Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ACTES DU SIXIEME
CONGRES MONDIAL DE SOCIOLOGIE
VOLUME III
ACTES DU SIXIEME
CONGRES MONDIAL DE SOCIOLOGIE
Evian, 4-11 September 1966
VOLUME III
Contents
Table des Matieres
-_-,,nr
-:-.Tri
E.Shils
I. L. Horowitz
37
M. Kalab and
Z. Strmiska
69
93
C. Nakane
A. Lopasic
P. Worsley
99
111
121
L. E. Khoruts
133
Ch. Perelman
143
153
L. Solari
K. Odaka
169
J.Szczepanski
191
A. Akiwowo
209
225
F. N'Sougan
Agblemagnon
243
E. Modrjinska!a.
255
267
L. Kuper
NEW NATIONS
NATIONS NOUVELLES
S. K. Nandy
J. A. Fishman
G. Goriely
281
291
vi
G. Glezerman
309
C. F. Alger
Negotiation, Regional Groups, Interaction and Public Debate in the Development of Consensus in the United Nations
General Assembly .
321
E. Batson
347
J. J. Honigmann
369
S. Ferge
V. D. Patrushev
J. Robinson and
P. Converse
387
403
415
vii
University of Chicago
diversified and fragmentary. The links between the diverse subject matters of sociology were not evident. They were not evident
because they did not exist in anyone's mind. There was no general
theory which could embrace them and enable each to be seen in
relation to the other. Theory - categories for the description of
actual behavior, general propositions dealing with the interrelations
of different sectors of society - was almost entirely lacking. General theoretical treatises, such as von Wiese's Allgemeine Beziehungslehre, Freyer's Soziologie als Wirklichkeitswissenschaft, Znaniecki's Social Actions, Sander's Allgemeine Gesellschaftslehre,
etc., tended to be abstract and primarily classificatory; in any case,
and for a variety of reasons, they were difficult to apply to the
situations which sociological research dealt with. Much of what
was called theory was the study and interpretation of the great
figures of sociology - Simmel, Durkheim, Comte, Spencer, Hobhouse, Tonnies, Weber, Pareto. There was little attempt to use
what they had said about the nature of modern society in the
direct, first-hand study of modern society. They did not enter into
the daily idiom of sociological discourse.
There were a few exceptions - Mannheim and Merton, at the
end of the 1930's, drew on Weber's ideas of bureaucracy and the
Protestant ethic to account for the phenomena which concerned
them. Mannheim was perhaps the first sociologist who attempted
to draw into a wider frame of interpretation, derived from Marx,
Weber, and Freud, the results of particular pieces of empirical
investigation by other sociologists. Merton's work on the history
of seventeenth-century science in England in the light of Max Weber's ideas was one of the very few instances of an original, firsthand investigation conducted in general, theoretical categories. The
Institut fiir Sozialforschung drew on Marx and Freud to interpret
family structure and political orientations, but such first-hand materials as they gathered bore little relationship to their theory. (It
was only in the late 'forties that their theory and research became
more intimate.) But the greatest monuments of empirical research
of this period, Middletown, Recent Social Trends, and New Survey
of the Life and Labour of the People of London, were unaffected by
these incipient trends. (The Negro in America, which actually appeared in the 'forties but belongs intellectually to the tradition of
the 'twenties and 'thirties, was a synthesis of numerous researches
on the American Negro, many of them inspired ultimately by Robert
Park; it placed the Negro squarely within the framework of American
10
other particular events in the same class sometimes entails distortion of the data and failure to perceive the unique features of the
events studied. There is too much generalization of the accidental
in the employment of these concepts. But all these handicaps notwithstanding, the theorization of research is one of the major
stages in the history of sociology.
