Pitirim Sorokin

Contemporary Sociological Theories 1928



The number of sociologists and sociological works for the period mentioned has become so great as to make impossible a substantial analysis of the contributions of all the individual sociologists in one volume. If such an attempt is undertaken, it is likely to result in a kind of a biographical dictionary with all its plusses and minuses. Among its minuses is liable to be a lack of a logical and coherent perspective of the whole field. This shortcoming is so serious as to make necessary some other method of survey which will be free from it. As we are not concerned with the biographies of sociologists, the best way seems to be this: to segregate all the important sociological theories into several classes or schools, and to analyze not so much the works of individual sociologists as the fundamental principles of the schools. Providing that in each school several of the most representative individual theories are given, that all the principal works are mentioned, and that all its principal generalizations and propositions are described, such a plan appears to be more plausible scientifically than any other one. It is more economical than the chronological and biographical plan of a dictionary. It is likely to give a more systematic and coherent knowledge of the field than a distribution of the materials on an incidental chronological basis, or on the data of the works of several individual sociologists picked up by a surveyor.

The above explains the logical construction of the book. It is in detail as follows: All the theories are divided into a few major schools, each one being subdivided into its varieties, and each variety being represented by several of the most typical works. At the beginning of each school, or its variety, a short paragraph about its predecessors is given to connect the present sociology with its past. A characterization of the principles of the school or theory is followed by a critical paragraph to show its fallacies or shortcomings. This plan, to be sure, has its own disadvantages, but they seem to be not so great as those of any other method.

The classification of the schools of contemporary sociology.

The classification of the schools and their varieties in the book is as follows:


Anthropo-racial, selectionist, and hereditarist school

Under this school I am going to discuss the principal theories which give an exclusive importance to the factor of race, heredity and selection in determining human behaviour, the social processes, organisation, and the historical destiny of a social system. The theories compose a second branch of the biological school of sociology.


As to the great thinkers of Greece, like Plato and Aristotle, they quite clearly realized the innate inequality of men, and consequently, of races.

Plato's guardians are to be selected from men who are naturally suitable for this class, while the members of other classes are composed of the people naturally fit for their lower social standing.

Aristotle stresses the fact that there are inborn slaves and inborn masters.

The same may be said of a great many ancient thinkers. Everywhere the factors of "blood," "race,'" "heredity" and "selection" were known, were taken into consideration, and were put into practice in various efficient forms.

Since that time up to the nineteenth century, there have been few prominent social thinkers who have not, in some way, touched these problems.

"All through the history of political theory we have seen distinctions of race presented as the causes of and sufficient explanations of distinctions in institutions and power."

At the end of the eighteenth, and at the beginning of the nineteenth centuries, a series of philologists, historians, and social thinkers, - Sir William Jones, F. Schlegel, T. Young, J. G. Rhode, J. V. Klaproth, A. Kuhn, J. Grimm, F. A. Pott, F. Muller, and many others, _ started the theory of Aryanism, and later on, of Teutonism and Nordicism.

Though some of them understood that the Aryans were a linguistic group, nevertheless they often mixed the Aryan people with the Aryan race, and in this way facilitated an appearance of a purely racial interpretation of history.

The most famous and the most influential among such theories happened to be the racial theory of Gobineau. His work could be regarded as the corner stone of numerous similar theories set forth after him.

It is rather curious to read the statement of K. Pearson that before Darwin there was no possibility of either an organic conception of society, or a proper understanding of the role of heredity, race-struggle, and selection. There is no doubt that all these factors were understood well, and if one compares many sociological statements of Gobineau with those of Pearson, he will see a great similarity between them, in spite of the fact that Gobineau's work was published before Darwin's and Galton's works.

Among relatively recent theories which compose the anthropo-racial school in sociology, the most important are:

  1. The racial theories of Gobineau and Chamberlain;

  2. The "hereditarist" school of Francis Galton and K. Pearson;

  3. The selectionist theories of V. de Lapouge and Otto Ammon.

Besides these, there are many other monographs which emphasize the principles set forth by these authors.


Arthur de Gobineau (1816-1882).

Count Gobineau's racial interpretation of history is given in the four volumes of his Essai sur l'inégalité des races humaines (Paris, 1853, 1855). The essentials of his theory are as follows:

For a starting point, Gobineau takes the problem of the development and decay of societies. What are the causes of such phenomena? What factors determine either an upward movement of society and civilisation or their decay?

