. PSB Polish Sociological Bulletin Rfs Revue franqaise de sociologie S Sociology Soc Res. Social Research SR Sociological Review Works Cited Abel, T., 1950, Sociology in Post-War Poland,ASR, 15. Alpert, H., 1939,Emile Durkheim and his Sociology, Columbia UP, NY. Annan, N.G., 1959, The Curious Strength of Positivism in English Political Thought, Hobhouse Memorial Trust Lecture 28, Oxford UP. Aron, R., Fr 1937,German Sociology, Heinemann, 1957. 1960, Science et conscience de la societe,EJS, 1. Fr 1961, 18 Lectures on Industrial Society, Weidenfeld & N., 1967. Fr 1967, Main Currents in Sociological Thought, Weidenfeld & N., vol 1 1965, vol 2 1968. Avineri, S., 1970, The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx, Cambridge UP, Cambridge. Baritz, L., 1960, The Servants of Power: a History of the Use o f Social 350 Sociology in Action

Science in American Industry, Wesleyan UP, Middletown. Bauman, Z., 1962, Social Structure of the Party Organisation in Industrial Works, PSB, no 3-4 (5-6). 1964, Economic Growth, Social Structure, Elite Formation: the Case of Poland,International Social Science Journal, 16. 1967a, Image of Man in the Modern Sociology,PSB, no 1 (15). 1967b, Modern Times, Modern Marxism,Soc Res, 34. 1971, Social Dissent in the East-European Political System,EJS, 12. Bendix, R., 1960, Max Weber: an Intellectual Portrait, Doubleday, N.Y. & Lipset, S.M. (eds), 1953, Class, Status and Power, 1st ed, Free Press, Glencoe. & Lipset, S.M. (eds), 1968, Class, Status and Power, 2nd rev ed, Routledge & K.P. & Roth, G. 1971, Scholarship and Partisanship: Essays on Max Weber, California UP, Berkeley. BSnoit-Smullyan, E. 1948, The Sociologism of Emile Durkheim and his School, in H.E. Barnes (ed),An Introduction to the History of Sociology, Chicago UP, Chicago, 1966. Bensaid, G., 1969, La Culture planifiee?, Le Seuil, Paris. Berger, P.L. (ed), 1969, Marxism and Sociology: Views from Eastern Europe,, Appleton, Century, Crofts, N.Y. Berlin, I., 1939, Karl Marx, 3rd rev ed, Oxford UP, 1963. Birnbaum, N., 1968, The Crisis in Marxist Sociology, Soc Res, 35. Blumenberg, W., Germ 1962, Karl Marx: an Illustrated Biography, New Left Books, 1972. Bosserman, P., 1968, Dialectical Sociology, Porter Sargent, Boston. Bottomore, T.B. (ed), 1963, Karl Marx: Early Writings, Watts. 1966, Karl Marx: Sociologist or Marxist?, Science and Society, 30. & Rubel, M. (eds), 1956, Karl Marx: Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy Watts. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.C., 1967, Sociology and Philosophy in France since 1945, Soc Res, 34. Bramson, L., 1961, The Political Context of Sociology, Princeton UP, Princeton. Brogan, D., 1940, The Development of Modern France, rev ed, Hamish Hamilton, 1967. Bryant, C.G.A., 1970, In Defence of Sociology: a Reply to Some Contemporary Philosophical Problems, BJS, 21. 1972, Sociology and Socialism in Poland: a View from the West, Soc Res, 39. 1975a, Kuhn, Paradigms and Sociology,BJS , 26. 1975b, Positivism Reconsidered,SR, 23. Bukharin, N., Russ 1921, Historical Materialism: a System of Bibliography 351

Sociology, Michigan UP, Ann Arbor, 1969. Burns, T., 1967, Sociological Explanation, BJS, 18. Burrow, J.W., 1966, Evolution and Society, Cambridge UP, Cambridge. Cain, L.D., 1967, The A.M.A. and the Gerontologists: Uses and Abuses of ‘A Profile of the Aging: U.S.A.’, in G. Sjoberg (ed), 1967, q.v. Charlton, D.G., 1963, Secular Religions in France, 1815-70, Oxford UP. Cherns, A.B., Sinclair, R., & Jenkins, W.I. (eds), 1972,Social Science and Government: Policies and Problems, Tavistock. Clark, C.G., 1940, The Conditions of Economic Progress, 3rd rev ed, Macmillan, 1957. Clark, T., 1968a, Emile Durkheim and the Institutionalization of Sociology in the French University System,EJS, 9. 1968b, The Structure and Functions of a Research Institute: the ‘Annee Sociologique’,EJS, 9. Cloward, R.A., & Ohlin, L., 1960, Delinquency and Opportunity, Free Press, N.Y. Cohen, G.A. 1966, Beliefs and Roles, Proceedings o f the Aristotelian Society,61. 1968, The Workers and the Word: Why Marx had the Right to Think He was Right, Praxis, 3-4. Cohen, P.S., 1968, Modem Social Theory, Heinemann. Coleman, T., 1973, The Cassandra of the Commission,The Guardian, 26 March 73. Comte, A., 1824, Systeme de politique positive, ‘Les principaux libraries’, Paris. Also published as H. de Saint-Simon,Catechisme des industriels, 3e cahier, S6tier, Paris, 1824. 1830—42, Cours de philosophie positive, 6 vols, Rouen freres (Bachelier), Paris. 1851—4, Systeme de politique positive, 4 vols, Mathias, Paris. Eng trans, Longmans, Green & Co, 1875-7. Coser, L.A., 1960, Durkheim’s Conservatism and its Implications for his Sociological Theory, in K. Wolff (ed), 1960, q.v. 1971, Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, N.Y. Crossland, N., 1969, Brownshirts Washed White, The Guardian, 5 August 69. Dahrendorf, R., n.d. (c 1952),Marx in Perspektive, Dietz, Hanover. 1956, Unskilled Labour in British Industry, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London. Germ 1957, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society, rev, Routledge & K.P., 1959. 1961a, European Sociology and the American Self-Image,EJS, 12. Germ 1961b, Values and Social Science, inEssays, q.v., ch 1. Germ 1961c, rev 1966, On the Origin of Inequality among Men, 352 Sociology in Action

