Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:03:12.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

European Sociology and the American Self-Image

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Ralf Dahrendorf
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes Critiques
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , December 1961 , pp. 324 - 366
Copyright
Copyright © Archives Européenes de Sociology 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* This paper was presented to the Annual Conference of the European Association for American Studies in Berlin, September 27–30, 1961. Its subject and style were determined by this occasion.

(1) When Karl Mannheim wrote his essay on “American Sociology” in 1932 (Essays on Sociology and Social Psychology2, London, 1959Google Scholar), he naturally confined himself to contrasting American and German sociology. In 1948, Shils, Edward (The Present State of American Sociology, Glencoe, 1948)Google Scholar speaks of contrasting American sociology at times with “its French and German counterparts” (p. 4), at other times, with “its great European forebears” p. 6). In 1960 L. and H. Rosenmayr refer, again quite naturally, throughout their discussion of the social background of American sociology (Introduction to German edition of , R. and Hinkle, G., Die Entwicklung der amerikanischen Soziologie, München, 1960)Google Scholar to “European sociogy”, “sociology in Europe”, or even “sociology in the old continent”.

(2) Cf. Small, A., The Origins of Sociology (Chicago, 1924), p. 325 sq.Google Scholar

(3) Cf. Buchanan, W. and Cantril, H., How Nations See Each Other (Urbana, 1953).Google Scholar

(4) Davis, K., Bredemeier, H., Levy, M. J., eds., Modern American Society4 (New York, 1958), p. VI.Google Scholar

(5) Cf. Williams, Robin. American Soiciety (New York, 1951), ch. XI.Google Scholar

(6) Cf. Lerner, Max, America as a Civilization (New York, 1957), ch. 11, sect. 5.Google Scholar

(7) Hofstadter, Richard, The American Political Tradition11 (New York, 1959), p. vGoogle Scholar

(8) Davis, K., Bredemeier, H., Levy, M. J., op. cit. p. 713.Google Scholar

(9) Lynd, R., Knowledge for What?9 (Princeton, 1959), p. 59.Google Scholar

(10) Lynd, R., loc. cit. p. 63.Google Scholar

(11) de Tocqueville, A., Democracy in America (Vintage Books, New York, 1956), p. 48.Google Scholar

(12) Davis, K., Bredemeier, H., Levy, M. J., op. cit. p. 696.Google Scholar

(13) de Tocqueville, A., op. cit. p. 55 sq.Google Scholar

(14) Cf. for an elaboration of this argumerit my essay “Democracy Without Liberty” in Lipset, S. M. and Lowenthal, L., eds., Culture and Social Character (Glencoe, 1961).Google Scholar

(15) The studies referred to in this paragraph are: Riesman, D., The Lonely Crowd2 (New York, 1953)Google Scholar; Shils, E., The Torment of Secrecy (Glencoe, 1958)Google Scholar; Kornhauser, W., The Politics of Mass Society (Glencoe, 1959)Google Scholar; Mills, C. Wright, The Power Elite (New York, 1959).Google Scholar

(16) , L. and Rosenmayr, H., op. cit. p. 14et passim.Google Scholar

(17) Cf. Hofstadter, R., Social Darwinism in American Thought3 (Boston, 1959), p. 34Google Scholar. Much of the following discussion of Spencer in America is based on this excellent study.

(18) Quoted by R. Hofstadter, ibid. p. 33.

(19) Ibid. p. 34.

(20) Davis, K., Bredemeier, H., Levy, M. J., op. cit. p. 700.Google Scholar

(21) Hofstadter, R., op. cit. p. 201.Google Scholar

(22) Ibid. p. 50.

(23) Parsons, T., The Structure of Social Action2 (Glencoe, 1949), p. 3.Google Scholar

(24) This may however have been due to the close personal relation of Beatrice Webb to Spencer (for which see her My Apprenticeship, London, ch. 1) which is reflected even in Sidney Webb's writings. That Spencer had nothing in common with any kind of socialism is obvious; for an amusing illustration see the scene described by Webb, B., loc. cit. p. 29.Google Scholar

(25) Cf. Hofstadter, , op. cit. p. 82Google Scholar, for an indication of where the explanation of the attitude of these two great figures of American thought may be sought: “Like Veblen, Ward felt a certain personal alienation from the dominant characters and opinions of American intellectual life […]”.

(26) Cf. section e below.

(27) Hofstadter, R., op. cit. p. 5.Google Scholar

(28) Bendix, R., Work and Authority in Industry (New York/London, 1956) p. 257Google Scholar; ch. v of this work is concerned miswith “managerial ideologies” and “images of man” in American industry.

