NOTES

by the fact that the unity-in-contradiction of the CCD dialectic repeats itself here in terms of corporate sociological agents. The CCD is most proximately activated by critical intellectuals, although the technical intelligentsia has it ‘in latency’. ‘Intellectuals’ is both the generic and the ‘specially valued’ social category; ‘intelligentsia’ both its specific difference and its degenerative form.

19Bazelon likewise suggests that the truly productive ‘property’ is ‘the utility of the person’, which is not merely individual but social and political, since the person’s skill entails that he or she can do something, but also that the person can relate what he or she does to what others do (1967:309). McDermott argues that professional knowledges and expert techniques are owned both individually and collectively, because they are only exercisable within ‘corporate form’ and crucially depend upon membership in a certain profession (1991:80, 129).

20Cf. the close connection between property and the issue of credibility in Weimer (1997).

8 TOWARDS A THEORY OF INTELLECTUAL

RIVALRY

1Concepts such as ‘capitalism’, ‘proletariat’, and ‘culture’, Mannheim suggested early on, were ‘directional’ in the sense of embodying a specific normative-

political ‘stress’ (tensio); all sociological thought was embedded in a drive for change (1982:199–200, 203, 247; 1968:3–4).

2In this manner, Schmitt substantively anticipated Lukes’ and Connolly’s application of Gallie’s notion of ‘essential contestability’ to political theory. For Connolly, contests about the concept of politics are indeed simultaneously part of politics itself (1974:30, 36, 39).

3A few years later, this völkische version of standpoint epistemology was repeated by Schmitt, who in no uncertain terms connected the achievement of objectivity to its ‘existential rootedness’ in the life of the (German) Nation (1935:45).

4On the American dispute over Ideology and Utopia, cf. especially Kettler and Meja (1995:193ff.).

5It is peculiar that a diligent historian of science such as Shapin misses this boundary work on the right flank, and traces the emergence of stricter demarcations between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ accounts of scientific change exclusively to the Marxist historiography of the 1940s and 1950s (Shapin 1992:338–9).

6Gallie himself had already linked contestability to a logic of conversion in religious, aesthetic, political, or moral fields (1955–6:188). Garver appositely assumes that ‘our ideas have political relations with each other, which are informed by the

metaphors and presuppositions inherited from political relations’ (1990:266n.).

7As a curious matter of detail, we may note Bourdieu’s double misreading, in his later defence of Merton, against the presumed nihilism and reductionism of the Strong Programme and its radical offshoots. First, his repeated warning against ‘short-circuit’ explanations, which fail to recognize the inevitable refraction of external social interests by the laws of the intellectual field, evidently misfires when it is critically addressed at the Strong Programme (Bourdieu 1990; 1995). Second, Merton is credited with a quasi-economic conception of intellectual competition which not only directly and explicitly paraphrases Mannheim’s 1928 text (which Bourdieu ignores), but which is also interpreted in a far more ‘agonistic’ sense than Merton ever intended (cf. Merton 1973:100–1; Pels 1996a).

284

NOTES

8It is somewhat questionable whether Bourdieu still maintains this radical position twenty years after the fact. Since 1975, he has (rather like Mannheim after 1930) toned down his early formulations, in order to approach a more academic and Mertonian conception of scientific competition, which increasingly insists on the scientificity of sociology, on a strong version of ‘relational realism’, and on the autonomy of the scientific community as informed by an ever more stringent opposition between the logic of the political and that of the scientific field

(Bourdieu 1995; cf. Pels 1995a).

9This episode is treated more extensively in Pels (1997).

10By itself, of course, this repoliticization of non-humans and things once again demonstrates the essential arbitrariness of conventional associations which pair politics to persons and property to things.