in Essays, q.v., ch 6. Germ 1963, Uncertainty, Science and Democracy, inEssays, q.v., ch 9. Germ 1965, Society and Democracy in Germany, rev, Weidenfeld & N., 1968c. Germ 1966, Market and Plan, in Essays, q.v., ch 8. Germ 1967a, Sociology and the Sociologist, inEssays , q.v., ch 10. 1967b, Conflict after Class, Noel Buxton Lecture 3, University of Essex, Longmans. 1968a, In Praise of Thrasymachus, in Essays, q.v., ch 5. 1968b, Essays in the Theory of Society, Routledge & K.P. n.d. (c 1968), The Tradition of Authority, Democracy and Social Structure in Germany, pamphlet obtained from German Em­ bassy, London, 1968. No details of publication given. 1971a, Uber Brussel hinaus, Die Zeit, 9 July 71. 1971b, Ein neues Ziel fur Europa,Die Zeit, 16 July 71. 1973a, Towards a European Science Policy, Fawley Foundation Lecture 19, Southampton UP, Southampton. 1973b, A Personal Vote of Thanks [to T.H. Marshall], BJS, 24. Dawe, A., 1970, The Two Sociologies, BJS, 21. Denitch, B., 1971, Sociology in Eastern Europe: Some Speculations about the Recent Developments,Slavic Review, 30. Djilas, M., 1957, The New Class: an Analysis of The Communist System, Praeger, N.Y. Doktor, K., 1962, Research on Behaviour and Opinions of Workers in a Polish Factory, PSB, no 1—2 (3—4). Douglas, J., 1967, The Social Meanings of Suicide, Princeton UP, Princeton. Dronberger, I., 1971, The Political Thought of Max Weber: in Quest of Statesmanship, Appleton, Century, Crofts, N.Y. Dumazedier, J., Fr 1962, Towards a Society of Leisure, Free Press, N.Y., 1967. 1966, Les Nouvelles Relations du loisir et du developpement culturel en France depuis l’annee 1953, in J.—D. Reynaud (ed), 1966, q.v. 1967, Une Sociologie previsionelle et differentielle du loisir, Cahiers internationaux de sociologie, 42. 1971, Leisure and Post-Industrial Societies, in M. Kaplan & D. Bosserman (eds), Technology, Human Values and Leisure, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1971. & Ripert, A., 1966, Loisir et culture, Le Seuil, Paris. & Imbert, M., 1967, Espace et loisir, 2 vols, CRU, Paris. & Laplante, M., 1969, Methode comparative et prevision soci- ologique, Cahiers internationaux de sociologie, 47. & Samuel, N., 1969, Industrial Societies and Leisure Time, Leisure and Society, 1. Bibliography 353

& Samuel, N., Loisir et societe, forthcoming. Durkheim, E., 1889, Review of F. Tonnies, Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, Revue philosophique, 27. Fr 1893, The Division of Labour in Society, Free Press, Glencoe, 1933. Fr 1895, The Rules of Sociological Method, Free Press, Glencoe, 1938. writ 1895—6, pub Fr 1928, Socialism and Saint-Simon, Antioch Press, Yellow Springs, 1958. Fr 1897, Suicide, Routledge & K.P., 1952. Fr 1898a, Individual and Collective Representations,Sociology in and Philosophy, q.v. 1898b, L’Individualisme et les intellectuels,Revue bleu, 4e serie, 10. For Eng trans see S. Lukes, 1969. writ 1898—1900, pub 1950, Leqons de sociologie: physique des moeurs et du droit. Trans, Professional Ethics and Civic Morals, Routledge & K.P., 1957. Fr 1901a, Preface to 2nd ed ofThe Rules, q.v. 1901b, Deux Lois de revolution penalt, L'Annee Sociologique, 4. Fr 1902, Some Notes on Occupational Groups, Preface to 2nd ed of The Division of Labour, q.v. writ 1902—3, pub Fr 1925, Moral Education, Free Press, Glencoe, 1961. 1905, On the Relation of Sociology to the Social Sciences and to Philosophy, Sociological Papers, vol 1, Macmillan. Fr 1906, The Determination of the Moral Fact, inSociology and Philosophy, q.v. Fr 1911a, Education, inEducation and Sociology, q.v. Fr 1911b, Value Judgements and Judgments of Reality, in Sociology and Philosophy, q.v. Fr 1912, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, Collier, N.Y., 1961. writ 1913—14, pub Fr 1955, Pragmatism and Sociology, part trans in K.H. Wolff (ed), 1960, q.v. Fr 1915, ‘ Germany Above AIV, Armand Colin, Paris, 1915. Fr 1922, Education and Sociology, Free Press, Glencoe, 1956. Fr 1924, Sociology and Philosophy, Cohen & West, 1953. & Mauss, M., Fr 1903, Primitive Classification, Cohen & West, 1963. Eldridge, J.E.T., 1971, Weber’s Approach to the Sociological Study of Industrial Workers, in A. Sahay (ed), 1971, q.v. (ed), 1971,Max Weber, Michael Joseph. Engels, F., Germ 1845, The Conditions of the Working Class in England in 1844, Lovell, N.Y., 1887. Epstein, S., Russ 1965, Learned Henchmen of Capital, in P. Hollander (ed), 1969, q.v. 354 Sociology in Action

Erhard, L., writ Germ 1945—62, The Economics of Success, Thames & H., 1963. Evans-Pritchard, E.E., 1937, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande, Oxford UP, Oxford. Fischer, G.W., 1964, Science and Politics: the New Sociology in the Soviet Union, Cornell Research Papers in International Studies 1, Cornell UP, Ithaca. (ed), 1966, Science and Ideology in Soviet Society, Atherton, N.Y. Fletcher, R., 1966, Auguste Comte and the Making of Sociology, August Comte Memorial Trust Lecture 7, Athlone Press. 1971, The Making of Sociology: a Study of Sociological Theory, 2 vols, Michael Joseph. Freud, S., Germ 1930, Civilisation and its Discontents, rev, Hogarth Press, 1963. Friedman, M., 1962, Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago UP, Chicago. Friedmann, G., Fr 1956, The Anatomy of Work, Heinemann, 1961. Friedrichs, R.W., 1970,A Sociology of Sociology, Free Press, N.Y. Galbraith, J.K., 1967, The New Industrial State, Hamish Hamilton. Galeski, B., Pol 1966, Basic Concepts of Rural Sociology, Manchester UP, Manchester, 1972. Gay, P., 1967, The Enlightenment: an Interpretation of the Rise of Modern Paganism, Weidenfeld & N. Geiger, T., 1949, Die Klassengesellschaft im Schmelztiegel, Kiepen- heuer, Cologne. Gellner, E., 1962, Concepts and Society,Transactions of the 5th World Congress of Sociology, vol 1. Gerth, H.H., & Mills, C.W. (eds), 1948,From Max Weber, Routledge & K.P Giddens, A., 1968, ‘Power’ in the Recent Writings of Talcott Parsons,S, 2. 1970, Marx, Weber and the Development of Capitalism,S, 4. 1971a, Capitalism and Modern Social Theory, Cambridge UP, Cambridge. 1971b, Durkheim’s Political Sociology, SR, 19. 1971c, The ‘Individual’ in the Writings of Durkheim,EJS, 12. 1972, Politics and Sociology in the Thought of Max Weber, Macmillan. Goldthorpe, J.H., 1964, Social Stratification in Industrial Society, in P. Halmos (ed), The Development of Industrial Society, Sociological Review Monograph 8. Lockwood, D., Bechhofer, F., & Platt, J., 1968, The Affluent Worker: Political Attitudes and Behaviour, Cambridge UP, Cambridge. Gouldner, A.W., 1962, Anti-Minotaur: the Myth of a Value-Free Sociology, rev, in I.L. Horowitz (ed), 1964, q.v. Bibliography 355

