Italian sociology

The sociology in Italy was predominantly political since the initial stage of its development. It is explained, first of all, by the fact, that the system of power at those days did not meet sufficient support among the public opinion, and especially weak was support of the dominant political doctrines at that time. This situation gave rise to critical social reflection and scientific analysis of its causes. Hence the basic trends of sociological thought were formed taking in view results of theoretical analysis of reality, requirements of the public, peda­gogical tasks of university education and political criticism.

The history was touchstone of the sociological concepts. The only pure positivist was L. Sturzo. Sociological theory was used only as means for inter­pretation of history, and history - as proof of sociological theory, even in works of such authors as Salvemini and Ferrero.

Due to the fact that sociology was in conflict with power, it did not attract those intellectuals, who stood for public consensus, for example, neo-idealists like philosopher Benedetto Croce, or Giovanni Gentile, philosopher-theorist of fascism.

Sociology interested people who mainly have not been connected with power holders, who had contacts with social groupings being in conflict with authorities. No wonder that terms "sociology" and "socialism" were perceived in Italy almost as synonyms. The intensive study of various power types by sociologists, as well as analysis of mystifications and manipulations caused by power, became consequence of this situation.

Overwhelming majority of sociologists had taken the side of the public in confrontation between the public and the politics. They became proponents of the opposition's interests in its relations towards political institutions.

Antonio Gramci, representative of Marxist sociology, has gained wide pop­ularity in the world sociology, the same is true about liberal founders of the social elite theory.

Gramci more than anyone else in Italian sociology investigated problems of social phenomena and their meanings, he estimated in full the importance of

509

p revailing mass moods and the role of Marxism in the interpretation of social phenomena and mass moods.

Not only Marxian tradition but also tradition of Italian realism can be traced in his creative work.

"Theory of the elite" school is called sometimes neo-realism or neo-machi-avellism in Italy. Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto, Robert Michels and Guillermo Ferrero belong to the classics of this trend.

Rather often the elite theorists are accused that their ideas have served as ideological justification of the arising fascism. In fact however such accusations are deprived of sense. The fascism used every opportunity for demolition of the liberal system and grasping power. The theory of elite's authors stood against any political ideology that would lead to the domination of minority over major­ity, in particular against that demagogy and manipulation in which the fascists were peerless specialists.

The sociological investigations were started in Italy with "the national revival" (Risorgimento), and year 1905 marked the final moment of the first, positivistic, phase of the social sciences development in the country. The dis­cussion, that was held in the Naples Academy of Moral Sciences that year had summarized the collision of opinions about character and functions of sociolo­gy [Pelizzi C. Gli Studii Sociologici in Italia del Nostro Secolo // Quaderni di Sociologia. 1956. VI, 3].

Benedetto Croce's social conception became an alternative to positivistic development of sociology. In 1903 Croce started publishing magazine "Criticism". That event signified beginning of the second phase in Italian soci­ology, namely, domination of idealism in the social thought. This phase lasted up to 1922 when fascists came to power.

The third phase coincides with domination of Mussolini dictatorship, and the fourth one is connected with the end of World War II and revival of democ­racy in Italy.

There exists also another, more detailed classification of the Italian sociol­ogy history.

According to it the first stage is the age of promises. Positivism at this time ought to struggle on two fronts - both scientific and ideological ones. In science it was necessary to assert validity and reliability of the methodological approach, in the field of ideology sociology tried to find opportunities to run educational activities, to demonstrate moral importance of the new classes. Therefore sociology not only carried out "self-critical" civil function, i. e. exposed social diseases and pointed ways for their treatment but was also means of intellectual planning for profound social change.

The second stage of the Italian sociology development is called the age of certainty and began since new forces came to power as a result of 1876 elec­tions. The decline of the former political class meant beginning of the cautious reformism epoch.

Works of H. Spencer became popular and were published extensively since 1876 in Italy. Criticism of the Italian sociology had gradually been smoothed out due to influence of Spencer's and Comte's works, where there were stressed themes of social order, gradual development, and general consensus.

510

The following period was the age of contrast, and it covered the last decade of 19th century and lasted till 1905. Despite of all heterogeneity and discrepancy, this period is characterized by significant expansion of the Italian sociology, its appearance at universities, by ideological struggle of academic sociology against several ideological concepts and in particular against idealism.

Marxists also criticized positivist approaches in sociology. In 1895-1897 Antonio Labriola published series of works, in which there was stated lack of competence, dogmatism, and, rather frequently, wrong initial premises that were characteristic for some part of the Italian sociological tradition.