Empirical research has ceased to be the expenditure of $50,000
to find the location of a bordello, as a detractor of sociology once
asserted. It has moved into the differentiated study of a range of
institutions and classes of actions which had never been studied
before in such comprehensive, balanced, and intimate ways. Hospitals, research laboratories, student halls of residence, boarding
schools, grammar schools, military units, trade union locals, religious sects and churches, philanthropic associations, local branches
of political parties, government offices, industrial firms, gambling
casinos, prisons, have been added to the list of objects of first-hand
research. So have the professions: lawyers, physicians, university
professors, scientists, army officers, artists and writers, social
workers. So have social stratification - occupational mobility, styles
of life, aspirations and motivations, images of one's own position
in society and of the society within which one has that position,
interclass attitudes, beliefs in the justice and injustice of the prevailing system - and political choices or decisions at the level of
the voter, the legislator, and the administrator. All these new subjects, and the old ones like the disrupted family, the boys' gang.
criminality, suicide, and recruitment to occupations and professions,
have engaged the sociological research worker.
The techniques of description are now more rigorous; they are
less impressionistic and are very seldom satisfied with anything
less than an adequate sample of the universe they study. They are
less content with assessments of magnitude which rest only on the
clinical skill of the individual investigator. Furthermore, these objectivized modes of assessment of particular variables have become
more subtle. That is, they have begun to deal with less grossly
observable variables. They are trying to cope with those variables
which have hitherto been discerned by insight.
But this is not the main point which we wish to make here. That
point is that this greater rigor and artfulness in description is employed to study events which are thought to be theoretically significant. Events which were previously investigated because they
were of relevance to administrative practice and policy are now
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
II
18
19
cesses, family structure, long-term social trends in which urbanization was the major theme. All these objects of inquiry lay within
the boundaries of the United States.
The more concrete sociology became, the more it became preoccupied with its own society. 2 If we look at some of the major
pieces of sociological research of the 1920's and early 1930's e.g., Thrasher's The Gang, Lynd's Middletown, New Survey of the
Life and Labour of the People of London, Dreyfuss' Beruf und Ideologie der Angestellten, Geiger's Die soziale Schichtung des deutschen Volkes, or Lederer and Marschak's Das neue Mittelstand,
etc. - we see that a sociologist was studying his own country
in his own national tradition and style.
Not only did sociologists, with very few exceptions, concentrate
on their own countries in their work of the 1920's and 1930's, but
they also did not know much about the sociology written in other
countries. 3 I think that the only major exception anywhere to this
assertion was Professor Pitirim Sorokin, whose writings throughout
the 'twenties and 'thirties showed an exceptional intimacy with the
research and theoretical literature in the English-speaking coun~
tries, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and Poland. There were also
a few other exceptions - Professor Aron knew about the German
literature, Professor Ginsberg and Louis Wirth also knew the German literature, and the Polish sociologists knew the literature of the
major countries. But the generally more empirical workers knew
little about other countries or the work of their foreign colleagues
in countries of international status similar to their own.
There are many reasons for this besides the barrier of language.
One of the reasons was the low prestige of empirical research. What
tended to be taught in the universities was sociological theory,
which was the knowledge of the teachings of the great figures. It
tended for the most part to be taught without reference to empirical
evidence. On the other side of the line, empirical research was
taught and conducted without reference to the theory of the
famous sociologists. Thus, while theory remained international within limits, and had, thanks to its academic connections, an opportunity to share in the international academic community, empirical
20
research, which did not share the relatively higher status of theory
and which was even done in non-academic institutions, ran in nationally unconnected paths. 4
Because in the early decades of the present century empirical
research (except, with qualification, for America) was either unknown or had little prestige in the academic world of each country, its counterparts or parallels in other countries were generally
left unnoticed. There were very few, if any, sociological journals
with a significant international audience before the end of the
Second World War, and they published little empirical sociological
research. A substantial part of what we would call empirical social
research was done in connection with welfare administration or
on problems which social reformers thought should become objects
of welfare policy, such as the standard of living and family life of
the poor, education, immigration, juvenile delinquency, criminality
and penal administration. This occured at a time when the bearers
of the name of sociology, eager to see their subject become a science
and academically respectable, were deliberately attenuating their
relations with social policy. Then too, much of this unacademic research was extremely particular and often very amateurish. Even
when it could be seen and read, it was so often designed in very
concrete and ad hoc categories, without regard for the categories
used by other investigators working on similar subjects elsewhere
- in the same and other countries. Little effort was directed toward
drawing conclusions even at a very particular and concrete level.