1971, The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, Heinemann. & Miller, S.M. (eds), 1965, Applied Sociology: Opportunities and Problems, Free Press, N.Y. Gruson, C., 1964, Planification economique et recherches soci- ologiques, Rfs, 5. Gurvitch, G., & Moore, W.E. (eds), 1945, Twentieth Century Sociology, The Philosophical Library, N.Y. Habermas, J., 1963, Theorie und Praxis: Sozialphilosophische Studien, Luchterhand, Neuwied-Berlin. Hackett, J. & A.-M., 1963, Economic Planning in France, Allen & U. Hayward, J.E.S., 1960, Solidarist Syndicalism: Durkheim and Duguit, SR, 8. 1966, Private Interests and Public Policy, Longmans. 1967, Le Fonctionnement des Commissions et la preparation du Ve Plan, Rfs, 7. Hecker, J.F., 1934, Russian Sociology, Chapman & Hall. Hertz, A., 1951, The Case of the Eastern European Intelligentsia, Journal of Central European Affairs, 11. Hinkle, R.C. & G.J., 1954, The Development of Modern Sociology: its Nature and Growth in the United States, Random House, N.Y. Hochfeld, J., 1962, Sociology and the Public in Present-Day Poland, Transactions of the 5 th World Congress of Sociology, vol 1. 1967, The Concept of Class Interest, PSB, no 2(16). Hollander, P. (ed), 1969,American and Soviet Society, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Honigsheim, P., Germ 1963, Memories of Max Weber, in On Max Weber, Free Press, N.Y., 1968. Horkheimer, M., 1965, Untitled contribution to discussion on value- freedom and objectivity, in O. Stammer (ed), 1971, q.v. Horowitz, I.L., 1963a, Establishment Sociology: the Value of being Value-free, in Professing Sociology, q.v., ch 10. 1963b, Sociology for Sale, in Professing Sociology, q.v., ch 11. (ed), 1964, The New Sociology, Oxford UP, N.Y. (ed), 1967a, The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1967b, Social Science and Public Policy, inProfessing Sociology q.v., ch 18. 1968, Professing Sociology, Aldine, Chicago. 1970, Radicalism and Contemporary American Society, in S.E. Deutsch & J. Howard (eds), 1970, q.v. in Other Works. & Strong, M.S. (eds), 1971,Sociological Realities, Harper & Row, N.Y. Hughes, H.S., 1959, Consciousness and Society, MacGibbon & Kee. Hyman, H.H., 1953, The Value Systems of Different Classes, in R. Bendix & S.M. Lipset (eds), 1953, q.v. Jaspers, K., Germ 1958, Max Weber, in Leonardo, Descartes, Max 356 Sociology in Action

Weber: Three Essays, Routledge & K.P., 1965. Jordan, Z.A., 1963, Philosophy and Ideology: the Development of Philosophy and Marxism-Leninism in Poland since the Second World War, Reidel, Dordrecht. 1967, The Evolution of Dialectical Materialism, Macmillan. (ed), 1971,Karl Marx Michael Joseph. Kammari, M.D., & Kabaev, G.I., 1965, Problems of Historical Materi­ alism and Concrete Sociological Research, in U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences (ed), 1965, q.v. Kassof, A., 1965, American Sociology through Soviet Eyes, ASR, 30. Kline, G.L., 1969, Was Marx an Ethical Humanist?, Studies in Soviet Thought, 9. Kolakowski, L., Pol 1958, In Praise of Inconsistency, inMarxism and Beyond, q.v. Pol 1959a, Karl Marx and the Classical Definition of Truth, in Marxism and Beyond, q.v. Pol 1959b, The Priest and the Jester, inMarxism and Beyond, q.v. 1969, Marxism and Beyond, Pall Mall. 1971, A Pleading for Revolution: a Rejoinder to Z. Bauman,EJS, 12. Kon, I., Russ 1964, Review of I.L. Horowitz (ed), The New Sociology, Soviet Sociology, 4, 1965. 1967, The Concept of Alienation in Modern Society,Soc Res, 34. Konstantinov, F., & Kelle, V., Russ 1965, Historical Materialism — Marxist Sociology, in P. Hollander (ed), 1969, q.v. Kornhauser, W., 1959, The Politics of Mass Society, Free Press, Glencoe. Korsch, K., 1937, Leading Principles of Marxism: a Restatement, in Three Essays on Marxism, Pluto Press, 1971. Kozakiewicz, M., 1973, New Village School, Polish Perspectives, 16. Kozyr-Kowalski, S., 1968, Weber and Marx, PSB, no 1 (17). Kuhn, T.S., 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago UP, Chicago. 1970a, Reflections on my Critics, in I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (eds), 1970, q.v. 1970b, Postscript - 1969, to 2nd ed of Kuhn, 1962, Chicago UP, Chicago Kurczewski, J., & Lutyk, A., 1967, Futurological Conference, PSB, no 2(16). Kuron, J., & Modzelewski, K., Pol c 1964, A Revolutionary Socialist Manifesto, International Socialism, n.d. (c 1968). LaCapra, D., 1972, Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher, Cornell UP, Ithaca. Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (eds), 1970, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge UP, Cambridge. Lane, D., 1970, Ideology and Sociology in the U.S.S.R.,BJS , 11. Bibliography 357

