Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 11:36:31 -0700 (MST) From: FULLER ABIGAIL ANNE This is an 82k file with 1900 lines -- it is a substantial part of my Ph.D. dissertation being written at the Univ. of Col. Boulder. I would very much appreciate comments. Please send comments to the email address above. Thank you, Abigail Fuller DISSERTATION PROPOSAL Academics and Social Change: The Radical Sociology Movement, 1967-1975 Abigail A. Fuller Department of Sociology University of Colorado Boulder, CO 80309 November 21, 1993 CONTENTS I. The Research Problem.........................................1 II. Literature Review...........................................4 A. The Liberal View: The Separation of Science and Politics.....4 B. The Marxist View: Intellectuals and Class Struggle...........5 C. Radical Sociology...........................................10 III. The Radical Sociology Movement............................11 IV. Research Design............................................14 A. Data Collection.............................................15 B. Data Analysis...............................................16 C. Limitations of the Data.....................................16 D. Suggestions for Further Research............................17 Endnotes.......................................................19 References.....................................................21 Working BIbliography...........................................28 Appendices: A. Potential Respondents.......................................37 B. Interview Guide.............................................38 C. Tentative Outline of Chapters...............................41 I. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM Many sociologists want the scholarly work they produce to better human life. In particular, progressive scholars--peace researchers, scholars of women's studies and Black studies, and Marxists sociologists, for example--generally intend their work to contribute to progress toward the elimination of class, racial, and gender oppression. Yet there is a fundamental dilemma in producing scholarship intended to facilitate social change, progressive or otherwise: if sociological research is of value to the extent that it generates an objective (accurate and complete) understanding of the way a social systemtates. The radical sociology ntradiction in doing good sociology and doing research that is useful for some political end? For progressive scholars, an additional dilemma emerges: if the university functions to maintain class, racial, and gender oppression, then is it possible for academics working within it to produce scholarship useful for progressive change? One group of scholars that addressed these dilemmas in depth was the radical sociologists of the late 1960s and early 1970s in the United States. The radical sociology movement was one of many radical groups that emerged in nearly every academic discipline at that time. Part of the New Left, the movement sought to develop a "sociology for the people," both exposing the complicity of mainstream sociology in maintaining ruling class power in America, and creating a "radical" alternative that would aid progressive social change. In short, radical sociologists sought to develop a self-reflexive understanding of the participation of sociologists qua sociologists in the revolutionary project. In doing so, the radical sociologists faced dilemmas concerning the social context of the production and use of knowledge. They examined in depth the relationship between academics and social change, investigating the role of the university and of scholars in the larger society; the role of theory and theorists in progressive movements; and the nature and meaning of objectivity and the influence of values on scientific research. Radical sociologists criticized the academic tradition of remaining sequestered within the "ivory tower" where, they reasoned, isolated from political struggle in trding the role of theorists in progressive change. "Activist Marxists" argued for the necessity of linking radical research with concrete revolutionary struggles and criticized as bourgeois the "academic Marxists" who did not work directly with radical moter asserted that theoretical work was of va objectivity, to the political exigencies of radical movements. This dilemma was central for radical sociologists. Many were, or became, Marxists, but they differed in the guidance they inferred from Marx regarding the role of theorists in progressive change. tion, or expulsion, they argued, were inevitable. The evidence suggests that a number of sociologists were fired or otherwise sanctioned by university administrators and faculty for their involvement in campus or community activism. On the other hand, sotimate theory and method (though it remains main terms of its immediate use to radical movements. Some radical sociologite how the radical sociologists of the sixties and seventies understood and dealt with these dilemmas in the relationship of the progreson, or expulsion, they argued, were inevitable. The evidence suggests that a number of sociologists were fired or otherwise sanctioned by university administrators and faculty for their involvement in campus or community activism. On the other y time, and with unusual insight--they were sociologisrginalized in some aspects). The purpose of this study is to investigate how the radical sociologists of the sixties and seventies understood and dealt with these dilemmas in the relationship of the progressive scholar to the university, on the one hand, and to progressive movements, on the other. They addressed these questions with a rare urgency, born of a deep commitment to changing the world and a belief that they were living in a revolutionary time, and with unusual insight--they were sociologists turning their skills on themselves and their profession. In their effort to find their role in the New Left, the radical sociologists' questions, analyses, and disagreements did not merely constitute theoretical puzzles to be solved; they were of profound personal and political importance. They remain relevant today to scholars who endeavor to produce scholarship that helps build a better society. The following are preliminary questions to guide the research. These questions may be modified and new ones added as the research proceeds (see "Research Design"). 1. What was "radical sociology" (or what were its types) and how, if so, did it differ from mainstream sociology? 2. Regarding the radical sociologists' relationship with the university and with the profession of sociology: a) What was their understanding of the functions of the university and the profession in the larger society? b) How did the university and the profession respond to radical sociology? - What were the forms and causes of the repression of radical sociologists by the university? Who was affected and who was not, and why? How did the movement respond and how was it affected? - Under what conditions, if any, was radical sociology permitted within the university? - What types of opposition or support were encountered from others in the profession? Who was affected and why? How did the movement respond? c) What lasting effect, if any, did radical sociology have on the university and the profession, and vice versa? 3. Regarding the radical sociologists' relationship with progressive movements: a) What was their understanding of the role of theory and theorists in progressive movements? b) What was their understanding of the relationship of values and scientific research? - How did they propose to produce scholarship that was at once useful for progressive change and scientific (objective)? c) What was the radical sociologists' experience in participating in progressive movements as sociologists? - How did they respond to movement anti-intellectualism and to accusations of elitism? - Did they experience tension between their roles as sociologists and as political partisans? - What were their goals and did they accomplish them? 4. What factors external to radical sociology (macrosocial trends, the New Left, the academic labor market) affected the course of the movement? 