(29) Lütkens, Ch., Staat und Gesellschaft in Amerika (Tübingen, 1929), p. 194.Google Scholar

(30) That Weber's analysis was “miswith understood” in this process of practical application (as many authors have claimed) is almost self-evident. Cf. Roth, G. and Bendix, R.: “Max Weber's Einfluß auf die amerikanische Soziologie”, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie, XI (1959), p. 41Google Scholar: “Many readers did not know that the Protestant Ethic was merely a preliminary study, and often believed that Weber had wanted to derive modern capitalism from the Protestant ethic […]”.

(31) Davis, K., Bredemeier, H., Levy, M. J., op. cit. p. 704.Google Scholar

(32) This fact makes the attention paid to religion as a force of integration by Parsons and his disciples (Davis, Williams, and others) understandable, and vice versa.

(33) Laski, H., The American Democracy London, 1949), p. 27.Google Scholar

(34) Williams calls this trait the “moral orientation” of Americans, op. cit. p. 391.

(35) Bendix, R., op. cit. p. 335.Google Scholar

(36) Whyte, W. F., The Organization Man (New York, 1957)Google Scholar, esp. ch. 11, “The Decline of the Protestant Ethic”.

(37) For a history of translations of Max Weber's works, cf. Roth, G. and Bendix, R., op. cit. n. 8.Google Scholar

(38) Parsons, T., op. cit. p. 58.Google Scholar

(39) Ch. Lütkens, , op. cit. p. 187.Google Scholar

(40) Most of these, except for his book Science, Technology and Society in 17th Century England (Bruges, 1938)Google Scholar, are now assembled in his Social Theory and Social Structure2 (Glencoe, 1957).Google Scholar

(41) Merton, R. K.: “Puritanism, Pietism, and Science”Google Scholar, ibid. p. 579.

(42) Cf. Williams, R., op. cit. p. 417 sq.Google Scholar

(43) von Borch, H., Die unfertige Gesellschaft (München, 1960), p. 183, p. 185.Google Scholar

(44) Cf. Roth, G. and Bendix, R., op. cit. p. 44 sqq.Google Scholar

(45) Hinkle, R. L. and Hinkle, G. N., The Development of Modern Sociology (New York, 1954), p. 92.Google Scholar

(46) Bendix, R., Max Weber (Garden City, 1960), p. 453.Google Scholar

(47) Stein, M. R., The Eclipse of Community (Princeton, 1960).Google Scholar

(48) Bergstraesser, A., “Amerikanische und Deutsche Soziologie”, in Politik in Wissenschaft und Bildung (Freiburg, 1961), p. 197.Google Scholar

(49) de Tocqueville, A., op. cit. p. 62.Google Scholar

(50) Cf. the Introduction by Angell, R. C. to The Two Major Works of Ch. H. Cooley (Glencoe, 1956), p. XIGoogle Scholar. See also Dewey, R., “C. H. Cooley: Pioneer in Psychosociology”, in An Introduction to the History of Sociology6, ed. Barnes, H. E. (Chicago, 1958), p. 834.Google Scholar

(51) Quoted by R. Dewey, ibid. p. 843.

(52) Stein, M. R., op. cit. p. 18.Google Scholar

(53) Ibid. p. 19.

(54) Cf. for a relatively early (and possibly influential) favourable exposition of them Parsons “Note on Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft”: op. cit. p. 686 sqq.

(55) Lerner, M., op. cit. p. 584.Google Scholar

(56) The works referred to are: Sorokin, P., Fads and Foibles in Modern Socialogy (London, 1958)Google Scholar; Mills, C. W., The Sociological Imagination (New York, 1959)Google Scholar; Bell, D., The End of Ideology (New York, 1960)Google Scholar; Moore, B., Political Power and Social Theory (Cambridge, 1958)Google Scholar; Wrong, D.: “The Failure of American Sociology”, Commentary (11 1959)Google Scholar. Cf. also my article: “Out of Utopia”, American Journal of Sociology, LXIV (1958).Google Scholar

(57) Mills, C. W., The Power Elite, p. 325.Google Scholar

(58) Davis, K., Bredemeier, H., Levy, M. J., op. cit. p. 702.Google Scholar

(59) Schoeck, H., USA — Motive und Strukturen (Stuttgart, 1958), p. 8.Google Scholar

(60) Williams, R., op. cit. ch. XIV.Google Scholar

(61) Wells, H. G., “The So-Called Science of Sociology”, Social Forces in England and America (New York, 1914), p. 238.Google Scholar

(62) Quoted by Roth, G. and Bendix, R., op. cit. p. 38.Google Scholar

(63) Cf. , R. and Hinkle, G., op. cit. p. 50.Google Scholar

(64) Hofstadter, R., op. cit. p. 70Google Scholar. Hofstadter is here referring to the 1880's.