1971, The End of Inequality? Stratification under State Socialism, Penguin, Harmondsworth. & Kolankiewicz, G. (eds), 1973, Social Groups in Polish Society, Macmillan. Laski, H.J., 1936, The Rise of European Liberalism, Allen & U. Lazarsfeld, P.F., & Thielens, W., 1958, The Academic Mind, Free Press, Glencoe. Lenin, V.I., Russ 1896—9, The Development of Capitalism in Russia, FLPH, Moscow, 1956. Russ 1902, What is to be Done?, Martin Lawrence, 1933. Russ 1908—9, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, FLPH, Moscow, 1947. Russ 1918, The State and the Revolution, FLPH, Moscow, n.d. Lichtheim, G., 1966, Marxism in Modern France, Columbia UP, N.Y. 1968, The Origins of Socialism, Praeger, N.Y. Lowenstein, K., 1966, Max Weber's Political Ideas in the Perspective of our Time, Massachussets UP, Amherst. Lukacs, G., Fr 1955, Max Weber and German Sociology, Economy and Society, 1, 1972. Lukes, S., 1969, Durkheim’s ‘Individualism and the Intellectuals’, Political Studies, 17. 1971, Prolegomena to the Interpretation of Durkheim,EJS, 12. 1973, Emile Durkheim: his Life and Work, Allen Lane. Lundberg, G.A., 1947,Can Science Save Us?, 2nd rev ed, McKay, N.Y., 1961. 1955, The Natural Science Trend in Society,AJS, 61. Lutynski, J., 1969, The New Unified Sociology Curriculum in Poland, PSB, no 1 (19). Lutz, V., 1969, Central Planning for the Market Economy: an Analysis of the French Theory and Experience, Longmans. Lynd, R.S., 1939,Knowledge for What?, Princeton UP, Princeton. & H.M., 1929, Middletown, Harcourt Brace, N.Y. Lyons, G.M., 1969, The Uneasy Partnership: Social Science and the Federal Government in the Twentieth Century, Russell Sage, N.Y. McLellan, D., 1970, Marx before Marxism, Macmillan. 1971, The Thought of Karl Marx, Macmillan. 1973, Karl Marx: his Life and Thought, Macmillan. McManners, J., 1972,Church and State in France 1870-1914, SPCK. MacRae, D.G., 1961 , Ideology and Society, Heinemann. 1965, Karl Marx, New Society, 5. Malewski, A., writ Pol 1958, Attitudes of the Employees from Warsaw Enterprises towards the Differentiation of Wages and the Social System in May 1958, PSB, no 2 (24), 1971. 1963, The Degree of Status Incongruence and its Effects,PSB, no 1 (7). 358 Sociology in Action

Malinowski, B., 1944, A Scientific Theory of Culture, North Carolina UP, Chapel Hill. Mannheim, K., 1932, American Sociology: Review of S.A. Rice (ed), Methods in Social Science, reprinted in M. Stein & A. Vidich (eds), 1963, q.v. Manser, A., 1966, Sartre: a Philosophic Study, Athlone Press. Manuel, F.E., 1956, The New World of Henri de Saint-Simon, Harvard UP, Cambridge, Mass. 1962, The Prophets of Paris, Harvard UP, Cambridge, Mass. Marcuse, H., 1941, Reason and Revolution, rev, Humanities Press, N.Y., 1954. Germ 1964, Industrialization and Capitalism in the Work of Max Weber, inNegations, Allen Lane, 1969. Markham, F., 1952, Introduction to H. de Saint-Simon,Selected Writings, q.v. Markiewicz, W., 1970, Sociology in People's Poland, Ossolineum, Warsaw. Marshall, T.H., 1950, Citizenship and Social Class, Cambridge UP, Cambridge. Martineau, H. (ed), 1853, The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte, 2 vols, Chapman. Martins, H., 1972, The Khunian ‘Revolution’ and its Implications for Sociology, in T.J. Nossiter, A.H. Hanson & S. Rokkan (eds), Imagination and Precision in the Social Sciences, Faber & F Marx, K., Germ 1844a, On the Jewish Question, in T.B. Bottomore (ed), 1963, q.v. Germ 1844b, Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, in T.B. Bottomore (ed), 1963, q.v. writ Germ 1844c, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, in T.B. Bottomore (ed), 1963, q.v. (Also called the Paris or 1844 Manuscripts). Germ 1845a, The Holy Family, extract in Z. Jordan (ed), 1971, q.v. Germ 1845b, Theses on Feuerbach, inMESW 2. Germ 1845c, The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-Revolution, in MESW 1. Germ 1847, Wage Labour and Capital, inMESW 1. Germ 1850, The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850, in MESW 1. Germ 1852, ‘The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte’, in MESW 1. writ Germ 1857-8, Grundrisse, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1973. Germ 1859, Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, in MESW 1. Germ 1867, Capital, vol 1, FLPH, Moscow, 1957. Germ 1871a, The Civil War in France, inMESW 2. 1871b, General Rules of the International Working Men's Bibliography 359

Association, in MESW 1. 1871c, Letter to E.S. Beesly, inSelected Correspondence, FLPH, Moscow, 1956. Germ 1873, Afterword to the 2nd German ed Capitalof , in 1867. Germ 1875. Critique of the Gotha Programme, in MESW 2. Fr 1880, Enquete Ouvriere, in T.B. Bottomore & M. Rubel, (eds), 1956, q.v. Germ p.h. 1894, Capital , vol 3, FLPH, Moscow, 1962. & Engels, F., Germ 1846, The German Ideology, Lawrence & Wishart, 1965. & Engels, F., Germ 1848,Manifesto o f the Communist Party, in MESW 1. & Engels, F., Germ 1850, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, inMESW 1. & Engels, F., Russ p.h. 1955, Selected Works, 2 vols, FLPH, Moscow, 1962. Masse, P., 1963, Foreword to J. and A.-M. Hackett, 1963, q.v. 1965, Le Plan ou VAnti-hasard, Gallimard, Paris. Masterman, M., 1970, The Nature of a Paradigm, in I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (eds), 1970, q.v. Matejko, A., 1966, Status Incongruence in the Polish Intelligentsia,Soc Res, 33. 1969, Some Sociological Problems of Socialist Factories, Soc Res, 36. Mayer, J.P., 1944, Max Weber and German Politics, Faber & F. Merton, R.K., 1934, Review of E. Durkheim, The Division of Labour in Society, AJS, 40. 1949, Social Theory and Social Structure, 2nd ed rev, Free Press, Glencoe, 1957. & Riecken, H., 1962, Notes on Sociology in the U.S.S.R., Symposia Studies Series 10, National Institute of Social and Behavioural Science, Washington. Mill, J.S., 1865, Auguste Comte and Positivism, Michigan UP (Ann Arbor paper), Ann Arbor, 1961. Mills, C.W., 1943, The Professional Ideology of the Social Pathologist, AJS, 49. 1956, The Power Elite, Oxford UP, N.Y. 1959, The Sociological Imagination, Oxford UP, N.Y. 1960, Listen Yankee, McGraw Hill, N.Y. p.h. 1962, The Marxists, Dell, N.Y. Mitzman, A.B., 1970, The Iron Cage: an Historical Interpretation of Max Weber, Knopf, N.Y. Mokrzycki, E., 1970, Review of S. Ossowski, Dziela, vol 6, PSB, no 2 (22). 1971, The Future of Sociology in the Light of Prophecy: Remarks on Alvin W. Gouldner’s Book The Coming Crisis of 360 Sociology in Action