5. How was the movement affected by internal factors (organization, strategy, tactics; ideological divisions; personality factors)? II. LITERATURE REVIEW Scholars have taken two different views of the relationship between intellectuals and social change. In the liberal conception, the ideal-type intellectual pursues knowledge for its own sake, unattached to any social class or interest. This is best accomplished when intellectuals work within the university, where they can labor free of outside attachments, and adhere to standards of scientific research. The contrary view, promulgated primarily by Marxists, emphasizes the social causation of ideas. Intellectuals are not above class struggle: the production of knowledge is necessarily affected by the social location of the producer. Standards for scientific research do not insure objectivity of knowledge because intellectuals occupy class locations and work within institutional structures (the university) that pressure them to produce knowledge that has conservative consequences. A. The Liberal View: The Separation of Science and Politics In sociology, solving social problems was the original impetus for the establishment of the discipline. The first sociology department was founded at the University of Chicago in 1892, led by Albion Small, who believed sociology could serve to ameliorate social problems and fostered relationships with social workers, such as Jane Addams at Hull House. Beginning in the 1920s, the model of sociologists as reformers was supplanted by the quest to establish sociology as a scientific enterprise. This was part of an effort to gain prominence for sociology within universities and included cultivating support from government agencies and private foundations (Lehmann and Young 1974). Adherence to the scientific model and the use of quantitative methods solidified during the post-World War II period, when the rise of the welfare state and the advent of the Cold War led to a massive growth in funding for sociological research (Bell 1982). By the 1950s, the prevailing norm was of sociology as a value-free enterprise, modeled on the natural sciences. At the same time, sociologists were becoming increasingly involved in government- and privately-funded projects. In response to this apparent contradiction, sociologists adopted Weber's (1949) polarization of science and politics: the role of the scientist who pursues knowledge for its own sake is distinct from the role of the citizen or policymaker who makes ethical judgements about the use of scientific research; there is no logical relationship between the "is" and the "ought" (Barrow 1992). While it was acknowledged that science is always affected by sociohistorical conditions, the production of "disinterested science" as opposed to "ideology" could be insured by the institutionalization of standards for scientific research. And, in the modern world, the university was created to provide intellectuals with a forum where they could be autonomous of partisan interests (Parsons 1970, Ladd and Lipset 1975). A conceptual distinction was accepted between intellectuals who work outside the university in the service of some social or political interest, and those within the university committed to 'scientific objectivity'" (Merton 1968). B. The Marxist View: Intellectuals and Class Struggle In opposition to this view, scholars of the Marxist tradition have argued that intellectuals do not transcend class struggle. This follows from Marx's dictum that a society's superstructure (its political and juridical ideas and systems) is not independent of but arises from its economic or material base, and that the latter is causally primary. Historically, the category of intellectuals arose with the production of surplus value, which enabled some individuals to live without directing contributing to production. Marx posited that in a given society intellectuals tend to function as ideologists for the ruling class, creating and disseminating the ideas that justify and obscure class relations (the dominant ideology). Marx did predict that during the "decisive hour" of revolution, however, some would defect to the side of the working class and serve as revolutionary theorists (Marx 1978). Yet he failed to develop a theory to explain why this would be so. While he argued for the necessity of the cooperation of intellectuals and the working class (Karabel 1976) and was himself involved in working-class organizations, he failed to develop a theory of intellectuals and social change. In general, the Marxist tradition has been plagued by "a nagging contradiction between its conceptual identity rooted in a vision of proletarian self-consciousness and the political actuality of a movement (or party) dominated by intellectuals of bourgeois origins" (Boggs 1993:37). This has given rise to extended discussions about the role of intellectuals in mass organizations, the relation between theory and practice, the nature of the division between mental and manual labor, and the formation of class consciousness. One problem is that If ideas are not casually independent of material interests, then are not Marxists themselves guilty of merely serving as ideologists for a particular class? Mills (1992) notes that most scholars have taken the position that (consistent with the liberal view) the social causation of ideas is epistemically negative. He makes the case instead that "the whole point of Marx and Engel's views on the determination of belief is that material determination as such is not necessarily epistemically subversive, since in most cases (e.g. the differential experience of capitalism afforded by the proletariat's material class position) it can be enlightening, demystifying. What is crucial is the kind of material determination" (327). This view, developed in what has been termed "standpoint theory," rests on the assumption that in a class-based society subordinate groups (for Marx, the proletariat) are more likely than dominant groups (the bourgeoisie) to see through the illusions of the dominant ideology, because unlike the latter, they do not have an objective interest in maintaining such illusions. On the role of intellectuals in social change, the Marxist tradition has been split between a "Jacobin" conception of intellectuals as the necessary leaders of revolutionary movements, and the "spontaneist" view that historical conditions would lead the working class to develop its own revolutionary potential (Boggs 1993). The former perspective is exemplified in Lenin's assertion that a vanguard party, comprised of revolutionary intellectuals and the more advanced portion of the proletariat, is crucial in establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat (Lenin 1969). Left to their own devices, workers would fail to move beyond a "trade-union consciousness": ...class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without, that is, only from outside the economic struggle (Lenin 1969:422). Lenin and the Bolsheviks advocated a centralized, hierarchical vanguard party for this purpose, and they were opposed by the Mensheviks and such theorists as Luxembourg (1971) who favored a more broadly-based, democratic organization. While Lenin argued for the importance of intellectuals in socialist revolution, it was Gramsci (1971) who made the first concerted attempt to develop the requisite theory. Gramsci reasoned that, as opposed to Russia, where the state was the main instrument of ruling class power, in the more developed capitalist countries of the west such power was maintained through ideological hegemony, which was perpetuated through the institutions of civil society. Here a socialist revolution could not occur until the workers become educated in their class interests; intellectuals, working through the party, played a key role in this. But like Marx, Gramsci cannot explain why bourgeois intellectuals would defect to working class movements (Diggins 1989). He hedges this criticism by proposing that Ideally the intellectuals necessary to facilitate the development of revolutionary consciousness among the workers would emerge from the proletariat, as "organic intellectuals" (as opposed to "traditional intellectuals"). However, the formation of organic intellectuals among the working class is exceedingly difficult as long as the bourgeoisie controls the economy and the state. While Gramsci did not fully solve this dilemma, his contribution was to suggest the salience of cultural factors in class struggle and hence the essential role of progressive intellectuals in socialist movements. In contrast to Gramsci's efforts, Gouldner (1979) proposed that the failure to develop a Marxist theory of intellectuals was an inherent flaw in Marxism. Starting with the founders, he reasoned, Marxist intellectuals constitute a "New Class" whose formulation and propagation of Marxist theory is based on their own material interests. They view themselves as bearers of a new, more just society, but since they are an elite without power, they align themselves with the proletariat. For Gouldner, the neglect of Marxists to turn their methods to an examination of themselves is not an oversight, but rather is necessary to avoid exposing the fact that "Marxism is the false consciousness of cultural bourgeoisie who have been radicalized" (75). In modern Marxist scholarship, the subject of intellectuals and social change has been treated extensively in the literature on class structure, with the intention of identifying the objective limits on the involvement of academics in socialist movements. (See Wright (1978) for a review of the major interpretations of the class position of intellectuals. ) Wright (1978) takes the additional (and unusual) step of fleshing out the implications for the production of progressive scholarship of the social relations within which the scholar works, namely, the university and progressive movements. His strategy is to investigate the dialectic between theory and practice: academics are theorists, and at issue is how theory and those who produce it can best contribute to the development of Marxism, both in terms of the political struggles of socialist movements and the development of Marxist theory. First, without theory there is no ability to learn from practice, in other words, to systematically accumulate knowledge