11This law of accumulation is similarly operative in the field of artistic production:

Few social actors depend as much as artists, and intellectuals in general, for what they are upon the image that other people have of them and what they are…. For the author, the critic, the art dealer, the publisher, or the theatre manager, the only legitimate accumulation consists in making a name for oneself, a known, recognized name, a capital of consecration implying a power to consecrate objects (with a trademark or signature) or persons (through publications, exhibition, etc.) and therefore give value, and to appropriate the profits from this operation.

(Bourdieu 1971:166)

12When touching upon the subject of religious dogma, Weber was likewise attracted by a proprietary metaphor: ‘Sie sind kein “Wissen” im gewöhnlichen Sinn, sondern ein “Haben”’ (1968:611; 1970b:154).

13Taking over the basic parameters of Bourdieu’s field theory of science, Latour and Woolgar nevertheless also criticized him (rather unfairly, it now seems) for his ‘tautological’ conception of interest and for not sufficiently attending to the ‘contents’ of scientific work (1979:206).

14Cf. Bourdieu’s account of the magic of ‘investiture’, by which an institution delegates part of its (in this case, political) capital to a person, its representative, who is thereby consecrated into an ‘official’ of the institution. It is the institution which controls access to personal fame by, for example, controlling access to the most conspicuous positions (general secretary, official spokespersons) or to the places of publicity (press conferences, TV), although the person endowed with delegated capital can still obtain personal capital through a subtle strategy of distanciation from the institution (Bourdieu 1991:195–6).

15Cf. Gouldner:

Whomever intellectuals represent and however diverse the latter may be, intellectuals also, and always, represent their own interests. More than that: intellectuals always represent the interests of other classes as they see, define, and interpret them; and their interpretations are selectively mediated by their own social character and special ambitions as an historically distinct social stratum.

(1975–6:11)

16Styles of thought, Mannheim argued in his essay on ‘Conservative Thought’, tend to polarize and develop in very clear-cut extremes. Citing Oppenheimer’s interpretation of Romanticism as an ‘intellectual counter-revolution’ against

285

NOTES

Enlightenment rationalism (and an imitation par opposition in Tarde’s sense), Mannheim added that ‘no antithesis escapes conditioning by the thesis it sets out to oppose’ (1953:89). Cf. his view of the ‘productive one-sidedness’ which is characteristic of every school of thought, which tends to hypostatize itself as ‘thought as such’ (1982:155).

17Cf. Knorr-Cetina’s related view of the mechanism of ‘affirmative negation’ (1977: 683–4).

18In an early text, Mannheim already singled out as a distinctive feature of intellectual history that

consciousness, which at first appears to be unitary, splits, and certain of its possible directions are borne at a given point by specific social groups, whose world project elaborates these directions and makes them into absolutes. The opposing groups for their part take up the remaining tendencies of thought.

(1982:183)

19In a similar vein, both Schelsky (1975) and Gouldner (1985) have commented on the maintenance of the ‘old class’ myth about the historical conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat as a mystificatory strategy on the part of the New Class.

20One recent variant is provided by Beck’s idea that the ‘unpolitical’ bourgeois of welfare capitalism has turned into a political bourgeois in the new phase of reflexive modernity, and is presently obliged to ‘govern’ in his or her economic sphere after the logic and criteria of political legitimation (1993:197ff.).

21In an important sense, the converging drives for politicization of the economy (which ideologically dominated the ‘radical’ 1960s and 1970s) and for economization of the polity (which is currently dominant as a result of the neoliberal turn), have both channelled and furthered a process of professionalization and hence of intellectualization of both domains, a process which tends to be obscured by the lingering conviction of an ‘essentially’ adversarial relationship between them.

22This position resembles the one which induced Alvin Gouldner to take equal distance from both academic sociology and Marxism, because, as an involuntary ‘outlaw sociologist’ and a self-styled ‘outlaw Marxist’, he could comfortably live neither in the one nor in the other. This value-committed, partial, but also potentially synthetic position might be characterized as the neither-nor position which is typically occupied by the ‘outsider’ or ‘stranger’ (cf. Pels 1993a; 1998).