Western Sociology, PSB, no 1 (23). Mommsen, W., 1965a, Max Weber’s Political Sociology and his Philosophy of World History, International Social Science Journal, 17. 1965b, untitled contribution to O. Stammer (ed), 1971, q.v. Moynihan, D.P., 1969, Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding, Free Press, N.Y. Mulkay, M.J., 1971, Functionalism, Exchange and Theoretical Strategy, Routledge & K.P. Myrdal, G., Sterner, R., & Rose, A., 1944,An American Dilemma: the Negro Problem and Modern Democracy, Harper & Row. Nicolaus, M., 1973, Foreword to K. Marx, Grundrisse, q.v. Nicols, T., 1969, Ownership, Control and Ideology, Allen & U. Nisbet, R.A., 1952, Conservatism and Sociology,AJS, 48. (ed), 1965, Emile Durkheim: with Selected Essays, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. 1967, The Sociological Tradition, Heinemann. Norman, R., 1971, Reasons for Actions, Blackwell, Oxford. Nowak, S., 1963, In Memory of Stanislaw Ossowski, PSB, no 2 (8). 1964, Changes of Social Structure in Social Consciousness,PSB> no 2 (10). 1971, Praktyczne Pozytki z Socjologii, Zycie i Nowoczesnose, no 50, 29 April 71. Oberschall, A., 1965, Empirical Social Research in Germany 1848-1914, Mouton, The Hague. (ed), 1972, The Establishment of Empirical Sociology, Harper & Row, N.Y. (includes his own essay, The Institutionalization of American Sociology). Odum, H.W., 1951, American Sociology, Longmans, Green & Co, N.Y. Osipov, G.V., Russ 1962, Certain Characteristics and Features of Bourgeois Sociology in the Twentieth Century,Soviet Sociology, 1,1962 (ed), 1966, Industry and Labour in the U.S.S.R., Tavistock. (ed), 1969, Town, Country and People, Tavistock. 1970, Modern Evolutionism and the Issue of Social Progress, paper presented to the Seventh World Congress of Sociology, Varna, Sept. 1970. Osipova, E.V., 1971, The Soviet Union, in J.J. Wiatr (ed), 1971, q.v. Ossowski, S., Pol 1957, Class Structure in the Social Consciousness, Routledge & K.P., 1963. Oules, F., Fr 1966, Economic Planning and Democracy, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1966. Parsons, T., 1937, The Structure of Social Action, Free Press, Glencoe. 1945, The Present Position and Prospects of Systematic Theory in Sociology, in G. Gurvitch& W.E. Moore (eds), 1945, q.v. 1951, The Social System, Routledge & K.P. Bibliography 361

1957, The Distribution of Power in American Society, reprinted in Structure and Process in Modern Society, Free Press, N.Y., 1960. 1963, On the Concept of Political Power, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 107. Paskov, A.I., 1965, Observations concerning the Social Sciences in the U.S.S.R., in U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences (ed), 1965, q.v. Peel, J.D.Y., 1971, Herbert Spencer: the Evolution of a Sociologist, Heinemann. Podgorecki, A., 1963, Sociotechnique, PSB, no 2 (8). 1968, Five Functions of Sociology, PSB, no 1 (17). 1970, Problems of Social Engineering, paper presented to the Seventh World Congress of Sociology, Varna, Sept. 1970. & Schulze, R., 1968, Sociotechnique, Social Science Information, 7. Rawin, S.J., 1965, Changes in Social Structure in Poland under Conditions of Industrialisation, unpublished Ph.D thesis, Uni­ versity of London. Rex, J., 1961, Key Problems of Sociological Theory, Routledge & K.P. 1971, Typology and Objectivity: a Comment on Weber’s Four Sociological Methods, in A. Sahay (ed), 1971, q.v. Reynaud, J.—D. (ed), 1966, Tendances et volontes de la societe frangaise, SEDEIS, Paris. Richter, M., 1960, Durkheim’s Politics and Political Theory, in K. Wolff (ed), 1960, q.v. Riesman, D., 1957, Abundance for What?, reprinted Abundancein for What?: and other essays, Chatto & Windus, 1964. Rimlinger, G.V., 1971, Welfare Policy and Industrialization in Europe, America and Russia, Wiley, N.Y. Runciman, W.G., 1972,A Critique of Max Weber's Philosophy of Social Science, Cambridge UP, Cambridge. Sahay, A. (ed), 1971, Max Weber and Modern Sociology, Routledge & K.P. Saint-Simon, H. de, Fr 1803, Letters from an Inhabitant of Geneva, in Selected Writings, q.v. Fr 1807-8, Introduction to the Scientific Studies of the 19th Century, inSelected Writings, q.v. Fr 1813, Essay on the Science of Man, inSelected Writings, q.v. & Thierry, A., Fr 1814, The Reorganization of the European Community, inSelected Writings, q.v. Fr 1825, New Christianity, in Selected Writings, q.v. p.h. 1952, Selected Writings, Blackwell, Oxford (ed F. Markham). Saloman, A., 1945, German Sociology, in G. Gurvitch and W.E. Moore (eds), 1945, q.v. Samuel, N., 1967, Prediction and Comparison in the Sociology of Leisure, paper presented to the British Sociological Association 362 Sociology in Action