from past practice in order to improve future practice. Practice in turn informs theory by providing the empirical evidence to resolve theoretical issues. Next, since theory is produced not in the abstract but by theorists who are embedded in concrete social relations, it is influenced by the theorist-practice dialectic. If the theory-practice dialectic is necessary for answering theoretical questions within Marxism, then the theorist-practice dialectic can be seen as providing the conditions for the generation of the guiding questions for Marxism. Wright notes that in the United States most Marxist theorists work within universities, which exert "tremendous pressures to ask questions structured by bourgeois problems, bourgeois ideological and political practices" (105). The academic can choose to instead to participate in and become "accountable" to progressive movements which foster a strong ideological commitment to progressive change. However, the development of Marxist theory requires conditions that foster open discussion as well, and the dogmatism sometimes found in political organizations can stifle open theoretical debate. (Ollman and Vernoff (1981) make this point as well.) Wright concludes that historically the optimal conditions for the development of Marxist theory have rarely obtained. The alternative that western Marxist theorists have pursued--the development of Marxism within the universities--has resulted in a Marxism that is more concerned with theory and less with political issues relevant to the revolutionary project. (Ehrenreich (1991) draws a similar conclusion for the development of feminist scholarship within universities.) Wright's analysis has the merit of investigating the idea that the efforts of the progressive scholar are affected by whether she or he works within the university or progressive movements. However, the strategy he recommends for producing progressive scholarship--that the progressive scholar choose to make herself or himself accountable to a progressive movement-- contradicts his materialist analysis. Some scholars may, and have, chosen to make themselves so accountable; but the material interests of academics as a social category conspire against their overcoming the "tremendous pressure" from the university that Wright speaks of. The liberal distinction between the disinterested academic and the politically-engaged partisan rests on the assumption that the university provides for an open discussion of ideas. The principle of academic freedom has in fact insured scholars some freedom to criticize the concentration of economic and political power in the United States. On the other hand, the historical record shows that such freedom has at times been rescinded (Kaplan and Schrecker 1983). Critics of the liberal conception of the university argue that institutions of higher learning function to reproduce capitalist class relations (by their elitism), and capitalist culture (through their curriculum) (Ryan and Sackrey 1984, Kaplan 1983, Ollman 1983), as well as reinforcing gender inequality and racial inequality (Stanley 1990, Hu-DeHart 1983, Mirande 1985). (See also Bourdieu and Passeron 1979 and Touraine 1971). As Piven notes, the university has an "actual and real material existence" that "requires a material base" (1983:18): it takes money to run a university. In the United States, this money comes from tuition, private gifts, and research grants--in other words, primarily from the upper classes, from the state, and from private business (Piven 1983), which have an interest in maintaining ruling class power. That radical scholarship is allowed within the university when it is may be only because of a "structural contradiction" in the functioning of the university: in order for the reproduction of capitalist culture to be perceived as legitimate, the academy must allow for some dissenting views (Ollman and Vernoff 1982). Others have argued that within the academic disciplines the standard of "professionalism" has been used to inhibit radical scholarship; for instance, radical professors are sometimes denied tenure or promotion because they have published mainly in unorthodox journals (Ollman 1983; Chomsky 1969). C. Radicals in Sociology There have always existed sociologists who were critical of established power in the United States. Until the 1960s, however, they were disparate individuals and did not constitute a movement; it was not until that time that the programmatic elaboration of a radical sociology began (Flacks 1978). The radical sociology movement was part of a larger trend constituted by academics involved in or sympathetic with the New Left; at the time, Perruci (1973) counted eighteen radical professional organizations of academics. The phenomenon was important enough that the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education commissioned a study of it, (Bloland and Bloland 1974), which focused on the formation of radical caucuses in political science, modern languages, and physics. Yet there have been no systematic studies of the radical movement within sociology. Oppenheimer et al. (1991) recently edited an anthology of recollections of the movement, written by participants. (Most of the pieces were originally published in The Insurgent Sociologist, vol. 15, no. 2, summer 1988.) While the volume contains some analysis of the movement, the pieces are primarily descriptive and the evidence presented is largely anecdotal. Hence the editors do not develop a systematic analysis of the radical sociology movement. They note that, as in the case of other disciplines, scholars have written on the theoretical challenges presented by radical sociologists (see, for example, Bottomore 1974). What has not been attempted, they note, is a study of the radical sociologists themselves. Others have dealt with radicalism in some of the disciplines, including sociology, focusing primarily on theoretical issues in each field....But the history of what really happened, at least as it is remembered by the participants, has not been systematically explored (Oppenheimer et al. 1991:13). III. THE RADICAL SOCIOLOGY MOVEMENT The rise of the social movements of the 1960s prompted a crisis in sociology as it became apparent that the dominant theoretical paradigm did not and could not have predicted, and was inadequate to explain, the appearance and strength of the movements (Flacks 1991). A dissident movement of radical sociologists developed that criticized mainstream sociology of not only irrelevancy, but of complicity in maintaining the inequality of American society that the movements of the sixties sought to eradicate. Mills was the first, in The Sociological Imagination (1959), to outline the argument that mainstream sociology functions to uphold the status quo. He characterized sociology as comprised of two dominant approaches: "Grand Theory" and "Abstracted Empiricism." Grand theory, exemplified by Parsons, provides the dominant system it with ideological legitimacy. "Abstracted empiricism" is the practice of conducting empirical research in the absence of a framework for placing the research problem in the context of a social system, and it upholds the status quo by providing the ruling class with practical knowledge with which to repress dissent. The most famous case of such repressive research was Project Camelot, a government-sponsored project to investigate popular dissent in Chile in which several sociologists were involved (Horowitz 1967). Radical sociology as an organized movement began in 1967 when, at the meetings of the American Sociological Association (ASA), a group of sociologists organized an ad hoc session on "Sociologists and the Vietnam War" (Brown 1970). As a result of this session, several participants drew up and introduced to the ASA Council, the association's elected leadership, a resolution condemning U.S. involvement in the war. The war was escalating and public opposition to it increasing, particularly among college students. Some sociologists were already involved in the antiwar, student, anti-poverty, and Civil Rights and Black power movements. Now, for the first time, sociologists were proposing extremely controversial public issue. Though the resolution failed, at the following year's ASA meetings the radical contingent was larger, more vocal, and had begun to organize itself (briefly calling itself the Sociology Liberation Movement, or SLM) (Roach 1970). These were primarily younger sociologists--largely graduate students and some younger faculty--who were already involved in the New Left (Colfax and Roach 1971, Flacks 1991). The SLM organized a panel at the 1968 meetings entitled "Knowledge for Whom?" and, in an effort to forestall the group's possible disruption of a speech by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, was allowed by the ASA president to respond to the speech (Flacks 1991). (See Nicolaus 1969). (The ASA leadership also called in the police to guard the podium (Brown 1970).) The riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago were occurring, and a resolution was passed to move to other cities future ASA conventions that were scheduled to take place in Chicago. The height of the radical sociologists' visibility came at the 1969 ASA meetings, originally