The ideological conflict had arisen between positivist Italian sociology and representatives of philosophical idealism. The Italian philosophy leader of that time Benedetto Croce resolutely dissociated himself from positivism in the works. Giovanni Gentile made the same, in particular, in his lectures at the Naples university.

These periods were shifted by the age of frustration, connected, first of all, with restrictions imposed by World War I and suppression of social sciences by the post-war dictatorship.

The renewal of the Italian sociology has taken place after crushing the fas­cism in late 40s.

Development of sociology in the USA

The rise of sociology as an independent academic discipline in the USA has begun at the end of the 19th century. Similar to any other country, the US soci­ology has its own prehistory. For instance the first national census of the popu­lation was carried in the USA in 1790.

The term "sociology" appeared in the USA during the Civil War for the first time, however it has obtained general distribution considerably later. The first courses at universities under such name were like what we call now "social problems". There had been very little science in them, and they borrowed their systemic grounds mainly from theology or philosophy. Nevertheless they have led to building of the widely spread and vivid need for genuine sociology in the American society.

The first department of sociology has been opened at Chicago university in 1892. Two years later the first US sociological magazine "American Journal of Sociology" was established there. Due to efforts of its dean Albion Small the sociology department in Chicago became the main center of academic sociolo­gy in the USA at those days. Orientation of the department had practical, applied character. George Herbert Mead most scrupulously formulated method­ology of the school in series of his lectures. Major concepts of his approach were symbol, meaning, role and self.

At the end of the 19th century Franklin Giddings taught statistics to the stu­dents of Columbian University. One of the first sociological dissertations there (Adna F. Weber, 1899) was devoted to the statistical analysis of large cities growth in the world in the 19th century. The first issue of the American Journal of Sociology contained Walter Wilcox' article on the population statistics. Those were the first steps of the Columbian school.

511

At the earliest stage of the American sociology development many of its empirical surveys were closely connected with the movements for social reforms and social progress. As a rule those surveys dealt with such separate objects as community, organization, social movement.

Many American sociologists of that time, e. g. Albion Small, had received sociological education at European universities in the 70s of the 19th century.

H. Spencer's doctrine had won the greatest popularity in the USA because of integrity of his approach and his perseverance in leading sociology from sep­arate problems and reforms to forming up of an independent scientific disci­pline.

Lester Ward put the beginning of US widespread sociological movement, proclaiming new discipline "the science of social sciences". Ward started to teach his own system at the Brown University. The essence of his contribution to the development of American sociology was that he put special emphasis on specific sociological methods, including primarily statistical methods.

The task of sociologists has been specified after Ward, specially after open­ing of the first sociological department at Chicago University by Small. Sociologists began to pay special attention to elaboration of intellectual meth­ods for recognition and interpretation of group phenomena of different types. No single figure like Spencer or Ward dominated at this stage but there appeared several leading scholars who proposed directions of search, launched various investigations and encouraged their students to move further in indicat­ed directions.

William Graham Sumner was one of such scholars. His sociological con­ception completed divorce with the humanitarian tradition. Exploring national customs, mores, institutions he demonstrated that they are being developed within processes of social interactions, that these processes have their own reg­ularities. In that way he has initiated wide flow of empirical research.

Franklin Giddings stimulated development and application of statistical methods in social research by his works.

Edward Ross has extended the sociological investigations onto numerous new spheres and objects. Among other scholars, who had exerted great influ­ence on the US sociology development, historians should name German sociol­ogists, French school of Durkheim, Malinowski, Radcliff-Brown and Westermarck in England, Park in Chicago, Sorokin and Pearson at Harvard, Mclver at Columbia University, and some other leading American sociologists.

The work of W. Thomas and F. Znaniecki "Polish Peasant in Europe and America" published in 5 volumes became remarkable event in history of soci­ological research. "Folkways" of W. Sumner were based on observations, made by other people, but Thomas and Znaniecki published original primary materi­als gathered by themselves, and in this way reader could see the complete total­ity of the initial facts on the basis of which the conclusions had been drawn. So after this book had appeared, sociologists could not any more be satisfied with banal and commonplace conclusions, based on weak and second-hand facts.

The consequences of World War I influenced different aspects of social life. Sociology started to gain triumphantly still more new spheres under these circumstances. Energetic rise of institutional forms in organization of sociolog­ical science was observed in this period.

512

The fashion has already gone out, when every sociologist aspired to for­mulate his own conception and create his own school, - the applied research became more intensive, and their subject-matter grew more differentiated and stable.