With a great erudition for his time, he takes the existing hypotheses one after another and shows their inadequacy. Having characterized society in a manner

"more or less perfect from the political, and quite complete from the social point of view, as a union of men who live under the direction of similar ideas and who have identical instincts,"

Gobineau shows that neither religious fanaticism, nor corruption and licentiousness, nor luxury leads necessarily to decay, as many authors thought.

The Aztec Empire was religiously fanatical and was accustomed even to sacrifice human beings to their gods; yet this did not lead to its decay, but rather facilitated a long historical existence of this society. The upper classes of Greece, Rome, Persia, Venice, Genoa, England, and Russia lived in luxury for many centuries, yet this did not lead to their decay.

The same may be said of corruption. The earliest ascending stages of ancient Rome, Sparta, and many other societies were far from being virtuous and honest. The early Romans were cruel and pitiless; the Spartans and Phoenicians used to rob, plunder, rape, and lie. They exhibited the greatest corruption; yet this did not hinder these societies from rising and prospering.

"It is not in virtue that we find the cause of their vigour at the earliest stages of their history."

On the other hand, in the period of decay, many societies exhibit an increase of humanitarianism, softening of mores, a decrease of cruelty, corruption, and brutality, and yet this does not stop their decay. Finally, throughout the history of France and other countries there has been much fluctuation in the amount of corruption, with nothing showing a drift toward decay in the more corrupt periods. For these reasons it is evident that corruption cannot account for decay.

Similarly, religious decay not a sufficient cause to explain it. Persia, Tyre, Carthage and Judea fell down when their religion was very intensive. Even in Greece and Rome, religion, especially among the masses of the population, was quite strong in the period of decay. These and similar inductions show that

"it is impossible to explain a people's ruin through their irreligion."

Neither do the merits of a government influence the historical longevity of societies. Bad governments may be classified as those which are foreign, and those which are imposed by foreign degenerate, and class-selfish governments. China had, for thousands of years, a foreign (the Mongol) government, and yet, in spite of this fact, China exists and has often shown great social progress. England was conquered by the foreign Normans, and yet this did not ruin England. Furthermore, we know that societies with a degenerated, or class-selfish government have continued to exist in spite of these conditions. These, and similar historical inductions testify that national decay cannot be accounted for through the character of the government.

In this way Gobineau shows the insufficiency of all these theories. This does not mean that he does not attribute any influence to these factors. He does, but only as to their facilitating the condition brought about. These phenomena may lead to decay only when they are a manifestation of some deeper cause.

After clearing the ground, Gobineau offers his own theory. It consists of the statement that the fundamental factor of the progress or decay of a society is the racial factor.

"Going from one induction to another I came to the conclusion chat ethnical (racial) problems dominate all other problems of history. It is the key to them; and inequality of races is sufficient to explain the entire enchainment of the destinies of peoples." 10

Understanding by the decay or degeneration of a nation the fact

"that the people do not have as much inner valour as they had before,"

the cause of such a degeneration is that

"the people do not have the same blood in their veins any more because through successive cross-marriages, its value has been changed, and they have not been able to preserve the race of their founders."


"a people and their civilisation dies out when the people's fundamental racial constitution is changed or engulfed among other races to the degree that it ceases to exert the necessary influence."

As soon as such conditions are given, the mortal hour of a society and of its civilisation is struck. The purity of a race, if the race is talented, is the condition absolutely necessary for preventing the decay of the society and of its civilisation. Such a people is potentially immortal. If they are conquered by an invader, they, like the Chinese under the Mongols, or the Hindus under the Englishmen, can avoid decay, can preserve their civilisation, and, sooner or later, will restore their independence. On the other hand, racial mixture leads to degeneration, even though the society has the most brilliant culture created by its ancestors. So it happened with the Greeks and the Romans. They could not maintain the purity of their race in the later stages of their history, and therefore, in spite of a wonderful culture they decayed.

This leads Gobineau to his second proposition about the inequality of human races. They are unequal. There are the superior and the inferior races. The former are capable of progress; the latter are hopeless. Civilisation and culture have been created by the superior races exclusively, and each type of culture is nothing but a manifestation of racial qualities. To corroborate this statement, Gobineau gives a long series of proofs. The inequality of races is proved by the fact that up to the present time there are many races, which in spite of many thousand years of existence still remain at the most primitive stages of culture. They have not been able to create anything valuable, or to progress in spite of the different environments in which they have been existing. Their creative sterility is due to their racial inferiority rather than to the environmental factors.