(65) Faris, R. E. L. “American Sociology”, Twentieth Century Sociology, ed. Gurvitch, G. and Moore, W. E. (New York, 1945), p. 538.Google Scholar

(66) Bergstraesser, A., op. cit. p. 198.Google Scholar

(67) Shils, E. A., op. cit. p. 6.Google Scholar

(68) , L. and Rosenmayr, H., op. cit. p. 21.Google Scholar

(69) Northcott, C. G. “The Sociological Theories of Franklin Henry Giddings” ‘An Introduction to the History of Sociology, op. cit. p. 744 sq.Google Scholar

(70) Faris, R. E. L., op. cit. p. 540.Google Scholar

(71) Cf. Barnes, H. E., “The Social and Political Theories of J. H. W. Stuckenberg”Google Scholar, An Introduction etc., loc. cit. p. 805 sq. In the opinion of Barnes, Stuckenberg “suffered unmerited obscurity” because of his “lack of association with sociology in university circles”.

(72) Hinkle, R., “Durkheim in American Sociology”, Émile Durkheim 1858–1917, ed. Wolff, K. (Columbus, 1960), p. 273.Google Scholar

(73) Hinkle, R., op. cit. p. 267Google Scholar. Might not be true that Marx was disregarded even more generally? Hinkle's statement here would seem to be somewhat exaggerated.

(74) Cf. Faris, R. E. L., op. cit. p. 550Google Scholar. See also R. C. Angell's reference to Cooley's interest in Westermarck, , op. cit. p. XII.Google Scholar

(75) This is described very well in the otherwise unimpressive study of , R. and Hinkle, G., op. cit.Google Scholar part II. Of. also Faris, R. E. L., op. cit. p. 546 sqq.Google Scholar

(76) Ibid. p. 546.

(77) Mannheim, K., op. cit.Google Scholar Mannheim also charged American sociology with ignoring the “sociology of knowledge”—a shortcoming that was soon remedied by the translation of Mannheim's Ideology and Utopia and the work of Louis Wirth.

(78) Cf. Lipset, S. M. and Smelser, N. J., eds., Sociology—The Progress of a Decade (Englewood Cliffs, 1961), p. v.Google Scholar

(79) Riemer, S., “Die Emigration der deutschen Soziologen nach den Vereinigten Staaten”, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie, XI (1959), p. 100 sq.Google Scholar

(80) , L. and Rosenmayr, H., op. cit. p. 15 sqq.Google Scholar

(81) Shils, E., op. cit. p. 21.Google Scholar

(82) Warner, W. L., American Life—Dream and Reality (Chicago, 1953), p. 53.Google Scholar

(83) Title of one of Sumner's books, a “social-Darwinian classic” (Hofstadter, , op. cit. p. 8).Google Scholar

(84) Lipset, S. M. and Bendix, R., “Social Status and Social Structure”, British Journal of Sociology, II (1951).Google Scholar

(85) Cf. White Collar (New York, 1956)Google Scholar and The Power Elite by Mills, C. Wright; Middletown (New York, 1929)Google Scholar and, above all, Middletown in Transition (New York, 1937)Google Scholar by R. and H. Lynd.

(86) , L. and Rosenmayr, H., op. cit. p. 16.Google Scholar

(87) Cf., e.g., Coser, L., The Functions of Social Conflict (London, 1956), p. 15 sq.Google Scholar

(88) Lipset, S. M. and Bendix, R., op. cit. p. 151.Google Scholar

(89) Letter by Marx, Karl to Weydemeyer, Josef of 03 5, 1852.Google Scholar

(90) This is the briefest summary of Sombart, 's brilliant analysis, Warum gibt es in den Vereinigien Stouten keinen Sozialismus? (Tübingen, 1906), cf. esp. pp. 124–142.Google Scholar

(91) Sombart, W., op. cit. p. 141 sq.Google Scholar

(92) Warner, W. L., op. cit. p. 54.Google Scholar

(93) Cf. Shils, E. A., op. cit. p. 52 sqq.Google Scholar

(94) Laski, H., op. cit. p. 31.Google Scholar

(95) Ibid. p. 31 sq.

(96) Simmel, G., Conflict, trans. Wolff, K. H. (Glencoe, 1955).Google Scholar

(97) Thus Meisel, J. H., The Myth of the Ruling Class (Ann Arbor, 1958), p. 424, n. 64.Google Scholar

(98) In ch. I of his study of conflict, op. cit.