Conference, April 1967. Sarapata, A., Pol 1959, Preliminary Report on ‘The Evaluation of Occupations by Warsaw Inhabiatants’,Polytika , nos 21—4. 1961, The Evaluation of Occupations by Warsaw Inhabitants, AJS, 66. 1966, Stratification and Social Mobility in Poland, in J. Szczepan- ski (ed), 1966, q.v. Sartre, J.-P., 1943, L ’Etre et le neant, Gallimard, Paris. 1960, Critique de la raison dialectique, vol 1, Gallimard, Paris. Fr 1957, The Problem of Method, rev, Methuen, n.d. (c 1963). Schelsky, H., 1959, Ortsbestimmung der deutschen Soziologie, Diederichs, Dusseldorf—Cologne. Schumpeter, J.A., 1943, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Allen & U. Schutz, A., 1953, Concept and Theory Formation in the Social Sciences, reprinted in D. Emmet & A. MacIntyre,Sociological Theory and Philosophical Analysis, Macmillan, 1970. Shostak, A.B. (ed), 1964, Sociology in Action: Case Studies in Social Problems and Directed Social Change, Dorsey, Homewood, 111. Simirenko, A. (ed), 1966, Soviet Sociology, Routledge & K.P., 1967. Sjoberg, G. (ed), 1967, Ethics, Politics and Social Research, Schen- kman, Cambridge, Mass. Slomczynski, K., 1970, Socio-Occupational Differentiation and Edu­ cation, Authority, Income and Prestige, paper presented to the Seventh World Congress of Sociology, Varna, Sept. 1970. Stammer, O. (ed), Germ 1965, Max Weber and Sociology Today, Blackwell, Oxford, 1971. Stein, M., & Vidich, A. (eds), 1963,Sociology on Trial, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Suchodolski, B., 1970, The Uses of Social Science in Poland: Policies for Social Science, in A.B. Cherns et al (eds), 1972, q.v. Szacki, J., 1966, Remarks on the Marxian Concept of ‘False Conscious­ ness’, PSB, no 2(14). Szczepanski, J., 1964, Some Characteristics of Contemporary Polish Society, PSB, no 2(10). (ed), 1966, Empirical Sociology in Poland, PWN, Warsaw 1970, Polish Society, Random House, N.Y. 1973, The New Shape of Education, Interview inPolish Per­ spectives, 16. Tarde, G., Fr 1894, Sociology, Social Psychology and Sociologism, in On Communication and Social Influence, Chicago UP, Chicago, 1969, (ed T.N. Clark) Thomson, D., 195%, Democracy in France, Oxford UP. Toulmin, S., 1972, Human Understanding, vol 1, Oxford UP. Touraine, A., 1965, Sociologie de Faction, Le Seuil, Paris. Fr 1969, The Post-Industrial Society, Random House, N.Y., 1971. Bibliography 363

Treitschke, G.H. von, Germ 1897-8, Politics, 2 vols, Constable, 1916. Trotsky, L., 1937, The Revolution Betrayed, Faber & F. U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences (ed), 1965, Social Sciences in the U.S.S.R., Mouton, Paris. Veblen, T., 1899, The Theory of the Leisure Class, Macmillan, N.Y. Wallwork, E., 1972, Durkheim: Morality and Milieu, Harvard UP, Cambridge, Mass. Weber, M., Germ 1904, ‘Objectivity’ in Social Science and Social Policy (section I written jointly with E. Jaffe & W. Sombart), in Methodology, q.v. Germ 1904-5, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, rev, Allen & U., 1930. Germ 1908, Methodological Introduction for the Survey of the Society for Social Policy concerning Selection and Adaptation (Choice and Course of Occupation) for the Workers of Major Industrial Enterprises, in J.E.T. Eldridge (ed), 1971, q.v. Germ 1909, Speech at the Convention of the Association for Social Policy, in J.P. Mayer, 1944, q.v. Germ 1913, Ueber Einige Kategorien der Verstehenden Sozi- ologie, in Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Wissenschaftslehre, 3rd ed, Mohr (Siebeck), Tubingen, 1968. Germ 1917a, The Meaning of ‘Ethical Neutrality’ in Sociology, in Methodology, q.v. Germ 1917b, Parliament and Government in a Reconstructed Germany, inEconomy and Society, vol 3, app 3. Germ 1919a, Politics as a Vocation, in H.H. Gerth & C.W. Mills (eds), 1948, q.v. Germ 1919b, Science as a Vocation, in H.H. Gerth & C.W. Mills, (eds), 1948, q.v. p.h. Germ 1922, Economy and Society, 3 vols, Bedminster Press, N.Y., 1968. p.h. Germ 1924, Speech for the General Information of Austrian Officers in Vienna, 1918, in J.E.T. Eldridge (ed), 1971, q.v. p.h. 1949, The Methodology o f the Social Sciences, Free Press, Glencoe. Wesolowski, W., Fr 1967, The Notions of Strata and Class in Socialist Society, in A. Beteille (ed), Social Inequality, Penguin, Har- mondsworth, 1969. & Slomczynski, K., 1968, Social Stratification in Polish Cities, in J.A. Jackson (ed), Social Stratification, Cambridge UP, Cam­ bridge. Wiatr, J.J., 1962, Stratification and Egalitarianism,Polish Perspectives, 12. 1967, Sociology - Marxism - Reality, Soc Res, 34. (ed), 1971, The State of Sociology in Eastern Europe Today, S. Illinois UP, Carbondale. 364 Sociology in Action

Wiggins, J.W., & Schoeck, H., 1961, A Profile of the Aging: U.S.A., Geriatrics, 16. Winch, P., 1958, The Idea of a Social Science, Routledge & K.P. Wolff, K. (ed), 1960, Emile Durkheim 1858-1917, Ohio State U.P., Columbus. Zeitlin, I.M., 1967, Marxism: a Re-examination, Van Nostrand, Princeton. 1968, ideology and the Development of Sociological Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Zetterberg, H.L., 1962, Social Theory and Social Practice, Bedminster Press, N.Y. Znaniecki, E.M., 1945, Polish Sociology, in G. Gurvitch & W.E. Moore (eds), 1945, q.v. Zurawicki, S., 1971, Czy w Warunkach Socjalistycznych Potrzebna Jest Socjotechnika, Kultura, 9, 18 April 71. Other Works Anderson, C.H., 1971,Toward a New Sociology: a Critical View, Dorsey, Homewood, 111. Andreski, S. (ed), 1971,Herbert Spencer: Structure, Function and Evolution, Michael Joseph. Antoni, C., Ital 1940, From History to Sociology, Wayne State UP, Detroit, 1959. Aron, R., 1968, Progress and Disillusion, Pall Mall, 1968. Bandyopadhay, P., 1971, One Sociology or Many? Some Issues in Radical Sociology, SR, 19. Barber, R.J., 1966, The Politics of Research, Public Affairs Trust, Washington. Barnes, S.B., 1972, Sociological Explanation and Natural Science: a Kuhnian Reappraisal,EJS, 8. Barry, B.M., 1970, Sociologists, Economists and Democracy, Collier- MacMillan. Bauman, Z., 1967, Image of Man in the Modern Sociology,PSB, no 1 (15). Beals, R., 1969, The Politics of Social Research, Aldine, Chicago. Bendix, R., 1951, Social Science and the Distrust of Reason, California UP, Berkeley. 1970, Embattled Reason: Essays on Social Knowledge, Oxford UP, N.Y. & Berger, B., 1959, Images of Society and Problems of Concept Formation in Sociology, in L. Gross (ed),Symposium on Sociological Theory, Harper & Row, N.Y. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T., 1966, The Social Construction of Reality, Doubleday, N.Y. Boguslaw, R., 1965, The New Utopians, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Bougie, C., & Halevy, E. (eds), 1924, Doctrine de Saint-Simon: Bibliography 365