scheduled for Chicago but held in San Francisco. The numbers involved were double that of the previous year. The main caucus was attended by 400 people, there were 650 on the mailing list, and 1,500 picked up literature at the meetings (Brown 1970). The first issue of The Insurgent Sociologist (which continues today as Critical Sociology) was published as a pre-conference newsletter. The SLM both held an alternative convention at nearby Glide Memorial Church and used the ASA meetings as a forum for the promotion of radical perspectives (including holding sessions on radical sociology as part of the formal conference program and engaging in protests and guerilla theater). The most memorable event of the meetings occurred at the presidential address when, hearing of the death of Ho Chi Minh, 100 radical sociologists took over the microphone and delivered a eulogy to the him (Brown 1970). A scuffle ensued as one sociologist tried to reappropriate the microphone for the president's speech, and members of the audience were vocal in their reactions both pro and con. By the early 1970s, a fair amount was being written on radical sociology. Several readers appeared (Deutsch and Howard 1970; Colfax and Roach 1971; Horowitz 1971). Sociological Inquiry devoted a special issue to radical sociology (Winter 1970). Pieces by and about radical sociologists regularly appeared in The American Sociologist. One tactic of radical sociologists was to introduce resolutions at ASA business meetings, and at the 1970 meetings in Washington, D.C., resolutions were presented concerning the Vietnam War, domestic repression, the American economy, corporate and government funding of sociological research, Black sociologists, and voting privileges for students. By 1971, the women's movement was in full swing, and at that year's ASA meetings in Denver, radical and feminist sociologists erected an eight-foot-high plastic penis, painted red, white, and blue outside the convention, then 300 of them marched into William Sewell's presidential address carrying it. A panel on socialist sociology presented by the Santa Barbara Collective of radical sociologists drew 350 people (Sperber 1971). The organization and the strategy and tactics of the radical sociology movement paralleled those of other New Left organizations. (See Breines 1982 for a discussion of New Left non-hierarchical, participator organization.) Organizations were loosely structured with power decentralized. While the ASA meetings were always the center of radical activity, regional associations were formed, consistent with the principle of decentralization. Radicals pursued the strategies of both attempting integration into the profession (by introducing resolutions at the ASA meetings, for example; holding sessions on radical sociology at the meetings; and, ultimately, forming the Marxist Section) as well as building alternative radical institutions (such as the alternative meetings held in 1968 and establishing the journal The Insurgent Sociologist (which by 1972 had 1,000 subscribers ("Editorial Introduction" 1972).) They were strongly opposed by some of their colleagues, who criticized their disruptive tactics at ASA meetings (Hauser 1969), and accused them of confusing the roles of scientist and citizen (see, for example, Janowitz 1970; Lidz 1970). Like the rest of the New Left, the radical sociology movement declined starting in the early seventies. A number of radical sociologists were fired for their political leanings, and others dropped out of academia. Whereas academic positions had been plentiful in the late sixties, the job market tightened in the early seventies (Abel 1983); this may have contributed to the decline in dissent. Within the movement, increasingly sharp ideological divisions developed over what constituted genuinely radical sociology--specifically, the relative importance of theory versus activism (Etzkowitz 1991). The emergence of the feminist movement fueled the demise of many mixed-sex New Left organizations, including radical sociology. The Radical Caucus met yearly at the ASA meetings until 1975, when it gained formal status as the Marxist Section. This was a welcome development for some radicals in that it heralded the arrival of Marxist sociology as a legitimate field of study; others, however, feared that the movement had been successfully coopted by the profession. V. RESEARCH DESIGN To summarize, the purpose of this study is to investigate the radical sociologists' relationship to the university and the profession of sociology, and to progressive movements. The theoretical framework is the interaction between social structure and human action--how social structures and institutions constrain the choices of actors, and how actors shape social structures. In the case of radical sociologists, relevant social structural factors include the national and international political climate, particularly the relative strength of progressive movements; the job market for sociologists from 1967- 75; the organization and political nature of the sociological profession and of the university; and, internal to the movement, the vitality of radical sociological organization, including groups, newsletters and journals, and conferences; ideological differences within the movement; and the effects of repression and accommodation. Finally, the influence of the radical sociology movement on the profession of sociology will be assessed through such methods as a citation analysis of radical publications. A. Data Collection Data will be collected from two sources: (1) documents written by radical sociologists from 1967 to 1975, and (2) interviews with individuals who were part of the radical sociology movement during that time. From 1967 to 1975, at least 60 articles, essays, and letters to the editors of various publications were written about radical sociology, by both radical sociologists and their detractors. Issues of the American Sociologist, The Insurgent Sociologist, and the Human Factor (the journal of sociology graduate students at Columbia) published during that time contain numerous pieces on radical sociology. Several anthologies of writings by radical sociologists were published as books. In addition, the minutes of the business meetings of the American Sociological Association, which refer to the many resolutions introduced by radical sociologists, were published regularly in the American Sociologist. Finally, an effort will be made to obtain unpublished documents from participants in the radical sociologists movement (such as flyers distributed at ASA meetings, unpublished papers, newsletters of regional radical sociological associations, and personal correspondence). Interviews will be conducted with approximately 10-15 people who participated in the radical sociology movement from 1967-75, and with a smaller sampling (3-5 respondents) of critics of radical sociology. A preliminary list of potential respondents has been compiled from a review of documents pertaining to radical sociology (Appendix A). An effort will be made to interview respondents who vary with regard to characteristics that may have theoretical significance for the study. These include: 1) stage of career and age during 1967-75 (graduate student, juniorfaculty, or senior faculty); 2) primary theoretical orientation (such as Marxist ("activist" or "academic"), anarchist, feminist); 3) whether the respondent subsequently left academia or not. When possible, interviews will be conducted in person. When not, they will be conducted either by phone or in writing (for instance, by electronic mail). Oral interviews will be tape recorded and transcribed. The interviews will follow a semi- standardized format (Berg 1989), in which a standardized set of questions is used as a guide with allowance for flexibility in the order and wording of the questions. The interview guide will be pre-tested by conducting several practice interviews with individuals familiar with radical sociology. B. Data Analysis My aim is to construct a "temporally grounded historical sociology" (Quadagno and Knapp 1992) of radical sociology; in other words, a theoretically-informed narrative of the radical sociology movement. (A narrative is a descriptively accurate story of what happened.) The elements of this type of historical sociology are: 1) the transformation of social causality, or "the recognition that cultural and structural categories...alter their character over time" (Quadagno and Knapp 1992:500)--in other words, the importance of process. In this study, a relevant question is how radical sociology changed from 1967-1975; for instance, to what extent did radical sociology become a "marketable commodity," was that viewed as a success or a failure by movement participants, and how did that change their goals and strategies? Or, how did the repression of radical sociologists by the university affect the movement? 2) contingency, which refers to the conditions under which general laws apply. For example, the radical sociology movement emerged and declined roughly simultaneously with the New Left movements, indicating perhaps that a condition for radical academic movements is radical popular activity. 