Form Of Sociology Research Articles

Neofunctionalism and After

Series Editor's Preface. Preface. Acknowledgments. Part I: Origins of a Theoretical Project: 1. From Functionalism to Neofunctionalism: Creating a Position in the Field of Social Theory. 2. Traditions and Competition: Preface to a Postpositivist Approach to Knowledge Cumulation. Part II: Reinventing Parsons/Reconstructing His Tradition: 3. Neofunctionalism Today: Reconstructing a Theoretical Tradition. 4. Parsons's Structure in American Sociology. 5. Formal Sociology Is not Multidimensional: Breaking the Code in Parsons's Fragment on Simmel. 6. On Choosing Ones Intellectual Predecessors: Why Charles Camic is Wrong About Parsons's Early Work. 7. Structure, Value, Action: What Did the Early Parsons Mean and What Should He Have Said, Instead? Part III: After Neofunctionalism: Its Contribution to Theory Creation Today: 8. The New Theoretical Movement. 9. Action, Culture and Civil Society. Name Index. Subject Index.

ジンメル『社会学』における〈排除〉という主題

Simmel's Soziologie deals with some types of ‘excluded’ person such as the stranger, the enemy, and the poor. Although Simmel himself didn't state explicitly what ‘exclusion’ means, it seems to be an important concept in his formal sociology. As a result of examining the types of excluded persons, especially the stranger, in the contexts of ‘a priori conditions of society’ and ‘triad’, we are to define ‘exclusion’ as a form of sociation (Vergesellschaftung). This form of sociation is a synthesis of combination with someone and separation of another. It forms a ‘double group’ which consists of a closer circle without ‘excluded’ persons and a larger circle containing them.

Georg Simmel as an Eidetic Social Scientist

The article shows the affinity of Simmel's formal sociology with Husserl's notion of eidetic science. This thesis is demonstrated by the corroboration of Simmel's revision of neo-Kantian epistemology for sociology with Husserl's phenomenology, and the parallel discussion of Simmel and Husserl concerning cognitive levels and exact and morphological eide. Simmel's analysis of dyads is explored as an exemplar of his eidetic insights. An important consequence of this demonstration is the vindication establishing the scientific legitimacy of Simmel's methodology regarding the sociology of the forms of association. Woven throughout is discussion concerning the doctrine of the complementarity of eidetic and empirical science. Simmel's methodology is shown to have been ahead of its time through conjoining these two modes of scientific investigation.

Simmel and the methodological problems of formal sociology

Dans cet article, Talcott Parsons porte son attention sur l'oeuvre de Georg Simmel. Il presente ce dernier comme le fondateur de la sociologie formelle. Il examine sa conception des relations sociales et des changements structurels. Simmel envisage de facon descriptive les relations sociales. Pour lui, les motivations, le jeu des interets constituent la trame de la vie sociale. Parsons denonce la vision contractualiste qui se degage de cette perspective. Il souligne a l'inverse de Simmel le role de l'identification des types structurels en matiere d'analyse causale et classificatoire. Parsons compare la «sociologie formelle» de Max Weber et celle de Simmel. Il juge la premiere tres superieure a la seconde. Edward Shils examine de facon critique ces remarques de Parsons. Il affirme que Simmel utilise toujours le terme interet (das Interesse) dans un sens beaucoup plus general que Parsons ne l'admet. Il rappelle que pour Simmel la tâche du sociologue consiste a degager des formes sociales saisies de maniere isolee en operant des simplifications et non a chercher a construire des imputations causales. Shils estime que la perspective de Simmel et celle de Weber sont par trop differentes pour que des comparaisons convaincantes puissent etre etablies entre elles.

Comments on Parsons’s “Simmel and the methodological problems of formal sociology”

What follows is a selection of notes made by Edward Shils (handwritten on eleven pages of legal-size foolscap) on Parsons's draft manuscript. The com ments selected (which constitute the bulk of the original material) were those that sought to clarify and evaluate Parsons's claims, to suggest reformulations of specific passages, and to offer interpretations of the terms and concepts used by Simmel. Shils's comments reveal an interpretation of Simmel and German thought that differs in many respects from the one provided by Parsons.