Not all of empirical research was extra-academic. In the United
States, a large amount was produced in the universities, mainly by
Ph.D. candidates but also by teachers. Poland, Great Britain, France
had a good deal - according to the then prevailing standard.
Outside the United States, however, a substantial proportion of
what we would now call empirical sociological research went on
in the education departments, demography departments, psychology
departments, and geography departments of universities. This latter
fact helped to remove it from international sociological circulation.
Empirical research had not yet risen, as it has in more recent years,
4 Again, an exception must be made regarding those branches of sociological research which were based an the statistical reports of public
and private bodies. Halbwachs' works on suicide and on standards of living
in the working classes are outstanding examples of this early internationality
of empirical research.
21
to the point where it utilized or felt the need for more general explanations. The particularity of the results of research was not offset
by translation into a common, more generalized conceptual idiom.
For these reasons, such research was practically lost within the
country of its origin; internationally, the parochiality of the preoccupation of the investigators further assured its oblivion by linguistic ignorance and obscurity of place and form of publication.
This was the situation until the outbreak of the war, when as far
as we know sociology in most countries, except the United States
and perhaps the United Kingdom, stood still.
Immediately the war ended a major change began to take place.
Sociology, and with it sociological research, became much more
intensively cultivated. The postwar expansion of the universities
in every country, the growth of the welfare state and of market
research, brought with them sooner or later a corresponding increase in the number of sociologists and in the quantity of research.
Amateurism ha!> almost disappeared from sociology so that, unlike
the prewar period in which many persons doing sociology had no
academic training in sociology even when they held university
appointments, most persons who now conduct sociological research
have received an academic training in the subject. This has contributed to the formation of a common sociological culture.
This multiplication of sociologists and sociological research and
the growth of a common sociological culture within each country
could not in itself have furthered the internationality of sociology
without the simultaneous change in the substance of sociology
which made for a greater community of problems and subject
matters across national boundaries. One need only look at the
pages of the Revue traw;aise de sociologie, the Kolnische Zeitschriit, the British Journal of Sociology, the Polish Sociological
Bulletin, and the American Journal of Sociology to see that social
stratification and mobility, mass communications, youth culture, the
situation of the aged, voting behavior are now internationally cultivated, using the same techniques and referring to the same international corpus of research and theoretical literature. The efflorescence of market research and the closely associated public opinion
poll in so many countries has greatly aided this formation of a
common sociological culture. The more intimate relations between
university sociology and extra-academic sociology have also helped
to make for this common international sociological culture.
Partly as a result of the theoretical aspiration of empirical socio-
22
logy, certain major peaks of past and current sociological accomplishment began to stand out above the multitude. Certain individuals, living and dead, and certain institutions where such traditions
and persons were concentrated, became more central in the field
of attention of sociologists in each country and throughout the
world. The new life of Max Weber's and Durkheim's ideas throughout the whole world of sociology and the assimilation of a certain
amount of Karl Marx's sociological concerns have helped to give
sociology a common universe of discourse. Harvard, Chicago, Columbia, Berkeley, Ann Arbor, London, Paris, Oslo, Aarhus, Tiibingen, Cologne, Warsaw, Cracow, Leiden, Novosibirsk, Kampala, Tokyo, Delhi (one could cite others) have become foci of international
as well as national attention. As a result, there has been a tendency
toward a greater concentration on a relatively restricted number
of ways of conducting research and ways of conceiving of society
and its sub-systems.