William Thomas and Robert Park, their colleagues and students began the most important investigations at the first half of the 20th century. They consid­ered large cities, particularly Chicago, as natural laboratory. They were firmly confident of indissoluble connection between research and actual contemporary problems.

Still another direction had appeared at the Harvard University, where Pitirim Sorokin has become the leading figure in sociology since 1930. He has extended more theoretical approach, dealt with history of civilization and in particular with history of social theory. Talcott Parsons should be specially mentioned among his disciples. T. Parsons' work "The Structure of Social Action" (1937) stimulated new interest for extended social theory. Strong ten­dency for creative use of economics approach and for studying society from the specific point of view, including models, has been noted within this trend.

Another Sorokin's student from Harvard, Robert Merton, had launched series of research after moving for his new job to Columbia University. His works have consolidated structural-functional theoretical approach with improved field methods, which had been worked out by P. Lazarsfeld for use in the sample observation. This method proved to be particularly good for the analysis of mass media influence, such as radio and television companies of candidates during political elections and in implementation of various govern­mental programs. The Columbian University sociological department is also well known thanks to Charles Wright Mills whose works have combined pro­found radicalism with critical analyses of Marx and Weber.

Group dynamics had been developed under the strong influence of Kurt Levin works, who studied primary groups (families, industrial teams) and had discovered ties between psychological vital space of an individual and "social space".

Symbolic interactionism, created by works of John Dewey, George Herbert Mead and Charles Cooley, has supposed that "Self-conception" is internaliza­tion of social processes by personality.

At this stage sociology structure was formed not so much by logic of the sciences classification or by somebody's individual decision but mainly by development of research efforts in various fields. The research teams were cre­ated, which included representatives of adjoining branches. There also had appeared the need to standardize sociological terminology and research proce­dures.

The processes of standardization in US sociological sphere went most intensively between the two World Wars. The work of Robert Park and Ernest Burgess "Introduction to the Science of Sociology" (1921) became remarkable event in this way. Harry Barnes and Howard Becker named it "the most influ­ential book in history of the American sociology" [Barnes H. E„ Becker H. Social Thought from Lore to Science. N.Y.: D. С Heath, 1938]. US sociology has reached definite scientific maturity due to publication and widespread use of this work.

513

The emphasis on empirical methods is remarkable feature of the American sociology. As a result a new tradition has been developed in the USA, accord­ing to which sociology must be developed in the spirit of "pure science". In other words, conclusions must be taken out of the investigation results, and it is not at all obligatory, that they must coincide with the line of any political party or would end as an immediate result in implementation of social reform or some program for improving anybody' welfare.

Russian Sociology

Sociology as an independent science was formed during the second half of the 19th century, affirming rationalism as the main principle of social cog­nition and defending independent maintenance of scientific knowledge, partic­ularly from clerical influence and from the state structures.

Social and organizational formation of sociology was ensured by means of consolidation and realization of four main functions of this new science: cogni­tive, social-critical, social engineering and value functions.

One or another function took the leading position during the development of sociology in different countries, but most often priority was on the side of social-critical function at the stage of formation.

Acceptance and social resonance of the new discipline depended in many respects on the degree, the society perceived the necessity to radically recon­sider social practices, that existed up to the moment. For instance, Herbert Spencer's works created conditions for early and rapid development of sociol­ogy in Britain. However academic science of Oxford and Cambridge, was well established in concord in existing structures of British society, including the elite, and did not desire to accept enfant terrible, in other words, potential peace-breaker, in its academic family. Under these circumstances realization of socio-engineering function of sociology, that was necessary for Britain as the World Empire, had been assigned to ethnology and anthropology.

In Russia sociology had gained immense repercussions in educated circles just because the public opinion felt great dissatisfaction as to existing social relations. The national public consciousness considered politics as the main rea­son of this dissatisfaction nearly unanimously.

That was the reason why the mighty and fruitful interest of the Russian society in the new scientific discipline was stayed from the very beginning closely connected with politics and ideology. Politicization helped to attract great minds, considerable social and intellectual resources to sociology, how­ever it has simultaneously created serious risks for objectivity and validity of the results obtained under its pressure.

At the initial stage Russian sociology had been developed into two exten­sive areas, namely:

as academic discipline devoted to scientific research and formation of higher education level specialists;

and as publicistic mass media genre of literature, where profound and resplendent ideas were discussed, where much of important genuine discover­ies were made, but where stormy passions seethed, and where the debaters' pas-

514

sionate will to win, whatever the price would be, had made this sphere at least marginal between science and politics.