Editor’s note: Parsons and Simmel

The following section presents several papers focused on Talcott Parsons and Georg Simmel. The first is the "fragment" on Simmel of Ch. XVIII, Georg Simmel and Ferdinand Toennies. This chapter has been the subject of scholarly discus sion since Parsons revealed in 1968 that he had drafted it for his early major work, The Structure of Social Action (1937), but had ultimately decided not to include it.* The second, "Simmel and the Methodological Problems of Formal Sociology," is a previously unpublished manuscript by Parsons?apparently writ ten in 1939?that continues his engagement with Simmel's approach. The third is a commentary on the second Simmel manuscript that Edward Shils sent Par sons, in response to the latter's request. Finally, there is William Buxton's paper, "From the 'Missing Fragment' to the 'Lost Manuscript': Reflections on Parsons's Engagement with Simmel," which compares the two Parsons manuscripts and reflects on their significance. Since readers may wonder how the second Parsons manuscript was discov ered and why it remained unknown for a half-century, a brief explanation is in order. Since the mid-1970s, a collection of Parsons materials has been develop ing in the Harvard University Archives in Pusey Library. This includes not only correspondence and manuscripts, but also such items as genealogical tables, portraits, and photographs. Following his death in 1979, Talcott Parsons's fac ulty papers were donated to the Archives for the use of scholars. The papers did not, however, arrive all at once; additional donations were made as more mate rials were located. Indeed, according to Ms. Patrice Donoghue, assistant archi vist at the Harvard University Archives, the collection consists of sixteen sepa rate donations (or "accessions") from 1974 (while Parsons was still alive) to 1991 [e-mail communication, April 25, 1998]. In I99O, William Buxton was approached by another historical scholar work ing at Harvard who told him there appeared to be some Parsons materials in the basement of William James Hall, the social sciences building. Upon investigating, Buxton found that this was indeed so, and he promptly arranged for five cartons of documents?including "Simmel and the Methodological Problems of Formal Sociology"?to be examined by the Archives' staff. I have been informed by Ms. Donoghue that these materials officially became part of the Parsons collection

Taste and Fashion: The Social Function of Fashion and Style

In the classical European humanistic tradition, fashion was alwavs thought to be anti thetical to good taste. A person blindly following the whims of fashion was without style, whereas a man of style - or a gentleman - used his own power of judgement Immanuel Kant shared this conception with many of his contemporaries. It is well known that Georg Simmel's idea of a formal sociology was influenced by his reading of Kant's aesthetic writings. Even Simmel's famous essay on fashion can best be understood as a somewhat ironic commentary on Kant's idea of a semus communis: the community of fashion is the real community of universal taste To Simmel, fashion is a societal formation always combining two opposite forces It is a socially acceptable and safe way to distinguish oneself from others and, at the same time, it satisfies the individual's need for social adaptation and imitation Furthermure, the charm of novelty offered by fashion is a purely aesthetic pleasure. Fashion helps to solve - at least provisionally - the central problem of the philosophy of life, also expressed in the antinomy of taste as formulated by Kant. It teaches the modern man how a person can be a homogeneous part of a social mass without losing his individuality, or how he can both stick to his own private taste and expect others - who recognizably also have a taste ot their own - to share it Simmel's suggestion of the 'stylized life-style' further develops the same idea. In modern society, both style and fashion are functional equivalents to 'good taste'.

Aloneness and Social Form

The Simmelian call for a formal sociology is applied to aloneness to uncover generic patterns of relation between the individual and the community. Three forms of aloneness are distinguished by focusing on the interactional and relational levels of sociation underlying each. Other‐imposed aloneness as represented by isolation is an asymmetric form. It is the state of being cut off from immediate interaction or extended relations. Mutually constructed aloneness is represented by privacy and solitude. Both privacy and solitude are symmetric, intentional, and cooperative; but privacy is the temporary suspension of interaction and implies at most a common past and shared future, and solitude rests upon a foundation of committed, temporally extended relationships. Self‐imposed aloneness as represented by escapism is asymmetrical and involves a negative affirmation of the community. It is rooted in a distorted temporal existence.

Simmel, Rationalisation and the Sociology of Money

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

Complaint as a form of association

Complaining is a common pattern of interaction that can be viewed as a form of association. Our understanding of complaint and other forms of association is enhanced by applying insights from Simmel's “formal sociology.” The emergence of complaint, like other forms of association, adheres to a general developmental process and has specifiable social consequences. The integrative and disintegrative social consequences of complaint are spelled out.