286

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, B. (1977) Private Property and the Constitution, New Haven, CA: Yale University Press.

Alcoff, L. and Potter, E. (1993) ‘Introduction: When Feminisms Intersect Epistemology’, in idem (eds) Feminist Epistemologies, New York and London: Routledge.

Allen, M.P. (1976) ‘Management Control in the Large Corporation: Comment on Zeitlin’,

American Journal of Sociology 81(4):885–94.

Althusser, L. (1971) Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, London: New Left Books. —— (1976) For Marx, New York: Vintage Books.

Anderson, P. (1974) Lineages of the Absolutist State, London: New Left Books.

——(1992) Zones of Engagement, London: Verso. Ansart, P. (1969) Marx et l’anarchisme, Paris: PUF.

Aristotle (1977) Nicomachean Ethics, trans. J.A.K.Thompson, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

——(1979) The Politics, trans. T.A.Sinclair, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Arneson, R.J. (1992) ‘Property Rights in Persons’, Social Philosophy & Policy 9:

201–30.

Aron, R. (1965) Main Currents of Sociological Thought, 2 Vols, Harmondsworth: Pelican Books.

——(1986) ‘Macht, Power, Puissance: Democratic Prose or Demoniacal Poetry?’, in S. Lukes (ed.) Power, Oxford: Blackwell.

Aschheim, S. (1992) The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890–1990, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Austin, J. (1954 [1832]) The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, London: John Murray.

—— (1885 [1861]) Lectures on Jurisprudence, London: John Murray.

Avineri, S. (1972) Hegel’s Theory of the Modern State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Aylmer, G.E. (1980) ‘The Meaning and Definition of Property in 17th-century England’,

Past and Present 86:87–97.

Bakunin, M. (1972) Staatlichkeit und Anarchie und andere Schriften, Frankfurt a.M.: Ullstein.

287

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Balbus, I. (1971) ‘Ruling Elite Theory vs. Marxist Class Analysis’, Monthly Review 23(1):36–46.

——(1982) Marxism and Domination, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ball, T. (1978) ‘Two Concepts of Coercion’, Theory and Society 5(1):79–112.

——(1988) Transforming Political Discourse. Political Theory and Critical Conceptual History, Oxford: Blackwell.

Baran, P.H. and Sweezy, P.M. (1968) Monopoly Capital, Harmondsworth: Pelican Books.

Barnes, B. (1974) Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory, London: Routledge

& Kegan Paul.

——(1988) The Nature of Power, Cambridge: Polity Press.

——(1993) ‘Power’, in R.Bellamy (ed.) Theories and Concepts of Politics, Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.

——and MacKenzie, D. (1979) ‘On the Role of Interests in Scientific Change’, in R.Wallis (ed.) On the Margins of Science, Keele: Sociological Review Monograph.

Barry, A., Osborne, T. and Rose, N. (eds) (1976) Foucault and Political Reason, London: UCL Press.

Barry, B. (ed.) (1976) Power and Political Theory: Some European Perspectives, London: John Wiley.

—— (1991) Democracy and Power. Essays in Political Theory, Vol. 1, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bazelon, D.T. (1967) Power in America: The Politics of the New Class, New York: New American Library.

——(1979) ‘How Now, the New Class?’, Dissent 26:443–9. Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society, London: Sage.

——(1993) Die Erfindung des Politischen, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

——, Giddens, A. and Lash, S. (1994) Reflexive Modernization, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Becker, G.L. (1964) Human Capital, New York: Columbia University Press.

Becker, H. and Barnes, H.E. (1952) Social Thought from Lore to Science, 2 Vols, Washington, DC: Harren Press.

Becker, L.C. (1977) Property Rights: Philosophic Foundations, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

——(1980) ‘The Moral Basis of Property Rights’, in J.R.Pennock and J.W. Chapman (eds) (1980).