exposition premiere annee, 1829, Marcel Riviere, Paris. Bramson, L., 1970, Reflections on the Social and Political Respon­ sibilities of Sociologists, in P. Halmos (ed), 1970, q.v. Bruun, H.H., 1972, Science, Values and Politics in Max Weber's Methodology, Munksgaard, Copenhagen. Caplow, T., 1958, The Academic Market-Place, Basic Books, N.Y. Catton, W.J., 1968, From Animistic to Naturalistic Sociology, McGraw Hill, N.Y. Chalasinski, J., 1959, Sociology and Social Mythology in Post-War Poland,Transactions of the 4th World Congress of Sociology, vol 1. Charlton, D.G., 1959, Positivist Thought in France During the Second Empire: 1852-1870, Oxford UP. Cohen, D.C., 1965, Comte’s Changing Sociology, AJS, 71. Cohen G.A., 1968, Bourgeois and Proletarians,Journal of the History of Ideas, 29. 1972, Karl Marx and the Withering Away of Social Science, Philosophy and Public A ffairs, 1. Coser, L.A., 1952, Conservatism and Sociology,AJS, 58. 1965, Men of Ideas, Free Press, N.Y. Crozier, M., 1965, Pour une analyse sociologique de la planification francaise, Rfs, 6. Dahrendorf, R., 1957, Some Notes on Workers’ Participation in Industrial Management in the German Federal Republic,Archive internationale de sociologie de la cooperation, 2. 1962, Politique syndicale et structure des entreprises en Alle- magne, Sociologie du Travail, 4. 1963, Conflict and Liberty: some Remarks on the Social Structure of German Politics, BJS, 14. 1964, Recent Changes in the Class Structure of European Societies, Daedalus, 93. Dawe, A., 1973, The Role of Experience in the Construction of Social Theory: an Essay in Reflexive Sociology, SR, 21. Deutsch, S.E., & Howard, J. (eds), 1970, Where Its At: Radical Perspectives in Sociology, Harper & Row, N.Y. Djilas, M., 1969, The Unperfect Society, Methuen. Dumazedier, J., 1964, Travail et loisir, in G. Friedmann & P. Naville (eds), Traite de sociologie du travail, rev, vol 2, Librarie Colin, Paris. 1968, La Sociologie du loisir, Current Sociology, 16. Dunn, S.P., (ed), 1969, Sociology in the U.S.S.R.: a Collection of Readings from Soviet Sources, International Arts & Sciences Press, White Plains, N.Y. Elias, N., 1956, Problems of Involvement and Detachment,BJS , 7. Erlich, S. (ed), 1964, Social and Political Transformation in Poland, PWN, Warsaw. 366 Sociology in Action

Etzioni, A., 1965, Social Analysis as a Sociological Vocation, AJS, 70. 1968, The Active Society, Collier-MacMillan. Evans-Pritchard, E.E., 1970,The Sociology of Comte: an Appreciation, Manchester UP, Manchester. Fauconnet, P., 1927, The Durkheim School in France,AJS , 19. Fischer, G., 1968, The Soviet System and Modern Society, Atherton, N.Y. Fletcher, R. (ed), 1971, John Stuart Mill: a Logical Critique of Sociology, Michael Joseph. Freyre, G.de M., Port 1959, Order and Progress: Brazil from Monarchy to Republic, Knopf, N.Y., 1970. Friedmann, G., 1955, La These de Durkheim et les formes contem- poraines de la division du travail,Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie, 19. Giddens, A., 1970, Durkheim as Review Critic,SR, 18. 1972, Four Myths in the History of Social Thought, Economy and Society, 1. Gouldner, A.W., 1955, Metaphysical Pathos and the Theory of Bureaucracy, American Political Science Review, 49. 1957, Theoretical Requirements of Applied Social Science,ASR, 22. 1958, Introduction to E. Durkheim, Socialism and Saint-Simon, q.v. 1959, Reciprocity and Autonomy in Functional Theory, in L. Gross (ed), Symposium on Sociological Theory, Row, Peterson & Co., White Plains, N.Y. 1960, The Norm of Reciprocity, ASR, 25. 1965, Enter Plato, Basic Books, N.Y. & Petersen, R., 1962, Notes on Technology and the Moral Order, Bobbs Merril, Indianapolis. & Sprehe, J.G., 1965, Sociologists Look at Themselves, Trans­ action, 2. Gruson, C., 1971, Renaissance du plan, Seuil, Paris. Halmos, P. (ed), 1970, The Sociology of Sociology, Sociological Review Monograph 16. Hamon, L., 1966, Le Plan et sa signification politique, in J-D. Reynaud (ed), 1966, q.v. Hawkins, R.L., 1936, Auguste Comte and the United States (1816 -53), Harvard UP, Cambridge, Mass. 1938, Positivism in the United States (1853-61), Harvard UP, Cambridge, Mass. Hayek, F.A., 1952, The Counter-Revolution of Science, Free Press, Glencoe. Hiscocks, R., 1963, Poland: Bridge for the Abyss?, Oxford UP. Hochfeld, J., 1962, In Memory of C. Wright Mills, PSB, no 1-2 (3-4). Homans, G.C., 1964, Bringing Men Back In,ASR, 29. Bibliography 367