If Simmel Were A Fieldworker: On Formal Sociological Theory And Analytical Field Research*

In this paper, an attempt is made to apply the methodological principles of SimmeFs formal sociology to fieldwork and, thus, to lay out systematically the methodological foundations of “analytical field research.” The paper centers around three major methodological principles: (a) shifting the emphasis from actual facts to the particular analytical perspectives from which they are viewed; (b) establishing concern with formal patterns which are abstracted from reality rather than with its concrete contents; (c) studying only selected aspects of concrete phenomena and making a commitment to particular analytical concerns and foci. Based on these methodological principles, certain guidelines for analytical field researchers are then recommended.

The New Sociology

To the casual observer, sociology has continued to thrive for women since Lopata's review essay was published by Signs in 1976.1 More women participate actively in academic sociology,2 and feminist scholarship has increasingly been identified as such.3 Even so, a decidedly androcentric tradition dominates sociological analysis, and it remains unclear how, and with what analytic and methodological tools, sociologists actually can and should study women as a social group. The failure to acknowledge and infuse what women know and who women are into sociological inquiry has rendered static the substantive areas of formal sociology. These, for the most part, retain traditional

Competition as a Principle of Member Distribution in Social Stratification

The study of social stratification contains the standard of distribution, the distribution of resource and member. In this paper the writer attempts to consider some problems concerning the principles of member distribution in social stratification.Hitherto, there were ascribed status and achieved status in R. Linton, ascription and achievement in T. Parsons' pattern variable as their principles. Historically the conception of competition was an essential principle of social structure in modern society. In sociology formal sociology had studied competition as an important social relationship, but in contemporary sociology it hardly has been considered.Recently social mobility has been studied as the principle of member distribution in social stratification. The amount and nature of social mobility indicate us a great deal about social stratification. Also it is an important element in understanding structure formation, but fundamentally competition is a social relationship different from social mobility. Inter-generational social mobility is the relationship between father's social status and the son's status, but competition is the relative relationship with others in the position on social stratification. The difference is important, when we analyze their function in personality system, social system and culture system. I comprehend and emphasize competition as the inner process of social structure and the principle of member distribution in social stratification.

The State of Theory and the Status of Theory

ed from any kind of wider integument. Symbolic interactionists and ethnomethodologists, in particular, have no explicit conceptualization of the supra-situational, of social structure or culture, as societal phenomena, even less of inter-societal cross-cultural or world-systemic relations the proper macrocontext, rather than the 'nation-state'.8 In dealing with the internal ordering of society, familiar intermediate categories like 'institution', 'class', 'level', 'domain', 'primary' and 'secondary' notions widely used by 'members' are not conceptualized explicitly, though they are often smuggled in because life has a habit of spilling over the edges of inadequate theoretical boxes. Nor is there any workedout temporal framework: development, history, and evolution become nonproblems, because history has to be the history of some substantive entity, such as a society, and evolution the evolution of types of society in successive epochs . To work with a social theory that mirabile dietu has no concept of society as an entity (however much we need to avoid 'systems' theory assumptions that underplay internal inconsistency and overemphasize the liminality of external boundaries) makes it impossible to produce a sociology which can answer to most of the major problems of understanding social life. Only a decade after Homans had had to argue for bringing men back into sociology, we have to plead for bringing society back in. This is by no means to denigrate whole modes of doing sociology. Anyone who fails to respond to the fine-grained and sensitive illumination of the everyday and the interpersonal provided by Erving GofFman would be a poor human being as well as a poor intellectual, for to read him is to experience a deepening of perception. It has been a mind-stretching experience for a whole generation whom he has taught, like Brecht, to look at the familiar in new ways, and the exotic as common human practice. Yet the exploration of the devices people use to manipulate others in face-toface encounters, to present images of themselves, to detect meanings informing others' behaviour in clues and cues provided or given off, is, in the end, to work within the confines of formal sociology. The usual riposte to that kind of criticism is to assert that relations are between men, and that it is only alienated thinking that persuades us, fetishistically, that we have relations with reified 'things' or 'forces'. A second, more substantive, riposte is that this kind of analysis can, with equal effectiveness, be applied to 'high level' groups, and that the Cabinet or the Politbureau is, after all, simply a small group. This content downloaded from 40.77.167.104 on Sat, 09 Apr 2016 05:57:46 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Some Problems of Takada's Social Theory