"The majority of races are forever incapable of being civilized" and "no environmental agency can fertilize their organic sterility."

Such is the statement of the author. This naturally leads him to a criticism of various theories which have tried to account for racial differences and differences in cultural development through environmental factors, especially through their geographic environment.

"The progress or stagnation of a people does not depend upon 'geographic conditions,"

says Gobineau. Partisans of this theory used to say that people placed in a favourable geographic environment progress, while the people who stay among unfavourable geographic conditions are stagnant. The author states that history does not corroborate such a theory. The environment of America was very favourable and yet the aboriginal races of America, - except three races of South America, - could not create any great civilisation, but remained in the primitive stages. On the other hand, the environment of Egypt, or Athens, or Sparta, or Assyria, was far from being favourable. It was poor and unfertile until artificial irrigation and other measures were created. And yet, in spite of the unfavourable conditions, these races, thanks to their inner genius modified their natural environment, and created brilliant civilisations. The same independence of culture from the environment is shown by the fact that we find the progressive peoples under the most different geographical environments. The same is true in regard to stagnant races. Finally, the absence of any close correlation between the character of the races and that of geographic environment is witnessed by the fact that, in the same environment in one period there exists a brilliant civilisation, and in another period, it disappears, being superseded by a stagnant and incapable people. If geographic conditions were responsible for the progress or stagnation of a people, such things could not take place. Going in this inductive way and giving one fact after another, Gobineau skilfully shows that "geographical theories" cannot give any satisfactory explanation of the racial and cultural differences of peoples.

The next criticism of the author is directed against the theories which try to account for 'die differences of various peoples by social environment, - that is, through the character of the social and political institutions. Gobineau indicates that these theories are wrong also. In the first place, because institutions and laws themselves are only manifestations of racial traits, not their causes. They are created by the people according to their inner qualities, but the people do not create these qualities. The institutions do not fall from the heaven as something ready-made-Neither do they exist before the existence of the peoples with their inner qualities. When laws or institutions, quite heterogeneous to the racial instincts of a people, are compulsorily introduced by a foreign nation, or by a conqueror, or by a radical reformer, they usually do not have any success, but remain on paper, representing mere decoration. Sometimes, when a race cannot resist such innovations, it dies, like many primitive people who have been unable to adapt themselves to such a heterogeneous culture. Even a pure imitation of a foreign culture or institutions is possible only when, in the veins of an imitating race, there is a part of the blood of the people whom they imitate. The negroes of America can imitate some superficial cultural traits of the white race only because in their veins there is already a considerable part of the white blood. The author gives again a long series of facts of this kind, and concludes that the discussed theories cannot give any satisfactory explanation of the differences brought about in various peoples through the social environment. From this viewpoint he analyzes in a detailed form the role of religion, and especially the role of Christianity, in order to show that even this environmental factor cannot explain the differences of various peoples. Though Christianity is accepted by different peoples, teaching them all the same ideas, nevertheless it is forced to leave the institutions of these peoples untouched in their essence. The Eskimo Christian remains Eskimo; the Chinese Christian remains Chinese; the South American native remains what he was; and all these different Christians remain different from one another in spite of the identity of their religion. This shows that unless religion is a direct manifestation of racial instincts (in which case it cannot be universal and cosmopolitan) it cannot change the racial qualities and explain the differences of the races.21

After this critical part, Gobineau outlines his theory of the origin, inequality, and social role of the racial factor. The three volumes of his work are practically devoted to the development of this theory. Its essence is as follows: Besides the above arguments, the fact of racial inequality is corroborated by, and is partially due to, the probable heterogeneous origin of different races.

