On estimating the social costs of national economic policy: A critical examination of the Brenner study

This is a critique of Brenner's attempt to link morbidity and mortality to inflation, per capita income and unemployment. Several specific defects and recommendations are cited.     

The political economy of sociology: An interview with David Goslin,national research council

In this interview, David A. Goslin responds to a variety of questions concerning the relationship between the federal government and the political economy of sociology. He addresses the identity of sociology in Washington, the treatment of behavioral and social sciences as a special case in science policy, the greater acceptability of the behavioral sciences, the battle of 1981, the recurring need for reviews of the discipline, the role of the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences, the current status and rising prospects of the social sciences, and emerging areas of national concern. Lawrence J. Rhoades has been on the Washington scene for more than a decade. During the first four years, he served as executive associate of the American Sociological Association and wrote a social science and government series forFootnotes. He has since served in research policy, planning, and evaluation positions in the federal government. He currently is Washington correspondent forThe American Sociologist.     

The demographic context of recent change in the structure of American households

This article examines recent changes in the structure of American households within the context of broad population changes. Decreases in married-couple households and increases in single-parent households are almost entirely due to the changing patterns of marriage, divorce, fertility, and child custody; headship rates for families have remained relatively stable. Increases in single-person and other nonfamily households are due to increases in the size of the unmarried, childless population and to the aging of this population. Increasing propensities to live alone or with nonrelatives were observed between 1970 and 1980, but these behavioral changes have abated during the early 1980s.     

Change and Paradox in Family Therapy

This paper shows that when the interpersonal context in a family alters, solutions which have previously been successful may paradoxically increase the family's difficulties rather than resolve them. Therapy minors this process, in that when the family system is flexible, “commonsense” interventions may be effective, whereas with a rigid dysfunctional family system therapeutic interventions may be necessary which, among other things, paradoxically imply that no change is required. Some concepts derived from Watzlawick, Weakland and Fish are redefined and the mathematical group theory used by these authors is replaced by system theory in combination with the theory of logical types. A “behaviour disorder” family is used to illustrate the paradoxical mode of symptom development and also the use of a number of paradoxical therapeutic interventions. Possible reasons for the therapeutic power of these interventions are discussed; the concept of first and second order therapeutic paradoxes is introduced.     

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.