(99) Coser, L., op. cit. p. 28.Google Scholar

(100) These monographs are Henderson, L. J., Pareto's General Sociology (Cambridge, 1935)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Meisel, J. H., op. cit.Google Scholar, with the subtitle “Gaetano Mosca and the Elite”.

(101) Meisel, J. H., op. cit. p. 360.Google Scholar

(102) Laski, H., op. cit. p. 9.Google Scholar

(103) There is an apparent contradiction between my thesis that the concept of elite has been neglected in American alsociology and Brodersen, A.'s statement (“Strukturprobleme der heutigen amerikanischen Gesellschaft”, Hamburger Jahrbuck für Wirtschafts- und Gesettschaftspolitik, vol. IV, 1959, p. 40 sq.)Google Scholar: “Concepts like “ruling class” were so far […] usually avoided in American sociology. Instead another concept was adopted much more eagerly and used almost indiscrimately for almost every kind of structural analysis. I am thinking of the concept of elite.” Brodersen's first statement shows that we are agreed in principle; as to the latter, Brodersen fails to present enough evidence to substantiate it, alsociology though he has a point in so far as there are a few authors who try to do to the concept of elite what American sociology did to the concept of class: reduce it to a neutral and rather sterile meaning.

(104) For a discussion of elite theories and theorists in America cf. Meisel, J. H., op. cit.Google Scholar, “Conclusions”.

(105) Ibid. p. 360.

(106) The “elite studies” of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University provide excellent. data on German, Soviet and other political leaders; but the concept of elite employed by them is devoid of any meaning.

(107) It is unfortunate from this point of view, that Friedrich, C. J., the author of The New Image of the Common Man (Boston, 1950)Google Scholar, should be “fairly representative of the American majority opinion” (Meisel, J. H., op. cit. p. 360).Google Scholar

(108) Quoted from the German version of Bruckberger, R. L., Amerika — Die Revolution des Jahrhunderts (Frankfurt, 1960), p. 101.Google Scholar

(109) Ibid. p. 60.

(110) Brinton puts his case rather cleverly in the following way: Having discussed the rise to power of “Cromwell, Bonaparte, Stalin”, he adds the — clearly rhetorical — statement: “Indeed, in the Federalist period in the United States, there were Jefiersonians ungrateful enough to suggest that Washington was a perfectly good example of the tyrant born of revolution” (The Anatomy of Revolution, rev. ed. New York, 1957, p. 218)Google Scholar. In fairness it must be added that Brinton has asked himself whether the American revolution is really a case in point, and although he has decided that it is, he has not done so without reservation.

(111) Shils, E. A., op. cit. p. 53.Google Scholar

(112) , L. and Rosenmayr, H., op. cit. p. 13.Google Scholar

(113) Hofstadter, R., The American Political Tradition, p. v.Google Scholar

(114) Mills, C. W., The Sociological Imagination, ch. VIII.Google Scholar

(115) Shils, E. A., op. cit. p. 53.Google Scholar

(116) Stein, M., op. cit. p. 95.Google Scholar

(117) Lipset, S. M., “American Intellectuals, Their Politics and Status”, Political Man (Garden City, 1960).Google Scholar

(118) Birnbaum, N., “Die Intellektuellen in der gegenwärtigen Politik der Vereinigten Staaten”, Zeitschrift für Politik (1957), p. 126.Google Scholar

(119) Trilling, L., “Reality in America”, The Liberal Imagination (Garden City, 1957), p. 8.Google Scholar

(120) Cf. Merton, R. K., “Social Structure and Anomie”, Social Theory and Social Structure1 (Glencoe, 1958).Google Scholar

(121) This is why not only the relation between Sumner and Spencer, but also that between Small and Schmoller is so significant: In Germany, Schmoller was a representative not of “sociology”, but of “social policy” (Sozialpolitik) which was the theory of Bismarck's dynamic conservatism. German sociology developed in active opposition to this school of thought.

(122) Th. Geiger, , Aufgabe und Stellung der Intelligenz in der Gesellschaft (Stuttgart, 1949), p. 124.Google Scholar

(123) The works in question are Mills, C. W., The Sociological ImaginationGoogle Scholar, and Merton, R. K., Social Theory and Social StructureGoogle Scholar. It is perfectly clear that the overwhelming majority of American sociologists is more “conservative” than Merton, but it seemed unfair to compare Mills' book with, say, one of the standard college textbooks, since these are so much inferior in quality.

(124) Cf. for a highly instructive discussion of these ambiguities the contradictory articles in Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie, XIII (1961).Google Scholar

(125) Hofstadter, R., Social Darwinism etc., p. 8.Google Scholar

(126) Mills, C. W., White Collar, p. XIII.Google Scholar