Intervention sociology: history and foundations

Our intention is to state the main characteristics of intervention sociology, from its origins, the beginnings of which can be situated in Frédéric Le Play's monographic work carried out 150 years ago, to its present forms. Rather seldom mentioned in sociological literature or if so in the course of a paragraph or in methodological appendixes, intervention sociology, although widely practised outside the academic field, today still lacks legibility and institutional recognition. By proposing a thorough reading of the main theories and conceptions developed during the past two centuries, our article aims at explaining, through the sociological prism, the fundamental concepts of intervention sociology.     

Caroline Bartlett Crane and the history of sociology: Salvation, sanitation, and the social gospel

This article investigates the relationship between Progressive era (1890–1920) social reform and the origins of American sociology with a view of the vital contributions of women in these endeavors. I observe the efforts of the first generation of sociologists to legitimate and delineate the field in the “social construction” of the discipline of sociology, as they attempted to combine Christianity, the social gospel, and socialism into a new and unique ideology. In this article I examine the archival material of Progressive era reformer, Caroline Bartlett Crane (1858–1935), a Unitarian minister and student in the sociology department of the University of Chicago in 1896, to address the relationship between theology, sociology, and social reform from a woman’s perspective.     

Unfeeling knowledge: Emotion and objectivity in the history of sociology

The theoretical concern of this paper is with the relationship of gender, personal life, and emotion to the social construction of sicentific knowledge. I examine this question through biographical research into the life and work of William Fielding Ogburn (1886–1959), a major figure in the history of American sociology. Ogburn believed that emotion was inimical to science and that statistics could help control what he considered to be its distorting effects. My analysis suggests that there was a personal component, reflecting Ogburn's search for masculinity, to the development of his ideas about how scientific sociology should be defined and practiced. I also suggest that Ogburn's ideas were favorably received by his mostly male audience because they spoke to broad cultural and historical currents. My analysis shows the need for a view of scientific knowledge that takes into account the effects of gender relations and emotion on intellectual activity.     

Ilya Neustadt, Norbert Elias, and the Leicester Department: personal correspondence and the history of sociology in Britain

The central aims of this paper are: (1) to explore the utility of using personal correspondence as a source of data for sociological investigations into the history of sociology in the UK; (2) in relation to this undertaking, to advance the beginnings of a figurational analysis of epistolary forms; and (3), to provide an empirically-grounded discussion of the historical significance of the Department of Sociology at the University of Leicester (a University largely ignored in 'standard histories' of the subject) at a formative phase in the development of the discipline within the UK. The correspondence drawn upon in the paper is between Norbert Elias and Ilya Neustadt between 1962 and 1964 when Elias was Professor of Sociology at the University of Ghana and Ilya Neustadt was Professor of Sociology and Head of the Sociology Department at the University of Leicester. From an analysis of this correspondence, we elucidate an emergent dynamic to the relationship between Neustadt and Elias, one which, we argue, undergirds the development of sociology at Leicester and the distinctive character of the intellectual climate that prevailed there during the 1960s. The paper concludes with a consideration of whether it was a collapse of this dynamic that led to a total breakdown in the relationship between Neustadt and Elias, and by extension, an important phase in the expansion of sociology at Leicester.     

Revitalizing sociology: urban life and mental illness between history and the present

This paper proposes a re‐thinking of the relationship between sociology and the biological sciences. Tracing lines of connection between the history of sociology and the contemporary landscape of biology, the paper argues for a reconfiguration of this relationship beyond popular rhetorics of ‘biologization' or ‘medicalization'. At the heart of the paper is a claim that, today, there are some potent new frames for re‐imagining the traffic between sociological and biological research – even for ‘revitalizing’ the sociological enterprise as such. The paper threads this argument through one empirical case: the relationship between urban life and mental illness. In its first section, it shows how this relationship enlivened both early psychiatric epidemiology, and some forms of the new discipline of sociology; it then traces the historical division of these sciences, as the sociological investment in psychiatric questions waned, and ‘the social' become marginalized within an increasingly ‘biological' psychiatry. In its third section, however, the paper shows how this relationship has lately been revivified, but now by a nuanced epigenetic and neurobiological attention to the links between mental health and urban life. What role can sociology play here? In its final section, the paper shows how this older sociology, with its lively interest in the psychiatric and neurobiological vicissitudes of urban social life, can be our guide in helping to identify intersections between sociological and biological attention. With a new century now underway, the paper concludes by suggesting that the relationship between urban life and mental illness may prove a core testing‐ground for a ‘revitalized' sociology.     

Marxist sociology and humanist sociology: Diversity, intersections, and convergence

Marxist sociology is at the intersection of Marxism and sociology; while humanist sociology is at the intersection of humanist thought and sociology. Both see sociological theory as a living, evolving activity, and both take a critical stance toward the workings of capitalism. The main difference between them is that Marxist sociology is a body of thought tied to a movement, whereas humanist sociology is a movement tied to a body of thought. Professor of Sociology, Purdue University Calumet. He is past chair of the Section on Marxist Sociology, has been a member of the AHS for twenty years, and is co-author of Crisis and Change: Basic Questions of Marxist Sociology.     