——and Kipnis, K. (eds) (1984) Property: Cases, Concepts, Critiques, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

——(1992) ‘Too Much Property’, Philosophy & Public Affairs 21(2):196–206. Beetham, D. (1977) ‘From Socialism to Fascism: The Relation Between Theory and

Practice in the Work of Robert Michels’, Political Studies 25(1&2):3–24, 161–81. Bell, D. (1961) The End of Ideology, New York: The Free Press.

——(1968) ‘The Power Elite Reconsidered’, in W.B.Domhoff and H.B.Ballard (eds) (1968).

——(1976a) The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

——(1976b) The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, New York: Basic Books.

——(1979) ‘The New Class: A Muddled Concept’, in B.Bruce-Briggs (ed.).

288

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bellis, P. (1979) Marxism and the USSR, London: Macmillan.

Bendersky, J.W. (1987) ‘Carl Schmitt and the Conservative Revolution’, Telos 72: 27–42.

Benedict, R. (1935) ‘Magic’, Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, New York: The Macmillan Company.

Benoist, A.de (1983) Aus rechter Sicht, Vol. 1, Tübingen: Grabert Verlag.

——(1984) Aus rechter Sicht, Vol. 2, Tübingen: Grabert Verlag.

——(1993) ‘Democracy Revisited’, Telos 95:65–75.

Berger, P.L. (1986) The Capitalist Revolution, New York: Basic Books.

Berle, A. (1954) The Twentieth-Century Capitalist Revolution, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

——(1959) Power Without Property, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

——and Means, G.W. (1968 [1932]) The Modern Corporation and Private Property,

New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Berman, P. (ed.) (1972) Quotations from the Anarchists, New York: Praeger. Bevers, A. and Zijderveld, A.C. (1992) ‘Unexpected Convergences: New Class, Market,

and Welfare State in the World of Art’, in H.Kellner and F.W.Heuberger (eds) (1992).

Bierstedt, R. (1970) ‘An Analysis of Social Power’, in M.Olsen (ed.) (1970). Binns, D. (1977) Beyond the Sociology of Conflict, London: Macmillan.

Blackburn, R. (1965) ‘The New Capitalism’, in P.Anderson and R.Blackburn (eds) Towards Socialism, London: New Left Review/Fontana.

Bloor, D. (1991) Knowledge and Social Imagery, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Bodin, J. (1962 [1606]) The Six Bookes of a Commonweale, Knolles translation, ed. K.D. McRae, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Böhme, G. (1992) Coping With Science, Boulder, CA: Westview Press.

—— and Stehr, N. (1986) ‘The Growing Impact of Scientific Knowledge on Social Relations’, in idem (eds) The Knowledge Society, Dordrecht: Reidel.

Bookchin, M. (1980) Towards an Ecological Society, Montreal and New York: Black Rose Books.

——(1982) The Ecology of Freedom, Palo Alto, CA: Cheshire Books.

——(1986 [1971]) Post-Scarcity Anarchism, Montreal and New York: Black Rose Books.

——(1990) Remaking Society: Pathways to a Green Future, Boston: South End Press. Bordo, S. (1990) ‘Feminism, Postmodernism, and Gender-Scepticism’, in L.Nicholson

(ed.).

Bottomore, T.B. (1966) Elites and Society, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

——(1979) Political Sociology, London: Hutchinson.

——and Nisbet, R. (1979) ‘Introduction’ to A History of Sociological Analysis, London: Heinemann.

Nowak, S. and Sokolowska, M. (eds) (1982) Sociology: The State of the Art, London: Sage.

Bourdieu, P. (1971) ‘Intellectual Field and Creative Project’, in M.Young (ed.) Knowledge and Control, London: Collier-Macmillan.

—— (1979) La Distinction, Paris: Minuit.

289

BIBLIOGRAPHY

——(1980) Le Sens pratique, Paris: Minuit.