The increased size of departments of sociology, with a much
larger number of students and teachers doing research, meant that
the major centers of radiation of sociological work had a larger
body of recipients, continuators, and developers of major themes
and subject matters. There have been more contacts of the students
and teachers, especially the younger teachers of the subject, across
national lines. The foci of attention being more massively cultivated,
they acquired more prominence and propagated themselves over
a larger area. 5 Of course, sociology has not become uniform throughout the world -- just as it has not become unified within any single
country - in consequence of this development. Nonetheless, just
as sociology has become more coherent intellectually within each
country, so it has also become more coherent on an international
scale. The result is an international network of mutually attentive
institutions (and their constituent and influential individuals).
But it is not only the demographic changes in sociology which
have brought this about. Even more important is the change in the
ethos of sociological work. The sociologists' conception of the
nature of their undertaking has changed. Whereas at one time sociologists with theoretical aspirations were concerned to construct
comprehensive and definitive syntheses from which nothing was
thought to be omitted and to which, therefore, nothing could be
added, they have come to see that their subject is a perpetually
5
Perhaps the world has at the same time been becoming more uniform.
23
open one. From a time when the self-sufficient delight of documentary first-hand experience in the field or the provision of descriptions which would arouse public opinion or serve the needs of
civic or governmental bodies were the motives of empirical research, the discovery of a meaning deeper than the facts themselves has become the ambition of sociologists. Of course, these
trends were in process over a longer period that the first quartercentury. The attitudes which they replaced never had the field
entirely to themselves. Sociologists, having acquired a different
conception of the intellectual cosmos in which they operate, now
have a different conception of the social structure of the sociological
enterprise. From a condition in which they participated in a particular national identity arising from the sharing of a common intellectual tradition, sociologists have increasingly experienced a sense
of membership in a worldwide intellectual community engaged in
a common, collaborative enterprise to which national boundaries
are insignificant.
Sociology might not yet have become a science, but it has now
passed to the stage where it possesses one of the major social structural components of science. This element is the sense of being involved in a joint undertaking, of collaboration with predecessors
and those who follow after. In this view, the individual's results are
not exclusively his own accomplishment, to stand by itself and to
be appreciated for its well-rounded coherence and self-sufficient
monumentality. The age of the system-builder - modelled on the
great philosophical systems, which were the creation of the synthetic powers of individual geniuses - has passed. Sociologists have
come at last to the condition described by Max Weber in Wissenschaft als Beruf when he said that
In science, we all know that whatever we accomplish will become
out of date in ten, twenty of fifty years. This is the fate to which scientific work is subject; it is inherent in the very nature of scientific
work .... Every scientific solution raises new problems; it demands
its own transcendence and obsolescence. Whoever undertakes to serve
the ideal of science must accept this. .. . Scientific works ... will be
surpassed scientifically .... This is our common fate: it is in fact our
intention. We cannot do scientific work without hoping that others
will advance further than we have. In principle, this progress will go
on without ever ending.
24
25
26
27
Today, most research is still local and it is in the nature of sociology as an organ of a society's self-awareness and of its concern
for its own improvement that it will remain so. Furthermore, the
costs of doing research in a foreign country are considerably
greater than doing it in one's own country; linguistic differences
add to the difficulties. Nonetheless those who do research outside
their own countries are now more numerous, they are covering
more subject matters in more different countries. Almond's and
Verba's studies in Italy, Mexico, England, and Germany; Dore's
and Abbeglen's work on Japan; Geertz and Palmier on Indonesia;
Ashford, Gellner and Geertz on Morocco; Bailey and Wiener on Indian politics; Ross on the Indian family; Janowitz on German social
mobility; Berger on Egyptian bureaucracy; Dahrendorf on the skilled
worker in Great Britain; Rose on voluntary associations in France;
Bastide in Brazil; Banton in Sierra Leone; Trow on British universities;
Ben-David on academic freedom in America and Europe; Foster on
Ghanaian education; Chalasinski on African intellectuals - these are
only a few chosen at random. The instances could be greatly multiplied.
