Characterology
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ó American Sociological Association 2014 DOI: 10.1177/0094306114522406 http://cs.sagepub.com EDITOR’S REMARKS CHARACTEROLOGY There are stories told many times, then 159, 167, 169-171; Horowitz 1983: 48-53; retold, which animate our connection with Oakes and Vidich 1992: 57-90; Tilman 1984: the discipline’s past, either because they 50-53). Mills thought they could ‘‘knock it ‘‘resonate’’ with today’s preoccupations or out’’ in a year or two, based mostly on Gerth’s have become so improbably alien to our cur- lecture notes, which Mills would refine and rent way of doing business that they occa- Americanize. In short order the young Mills sion laughter. Sociology’s past prior to 1975 began hunting for a publisher. or so was, of course, mostly a story of men This jejune plan initiated an epic struggle arguing with other men. Soon, according to among authors, colleagues, editors, and pub- the latest data, the discipline’s larger schol- lishers which ended 12 years later when arly disputes will be carried out mostly Character and Social Structure: The Psychology among women. But no matter who is in of Social Institutions finally saw the light charge, in all human endeavors young aspir- (Gerth and Mills 1953), by which time Mills ants challenge their elders in the interest of was already famous for White Collar (1951). ‘‘improving’’ the field, occasionally propos- For decades following its appearance, ing some genuine innovation, but more sociologists could be heard discussing the often refurbishing or recasting a well-worn former book thus: ‘‘I don’t care for social- wheel. psychology of the lab experiment type One such probing youngster at 22 was because there’s too much psych and not described by a professor who knew him enough sosh, but I really admire the Gerth well: ‘‘The prevailing legend about him is to and Mills book since it’s the exception to the effect that he takes people up and pursues the rule.’’ Perhaps this preference is partly them furiously until they get so tired of it why the book remains in print these 60 years they rebuff him (or until he has milked later. (One of life’s little ironies concerns them dry and drops them). There is some- Stanford’s sociology department, where thing in it both ways. [He] is tremendously lab-oriented social psychology reached its eager and incredibly energetic. If he gets the apogee, and where the chairman objected idea that somebody has something, he goes ‘‘But Mills is not a sociologist, he is a Marx- after it like the 3 furies. For several years ist’’ after it was suggested that Mills be hired he has been reading everything within his there [Tilman 1984: 202n2]). reach, and he really is prodigously learned So why has this book, unique in structure, for his years and situation. He also has acu- vocabulary, and intention, become a minor men, and the result of this combination of classic, even when so many others of that qualities has not been altogether to his advan- era now seem as antiquated as the type- tage’’ (Tilman 1984: 6-7). writers on which they were written? The Thus it was that in August 1941, just as he answer surely does not lie in the composi- turned 25, this precocious, obstreperous tional history of the book, which was filled graduate student at the University of Wiscon- with painful, anxious quarrels and false starts sin, C. Wright Mills, proposed to Hans from its very beginning. As Guy Oakes and Gerth—the untenured professor from whom Arthur Vidich explained in great detail, the he learned the most, only eight years his Gerth/Mills collaboration caused both men, senior and still a German ‘‘alien’’—that they especially Gerth, extraordinary discomfort jointly write a textbook for introductory from its beginning in 1940, shortly after Mills social psychology courses. It was expressly arrived at Madison from Austin, until long designed to differ sharply from all those after Mills’ premature death in 1963. Gerth’s then on the market (see details in Aronowitz ‘‘sensitivity to his rights in matters of intellec- 2012: 150-166; Geary 2009:50-53, 109-110; tual priority kept the fires of resentment Mills and Mills 2000: 125, 134, 140-141, 147, burning for more than a quarter of a century’’ 149 Contemporary Sociology 43, 2 Downloaded from csx.sagepub.com at ASA - American Sociological Association on March 11, 2014 150 Editor’s Remarks (Oakes and Vidich 1999: 144). Mills had The complete story of how Character and already affixed his name to their famous col- Social Structure came to be written cannot laboration, From Max Weber (in continuous be told without consulting not only the print since 1946), though Gerth claimed Oakes and Vidich monograph, but also Mills could not translate German, and that unpublished letters of Mills to Gerth (300 he had dictated the book’s famous introduc- are held by Gerth’s widow, Nobuko Gerth, tion to Mills, who was little