In this way, he was one of the first authors who set forth the theory of the heterogeneous origin of different races, - the theory stressed later on by Gumplowicz and many anthropologists. Since different races sprang from different sources, it is natural that they are, and must be, different, especially in the early stages of their history, when they were purer than they now are. In spite of a long course of history, and a great mixture of blood even now the races are still different anatomically, physiologically and psychologically. Such differences are permanent and could not be obliterated by any environmental factors. Only cross-marriage or mixture of blood may change racial characteristics. At the beginning of human history there existed three pure principal races: the white, the yellow, and the black. All other racial varieties have been nothing but a mixture of these fundamental races. Of them the most talented and creative was the white race, especially its Aryan branch. In its pure form this race has performed real miracles. It has been practically the creator of all the ten principal civilisations known in the history of mankind. Six of them, namely, - the Hindu, the Egyptian, the Assyrian, the Greek, the Roman, and the Teuton civilisations, were created by the Aryans, who represent the highest branch of the white race. The remaining four civilisations, - the Chinese, Mexican, Peruvian, and Maya, were founded and created by other branches of the white race, mixed with outside races. This white race expanded and conquered other races, but, at the same time, amalgamated with them. From this amalgamation came different racial groups and corresponding civilisations, but the more the amalgamation progressed the more the white race lost its precious qualities, and the more its various branches (like the Greek or the Roman) degenerated. At the time of Jesus Christ the first and the most brilliant part of the history of mankind had been completed. At that time the amalgamation of races had already reached a considerable proportion. Since this period, and up to the present time, it has been progressing, with some fluctuations. The result of such race-blending is a tendency to decay, which has been shown in the history of the last few centuries. It expresses itself in many forms, and one of these is the progress of egalitarian ideas, democratic movements, and the blending of cultures, which, however, does not show anything of that brightness and genius which stamped the previous great civilisations created by relatively pure races. The future prospects drawn by Gobineau are naturally not very hopeful,_ blood- mixture having already progressed so far that the process can scarcely be stopped, it is likely to progress more and more.

After the age of the gods, when the Aryan race was absolutely pure; and the age of heroes when race-blending was slight in form and number, it began, during the age of nobles, to slowly progress. After this age, race-mixture advanced rapidly . . . towards a great confusion of all racial elements and through numerous inter-racial marriages.

The result of such a progress will be a greater and greater similarity of human beings on the one hand, and on the other an increasing mediocrity of men's physical constitutions, of their beauty, and of their mind. Here we have the real triumph of mediocrity, since in this sorrowful inheritance (of race amalgamation) everybody must participate in equal proportion and there is no reason to expect that one would have a better fate than another. Like the Polynesians, all men shall be similar to one another,_in their stature, in their traits, and in their habits.

Human herds, no longer nations, weighed down by a mournful somnolence, will henceforth be benumbed in their nullity, like buffaloes ruminating in the stagnant meres of the Pontine marshes.

This means the death of society and the end of the whole human civilisation.


Sociologistic school


As is well known, in August Comte's classification of sciences into Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Physiology, and Social Physics, or Sociology, sociology is put immediately after physiology or biology. Psychology, as a science preceding sociology, is omitted.

This has called forth a serious criticism of Comte's classification by J.S. Mill, Herbert Spencer, and many others, who have insisted on the necessity of putting psychology after biology and before sociology, as its immediate basis. This has led to the appearance in sociology of the psychological school which tries to build sociology on psychology and to explain social phenomena by means of the psychological, rather than to explain psychological phenomena through the biological and sociological. Further characteristics of this school are that the majority of its partizans are inclined to interpret social phenomena as a derivative from the activity of individuals rather than trying to explain the individuals and their activity through social reality or society.

In spite of this, Comte's classification has found its followers. They think that in omitting psychology from his classification, he was quite right. They maintain that sociology has to be built immediately on biology, while psychology needs sociology as one of its bases. According to their opinion psychological phenomena need to be interpreted through sociological but not vice versa. Society, or sociality is the psycho-social reality of sui generis which exists apart, and is different from, that of the individuals compose a society. Sociological regularities are different, and cannot be reduced to, the psychological.

Such, in general, are the lines of division between the so-called "psychological" and "bio-sociological," or, simply, "sociologistic" schools, which were quite conspicuous a few decades ago, and which, though much less definite now, are not yet entirely obliterated.

The above, together with the fact that among the followers of "the sociologistic school" there are very prominent sociologists, and that they have contributed a great deal to the science of sociology through a clarification of problems only slightly touched by other schools, makes it appropriate to separate this group from other schools, and to survey briefly the works of its most prominent representatives.

The very source and essence of sociality, these sociologists see in the phenomena of social interaction. Their investigations try to interpret social and psychical phenomena as a derivative of various forms of interaction. Their causal analysis consists essentially in a correlating of studied phenomena with various conditions of living together, or, in other words, with social conditions. Therefore all the theories which explain a certain social or psychical fact through its correlation with a certain social condition, are to be regarded as a variety of the sociologistic school.

For the sake of clearness, we shall take, in the first place, the most representative sociologistic theories which give a general system of sociologistic interpretation.

As a typical example of the general sociologistic theories we shall take:


Of the sociological characteristics of Gumplowicz's theory, the most obvious is his "sociologism" in the most conspicuous form. He declares that the chief concern of sociology is not the individuals, but exclusively the group and that individuals in themselves are nothing but the mere product of a group. Two brief quotations are sufficient to show his position.