What is the significance of this transcendence of parochialism
in the location of the objects of research? It means, among many
other things, that sociology is becoming more universal in the
range of its sympathy and interests, it is becoming more comparative. Of course, general sociological theory has always aspired to
embrace all human societies within its scheme of analysis, but on
the whole it has done so with insufficient differentiation. But the
new movement toward comparative sociology is not comparative
in the sense that Herbert spencer or the German ethnologists of the
nineteenth century were comparative; it is not an attempt to assign
societies to their respective places on an evolutionary scale. It
does not involve the application of a rigid classification or typology
of societies. It is more tentative, more exploratory. It is more empirical; it is usually based on field work or on the use of primary
archival sources in the country studied. Yet it is also theoretical.
More than the empirical work which sociologists do in their own
countries, it is also either directly or indirectly macrosociological,
and, as we have indicated earlier, it is easer to be theoretical in
macrosociological than in microsociological analyses. (The reason
is that many of the classical figures of sociological theory - e.g.,
Weber above all, Marx, Tocqueville, Michels, and Pareto - had
a very strong macrosociological bent.) Thus, the new comparative
28
29
30
31
Ghana, the U.nited States, Ethiopia, Israel, Indonesia, Uganda, Ceylon, and the Ivory Coast, assimilated the results of many particular
inquiries and observations on communities, parties, business firms,
kinship groups, and social classes into a coherent view of the total
society.
Macrosociology cannot be done without considering changes in
the structure of society. Changes cannot be studied without going
into the depth of history. As a result, historical background had to
be borne in mind in a way in which the classical empirical investigations of the period up to the Second World War had never
done. The historical background can be dealt with in three ways:
(1) as a residual category from which everything which cannot be
accounted for unalytically or theoretically can be explained in an
ad hoc manner; or (2) as a constellation of traditions and interests
operative at the moment under investigation; or (3) as a series of
states of a system. Increasingly sociologists have inclined toward
the second and third - although the first is still widely practised.
The acceptan-::e of the second and third has meant that sociol9gists
are being led to overcome the temporal fragmentation, or, to put
it differently, the ahistoricity of the hitherto prevailing practice
of sociology. Concepts have had to be given historical depth, processes which were the objects of sociological conceptualization
have had to be understood as having a temporal dimension; they
can no longer be regarded as occurring in a single moment or over a
short series of moments of time. Sociologists have thus been required to become historians - not necessarily historical specialists,
although in a few cases they have become these also.
This development occurred at about the same time as certain
sociologists, who were not macrosociologists, began to discover
the possibility of the application of their techniques to earlier periods. We may mention here historical voting studies as practised
by Lazarsfeld and his school. At the same time, the growing persuasiveness of sociology and certain internal developments in historiography were leading certain historians in a sociological direction. We may mention here only the work in historical demography
of Laslett and Wrigley, of the great French school which has developed from the work of Marc Bloch, Lucien Febvre, Fernand Braudel,
Louis Chevalier, Gabriel Le Bras, Georges Lefebvre, Ernst Labrousse,
the still unexhausted riches of the Indonesian studies of Schrieke
and van Leur, the political-sociological studies of Sir Ronald Syme,
and the historical studies of the structure and fate of particular
32
IV
The import of this cursory survey of certain features of the trend
of sociological research over the past quarter of a century - as
full of gaps and injustices as it is - is that sociology, under circumstances which demand incessant specialization, has been experiencing a counterbalancing process of unification. Theory and
research, within nearly every country where sociology is carried
on, are in a more active interaction and reciprocal assimilation than
they have ever been before. Sociologists are forming, more than
they have ever done before, a worldwide intellectual community
which is pursuing a commonly conceived objective. All the world's
societies are being seen more than ever before as members of a
single family in which variations and changes occur within a framework of shared attributes and potentialities.
The realization of all these trends which are still only in their
33