3) sequentiality of events, which is composed of two aspects: when things occur in a sequence of events (which affects how they occur), and key points in the sequence when possible outcomes are constrained by the choices actors make. For example, the hostile reaction of the ASA leadership at the 1967 meetings to the resolution condemning the Vietnam War seems to have been a catalyst for the development of the radical sociology movement. Later, the decision to institutionalize radical sociology with the creation of the ASA Marxist Section in 1975 may have had implications for the subsequent development of radical sociology. The methodology of a temporally grounded historical sociology integrates inductive and deductive methods. The research process is guided initially by questions ("theoretical hunches") drawn from previously developed theory. These have served as the basis for construction of the interview guide (Appendix B). The questions will be modified, deleted, and new ones added as data collection and analysis proceed. I will also incorporate into the analysis information from secondary sources about social structural and institutional conditions that appear to bear on the research problem, as described above. Interviews will be coded for analysis using the Ethnograph, a computer program that sorts qualitative data into analytically significant categories identified by the researcher. While I tentatively plan to conduct approximately 15 interviews, data collection will stop at the point of "theoretical saturation" (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 61)--when additional interviews yield no new theoretical insights. C. Limitations of the Data Historical studies have several limitations. Most significantly, the researcher is studying a phenomenon that she did not observe firsthand, so she must rely on accounts related by others, as seen through their eyes. Such accounts will vary in their validity (the extent to which they accurately reflect what happened), because a person's account of events necessarily reflects cognitive limitations and personal biases, and their reliability (the degree of consistency with which an individual would on different occasions give the same account of an event) (Hoffman 1984). An additional problem arises in the use of oral historical sources, namely that human memory is fallible, and the moreso as more time lapses between an event and a respondent's reporting of it. Respondents may fail to remember the past, remember it incorrectly, or reconstruct it by projecting back onto it current views or emotions (Seldon and Pappworth 1983). Whereas the documentary evidence used in this research was written during the period under study (1967-75), the oral evidence will be collected 18-25 years after events transpired. Nevertheless, oral historical sources serve several purposes: filling in gaps documentary evidence or discovering new information, gaining insight into an individual's assumptions and motives, and collecting evidence from actors who did not write documents. In this study, reliability will be maximized by providing respondents with a written transcription of their interview and asking them to review it for accuracy and completeness and to revise it if necessary. Validity will be maximized by using multiple sources (documentary and oral) and checking them against one another. D. Suggestions for Further Research This is necessarily an exploratory study, because it addresses a phenomenon that has not been systematically investigated. Some possible avenues of inquiry that are not explored in depth suggest themselves for future research. For instance, the life and career trajectories of radical sociologists since 1975 might be examined for clues as to why some stayed in the university and some did not, and the consequences for the evolution of their commitment to and involvement in radical activities. Another useful study would compare the radical sociology movement to radical movements that arose in other academic disciplines in the late sixties. Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 11:48:40 -0700 (MST) From: FULLER ABIGAIL ANNE Subject: Dissertation Proposal part 2 ENDNOTES 1. The importance of this debate is evidenced in the fact that sociology was not alone in witnessing a division between academics who emphasized activism and those who emphasized theoretical pursuits (Goertzel 1976). 2. Harding (1992) distinguishes between "intrusive politics," the traditional notion of politics as "the overt actions and policies intended to advance the interests and agenda of 'special interest groups'," and "institutional politics," which act "not on but through the dominant institutional structures" (567 (emphasis in the original). 3. In an effort to explain why the standpoint of subordinate groups is epistemologically advantageous, Mills (1987) distinguishes four mechanisms identified by Marx through which the dominant ideology is perpetuated: 1) class domination: This refers not to a conscious intent on the part of members of a ruling class to dominate others, but to the way in which a class system itself perpetuates the dominant ideology. For example, under capitalism, the media and the educational system are controlled by the ruling class, but they rarely employ blatant censorship of dissent; rather, there is debate, but it takes place within pro-capitalist assumptions. Also, individuals are discouraged from dissenting by the costs imposed on them if they do; 2) societal appearance: Capitalism itself generates illusions which inhibit people from seeing the structural mechanisms underlying social reality. This was Marx's realist stance: he distinguished the outward appearances of social phenomena from the underlying structures that give rise to them. Mills cites Elster's distinction between "hot" mechanisms of belief formation, which involve individual motivation, and "cold" mechanisms, such as this one, which are unrelated to motivation but rather rest on cognitive processes. Of course, the dominant ideology is believable because it fits the reality of the underlying structure, and societal appearance "buttresses" class domination; 3) class interest: This is a "hot" mechanism and refers to the propensity of members of the dominant class to accept the dominant ideology because of their class position, and the propensity of members of subordinate classes to question the dominant ideology. Mills takes care to note that class interest does not generate illusory beliefs, but contributes to the acceptance of them; 4) class position: different class positions gives rise to divergent experiences of social reality. Hence the working class, because its experiences contradict the dominant ideology, is in a better position to see through the illusions. These causal mechanisms lead only to the tendency for members of the proletariat but not members of the ruling class to see through the illusions of dominant ideology. In principle, anyone from any class is capable of engaging in such struggle and achieving this insight. However, due to the mechanisms explained above, in practice members of the proletariat are more likely to do so than members of the bourgeoisie. Standpoint theory has been most highly developed by feminists, but logically any subordinate group within a class- stratified social system that is perpetuated through ideology has a unique standpoint. Each group will have different "distinctive resources" that have been neglected or devalued by researchers, hence a unique standpoint. For example, white women are more apt than white men to clearly understand patriarchal social structures; but white women are less apt to have the same degree of insight into racist social structures than are Black women. Mills cites Black philosophers who argue for a Black standpoint, asserting that "philosophy has not been immune to the racism that has pervaded so much of Western thought about non- European peoples." 4. Lehmann and Young (1974) note that from 1967 to 1972, five of six ASA presidents addressed this crisis, either in their presidential addresses or elsewhere. 5. At various universities, radical sociologists were denied tenure, fired, or sanctioned in other ways, such as by being given less desirable teaching schedules; or, if they were graduate students, were suspended or told to leave the program (Stark 1991). Radical sociologists estimated that over 200 radical faculty had been either fired or blacklisted (Dixon 1972). Entire departments or groups of radical sociologists came under attack at Simon Fraser University ("Minutes of the 1970 Council Meeting" 1971), Washington University ("More on Washington University" 1972), the University of Detroit ("Purge at the University of Detroit" 1973), and the School of Criminology at the University of California at Berkeley (Schauffler 1974). Individuals were also sanctioned at the University of New Mexico, CUNY, the University of Connecticut, the University of Chicago, San Francisco State, Elmira College, the University of Pennsylvania, McGill University, and Washington University, among other schools ("Academic Repression" 1976; Colfax 1973, 1974; "David Colfax Fired" 1972; Dixon 1975). The firings were widespread enough to prompt an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education ("More Teachers, Not Rehired, are Suing" 1972). In some cases, radical sociologists left the university of their own accord, but only after their situations had been made extremely difficult by their detractors (Ehrlich 1991, Stein 1973). At times, the sociology department sided with the radical sociologist against the university administration; more often, the department itself did the "hatchet work," sometimes because it anticipated punishment by the administration if it did not. Various authors argued that the ostensibly nonpolitical standard of "professionalism" was used as a pretense for attacking radical sociology (Schwendinger 1974, Dixon 1976, Stark 1973). REFERENCES Abel, Emily K. 1983 "The Employment Crisis in the Academy." Ch. 9 in Kaplan and Schrecker, eds. "Academic Repression: A Note on Paul Nyden" 1976 The Insurgent Sociologist (Summer): 3-4. Barrow, Clyde W. 1987 "Intellectuals in Contemporary Social Theory: A Radical Critique." Sociological Inquiry 57, 4 (Fall): 415-430. Bell, Daniel 1982 The Social Sciences Since the Second World War. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books. Berg, Bruce L. 1989 Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bloland, Harland G. and Sue M. 1974 American Learned Societies in Transition: The Impact of Dissent and Recession. New York: McGraw Hill. Boggs, Carl 1993 Intellectuals and the Crisis of Modernity. Albany: State University of New York Press. Bottomore, T. B. 1974 Sociology as Social Criticism. New York: Random House. Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron 1979 Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Breines, Wini 1982 Community and Organization in the New Left: 1962-1968: The Great Refusal. New York: Praeger. Brown, Carol 1970 "A History and Analysis of Radical Activism in Sociology." Sociological Inquiry 40, 1 (Winter): 27-34. Chomsky, Noam 1969 "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship." Pp. 44-45 in Conor Cruise O'Brien and William Dean Vanech, eds., Power and Consciousness. New York: Simon and Schuster. Colfax, J. David and Jack L. Roach, eds. 1971 "Editor's Introduction." Radical Sociology. New York: Basic Books. Colfax, J. David 1974 "In Defense of Jerry Neilsen." The Insurgent Sociologist (Spring): 77- 78. 1973 "Repression and Academic Radicalism." New Politics 10, 3 (Spring): 14-27. "David Colfax Fired" 1972 The Insurgent Sociologist 2, 2: 3-5. Deutsch, Steven E. and John Howard 1971 Where It's At: Radical Perspectives in Sociology. New York: Harper and Row. Diggins, John Patrick 1989 "Gramsci and the Intellectuals." Raritan 9, 2: 129-152. Dixon, Marlene 1976 "Professionalism in the Social Sciences: Institutionalized Repression." Sociological Inquiry 46, 3-4: 251- 262. 1975 "Letter of Resignation." The Insurgent Sociologist 5, 2 (Winter): 51- 64. 1972 "Academic Roles and Functions." The Insurgent Sociologist 2, 2: 8- 17. 1971 "The Failure of the Sociology Liberation Movement." The Human Factor. "Editorial Introduction." 1972 The Insurgent Sociologist Ehrenreich, Barbara 1991 "The Professional-Managerial Class Revisited." Pp. 173- 185 in Bruce Robbins, ed., Intellectuals: Asthetics, Politics, Academics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Ehrlich, Howard J. 1991 "Notes from an Anarchist Sociologist: May 1989." Pp. 233-250 in Oppenheimer et al., eds. Etzkowitz, Henry 1991 "The Contradictions of Radical Sociology: Ideological Purity and Dissensus at Washington University." Pp. 74-95 in Oppenheimer at al., eds. Flacks, Richard. 1991 "The Sociology Liberation Movement: Some Legacies and Lessons." Ch. 1 in Oppenheimer et al., eds. 1978 "Radical Sociology: The Emergence of Neo-Marxian Perspectives in U.S. Sociology." Annual Review of Sociology 4: 198-237. Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss 1967 The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine. Goertzel, Ted 1976 "Review of American Learned Societies in Transition by Harland G. Bloland and Sue M. Bloland." The Insurgent Sociologist (Spring): 65-66. Gouldner, Alvin W. 1979 The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class. New York: Seabury Press. Gramsci, Antonio 1971 "The Prison Notebooks." In Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, trans. and eds., Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers. Harding, Sandra 1992 "After the Neutrality Ideal: Science, Politics, and 'Strong Objectivity'." Social Research 59, 3 (Fall): 567- 587. Hauser, Philip M. 1970 "On 'Action and Sociology' by James W. Loewen." Sociological Inquiry 40, 1 (Winter): 109-110. Hoffman, Alice 1984 "Reliability and Validity in Oral History." Pp. 67-73 in David K. Dunaway and Willa K. Baum, eds., Oral History: An Interdisciplinary Anthology. Nashville, Tenn.: American Association for State and Local History. Horowitz, David, ed. 1971 Radical Sociology: An Introduction. San Francisco: Canfield Press. Horowitz, Irving L. 1967 The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. Hu-DeHart, Evelyn 1983 "Women, Minorities, and Academic Freedom." Pp. 121-140 in Kaplan and Schrecker, eds. Janowitz, Morris 1970 Political Conflict . Chicago: Quadrangle. Kaplan, Craig and Ellen Schrecker, eds. 1983 Regulating the Intellectuals: Perspectives on Academic Freedom in the 1980s. New York: Praeger. Kaplan, Craig 1983 "Introduction." In Kaplan and Schrecker, eds. Karabel, Jerome 1976 "Revolutionary Contradictions: Antonio Gramsci and the Problem of Intellectuals." Politics and Society 6, no. 1: 123-172. Ladd, E. C., Jr., and S. M. Lipset 1975 The Divided Academy: Professors and Politics. New York: McGraw Hill. Lehmann, Timothy and T. R. Young 1974 "From Conflict Theory to Conflict Methodology: An Emerging Paradigm for Sociology." Sociological Inquiry 44 (1): 15-28. Lenin, V. I. 1969 What Is To Be Done? (New York: International Publishers). Lidz, Victor 1970 "Values in Sociology: A Critique of Szymanski." Sociological Inquiry 40, 1 (Winter): 13-20. Luxembourg, Rosa 1971 "Organizational Questions of Russian Social Democracy." In Dick Howard, ed., Selected Political Writings of Rosa Luxembourg. New York: Monthly Review Press. Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels 1978 "Manifesto of the Communist Party," pp. 469-491 in Robert C. Tucker, ed., The Marx-Engels Reader. New York: W. W. Norton. Merton, Robert K. 1968 Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press. Mills, C. Wright 1959 The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press. Mills, Charles W. 1992 "'Ideology' in Marx and Engels' Revisited and Revised." The Philosophical Forum 23, 4 (Summer): 301- 328. 1987 "Alternative Epistemologies." Social Theory and Practice 14, 3 (Fall): 237-264. "Minutes of the 1970 Council Meeting." 1971 The American Sociologist (February): 63-65. "More on Washington University." 1972 The Insurgent Sociologist 2 (4): 44-45. "More Teachers, Not Rehired, Are Suing." 1972 Chronicle of Higher Education VI (February 14): 1,5. Nicolaus, Martin 1969 "Remarks at the ASA Convention." The American Sociologist 4, 2 (May): 154. Ollman, Bertell 1983 "Academic Freedom in American Today: A Marxist View." Ch. 4 in Kaplan and Schrecker, eds. Ollman, Bertell and Edward Vernoff 1982 "Introduction." In The Left Academy: Marxist Scholarship on American Campuses. New York: McGraw Hill. Oppenheimer, Martin, Martin J. Murray, and Rhonda F. Levine 1991 Radical Sociologists and the Movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Parsons, Talcott 1970 "The Intellectual: A Social Role Category." Pp. 3-24 in Philip Rieff, ed., On Intellectuals. Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday. Perucci, Robert 1973 "In the Service of Man: Radical Movements in the Professions." In Paul Halmos, ed., Professionalisation and Social Change: Sociological Review Monograph No. 20. Keele, U.K.: University of Keele. Pinard, Maurice and Richard Hamilton 1989 "Intellectuals and the Leadership of Social Movements: Some Comparative Perspectives." Research in Social Movements, Conflict and Change 11: 73-107. Piven, Frances Fox 1983 "Academic Freedom and Political Dissent." Pp. 17-24 in Kaplan and Schrecker, eds. "Purge at the University of Detroit" 1973 The Insurgent Sociologist 3, 3 (Spring): 56-62. Quadagno, Jill and Stan J. Knapp 1992 "Have Historical Sociologists Forsaken Theory? Thoughts on the History/Theory Relationship." Sociological Methods and Research 20, 4 (May): 481-507. Roach, Jack L. 1970 "The Radical Sociology Movement: A Short History and Commentary." The American Sociologist 5, 3 (August): 224-32. Robbins, Richard 1969 "Who Will Liberate the Sociology Liberation Movement." The American Sociologist 4, 2 (May): 156. Ryan, Jake and Charles Sackrey 1984 Strangers in Paradise: Academics From the Working Class. Boston: South End Press. Schauffler, Richard 1974 "Criminology at Berkeley: Resisting Academic Repression." Crime and Social Justice 1 (Spring-Summer): 58-61. Schwendinger, Herman and Julia 1974 Sociologists of the Chair (New York: Basic Books). Seldon, Anthony and Joanna Pappworth 1983 By Word of Mouth: 'Elite' Oral History. New York: Methuen. Sperber, Irwin 1971 "Radical Scholarship and Professional Sociology: On Contradictions at the Annual Convention of the American Sociological Association, 1971." The Insurgent Sociologist 2, 1 (November/December): 7-16. Stanley, Liz, ed. 1990 Feminist Praxis: Research, Theory, and Epistemology in Feminist Sociology. London: Routledge. Stark, Evan 1991 "Talking Sociology: A Sixties Fragment." Pp. 54-73 in Oppenheimer et al, eds. 1973 "Letter to the Insurgent Sociologist." The Insurgent Sociologist (Winter): 78-80. Stein, Peter 1973 "Institutional Repression in Higher Education," The Insurgent Sociologist 3, 4 (Summer): 75-81. Touraine, Alain 1971 The Academic System in American Society. New York: McGraw-Hill. Weber, Max 1949 "Science as a Vocation." Pp. 129-156 in Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, eds., From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press. Wright, Erik Olin 1978 "Intellectuals and the Working Class." The Insurgent Sociologist 9, 1 (Winter): 5-18. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS ON RADICAL SOCIOLOGY "Academic Repression: A Note on Paul Nyden" 1976 The Insurgent Sociologist (Summer): 3-4. American Sociological Association Council 1969 "Statement of Concern of the ASA Council: Involvement of ASA in Issues of Public Policy." The American Sociologist 4, 3 (August): 261-2. Bart, Pauline 1970 "The Role of the Sociologist on Public Issues: An Exercise in the Sociology of Knowledge." The American Sociologist 5, 4 (November): 339- 44. Becker, Howard and Irving Louis Horowitz 1988 "Radical Politics and Sociological Research: Observations on Methodology and Ideology." Ch. 5 in Becker, ed., Doing Things Together. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press. 1967 "Whose Side Are We On?" Social Problems 14, 3 (Winter): 230-47. Berger, Peter 1971 "Sociology and Freedom." The American Sociologist 6 (February): 1-5. Blackburn, Robin, ed. 1972 Ideology in Social Science. New York: Pantheon. Bloland, Harland G. and Sue M. 1974 American Learned Societies in Transition: The Impact of Dissent and Recession. New York: McGraw Hill. Brown, Carol 1988 "The Irrelevance of Radical Sociology to the Women's Movement." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta, Georgia. 1970 "A History and Analysis of Radical Activism in Sociology." Sociological Inquiry 40, 1 (Winter): 27-34. Campbell, Robert B. 1969 "Separatist Participation in the ASA." The American Sociologist 4 (August): 251. Cohn-Bendit, Daniel, Jean-Pierre Duteuil, Bertrand Gerard, and Bernard Granautier 1971 "Why Sociologists?" Pp. 61-66 in Colfax and Roach, eds. Colfax, J. David and Jack L. Roach, eds. 1971 Radical Sociology. New York: Basic Books. Colfax, J. David 1974 "In Defense of Jerry Neilsen." The Insurgent Sociologist (Spring): 77- 78. 1973 "Repression and Academic Radicalism." New Politics 10, 3 (Spring): 14-27. 1971 "Varieties and Prospects of 'Radical Scholarship' in Sociology." Pp. 81-92 in Colfax and Roach, eds. 1970 "Knowledge for Whom? Relevance and Responsibility in Sociological Research." Sociological Inquiry 40, 1 (Winter): 73-83. Coser, Lewis 1969 "Unanticipated Conservative Consequences of Liberal Theorizing." Social Problems 16 (Winter): 263-272. Cowhig, James D. 1971 "Federal Grant-Supported Social Research and 'Relevance': Some Reservations." The American Sociologist 6 (supplementary issue) (June): 65-68. Critical Sociology 1988 "Twenty Years of the Sociology Liberation Movement: 1968-1988." Special Anniversary Issue. 15, 2 (Summer). Daniels, Arlene Kaplan, ed. 1970 Academics on the Line: The Faculty Strike at San Francisco State. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. "David Colfax Fired" 1972 The Insurgent Sociologist 2, 2: 3-5. Demerath, N. J. III 1970 "Sociology, Science, and the Passionate Phoenix." Sociological Inquiry 40 (Winter): 95-99. Deutsch, Steven E. and John Howard 1971 Where It's At: Radical Perspectives in Sociology. New York: Harper and Row. Deutsch, Steven E. 1970 "The Radical Perspective in Sociology." Sociological Inquiry 40, 1 (Winter): 85-94. Dixon, Marlene 1976 "Professionalism in the Social Sciences: Institutionalized Repression." Sociological Inquiry 46, 3-4: 251- 262. 1975 "Letter of Resignation." The Insurgent Sociologist 5, 2 (Winter): 51- 64. 1972 "Academic Roles and Functions." The Insurgent Sociologist 2, 2: 8- 17. 1971 "The Failure of the Sociology Liberation Movement." The Human Factor. Domhoff, William 1972 "Some Friendly Answers to Radical Critics." The Insurgent Sociologist 2, 2 (January-February): 27-39. "East Coast Socialist Sociology Conference" 1974 The Insurgent Sociologist 4, 2 (Winter): 75. Ehrlich, Howard J. 1991 "Notes from an Anarchist Sociologist: May 1989." Pp. 233-250 in Oppenheimer et al., eds. 1971 "Notes from a Radical Social Scientist, February 1970." In Colfax and Roach, eds. Ericson, Edward E., Jr. 1975 Radicals in the University. Stanford, Cal.: Hoover Institution Press. Etzioni, Amitai 1968 "On Public Affairs Statements of Professional Associations." The American Sociologist 3 (November): 279-280. Etzkowitz, Henry 1991 "The Contradictions of Radical Sociology: Ideological Purity and Dissensus at Washington University." Pp. 74-95 in Oppenheimer at al., eds. 1989 "The Brief Rise and Early Decline of Radical Sociology at Washington University: 1969-1972." The American Sociologist (Winter): 346-351. 1974 "The Invisible Socialist University." The Insurgent Sociologist 4, 4 (Summer): 69-73. 1970 "Institute Formation Sociology." The American Sociologist (May): 120-124. Etzkowitz, Henry and Gerald M. Schaflander 1971 "Institution Formation--A New Sociology." In Deutsch and Howard, eds. 1967 "A Manifesto for Sociologists." Social Problems 15, 4 (Spring): 399- 407. Etzioni, Amitai 1968 "On Public Affairs Statements of Professional Associations." The American Sociologist 3, 4 (November): 279. Fasola-Bologna, Alfredo 1970 "The Sociological Profession and Revolution." Sociological Inquiry 40, 1 (Winter): 35-43. 1969 "The Inevitable Radicalization of Liberal Scholarship." The Human Factor 8 (Spring): 19-30. Flacks, Richard. 1991 "The Sociology Liberation Movement: Some Legacies and Lessons." Ch. 1 in Oppenheimer et al., eds. 1989 "Gouldner's Prophetic Voice." The American Sociologist (Winter): 353-356. 1978 "Radical Sociology: The Emergence of a Neo-Marxian Perspective in US Sociology." Annual Review of Sociology 4: 193-238. 1972a "Toward a Socialist Sociology," The Insurgent Sociologist 2, 2 (Spring): 18-27. 1972b "Notes on the 'Crisis of Sociology'." Social Policy 2, 6 (March-April 1972): 4, 6-12. 1971 "Radicals in the Universities." In Deutsch and Howard, eds. Frank, Andre Gunder 1967 "Sociology of Development and Underdevelopment of Sociology." Catalyst (Summer): 20-73. Freiberg, J. W. 1973 "Sociology and the Ruling Class." The Insurgent Sociologist 3, 4 (Summer): 12-26. Friedrichs, Robert W. 1971 "On the Meaning of a Radical Sociology: Friedrich's Response to Hernandez." Louisiana State University Journal of Sociology 2, 1 (October): 106-7. 1970 A Sociology of Sociology. New York: Free Press. Gamson, William A. 1971 "Sociology's Children of Affluence." Pp. 450-459 in Colfax and Roach, eds. Gerberding, William P. and Duane E. Smith 1970 The Radical Left: The Abuse of Discontent. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Goldman, Mimi and Karen Kennedy 1972 "SWS: How to Succeed in Sociology by Joining a Social Movement." The Insurgent Sociologist III, 1, pp. 20- 23. Gouldner, Alvin W. 1979 The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class. New York: Seabury Press. 1970 The Coming Crisis in Western Sociology. New York: Basic Books. 1968 "The Sociologist as Partisan: Sociology and the Welfare State." The American Sociologist 3, 2 (May): 103- 116. Gove, Walter R. 1970 "Should the Sociology Profession Take Moral Stands on Political Issues." The American Sociologist 5, 3 (August): 221-3. Haber, Barbara and Al 1971 "Getting By with a Little Help from Our Friends." Pp. 388-405 in Colfax and Roach, eds. Hauser, Philip M. 1969 "On Actionism in Sociology." Sociological Inquiry 39, 2 (Spring): 139- 147. Hernandez, Pedro F. 1971 "On the Meaning of a Radical Sociology." Louisiana State University Journal of Sociology 1, 1 (March): 157-165. Hitchcock, James 1971 "The Radical Professors." New York Times Magazine, February 21, 1971. Horowitz, David, ed. 1971 Radical Sociology: An Introduction. San Francisco: Canfield Press. Horowitz, Irving L. 1967 The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. Horton, John 1974 "Towards a Union of Marxist Social Scientists." The Insurgent Sociologist 4, 2 (Winter): 68-72. Hoult, Thomas Ford 1971 "Who Shall Prepare Himself to Battle?" In Deutsch and Howard, eds. Jacobs, Harold 1970 "Sociologists and the Student Movement." Sociological Inquiry 40, 1 (Winter): 45-47. Janowitz, Morris 1970 Political Conflict . Chicago: Quadrangle. Johnson, Carlos 1977 "The Crisis and Institutionalization of Radical Sociology." International Journal of Critical Sociology 1, 2 (Spring): 1-12. Katsiaficas, George 1987 The Imagination of the New Left: A Global Analysis of 1968. Boston: South End Press. Kubey, Craig 1973 "Notes on a Meeting of the Business Council." The Insurgent Sociologist 3, 3 (Spring): 48-55. Ladd, E. C., Jr., and S. M. Lipset 1975 The Divided Academy: Professors and Politics. New York: McGraw Hill. Ladner, Joyce A., ed. 1973 The Death of White Sociology. New York: Vintage Books. Lee, Alfred McClung 1973 "Random Notes on Radicalism in Sociology," The Insurgent Sociologist 3, 2 (Winter): 20-24. Leffler, Ann, Dair L. Gillespie and Elinor Lerner Ratner 1973 "Academic Feminists and the Women's Movement." The Insurgent Sociologist 4, 1 (Fall): 44-55. Lehmann, Timothy and T. R. Young 1974 "From Conflict Theory to Conflict Methodology: An Emerging Paradigm for Sociology." Sociological Inquiry 44 (1): 15-28. Lemisch, Jesse 1974 "Who Will Write a Left History of Art While We Are All Putting Our Balls on the Line?" Journal of American History, pp. 485-6. Lidz, Victor 1970 "Values in Sociology: A Critique of Szymanski." Sociological Inquiry 40, 1 (Winter): 13-20. Loewen, James W. 1970 "Action and Sociology." Sociological Inquiry 40 (Winter): 105-109. Lynd, Staughton 1974 "Intellectuals, the University, and the Movement." Journal of American History, pp. 479-485. MacRae, Duncan, Jr. 1971 "A Dilemma of Sociology: Science Versus Policy." The American Sociologist 6 (supplementary issue) (June): 2- 7. Mills, C. Wright 1943 "The Professional Ideology of Social Pathologists." American Journal of Sociology 49 (September): 165-180. 