Russian academic sociology had immediately gained recognition in the West, although it was not so widely known within the country, while the pub­licists one has become immensely popular among every reading social strata in Russia.

Academic sociology was first introduced to universities (in St-Peterburg, Moscow, Yuriev, Kazan, Kiev, e. a.) due to efforts of the law scientists. The law science played crucial role for the tsarist regime in Russia formulating theoreti­cal grounds of the regime legitimacy both within the country and in the interna­tional public opinion. As a result of such situation the law scholars enjoyed rel­ative academic freedom at universities. Brilliant scientists Nikolay Korkunov, Maxim Kovalevsky, Yury Gambarov, Leo Petrajitsky, Bogdan Kistiakovsky were the first who had introduced sociology courses at Russian universities.

At the second part of the 19th century mostly all important "one factor" schools were represented in Russian academic sociology. Organicism was rather advanced in Russia. At the end of the 19th century Russian organicist, aristocrat and statesman Pavel Lilienfeld had published in Paris his monograph "The Social Pathology", that was the first systematic approach to the study of social delin­quencies and deviations. Inspired by his works leading sociologists of the world elected Lilienfeld president of The International Institute of Sociology in 1897.

Besides Lilienfeld, three other Russian sociologists headed prestigious international sociological organizations at various times: Maxim Kovalevsky -at the beginning of the 20th century, Nikolay Kareev - immediately after the Russian October socialist revolution in 1917, Pitirim Sorokin - in the middle of the 20th century.

The great reason for pride of the Russian sociology is establishing of the first independent sociological institute of higher education in the world. It was Russian Higher School of Social Sciences, that had been opened as part of the First World Exhibition in Paris and actively worked there in 1901-1906. Its director was psychiatrist and sociologist Vladimir Bechterev, although the idea belonged to Kovalevsky.

In 1908 the same team established The Psycho-Neurological Institute at St-Peterburg with compulsory courses of sociology and the first chair of sociolo­gy in Russia. M. Kovalevsky and Eugeny De Roberty, another outstanding Russian sociologist, had created and run this chair.

Achievements in sociogeography deserve special attention. Leo Mechnikov in cooperation with E. Reclus (France) had prepared and published the first sociogeographical encyclopaedia "New General Geography. Earth and People" (1876—1894) consisted of 20 volumes. His own doctrine had been described in his monograph "River Civilization and Great Historical Rivers". The doctrine analyzed significance of water communications for the social development of mankind.

The outstanding figures in the history of Russian academic sociology are M. Kovalevsky and Pitirim Sorokin.

Kovalevsky created theory of social appeasement, according to which har­monization of social relations is considered as major goal and simultaneously

515

a s crucial indicator of social development. In addition to it he proposed plural­istic approach in sociological methodology. According to it there does not exist a single factor, that governs everything in society. Social regularities may be cognized only through complex, multi-factor research approach. Recognition of this paradigm has marked the end of "one factor" schools age and the beginning of modern stage in sociology.

Pitirim Sorokin organized sociological departments at Petrograd and Harvard universities. During his Russian period he had developed the behav­ioral approach, worked out the system of integralist sociology and studied social behavior at extreme circumstances (war, hunger, and revolution).

Still more fruitful was his work at the USA. He has developed doctrines of social stratification, social mobility, and convergence. His most impressive work was "The Social and Cultural Dynamics" consisted of four volumes (1937-1941) in which he had disclosed mechanisms of societal, civilizational change and the significance of value systems for such change. In 50-60s he worked upon the doctrine of altruistic creative love that, he considered, would let humanity survive. [Sorokin P. Altruistic Love: Study of American Good Neighbors and Christian Saints. Boston, 1954].

Alexander Ivanovich Chuprov and his son Alexander Alexandrovich Chuprov had made substantial elaboration of mathematical-statistical methods and their application in social research at the last quarter of the 19th - first quar­ter of the 20th century.

Russian publicistic sociology had the only one common feature - their utmost politicization. One of the key issues was patriotism. In sociology, as well as in all Russian social thought, there had been crystallized three major trends, all of which may be observed in Russia up to the present moment.

The first trend - constructive westernizational one - presumed that it is urgently desirable for Russia's benefit to borrow, acquire the best European cul­tural achievements.

The second trend has been pessimistically westernizational - it considered that the Russian people are capable neither of independent historical creativity, nor even of self-government.

The third trend has been grass roots soil tendency, which proved that Russia's way of development is unique, and the country must exclusively rely on its own creative potential.