Horowitz, I.L., 1961, Radicalism and the Revolt against Reason, Routledge & K.P. 1963, Introduction to C.W. Mills,Power , Politics and People, q.v. (ed), 1964, The Anarchists, Dell, N.Y. 1966, Three Worlds of Development, Oxford, UP, N.Y. (ed), 1970 Sociological Self-Images, Pergamon, Oxford. (ed), 1971, The Use and Abuse of Social Science: Behavioural Science and National Policy-Making, Trans-action Books/Dutton, N.Y. 1972, Foundations of Political Sociology, Harper & Row, N.Y. Isambert, F.A., 1965, L’ldee de politique positive, Rfs, 6. Jouvenel, B. de, 1961, Planning in France, Techniques and Lessons, Moorgate and Wall Street, 3. Fr 1964, The Art of Conjecture, Weidenfeld & N., 1967. Kamenka, E., 1969, Marxism and Ethics, Macmillan. Kecskemeti, P., 1961, Utilization of Social Science Research in Shaping Policy Decisions, Rand Corp., Santa Monica. Kolakowski, L., Pol 1966, The Alienation of Reason: a History of Positivist Thought, Doubleday, N.Y., 1968. Kotarbinski, T., 1965, Praxiology, Pergamon, Oxford. Lacquer, W.Z., & Labedz, L. (eds), The State of Soviet Science, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Lazarsfeld, P., Sewell, W., & Wilenski, H. (eds),The Uses of Sociology, Basic Books, N.Y. Lefebvre, H., Fr 1966, The Sociology of Marx, Allen Lane, 1968. Levi-Strauss, C., 1945, French Sociology, in G. Gurvitch & W.E. Moore (eds), 1945, q.v. Levy-Bruhi, L., Fr 1900, The Philosophy of Auguste Comte, Swan Sonnenschein, N.Y. 1903. Lichtheim, G., 1964, Class and Hierarchy: a Critique of Marx?, EJS, 5. Lipset, S.M., 1964, Stanislaw Ossowski (1897—1963): In Memoriam, ASR, 29. Lutynska, K., 1964, Office Workers’ View on their Social Position, PSB, no 1 (9). Mannheim, K., Germ 1936, Ideology and Utopia, Routledge & K.P., 1960. Masse, P., 1962, French Methods of Planning,Journal of Industrial Economics, 11. Meissner, B. (ed),Social Change in the Soviet Union, Notre Dame UP, Notre Dame, Ind. Mills, C.W., 1951, White Collar, Oxford UP, N.Y. 1959, The Causes of World War Three, Seeker & Warburg, p.h. 11963, Power, Politics and People, Oxford UP, N.Y. Myrdal, G., 1953, The Relation between Social Theory and Social Policy, BJS, 4. 1958, Value in Social Theory: a Selection of Essays on 368 Sociology in Action

Methodology, Harper & Row, N.Y. Nisbet, R.A., 1968, Tradition and Revolt, Random House, N.Y. Osipov, G.V., & Yovchuk, M., 1963, Some Principles of Theory, Problems and Methods of Research in Sociology in the U.S.S.R., ASR, 28. Ossowska, M., 1971, Social Determinants of Moral Ideas, Routledge & K.P. Ossowski, S., 1956, Old Notions and New Problems: Interpretations of Social Structure in Modern Society, Transactions of the 3rd World Congress of Sociology, vol 3. 1959, Social Conditions and Consequences of Social Planning, Transactions of the 4th World Congress of Sociology, vol 2. 1962, Contemporary Sociology in the Processes of Social Change, PSB, no 1-2 (3-4). Parkin, F., 1969, Class Stratification in Socialist Societies, BJS, 20. Parsons, T., 1965, An American Impression of Sociology in the Soviet Union,ASR, 30. Perroux, F., 1962, Le IVe Plan franqais, Presse Universitaire de France, Paris. Polish Academy of Sciences: Institute of Philisophy and Sociology, 1970, The Sociological Division of the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology at the Polish Academy of Sciences, Ossolineum, Warsaw. Popper, K.R., 1945, The Open Society and its Enemies, vol 2, Hegel and Marx, 4th ed rev, Routledge and K.P., 1962. 1957, The Poverty of Historicism, Routledge & K.P. Roth, G., 1963, The Social Democrats in Imperial Germany, Bed- minster Press, Totowa, N.J. 1965, Political Critiques of Max Weber, ASR, 30. Runciman, W.G., 1963, Social Science and Political Theory, Cambridge UP, Cambridge. Schaff, A., Pol 1957-61, A Philosophy of Man, Lawrence & Wishart, 1963. Shils, E., 1961, The Calling of Sociology, in T. Parsons et al (eds), Theories of Society, vol 2, Free Press, Glencoe. Shonfield, A., 1965, Modern Capitalism, corr, Oxford UP, 1969. Sibley, E., 1963, The Education of Sociologists in the United States, Russell Sage, N.Y. Sigler, J.A., 1966, The Political Philosophy of C. Wright Mills, Science and Society, 30. Simey, T.S., 1968, Social Science and Social Purpose, Constable. Simon, W.M., 1963, European Positivism in the Nineteenth Century, Cornell UP, Ithaca. Sociologie du Travail, 1966, vol 8, no 1, special number on La Sociologie industrielle en Pologne. Spinrad, W., 1966, The Socio-Political Orientations of C. Wright Mills: an Evaluation,BJS, 17. Bibliography 369

Stehle, H., Germ 1963, The Independent Satellite: Society and Politics in Poland since 1945, Pall Mall, 1965. Strzeminska, H., 1971, Social Progress in Poland, Interpress, Warsaw. Wesolowski, W., 1962, Class Domination and the Power of Interest Groups, PSB, no 1—2 (3—4). 1962, Some Notes on the Functional Theory of Stratification, PSB, no 3-4 (5-6). 1965, Ruling Class and Power Elite, PSB, no 1 (11). 1967, Marx’s Theory of Class Domination, in N. Lobkowicz (ed), Marx and the Western World, Notre Dame UP, Notre Dame, Ind. Wiatr, J.J., 1965, Political Science in Eastern Europe, Current Soci­ ology, 8. 1967, Studies in Polish Political System, Ossolineum, Warsaw. Wrong, D., 1961, The Oversocialised Conception of Man in Modern Society, ASR, 26. (ed), 1970,Max Weber, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Zagorski, K., 1971, Social Mobility in Poland,PSB, no 2 (24). Znaniecki, F., 1940, The Social Role of the Man of Knowledge, Columbia UP, N.Y. Zvorykin, A.A., 1964, The Social Science in the U.S.S.R.: Achieve­ ments and Trends,International Social Science Journal, 16.