——(1981) ‘The Specificity of the Scientific Field’, in Ch. Lemert (ed.) French Sociology: Rupture and Renewal since 1968, New York: Columbia University Press.

——(1986) ‘The Forms of Capital’, in J.G.Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood Press.

——(1988) ‘Vive la crise! For Heterodoxy in Social Science’, Theory and Society 17(5): 773–87.

——(1989) La Noblesse d’état. Grandes écoles et esprit de corps, Paris: Minuit.

——(1990) ‘Animadversiones in Mertonem’, in J.Clark, C.Modgil, and S.Modgil (eds)

Robert K.Merton: Consensus and Controversy, London: Falmer Press.

——(1991) Language and Symbolic Power, Cambridge: Polity Press.

——(1993a) The Field of Cultural Production, Cambridge: Polity Press.

——(1993b) Sociology in Question, London: Sage.

——(1994) Raisons pratiques. Sur la théorie de l’action, Paris: Seuil.

——(1995) ‘La Cause de la science’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 106/ 107: 3–10.

——and De Saint-Martin, M. (1978) ‘Le Patronat’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 20/21:3–87.

——and Wacquant, L.J. D. (1992) Invitation to a Reflexive Sociology, Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Bowen, R. (1947) German Theories of the Corporate State, New York and London: Russell & Russell.

Braidotti, R. (1994) Nomadic Subjects, New York: Columbia University Press. Brandt, R. (1974) Eigentumstheorien von Grotius bis Kant, Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt:

Frommann-Holzboog.

Brenan, G. (1943) The Spanish Labyrinth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Breuer, S. (1991) Max Weber’s Herrschaftssoziologie, Frankfurt and New York: Campus

Verlag.

—— (1993) Anatomie der Konservativen Revolution, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Brint, S. (1984) ‘“New Class” and Cumulative Trend Explanations of the Liberal Political Attitude of Professionals’, American Journal of Sociology 90(1):30–71.

——(1994) In an Age of Experts, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Brubaker, R. (1985) ‘Rethinking Class Theory: The Sociological Vision of Pierre

Bourdieu’, Theory and Society 14(6):745–75.

Bruce-Briggs, B. (1979) ‘An Introduction to the Idea of the New Class’, in idem (ed.) The New Class?, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Buckle, S. (1991) Natural Law and the Theory of Property. Grotius to Hume, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Burnham, J. (1945) The Managerial Revolution, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

——(1963) The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom, Chicago: Regnery.

Burns, J.H. (ed.) (1988) The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burris, V. (1986) ‘The Discovery of the New Middle Class’, Theory and Society 15(3): 317–49.

290

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Butler, J. (1989) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, London and New York: Routledge.

——(1992) ‘Contingent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of Postmodernism’, in J.Butler and J.W.Scott (eds).

——and Scott, J.W. (eds) (1992) Feminists Theorize the Political, New York and London: Routledge.

Callon, M. (1986) ‘Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay’, in J.Law (ed.) (1986).

—— and Latour, B. (1981) ‘Unscrewing the Big Leviathan’, in K.Knorr-Cetina and A.A.Cicourel (eds).

——, Law, J. and Rip, A. (eds) (1986) Mapping the Dynamics of Science, London and Houndmills: Macmillan.

Cannan, E. (1917) Wealth: A Brief Exploration of the Causes of Economic Welfare,

London: King.

Canning, J.P. (1988) ‘Intro: Politics, Institutions, Ideas’, in J.H.Burns (ed.). Carchedi, G. (1977) On the Economic Identification of Social Classes, London:

Routledge.

Carling, A. (1986) ‘Rational Choice Marxism’, New Left Review 160:24–62.

Carlyle, R.W. and Carlyle, A.J. (1928 [1909]) A History of Medieval Political Theory in the West, Vol. II, Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood.