" We contend that the real elements of a social process are not separate individuals but social groups; in history we shall study not the regularities of the behaviour of individuals, but that of the movements of groups. "

" The great error of individualistic psychology is the supposition that man thinks. It leads to a continual search for the source of thought in an individual, and for the reason why the individual thinks so and not otherwise. ... A chain of errors: for it is not man himself who thinks but his social community; the source of his thought is in the social medium in which he lives. . . . Man's mind and thought are the product of his social medium, of the social element whence he arose, in which he lives."


Further principles of Gumplowicz's theory are as follows:

First, the theory of polygenesis, or the multiple origin of mankind developed by Gobineau thirty years before Gumplowicz.

Second, the assumption of an inherent and deadly hatred in the relationship of one group to another, resulting in an inevitable and deadly struggle between the groups (Rassenkampf).

Third, the assumption that only through such a struggle has any enlargement of the social group, or any consolidation of two or more groups into one social body, been possible.

Fourth, the victorious group, having conquered its victim, pitilessly exploits it, turning it into slaves or subjects.

For the sake of successfully controlling them, it enacts laws, and this way we have :

  1. the origin of the states as a union of the victorious and the subjugated groups, in which the conquerors become the privileged and governing body, while the conquered become the exploited and disfranchized body;

  2. the origin of law as a totality of compulsory rules enacted by the governing group for the sake of controlling and exploiting the subjugated group;

  3. the origin of social stratification and inequality causing the conquerors to become the aristocracy, while the conquered become the lower strata.

The fifth principle is that in the course of time differences between the conquerors and the conquered decrease. The conquerors take over the language and the religion of the conquered, and the gap between them is more and more obliterated. In this way the group becomes more and more solidified until it subjugates, or is subjugated, by another group, when the above process is repeated again. In the repetition of such "ricorsi" we find an essential process of history.


Sociologistic School (continued): The Formal School and a Systematics of Social Relationship


The fourth principal variety of the sociologistic school is the formal. It maintains the fundamentals of the sociologistic school, which are interaction and interrelations as the essence of social phenomena, the superindividual conception of social reality, the interpretation of an individual as a group product, group interpretation of social phenomena, etc.; but in addition it stresses that the proper object of sociology, as a specific science, is the study of the forms of social interaction, or of social relationship, as contrasted with its contents, as studied by other social sciences. Its partizans, contrary to "encyclopedic" sociology, which treats everything and represents a "hodgepodge" of various problems, try to build sociology as a specific and systematic science, with a limited but quite definite field of study. In this field are the forms of human relationships, or of socialization, regardless of any concrete, historical society.

Such a sociology is, in the first place, an analytical science. In the second place, since it studies the forms of social relationships, it can be more accurate than any encyclopedic sociology. In the third place, compared to other social sciences, it occupies approximately the same position which physical mechanics, or especially mathematics, has in regard to physical or technical sciences, - the latter cannot exist without the former. The better the mathematics or theory of social relations, the greater will be their service to technical or other social sciences.

The school claims that it is new and much younger than the "encyclopedic" sociology. F. Tonnies and G. Simmel are regarded as the founders of the school. Its history is computed only by some thirty years. Leaving this claim without discussion for a moment, let us briefly outline the principles of the school as they are given in the works of its most prominent representatives. These representatives are: F. Tonnies, R. Stammler, G. Simmel, G. Richard, L. von Wiese, A. Vierkandt, T. Litt, C. Bougie, partly E. A. Ross in his last works, R. Park and E. Burgess, to mention only a few names.

Possibly George Simmel's (1858-1918) conception of sociology is the most characteristic of the school. It is as follows: In order to be a really separate science, sociology, like other special sciences, should have its own field of study which is not investigated by other social sciences, or, what is the same thing, its own point of view. The lack of such a special field for sociological study would necessitate the barring of sociology as a special science.

Now what field or viewpoint is sociological ? From the standpoint of content all fields of social phenomena such as the economic, religious, linguistic, moral, historical, and other phenomena are already studied by corresponding social sciences. In regard to content, there is no room for sociology. The only field or viewpoint which is not taken by other sciences is the field of the forms of socialisation, or the forms of human relationship. This field, or viewpoint, is exactly what belongs to sociology, making of it an independent and special science.