The problem of patriotism was only one of key points of sociology' politi­cization, and there had (and has) been many other of such problems in the Russian social thought.

Russian society development in the 20th century went exclusively along the first path, which was accompanied by certain and visible achievements, however at the end of 80s this way has brought about the crisis, which had both objective, and subjective roots.

Russian sociological science had worked out many alternative scenarios of social development at earlier stages and their re-examination nowadays obviously presents not only cognitive but also actual practical interest nowa­days.

516

Development of Russian sociology shows, that not only achievements in fundamental theory, but also unique national experience of theory' realization in the public practice contributes much to the development of universal world system of social knowledge.

Theoretical sociology started to be formed at first in France and Germany. Furthermore, in the USA this science has acquired applied and versatile char­acter, the Scandinavian sociology has developed such aspects of social-engi­neering function as promotion of social well being, implementation of social work, building mechanisms of social partnership in great detail. Brazil, perhaps, represents unique example in most complete realizing of sociology value func­tion. In 20-30s of the 20th century Brazilian society searched for the system of values that would unite the nation and become basis for its rise. They have found such basis in sociological science. A. Comte slogan "Order and Progress" has appeared on the national emblem and the banner of this country, and this approach had eliminated ideological confrontations stemming from race, religion and many other social features that divided people.

In Russia social-critical function of this science, analysis of dysfunctions and anomalies of social development has been implemented at the largest scale. This traditional orientation of Russian sociology still contains significant resources and considerable potential.

One more feature of Russian sociology is striving for universalism. Attempts to formulate universal sociological image of society development had been genuine and numerous in the past and as a rule had given powerful impe­tus for further searching. There exists now every reason to expect that this tra­dition of Russian sociology will still bring its perspective results in future too.

World sociology trends on the eve of the third millenium

Summing up development of sociology at its classical period, one should, probably, compare it with how this science enters into the new, third millennium.

Field of sociological research is being rapidly differentiated at present. What unites and what divides various sociologists today? This is perhaps gen­eral theory and history of sociology.

It is probably correct that westernized approach is predominant in the world theoretical sociology today. Nevertheless there exist other subjects of theoreti­cal sociology in contemporary social science.

Immanuil Wallerstein in his presidential report at the XIV World Sociological Congress (Montreal, 1998) spoke much about non-western, original concepts of social space-social time continuum. The name of Arab sociologist Abdul Malek was mentioned. The Arab perception of time and space differs rad­ically from perception of this continuum in contemporary Western society.

Latin America sociology is developing now rather originally and fruitfully. The International Sociological Association (ISA) has approved the Spanish lan­guage as one of the ISA official as a result of significant achievements of Latin American sociologists. Ex-president of the ISA, Brazilian sociologist Fernando-Enrique Cardozo, who has created sociological theory of dependency, was elected the president of Brazil. Sociology is being developed rather interesting

517

i n Israel. The 34th World Congress of the International Institute of Sociology has demonstrated it in Tel-Aviv in 1999. Concepts proposed by Shmuel Eisenstadt, Elihu Katz, results of some other researchers became part of the world sociological thesaurus today.

Theory works only when sociologists-empiricists use it. Judging from this position major subjects of sociological theory are now professional sociological societies, both national and international.

The best known among such associations is the International Sociological Association. Another influential professional union of the world sociologists, in spite of that fact that it is relatively small concerning the amount of participants, is the International Institute of Sociology, founded in 1893.

The European Sociological Association (ESA) was founded less than ten years ago, but it acts already dynamically and efficiently. The Pathos of ESA activity is bound with transformation of Europe into Europe of social quality.

Among predominated tendencies of world theoretical sociology it is neces­sary to distinguish, in concrete, the following:

- Fatalism. It's possible to trace the tendency in Frencis Fukuyama' famous work "The End of History ". Some more examples are given by post­ modernism, according to which modern society processes become more and uncontrolled.

• Politicization of sociology. Many fields and research in sociology become unexpectedly politicized.

• Fractionalization of sociological disciplines, splitting fields of sociolog­ical analysis, that reaches sometimes absolutely unnecessary detailization.

Each institutionalized discipline begins with building up the "fence" around itself. As a rule bigger part of efforts is spent namely on building those institutionalized " fences " dividing disciplinary specializations.

- At the same time an expansion of interdisciplinary approach is observed: new significant achievements are born now more often at junctions of sciences.

• One more tendency: theory of sociology is occupied, seized by micro­economics, often under the banner of so called "rational choice"

• There exists now an urgent aspiration to develop "the critical theory".