Carroll, J. (1974) Break-Out from the Crystal Palace. The Anarcho-Psychological Critique: Stirner, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Carter, A. (1993) ‘Towards a Green Political Theory’, in A.Dobson and P.Lucardie (eds).

Cassirer, E. (1910) Substanzbegriff und Funktionsbegriff, Berlin: S.Cassirer. Castells, M. (1989) The Informational City, Oxford: Blackwell.

Challenger, D.F. (1994) Durkheim Through the Lens of Aristotle, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Chandler, A.D. (1977) The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business, London: The Belknap Press.

Chirot, D. (1977) Social Change in the Twentieth Century, New York: Harcourt. Church, W.F. (1941) Constitutional Thought in Sixteenth-Century France, Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Claeys, G. (1986) ‘“Individualism”, “Socialism”, and “Social Science”’, Journal of the History of Ideas 47(1):81–93.

Clark, J.P. (1977) The Philosophical Anarchism of William Godwin, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

——(1978) ‘What is Anarchism?’, in J.R.Pennock and J.W.Chapman (eds) (1978).

——(1984) The Anarchist Moment: Reflections on Culture, Nature, and Power,

Montreal and New York: Black Rose Books.

——(1989) ‘Marx’s Inorganic Body’, Environmental Ethics 11:234–58.

Clegg, S.R. (1989) Frameworks of Power, London: Sage.

Cohen, G.A. (1978) Karl Marx’s Theory of History, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cohen, H.E. (1937) Recent Theories of Sovereignty, Chicago: The University of Chicago

Press.

291

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cohen, J.L. and Arato, A. (1992) Civil Society and Political Theory, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Cohen, M. (1978 [1927]) ‘Property and Sovereignty’, in C.B.Macpherson (ed.) (1978). Coleman, J. (1988) ‘Property and Poverty’, in J.H.Burns (ed.).

Coleman, J.S. (1988) ‘Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital’, American Journal of Sociology 94:S95–120.

Colletti, L. (1973) Marxism and Hegel, London: New Left Books.

Collini, S. (1979) Liberalism and Sociology: L.T.Hobhouse and Political Argument in England 1880–1914, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Collins, R. (1979) The Credential Society, New York: Academic Press.

——(1986) Weberian Sociological Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

——and Makowsky, M. (1972) The Discovery of Society, New York: Random House. Commons, J. (1965 [1899–1900]) A Sociological View of Sovereignty, New York: Kelley. Comte, A. (1852) Système de politique positive, Vol. II, Paris: Mathias.

——(1970) Écrits de jeunesse 1816–1826, ed. P.E.de Berrêdo Carneiro and P.Arnaud, Paris: Mouton.

——(1974) The Crisis of Industrial Civilization: The Early Essays of Auguste Comte, ed. R.Fletcher, London: Heinemann.

——(1975a) Auguste Comte and Positivism: The Essential Writings, ed. G.Lenzer, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

——(1975b) Cours de philosophie positive. Leçons 46 à 60, ed. J.-P.Enthoven, Paris: Mouton.

Connolly, W.E. (1974) The Terms of Political Discourse, London: D.C.Heath.

Coser, L. (1960) ‘Durkheim’s Conservatism and Its Implications for his Sociological Theory’, in K.Wolff (ed.) (1960).

Crespi, F. (1992) Social Action and Power, Oxford: Blackwell.

Cropsey, J. (1957) Polity and Economy: An Interpretation of the Principles of Adam Smith, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

——(1975) ‘Adam Smith and Political Philosophy’, in A.S.Skinner and T.Wilson (eds). Crosland, C.A.R. (1963) The Future of Socialism, New York: Schocken Books. Crowder, G. (1991) Classical Anarchism, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

d’Agostino, A. (1977) Marxism and the Russian Anarchists, New York: Germinal Press.