more than his with copies sent to Mills’s heirs; N. Gerth typist and copyeditor. The book’s first adver- 1993: 146-148) and Gerth to Mills (20 are tisements and reviews featured Mills’ name extant), Mills’ papers at Texas, the Irving L. before Gerth’s, adding to the lopsidedness Horowitz archive at Penn State (which of their private versus public joint persona. includes much Mills material), the Robert Mills knew that Gerth, geographically K. Merton archive at Columbia, Nobuko trapped in Madison as an enemy alien, Gerth’s biography of her husband (2002), untenured and without money, was a gold- and so on. Yet the short version is this: Mills mine of information and expertise regarding heard Gerth’s lectures at Wisconsin, which the German intellectual tradition which the he thought could be used as the basis of younger man knew enough to hold in high the book; Mills was already a sophisticated regard. Weber (plus Marx) in particular student of pragmatist philosophy, especially became for a while Mills’ scholarly idol, and that of G. H. Mead, whose students had Gerth held the keys to that castle, Mills’ Ger- taught Mills at Texas; he prompted Gerth man being rudimentary. But Mills also real- to sign on for the project, and persuaded ized that he, like his father, was a skilled, Howard P. Becker (Mills’ dissertation direc- self-promoting negotiator and salesman, tor) to include the proposed book in a sociol- with editors, publishers, and colleagues, ogy series Becker edited for D.C. Heath while Gerth was anything but. In some prac- Publishing Company. After tortuous wran- tical ways they were a perfect team, yet gling over a suitable advance, and many try- as Mills became increasingly famous ing meetings with editors, the contract was through his two major works, White Collar revoked at the authors’ request, and trans- and The Power Elite, Gerth’s career lan- ferred to Harcourt, where Merton held guished. Rather than write topically ‘‘hot’’ sway on sociological titles. Eventually Mer- pieces in a quasi-journalistic mode of wide ton supplied a laudatory foreword to the appeal—supposedly inspired stylistically book. by Balzac and Veblen, both of whom Mills What Mills hypothesized, mostly due to read avidly—Gerth carried out an heroic Gerth’s teaching and writing, was that Amer- effort to translate and publicize Weber’s ican social psychology could be converted major works during the 1950s. This capital- and ‘‘improved’’ from its apolitical, micro- ized on his excellent education in Europe dimensionality into a field with structural, with the likes of Karl Mannheim (whose historical, and macro properties if Weber’s last major book Gerth edited for English ideas could somehow be grafted onto basic readers after Mannheim’s premature death; role theory as already developed by Cooley, Mannheim 1950), Theodor Adorno, Erich Mead, and others of that tradition. Horowitz Fromm, and Paul Tillich, while taking colorfully explains: ‘‘Mills saw Weber as pro- courses with peers such as Hannah Arendt, viding the necessary social-structure cement Hans Speier, and Hans Jonas. And like all in an American world of individualistic psy- of them, he also got to know Weber’s widow, chology where minds were discussed with- Marianne (Oakes and Vidich 1999: 3). With- out regard to bodies, where people were out Gerth’s labor, the anglophone sphere dicusssed without regard to publics, and in would have lacked Weber’s three monu- which interactions were granted without mental volumes on the sociology of religion. analysis of collectivities. Weber provided And even though, like all translations, these the intellectual sourcebook for collective psy- have been criticized on technical grounds, chology by giving strength and backbone to they have never been supplanted, remaining individual motivation’’ (Horowitz 1983: vital these 60 years later to a full understand- 183). Added to Weber would be insights ing of Weber’s sociology of religion. from Freud, Karl Mannheim, Harry Stack Contemporary Sociology 43, 2 Downloaded from csx.sagepub.com at ASA - American Sociological Association on March 11, 2014 Editor’s Remarks 151 Sullivan, Karen Horney, and other thinkers impressed, particularly given the book’s het- whose names did not routinely figure in con- erodox nature. Philip Selznick, then a second ventional social psychology textbooks (e.g., year Assistant Professor at Berkeley and three LaPiere and Farnsworth 1949: 549-619). years Mills’ junior, wrote a lead review in The book’s bibliography, though small by ASR, concluding that Character and Social today’s standards (pp. 481-485), is packed Structure offered ‘‘a sophisticated presenta- with major macro-historical works, begin- tion of much of the best that has been said ning with the 11th edition of the Britannica in modern sociology’’ (Selznick 1954: 486), (1910) and The Encyclopaedia of the Social Sci- thus anticipating Horowitz’s sentiments by ences (1933).