What problems are considered most urgent in modern sociology at the beginning of the new millennium?

Michel Vewierka (France) asserts: the main question facing the Western society is - whether the work will continue to remain a basis of the Western society.

The second problem, allocated by Vewierka is that now a nation and every­thing, connected with a priority of a national, is not the absolute good any more. Now nationalism more often turns to xenophobia, taking antihuman forms.

The third is transformation of social institutes, and these institutes become excessively political. The main task of modern time is to transfer the accent in social management from political methods to softer economic, cultural mecha­nisms. Not violence or threat of violence should prevail in management, but more delicate ways of the harmonization the classes and groups interests.

518

The fourth, inside modern societies the further cultural differentiation are being widened, the cultural distinctions between some groups are growing. The identities are being pluralized strongly. The people identify themselves more often with concrete sociocultural or professional group, not with the state or the nation.

There is a lot of alarmist, probably quite reasonable, statements in con­temporary Russian sociology. However, the main force of science is obviously placed not in emotional appeal, but in rational comprehension and further opti­mal solution of problems. It is precisely expressed in the famous formula pro­posed by B. Spinoza - scientist should "not to cry, not to laugh, but to under­stand ".

There are many people besides the scientists who raise the alarm, mourn­ing and emotionally reacting on the social facts. Our task as scientists is to understand soberly what occurs actually and then analyze precisely the concep­tual essence of processes taking place in society, their trends and dynamics.

Another conclusion - recent years sociologists are worried about processes that take place in Russian society, and tendency toward certain isolation from the external world has appeared, including, and may be, first of all, field of social theory. Ideas of uniqueness and originality of all Russian, necessity of solving all the problems of theory and practice by extremely Russian own forces are being put forward. However such isolationism is very unproductive and even more, it is rather dangerous.

At the same time, there are much valuable, useful and applicable ideas in the national intellectual experience that we have forgotten of or do not paid due attention to. Thus it is extremely important not to pull out selectively separate names and ideas from this invaluable national experience but to observe in full volume and details all national intellectual process as a whole.

During the second half of the twentieth century social knowledge has come on a level of social technologies. The military branch is in the vanguard con­cerning use of any science achievements. Thus the so-called "psychotropic weapon" is based on social laws discovered by representatives of social sci­ences disciplines. The representatives of business circles - trade, business, do not miss their chance. Now larger part of scientific employees engaged at research and analytical centers of the transnational corporations are the repre­sentatives of various areas of social knowledge.

The process of active use of social knowledge for socio-engineering pur­poses can be noticed even in procedures of classification information about new scientific achievements in the field of social sciences. Here is an example. It is well known that during World War II American scientist Harold Lasswell had prepared two volumetric documents on the basis of own socio-psychological model of political leader under orders of the Organization of Strategic Services (in future - the CIA). They were political portraits of A. Hitler and I. Stalin. In social sciences they became classical works giving eloquent sample of how aca­demic knowledge can result in practical forecasting and even in manipulation of national leaders political behavior. However even by this day these works are classified and carry stamp "strictly confidential". Common reader, even US cit­izen does not have access to these classical social documents. The reason is

519

o bvious - even today tasks of national foreign policy are realized with the help of these means.

The engineering application of new knowledge can help not only to solve urgent social tasks and considerably facilitate and expand human activity, but also becomes a source of increased social danger. First of all it is, no doubt, dan­ger of manipulating public consciousness and individual and mass behavior.

For realistic estimation of the social science potential it is necessary, first of all, to clear up cardinal methodological problems of modern social knowl­edge. The urgent task of social cognition today is the creation of a new open culture of whole social science. This new culture should lie within the field of epistemologically reunited world of knowledge.

The knowledge can be divided into three aspects: intellectually - into sci­entific disciplines; organizationally - into corporate structures, and culturolog-ically - into scientific communities, sharing certain general presumptions.

The borders of sciences reflected dichotomies in the approach to the object of study. The intellectual problem that has arisen in using of these dichotomies concerns the changes, which have taken place in the world system after the World War II. And the serious washing out of these disciplines' borders has begun in 70s.

The discipline institutionalization is way of preservation and reproduction of existing practice. It represents the creation of real networks with their own boundaries, networks, which take forms of corporate structures with require­ment for entry in them and codes for approved ways of vertical career mobili­ty. The academic organizations aspire to discipline not intellect, but practice. They create more rigid borders, than ones created by disciplines as intellectual constructs.