In regard to other social sciences, sociology has the same attitude as geometry has to other natural sciences. Geometry studies the spatial forms of physical objects but not their content. Sociology does the same in regard to social phenomena. The same geometrical form, as a ball, may be filled with different contents, and different geometrical forms may also have the same physical content. The content and form are quite separate phenomena, or viewpoints toward phenomena. In a similar way, the same forms of human relationship may have different social content; the same social content may have different forms of social relationship. In other Words, in the field of human interrelations, form and content are something quite different, and consequently each of them may be the object of a special study.

Each of the forms of human interrelations (domination, subordination, competition, imitation, division of labor, formation of parties, and many other forms of relationship) are found in a civic group, in a religious community, in a band of brigands, in a business organization, in a family, in a school, and, in brief, in the most different social groups from the standpoint of their content; and vice versa. Hence, the possibility and even the necessity for the existence of sociology as a special science whose aim is a description, classification, analysis, and explanation of the forms of human relationship, the forms of socialization, or even the forms of social organization rather than their contents, which are now studied by other sciences.

Such, in brief, is Simmel's conception of sociology as a specific social science.

In his Soziologie, which incorporates his previous sociological studies: Uber soziale Differenzierung, Das Problem der Soziologie, Comment les formes sociales se maintiennent, and some others, Simmel attempts to give an analysis, classification, and interpretation of several forms of social relations, such as isolation, contact, superordination, subordination, opposition, persis-tence or continuity of social group, social differentiation, integration, and some other forms.

F. Tonnies, (1855- ), professor of the University of Kiel, had already published in 1887 his Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, in which he laid down a conception of sociology which was in essence similar to that which was later formulated by Simmel. In this valuable work, Tonnies gave not only a mere outline of "pure" or "formal sociology," but, by way of making a factual analysis of the fundamental forms of social relationship, he demonstrated the essential character of such a sociology.

According to Tonnies there are two fundamental forms of society or social relationship: "Community" (Gemeinschaft) and "Society" (Gesellschaft).

The Gemeinschaft is a union of individuals with an "organic will," whose solidarity springs from the natural forces of consanguinity. It is a product of nature, or a kind of natural organism. There is no personal will. Individuals are only members of a general body with a natural solidarity, harmonious interrelations, and an identity of will because the individual will is suppressed by the community will. As the result of such an "organic" solidarity, we have a community of property, and a law which is nothing but a family law.

It is easy to see that Tonnies' Gemeinschaft is identical to what Durkheim later styled a "group with mechanical solidarity."

The Gesellschaft is a totality of individuals who enter interaction according to their own individual will, (Kurwille) for an achievement of their own purposes. It is not a product of nature, and is in no way a natural organism. It is rather an artificial mechanism.

This form is styled by Durkheim as a group based on organic solidarity." One cannot help thinking that Durkheim intentionally gave to his social types names which were opposite to those given by Tonnies. Further differences of both these forms of society are as follows:


Common will
No individuality of members
Domination of the community interests
Mores and customs
Natural solidarity
Common property
Individual will
Individuality of members
Domination of the individual interests
Public opinion
Fashion, fads, mode
Contractual solidarity, commerce and exchange
Private property

Historically, the Gemeinschaft appeared earlier than the Gesellschaft, because primitive groups, family, and tribes are concrete examples of this form of society. In the course of time, however, the Gemeinschaft began to disintegrate and Gesellschaft appeared. It has been progressing at the cost of the Gemeinschaft type. Man has been becoming less and less attached to any community. Instead of it, in temporary and contractual ways, he has been tending to become a member of more and more numerous and larger groups. In this way history goes from the community to the society, from "the culture of the people to the civilization of State." This process is irreversible. Such, in brief, is Tonnies' theory, in many respects similar to what later on was developed by Simmel in his Ueber sosiale Differenzierung, and by a Russian professor, B. Kistiakowski, in his Gesellschaft und Einzelwesen, 1899. ...

R. Park and E. Burgess try to give an analysis of all essential social phenomena in the form of a study of a few fundamental social processes such as: isolation, social cintact, social interaction, competition, conflict, accomodation, assimilation, amalgamation, social control and progress [ Introduction to the Science of Sociology chapters 4-14]

Study links outside this site
Picture introduction to this site
Andrew Roberts' web Study Guide
Top of Page Take a Break - Read a Poem
Click coloured words to go where you want

Andrew Roberts likes to hear from users:
To contact him, please use the Communication Form

home page for social
science home page to Andrew Roberts'
web site the ABC Study Guide home page

schools of sociology


formal school




racialist school


sociologistic school