Takada's social theory was constructed under the social background of class struggles developed into a new stage by the formulation of monopolistic capitalism in Japan. The social aspects of the development of his social theory will be evaluated from three points. First, his theory is constructed as a way to fill a gap left unfilled by traditionally dominant social theories, the organic theories of states, between the capitalistic reality within the limits of absolutistic Tenno system and to follow as thoroughly as possible “the thought and history of the national polity” under the Tenno system. Secondly, it is built as a process to strengthen the separation from and the antagonism against a scientific social theory of Marxism. Thirdly, it is thought to be a theory which “takes before others” the reality accompanied with the reactionary monopolistic capitalism and “legs” behind the reality stepping into the fascistic system. Takada's highly abstract social theory can be characterized, in one word, as a Japanese variation of relativistic social theories which are composed on the epistemological basis of agnosticism. Materialistic-dialectic contents, which are indispensable for scientific social theories, such as history, economy and labor as their basis, are intentinally omitted in his theory construction from his common-sence judgement on the social reality in Japan. He composes a highly abstract “law of constant quantity of associations” with various sophisticated concepts abstracted one-sidedly, such as the will, the association, the social relation, the group and the society in its totality. His law, itself, may be regarded as a metaphorical expression of “the intensity of associations” which is presupposed for the stable superordination by the ruling class in the class society. Here we must emphasize that Takada's social theory constructed before W.W. II was nothing more than a kind of unscientific Japanese “formal sociology” whose methodological individualism had not been established to its full extent.

Problems and Situation of Sociology in Postwar Japan

1. Comparing sociology in postwar Japan with that in prewar Japan, the following remarkable differences can be found:(1) The decline of the grand theory which was modeled after German Formal sociology, and the appearance of Parsonian ideas which resulted from the introduction of American functional theory.(2) A gradual decrease in groups carrying out actual reseach on the family and villages, and diversification of research into such themes as industry, city, stratification, labor, social pathology, mass communication etc., the utilization of the results of research and increasing preciseness in research method.(3) A revival of criticism of sociology by Marxists, backed up by more actual proof.2. From the standpoint of the main current of world sociological history, however, it can be said that the methodology of Formale=Verstehende Soziologie since Simmel=Weber is fundamentally confirmed both in America and in Japan. But to those who study modern Japanese society, as well as to Weber, the main problem about methodology exists in comparing the methodology of twentieth century sociology with that of the Marxists and applying properly each of them to the analysis of the present situation to find out “Principia media” (K. Mannheim) of Japanese society.3. In order to find out useful ways of applying both methodologies, it is necessary to provide precise concepts of each, especially to analyze the concept, “the situational prescription” (W. Thomas), and to deal with the personality element properly. At the same time we should carefully examine the interrelation between the economic theory of Uno, a Japanese Marxian economist, and sociological studies. Recently the strong tendency to revalue the religious Sociology of Weber has appeared and this shows the necessity of this.