Challenge to social sciences has come from the outside. It began from rise of the movement within natural sciences and mathematics, which is called now the theory of complexity. Ilya Romanovich Prigozhin in his book "The End of Certainty" has presented this approach. [Prigozhin I. R. "The End of Certainty". N.Y.: The Free Press, 1997]. Earlier, in 1996, the book was published in French under the title "La Fin des Certitudes".

Prigozhin, the Nobel Prize winner for works on dissipative structures in chemistry, has proposed two general methodological concepts: "arrow of time" and "the end of certitudes".

In particular, he supposed that irreversibility is "the source of order and plays fundamental and constructive role in Nature" [p. 26-27]. Majority of sys­tems includes deterministic processes (between bifurcations), as well as sto-chastical processes (while choosing branches), and both these processes alto­gether create historical measurement, which fixes succession of choices.

This model turns radically relationships between natural and social sci­ences. Prigozhin wrote: "We see that human creativity and innovations may be understood as expansion of laws of Nature, that exists already in physics and chemistry" [P. 71]. Hence Prigozhin tries to reunite social science and natural science, though not on the 19th century assumption that human activity may be looked upon as another version of one more physical activity, but as process of creativity and innovation.

520

No doubt, this approach poses challenge to the present scientific culture. Moreover, when speaking of rationality Prigozhin also calls to "return to real­ism", which does not mean "return to determinism" [P. 131].

There exist three most probable and perhaps most desirable perspectives which await social sciences in the 21st century:

1. Epistemological reunification of the so called "two cultures" - natural science and social science.

2. Organizational reunion and restructurization of the social sciences.

3. Admission that social science would occupy central position in the world of knowledge.

Social facts that we deal with are social in two meanings. First, they gen­eralize perception of reality that is shared more or less by some large average group assuming different hues for each individual observer. Second, they are simultaneously socially built-up perceptions. The world possesses the present stage thanks to everything that has been proceeded before the given moment. The aim of researcher is to find out how this collectivity has built this world with certain application of its own socially constructed vision.

Undoubtedly the actual world exists. However it is also true that we may only learn this world using our vision of this world, collective social vision of course, but nevertheless human vision. This statement is equally true about our picture of the physical world, as well as about our picture of the social world.

We would better orient our search keeping in mind the situation of permanent uncertainty. This uncertainty is neither chancery, nor temporary blindness or unsur­passable obstacle on our way to knowledge. Rather it is challenge that demands maximal mobilization of imagination, creativity and ingenuity from us. In this case pluralism becomes not an excuse of our weakness and ignorance, but an embryo of opportunities for constructing of more exquisite and sophisticated world.

It is rather urgent task for contemporary scientists, locked within concrete disciplines, to become intellectually open and acknowledge existence of our own blinders. Of utmost importance is learning of foreign languages - scientist who does not read major academic languages is seriously restricted in his/her possibilities.

Since times of so called divorce between philosophy and science, which took place at the end of the 18th century, social sciences' relations with both natural sciences and humanities have been left much to be desired. Social sci­ence has been criticized from both sides in this war of "two cultures". But nowadays the situation is being changed radically. There appeared a new mighty trend in natural sciences, connected with the theory of complexities, that deals with the arrow of time and incertitudes. This trend assumes that human social systems are the most complex of all systems. In humanities there has appeared another strong trend - cultural studies. This trend assumes absence of any basic esthetic canons. It proves that cultural products are rooted in their social origins, in social perception and social aberrations.

One may now watch the springing tendency to overcome confrontation of "the two cultures" and to reunite search of truth, good and beauty into a com­mon field. However this way is supposed to be lengthy and difficult.

521

N owadays it is impossible even to pretend that scientists may be neutral, id est alienated from their social reality. In order to achieve substantial ratio­nality we ought to understand that there does not exist any functional reality.

The idea of equality is the central principle of the world of knowledge, that is why science is the egalitarian world. However this essential accent on egali-tarianism is impossible, can not be realized within non-egalitarian social world. Immanuel Wallerstein stated in his presidential report at the XIV World Sociological Congress: "Politicians arouse fear in scientists and they find secu­rity in isolation. Scientists are afraid of powerful minority, minority at power. They are afraid of powerful majority, majority that may come to power".

Achieving the world where equality is indeed one of the highest values is a very difficult task. Nevertheless it is highly desirable for, among other things, survival of humanity as specie. Hence struggle for equality in social science and struggle for equality in society are not separate tasks, this is the same struggle.