Weber,Simmel, and the sociology of culture

Max Weber and Georg Simmel began their long and important association not later than the mid-1890s. Both emerged from the upper middle class intellectual life of Berlin, but with different starting points: Protestant political and moralistic culture for Weber; the Jewish experience and the new aesthetic culture of modernism for Simmel. Despite such a contrast, Weber and Simmel were drawn together essentially because of a shared interest in problems of modern culture. The historical evidence shows that this interest developed around an assessment of Nietzsche's significance and a critique of ‘psychologism’. The German Sociological Society both helped to establish in 1909 then became a notable, if brief, episode in the attempt to clarify the tasks of sociology as a ‘science of culture’. Their relationship (and Marianne Weber's) to the debate over the prospects for a unique ‘female culture’ illustrates a neglected aspect of the cultural problem. Notwithstanding their different sociologies, Weber and Simmel can be seen as raising a similar question about the ‘fate’ of our culture, and it is this question that continues to make their work significant.     

Positivism and interpretation in sociology: Lessons for sociologists from the history of stress research

This paper examines the relation between positivistic and interpretive sociology, using the stress research literature as a case study. Analyzing the cultural history of the stress concept, it uncovers four central themes: anxiety, performance, adjustment, and mentalism. Examining the self-criticisms made by scientific students of stress, it focuses on the problems of temporal order, confounding, and interaction. Comparison of the cultural and scientific literatures shows that while some of the positivists' complaints derive from general methodological choices, others come from inescapable aspects of the culture's general idea of stress. Considering the past development of stress research, the paper argues that positivism and interpretation have not been Cartesian opposites but interpenetrating fractals. It then speculates about what this relation implies for future positivistic studies, both in the stress literature and more generally.This paper was first presented at the joint invitation of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology and the Hispanic Research Center at Fordham University, May 15, 1987.     

Simmel,rationalisation and the sociology of money

Simmel was born in 1858. Raised in the centre of the Jewish business culture of Berlin. Simmel studied history and philosophy, becoming a Privatdozent in 1885. Although he published numerous books and artickes, simmel was excluded from influential university positions as a result of the pervasive anti-Semitism of the period and it was bot until 1914 that Simmel was finally promoted to a full professorship at the University of Strasbourg. Like Durkheim. Simmel was both the object of anti-Semitic prejudice and a fervent supporter of the nationalist cause in the First World War. Simmel died in 1918 if cancer of the liver.¹ This basic and naïve factual biography of Simmel in many respects provides many of the themes in Simmel's sociology. First, his sociology is held to be the brilliant reflection of the glittering, cospospolitan world of pre-war Berlin and that his commentary on that world took the form of impressionism his sociological essays are snapshots sub specie aeternitatis”? simmel's perspective has been regarded as an example of the nature of modern society as contained in Robert Musil's The Man's Without Qualities. That is a social existence without roots, commitments or purpose.³ Secondly, Simmel was and remained a social outsider despite his good connections with Berlin's cultural elite. His writing has been as a result characterised as perspectivism and an aestheticication of reality. As an indication of this, Simmel's influence has in the past often rested on such minor contributions as‘The Stranger’⁴ Thridly, because Simmel failed to secure an influential location within the German university system, there was no development of the Simmelian school of sociology at all comparable to Durkheimain sociology. Decades of sociological interpretation of Simmel's work have still left Simmel as a theoretical enigma on the ambitus of the sociological tradition. His sociology has been categorised as interactionist, formal and conflict sociology.⁵ In more recent years there has been a renewal of interest in Simmel which has begun to show a greater appreciation of the unity and stature of his sociology. This renewal has been brought about by the cominentaries of Levine. Frisby, Robertson, and Holzner. ⁶ More importantly, the translation of Simmel's The Philosophy of Money⁷ by Bottomore and Frisby provides a new opportunity for a systematic evaluation of Simmel's sociology of modern culture. The main burden of this paper is that existing commentaries have failed to focus on the central theme of‘alienation’and‘rationalisation’in The Philosophy of Money which provided the major theoretical backing for on the one hand, Weber's analysis capitalism as the iron cage and on the other Lukács so-called rediscovery of the alienation theme in the young Marx.     

Reflections on public sociology: Public relations, disciplinary identity, and the strong program in professional sociology

Public sociology is an attempt to redress the issues of public engagement and disciplinary identity that have beset the discipline over the past several decades. While public sociology seeks to rectify the public invisibility of sociology, this paper investigates the limitations of it program. Several points of critique are offered. First, public sociology's affiliations with Marxism serve to potentially entrench existing divisions within the discipline. Second, public sociology's advancement of an agenda geared toward a “sociology for publics” instead of a “sociology of publics” imposes limitations on the development of a public interface. Third, the lack of a methodological agenda for public sociology raises concerns of how sociology can compete within a contested climate of public opinion. Fourth, issues of disciplinary coherence are not necessarily resolved by public sociology, and are potentially exacerbated by the invocation of public sociology as a new disciplinary identity. Fifth, the incoherence of professional sociology is obviated, and a misleading affiliation is made between scientific knowledge and the hegemonic structure of the profession. Finally, the idealism of public sociology's putative defense of civil society is explored as a Utopian gesture akin to that of Habermas’ attempt to revive the public sphere. The development of a strong program in professional sociology is briefly offered as a means to repair the disciplinary problems that are illustrated by emergence of the project of public sociology.