Brief Notices

BRIEF NOTICES Georg Simmel, 1858-1918. A Collection of Essays, with Translations and a Bibliography. Edited by Kurt H. Wolff. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press, 1959. Pp. 396. $7.50. In his Preface to this volume, Dr. Kurt H. Wolff, presently chairman of the Department of Sociology at Brandeis University, expresses the hope that it will acquaint the reader with " the catholicity and originality " of Simmel's intellect. Simmel, who discoursed and wrote in the fields of aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, philosophy of history, and sociology, is too often identified only with the latter field, and here as the inventor of "formal sociology." However important this contribution (and F. H. Tenbruck 's essay is particularly illuminating), the remaining twelve essays of the volume, the translations of eight minor works of Simmel, the bibliographies of writings on him and of his works testify both to the breadth of his interests and his influence. Perhaps the most stimulating essay is Gertrud Kantorowicz's Preface to a collection of Simmel's posthumous essays. The authoress draws attention to his central metaphysical idea, i.e., that the concept of life includes both open flux and closed crystallization, " both the process of life inces~ santly newborn and the entities which emerge out of life (in the one-sided sense of the word) are lifted out of the flux, and are even pitted against it " (p. 3) . This approach to the recurring problem of stability and change, alternately emphasized by social scientists, contributes a germinal point in which being and becoming can meet and fuse. Being preserves its " pure dynamics," but beside it stands the unchangeability of " eternally valid structures of timeless being." Simmel applies this conception to art interpretation, philosophy, history, as well as to sociology. The existentialist quality and the emphasis on form in Simmel's thinking, or the positivistic orientation of the Parsonial school, or both, may account for his omission from the latter's The Structure of Social Action. That Dr. Wolff has labored so thoroughly in this and his earlier volume on The Sociology of Georg Simmel (1950) to rectify this omission is testimony not only to Simmel's genius, but also to the editor's concern for a total sociology, explaining being as well as becoming, form as well as material content. The essays are generally well-written and the translations flow smoothly. They provide apt illustrations of points developed by the various contributors . While at first glance the range of topics seems to be wide, a unified impression of Simmel emerges. This is a tribute to the work of the editor. 676 BRIEF NOTICES 677 American social scientists can profit much from a study of this volume. It supplies a dimension of philosophical orientation which is often lacking in American social science. While in many instances, the conceptual scheme of Simmel will not satisfy the rigor of philosophical analysis, it can function as a much-needed emphasis, couched in the language of the fraternity. For those outside the social sciences, perhaps inclined to note the shallowness of much sociological empiricism and social behaviorism, acquaintance with Simmel can encourage the study of social science. This could well facilitate the necessary dialogue between philosophers and social scientists, directed toward a realistic, unified science of human behavior, fully appreciative of flux and becoming, yet oriented toward " eternally valid structures of timeless being." College of Mount St. Joseph Mcmnt St. Joseph, Ohio LoUIS A. RYAN, O.P. Cuttat, J.-A., The Encounter of Religions (foreword by D. von Hildebrand ; trans!. by Pierre de Fontnouvelle with Evis McGrew). New York: Desclee, 1960. 159 pp. $3.50. ". . . Hesychasm appears to be a sort of ' synthesis ' between the two poles of all human spirituality, interiority and transcendancy, whose respective predominance . . . seems to characterize the East and West " (p. 96) . Such is the thesis of the author of this provocative little volume. What goes before is a lucid explanation and criticism of the relation of the " natural mysticism " of some of the religions of the Far East to the uniquely authentic spirituality of Christianity. What comes after is a development of the hesychast method of interiorization and prayer, together with a judgment concerning its authenticity. In...

Simmel's Influence on Japanese Thought

When we try to assess Simmel's influence on Japanese thought, we must take into account not only his sociological, but also his philosophical ideas. However, his influence on Japanese thoght is far stronger in sociology than in philosophy, just as it is the case in the United States. Of course there are some difference between the two countries. In general, Japan has been more exposed to German thought than the United States has ; thus his influence on Japan is stronger not only in sociology but even in philosophy. Simmel's philosophy of life was introduced to Japan since after the World War I together with that of Dilthey and almost all of his philosophical works were translated in to Japanese. It is true that his philosophical thought aroused some interests among sholars and journalists. However, the influence of his philophy on Japanese thought must be said to have been weak in comparison with that of his sociology which gave rise to the appearance of a new current of sociology as a special science in Japan since about 1920. Yasuma Takada published in 1920 his “Principles of Sociology” a book of 1385 pages, in which he justified completely Simmel's attempt delimit the object of sociology and attempted to construct a system of sociology as a special science more substantially than Simmel. Since then the study of formal sociology with Simmel at its center was promoted for several years and came to full bloom in 1923, when Kentaro Komatsu's “Introduction to Sociology” and Teizo Toda's “Plan of Courses of Sociology I” appeared. This trend in favor of Simmel's conception was not without resistance. In 1927 Masamichi Shimmei criticized Simmel's and related views in his “On Formal Sociology” and in the following year Tetsuji Kada also opposed Simmel in his “Introduction to Sociology”. Notwithstanding this, Simmel's influence was not completely lost. Many sociologists followed his example in considering sociology as a special science. However it must be acknowledged that the trend against formal sociology had been more challenging since then and Simmel's influence on Japanese sociology declined steadily until he came to be remembered as a sociologist whose books were refered to but seldom read even by the sociologistss. Since the end of World War II a great change was brought into Japan and with the democratic reform of government and education, the study of sociology was greatly enhanced. However, as to its content, significant shift has been in the direction of the United States, away from the traditional orientation toward Germany. In this changed climate of spirit, it is no wonder that Simmel, along with German sociology in general, has lost influence, thought there are some exceptions. If we compare the present state of Japanese sociology with that of American sociology in regard to Simmel's influence, it becomes clear that there is a remarkable contrast. In spite of the fact that in the '20's, this influence was stronger in Japan than in the United States, today the opposite is true. Whereas Japanese sociology once was strongly influenced by Simmel and has lost interest in him, American sociologists have recently renewed an attention to him which had been long absent or dormant. Simmel's influence on American sociology may be said to have been more consistent, though perhaps not as strong as at times in Japan. Simmel's influence is not dead even now in Japan, but despite the fact that it was once great, Japanese sociologists, much to their disadvantage, have left his precious heritage relatively unexplored.