Contents

Preface 8

Introduction. Sociology and Society 9

Specific features of sociological knowledge and sociological science emer­ gence premises 9

Prehistory of sociology 12

Sociological science periods of development 18

Chapter one FRENCH CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGY

Pre-sociological scholars in French social science of the 19^th century 23

Saint-Simon 24

Fustel de Coulanges 26

Quetelet 27

A. Comte contribution to the rise of sociology 29

Emergence of sociology as academic discipline 29

Major events of Comte work 31

Subject-matter and method of sociology 34

The law of three stages 38

Political doctrine of Comte 39

Psychological trend in French sociology at the turn of the century 41

G.Bon 41

G. Tarde 48

Other influential mono-factor trends 56

Le Play catholic traditionalism 57

Socio-geographic trend 63

French organicism 67

Sociological science institutionalization by Durkheim and his school 71

Durkheim' sociological method 72

Major fields of research 79

French sociological school activities 86

Chapter two GERMAN CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGY

Features of initial stage of sociology in Germany 91

Major traits 91

Ideas of sociology precursors 93

523

M ethodology in German sociology 96

K.Marx 97

L. von Stein 100

M. Scheler socilogy of knowledge 102

Conservative trend 105

School of formal sociology 107

G. Simmel 108

F. Tonnies 115

L. von Wiese and A. Vierkandt 120

One -factor schools 123

Organicism and mechanicism in German sociology 123

Socio-geography 128

Psychology of people 133

Racial-anthropological school and social darwinism 138

Formation of German sociology contemporary outlook: Max Weber and

empirical research 144

Major ideas of M. Weber sociological doctrine 146

Mechanisms of power' sociological analysis 150

Other fields of research 153

Empirical social research in Germany 156

Frankfurt school of social critique 160

Frankfurt school methodological foundations 160

M. Horkheimer 163

T. Adorno 167

H. Marcuse 172

E. Fromm 177

J. Habermas 181

Chapter three BRITISH SOCIOLOGY

British tradition of empirical research 189

Political arithmetic 190

Practices of social surveys 193

Empirical research and social processes management 198

H. Spencer and his contemporaries 202

Spencer sociological evolutionism 203

Methodological principles of organicism 206

Further progress of evolutionism (Bucle, Badgehot) 210

Sociological organizations in Great Britain 214

Sociological society 215

Society of eugenics education 217

Institualization of British sociology 220

Academic sociology 222

L. Hobhouse 223

E. Westermarck 226

M.Ginsberg 230

524

Social anthropology 232

A.P. Radcliff-Brown 233

B.K. Malinowski 236

Chapter four ITALIAN SOCIOLOGY

Features of Italian sociology emergence 244

Predecessors of sociology in Italy 249

N. Machiavelli 249

G. Vico 256

Italian left-wing radical sociology 260

E. Ferri 261

A. Labriola 264

A. Gramsci 268

V. Pareto contribution to sociological science development 271

Life and work 272

Theory of non-logical action 275

Circulation of elites 277

Principles of methodology 278

Theory of elites 281

G. Mosca 282

R. Michels 290

Other trends in Italian academic sociology 295

C. Lombroso' sociology of criminality 295

A. Loria' economic sociology 297

L. Sturzo christian sociology 300

Chapter five RISE AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOLOGY IN USA

Outlines of US sociology development 308

Key figures in American sociology emergence 315

W. Sumner 316

T. Veblen 319

Founder of Harvard school 321

T. Parsons 325

Psychological trend 328

L.Ward 328

F. Giddings 332

W. McDougall 335

Symbolic interactionism 337

C.H. Cooley 337

G. H. Mead 343

Chicago school 348

A. Small as founder of the school 349

525

P eriods in activities of Chicago school 351

Columbian school 357

R.M. Mclver 357

J. Moreno 360

P.L. Lazarsfeld 364

R.K. Merton 371

Empirical research in USA 373

Rise of industrial sociology 374

"Middletown" by R. Lynd and H. Merrell 378

Emergence of military sociology 382

Chapter six HISTORY OF RUSSIA' SOCIOLOGY

Features of sociology emergence in Russia 389

Pre-history of social research in Russia 392

Academic sociology 397

Mechanicism 397

Russian organicism 399

Sociology of law 402

Socio-geography 409

Psychological trend 413

Pluralistic sociology of M.M. Kovalevsky 416

P.A. Sorokin 424

Publicistic sociology 431

Russian idea in sociology 431

Social theory of anarchism 435

Subjective sociology 440

Marxist sociology 443

Soviet sociology 451

Periods in Soviet stage of Russia' sociology 451

Post-revolutionary period 453

Late 20s - early 30s 455

Revival of native sociology 457