——(1988) ‘Machajski and the New Class: A Reply to Haberkern’, Telos 77:138–42. Dahl, G. (1996) ‘Will the “Other God” Fail Again?’, Theory, Culture, and Society 13(1):

25–50.

Dahl, R. (1969 [1957]) ‘On the Concept of Power’, in R.Bell et al. (eds) Political Power: A Reader in Theory and Research, New York: The Free Press.

Dahrendorf, R. (1959) Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

——(1967) Conflict After Class Noel Buxton Lecture, London.

——(1969) ‘On the Origin of Inequality Among Men’, in A.Béteille (ed.) Social Inequality, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

——(1979) Life Chances: Approaches to Social and Political Theory, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

292

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—— (1988) The Modern Social Conflict: An Essay on the Politics of Liberty, New York: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Dautry, J. (1951) ‘Introduction’ to C.-H.de Saint-Simon (1951). Davis, K. (1970) Human Society, New York: Macmillan. Déat, M. (1930) Perspectives socialistes, Paris: Librairie Valois.

De George, R.T. (1978) ‘Anarchism and Authority’, in J.R.Pennock and J.W. Chapman (eds) (1978).

De Lauretis, T. (1990) ‘Eccentric Subjects. Feminist Theory and Historical Consciousness’,

Feminist Studies 16(1):115–50.

De Man, H. (1926) De psychologie van het socialisme, Arnhem: Van Loghum Slaterus.

——(1931) Opbouwend socialisme, Arnhem: Van Loghum Slaterus.

——(1933) De socialistische idee, Arnhem: Van Loghum Slaterus.

Derber, Ch., Schwartz, W.A., and Magrass, Y. (1990) Power in the Highest Degree: Professionals and the Rise of a New Mandarin Order, New York: Oxford University Press.

De Wit, T. (1992) De onontkoombaarheid van de politiek, Ubbergen: Pomppers. Dews, P. (1987) Logics of Disintegration, London: Verso.

Disco, C. (1987) ‘Intellectuals in Advanced Capitalism. Capital, Closure, and the “New Class” Thesis’, in R.Eyerman et al.

Djilas, M. (1957) The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System, New York: Praeger.

Dobson, A. (1990) Green Political Thought: An Introduction, London and New York: Routledge.

——(1993) ‘Afterword’, in idem and P.Lucardie (eds).

——and Lucardie, P. (eds) (1993) The Politics of Nature: Explorations in Green Political Theory, London and New York: Routledge.

Domhoff, W.B. and Ballard, H.B. (eds) (1968) C.Wright Mills and the Power Elite, Boston: Beacon Press.

Donahue Jr, Ch. (1980) ‘The Future of the Concept of Property Predicted from Its Past’, in J.R.Pennock and J.W.Chapman (eds) (1980).

Donzelot, J. (1979) The Policing of Families, New York: Pantheon Books. —— (1984) L’Invention du social, Paris: Fayard.

Dronkers, J. (1983) ‘Mythen over elites. De rol van het onderwijs bij de recrutering van directeuren van grote bedrijven’, Amsterdams Sociologisch Tijdschrift 9(4): 606–46.

Droz, J. (1948) Histoire des doctrines politiques en France, Paris: PUF.

Duguit, L. (1920 [1912]) Les Transformations generates du droit privé depuis le Code Napoléon, Paris: Alcan.

Durkheim, E. (1958) Socialism, New York: Collier-Macmillan.

——(1966) Montesquieu et Rousseau. Précurseurs de la sociologie, Paris: Marcel Rivière.

——(1970) La Science sociale et l’action, ed. J.-C.Filloux, Paris: PUF.

——(1972) Selected Writings, ed. A.Giddens, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

——(1975) Textes 1. Elements d’une théorie sociale, Paris: Minuit.

——(1977) Textes 3. Fonctions sociales et institutions, Paris: Minuit.

——(1982 [1895]) The Rules of Sociological Method, ed. S.Lukes, London and Basingstoke: Macmillan.

293