The Definition and Measurement of Ambiences

A NUMBER of recent developments have given new importance to formal sociology, as originally defined by Simmel: Geometrical abstraction investigates only the spatial forms of bodies, although empirically these forms are given merely as the forms of some material content. Similarly, if society is conceived as interaction among individuals, the description of the forms of this interaction is the task of science of society in its strictest and most essential sense.' Within the last decade, the description of forms of interaction has become a thriving branch of behavioral research. At the same time, the geometrical analysis of interaction has been greatly facilitated by the development of new symbols and concepts. The present study arose from an attempt2 to outline a general classification of human collectivities, including organizations, which are more or less permanent systems of specified roles, groups, defined as unities of particular persons in interaction, and aggregates, which are described by summarizing the characteristics of individual members, one by one.3 In the attempt to apply this typology to empirical data about neighborhood relationships, it became apparent that the classification does not provide for a system which is in some sense intermediate between the interacting group and the unrelated aggregate. All the neighbors with whom a given subject sustains interaction above a stated minimum level comprise a meaningful collectivity, whose members are not necessarily in interaction with each other. In some cases, the members of these groupings are completely disconnected and have no mutual relationships except through the subject. In other instances, each member may sustain interaction with many others. There are a number of terms in common usage which are related to this concept of the collectivity of all persons interacting with a designated subject. We talk readily of a circle of acquaintances, of the old gang, of a subject's milieu, or of his contacts. Although there is no generic term, ambience! is etymologically reasonable. The concept of the ambience is implicit in much recent research in group dynamics, including the work of Bavelas,6 Jacobson and Seashore6 Festinger, Schachter, and Back,7 and a number of other investigators identified with the Lewin school. The Yankee City Study contains a great deal of information about status effects in the formation of ambiences.8 The work of Homans9 in attempting to set up basic postulates for a theory of interaction and the very interesting attempt of Simon to express these postulates in a system of differential equations,10 lead very directly to ambience problems. The sociometrists need only extend their time scale from that of the single observed situation to some longer period to be faced with the need for defining, describing, and analyzing ambiences.11 In still another direction,

The Analysis of Social Structure

This article discusses the method of analysis of social structure, one of the most important problems in general sociology. Prof. Robert M. MacIver's important contributions in this field are analyzed as they appear in such works as : Community 1917, Elements of Social Science 1921, Society, its Structure and Changes 1931, Society, an Introductory Analysis 1949 (with Prof. Charles H. Page) and so on.1. Following Ratzenhoher Prof. MacIver calls the motive forces of human conducts interests and classifies them from the standpoint of social relationships. He bases his analysis of social structure upon them.2. He classifies the major types of social groups of a whole social structure from the standpoint of the range and nature of interests involved and the degree of groups organization as follows; (1) communities (tribe, country, city, nation etc.), (2) more or less spontaneous configurations responsive to various interests that develops within the community (social class, ethnic or racial groups, crowd), (3) associations (family, club, church, trade union, school, state etc.).3. He also classifies these associations in accordance with many specific interests which they serve.This article attempts a critical evaluation of these classifications. It is to be noted that the concepts of social relationships in his sociology include interests. On this point Prof. MacIlver's Sociology differs from G. Simmel's “Formal Sociology” in Germany.