1959 The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press. Montague, Joel B., Jr. and Ronald J. Miller 1973 "The New Professionalism in Sociology." In Paul Halmos, ed., Professionalisation and Social Change: Sociological Review Monograph No. 20. Keele, U.K.: University of Keele. "More Teachers, Not Rehired, Are Suing." 1972 Chronicle of Higher Education VI (February 14): 1,5. Nicolaus, Martin 1973 "Notes from the Socialist Sociology Conference." The Insurgent Sociologist 4, 1 (Fall): 78-9. 1972 "The Professional Organization of Sociology: A View from Below." In Robin Blackburn, ed., Ideology in Social Science. New York: Pantheon. 1969 "Remarks at the ASA Convention." The American Sociologist 4, 2 (May): 154. Ober, John David and Juan Eugenio Corradi 1966 "Pax Americana and Pax Sociologica: On the Politics of Sociology." Catalyst (Summer): 45-54. O'Neill, John 1970 "Sociology as a Skin Trade." Sociological Inquiry 40 (Winter): 101- 104. Oppenheimer, Martin 1991 "Pages from a Journal of the Middle Left." Pp. 113-127 in Oppenheimer, et al., eds. 1975 "From Shapeup to Hiring Hall." The Insurgent Sociologist (Summer): 89-92. Oppenheimer, Martin, Martin J. Murray, and Rhonda F. Levine, eds. 1991 Radical Sociologists and the Movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Perucci, Robert 1973 "In the Service of Man: Radical Movements in the Professions." In Paul Halmos, ed., Professionalisation and Social Change: Sociological Review Monograph No. 20. Keele, U.K.: University of Keele Pincus, Fred L. and Howard H. Ehrlich 1988 "The New University Conference: A Study of Former Members." Critical Sociology 15, 2 (Summer): 145-147. Platt, Tony 1988 "'If We Know, Then We Must Fight': The Origins of Radical Criminology in the U.S." Critical Sociology 15, 2 (Summer): 127-138. Pozzuto, Richard 1973 "Pre-Marxian Marxism: A Critique of Szymanski's 'Marxism and Science'." The Insurgent Sociologist (Summer): 48- 62. "Proceedings of the Berkeley Conference of Radical Sociologists." 1969 The Insurgent Sociologist 1: 3-7. "Purge at the University of Detroit" 1973 The Insurgent Sociologist 3, 3 (Spring): 56-62. "Report and Analysis: The Fourth Annual West Coast Socialist Social Science Conference." 1976 The Insurgent Sociologist (Summer): 83-84. "Report on the Midwest Conference for a Relevant Social Science: Feb. 1972." 1973 The Insurgent Sociologist (Winter): 61-62. Riley, Gresham 1971 "Partisanship and Objectivity in the Social Sciences." The American Sociologist 6, 1 (February): 6-12. Roach, Jack L. 1970 "The Radical Sociology Movement: A Short History and Commentary." The American Sociologist 5, 3 (August): 224-32. Robbins, Richard 1971 "Up Against the Statler-Hilton Wall: Politics in the Scholarly Associations." Pp. 440-439 in Colfax and Roach, eds. 1969 "Who Will Liberate the Sociology Liberation Movement." The American Sociologist 4, 2 (May): 156. Rogers, Donna M. 1968 "'Radical' Sociology Rocks Boat." The Christian Science Monitor (September 11): 6. Rosenberg, Morris 1971 "Enhancing Democracy in the ASA: A Proposal." The American Sociologist 6, 3 (August): 239-42. Schauffler, Richard 1974 "Criminology at Berkeley: Resisting Academic Repression." Crime and Social Justice 1 (Spring-Summer): 58-61. Schwendinger, Herman and Julia 1974 Sociologists of the Chair. New York: Basic Books. Sperber, Irwin 1971 "Radical Scholarship and Professional Sociology: On Contradictions at the Annual Convention of the American Sociological Association, 1971." The Insurgent Sociologist 2, 1 (November/December): 7-16. Stark, Evan 1973 "Letter to the Insurgent Sociologist." The Insurgent Sociologist (Winter): 78-80. Stein, Peter 1973 "Institutional Repression in Higher Education," The Insurgent Sociologist 3, 4 (Summer): 75-81. Sternberg, David Joel 1977 Radical Sociology: An Introduction of American Behavioral Science. Hicksville, N.Y.: Exposition Press. Szymanski, Al 1973 "Marxism and Science." The Insurgent Sociologist 3, 3 (Spring): 25- 38. 1971 "Toward a Radical Sociology." Sociological Inquiry 40, 1 (Winter): 3-12. Reprinted in Colfax and Roach, eds. Wallum, Laurel R. 1970 "Sociologists as Signers: Some Characteristics of Protestors of the Vietnam War Policy." The American Sociologist 5, 2 (May): 161-3. Weinstein, Deena 1973 "Social Science Associations and the Polity: Advising, Activism, and Apathy." Journal of Voluntary Action Research 2, 2 (April): 86-94. Wilhelm, Sidney 1973 "The Political Economy of Professional Sociology: The Emergence of Underdevelopment in the Undergraduate Sociology Program." The Insurgent Sociologist 4, 1 (Fall): 15-28. 1972 "The Circus Principle--How to Meet Without Meetings." The Insurgent Sociologist 3, 1. 1966 "Elites, Scholars and Sociologists." Catalyst (Summer): 1-10. Young, T.R. 1974 "Transforming Sociology: The Graduate Student." The American Sociologist 9, 3 (August):135-139. 1971 "The Politics of Sociology: Gouldner, Goffman, and Garfinkel." The American Sociologist 6, 4 (November): 276- 80. Appendix A: Potential Respondents Participants in the Radical Sociology Movement Carol A. Brown, University of Lowell Christine Bose, SUNY Albany Terry Buie David Colfax, Boonville, California Steven E. Deutsch, University of Oregon Marlene Dixon Howard J. Ehrlich, National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence, Baltimore, MD Henry Etzkowitz, SUNY Purchase Richard Flacks, University of California-Santa Barbara Robert W. Friedrichs Martha Gimenez, University of Colorado at Boulder Ted Goertzel, Rutgers University John Horton, University of California-Los Angeles Thomas Ford Hoult, Arizona State University John Howard, SUNY Purchase Harold Jacobs, SUNY New Paltz Bruce Johnson, New York, NY Jerry Lembke, Holy Cross College Tom Mayer, University of Colorado at Boulder Martin Murray, SUNY Binghamton Martin Oppenheimer, Rutgers University Fred Pincus, University of Maryland Anthony M. Platt, California State University Robert Ross, Clark University Gerald Schaflander, Los Angeles Dusky Lee Smith Irwin Sperber, SUNY New Paltz Evan Stark, Rutgers University Wally Smith, Ohio Education Association Peter Stein, William Patterson College Michael Useem, Marion, PA Jean-Guy Vaillencourt Sidney Willhelm, SUNY Buffalo T.R. Young, Central Michigan University Critics of Radical Sociology Amitai Etzioni Howard Becker William Gamson Nathan Glazer Philip Hauser Morris Janowitz Philip Selznik Ralph Turner Appendix B: Interview Guide Demographic Information What is your date of birth? When did you receive your Ph.D.? From where? Where are you employed now? What is your position? What are currently your major areas of interest within sociology? (Get a curriculum vitae.) Personal Involvement in Radical Sociology How and when did you first become involved with the radical sociology movement? - What was your academic position? Age? - Was there an event or personal experience that radicalized you? - Were you involved in any popular movements at the time? - What were you studying/researching at that time? - When/how did you come into contact with other radical sociologists? What was the extent and type of your involvement in radical sociology? - Did you participate in Sociology Liberation Movement activities at the ASA meetings? - Were you involved in any other radical sociology groups, e.g. regional organizations? - Did you do radical research? Write about the radical sociology movement? Teach radical sociology? Other? Goals and Strategies of Radical Sociology What were the goals of radical sociology? - How important were the following: exposing/stopping repressive (e.g. Pentagon-sponsored) research? critiquing conservative theory and methods? developing radical theory? doing "applied" radical research? democratizing the ASA, graduate departments? Were there disagreements about the goals or their relative importance? - How significant were disagreements about the following? If significant: what were the groups or individuals on each side of the disagreement? What was the underlying issue(s)? - whether being a radical sociologist was synonymous with using Marxist theory and methods - whether radical sociologists should participate in progressive movements or not - the relative importance of building theory vs. doing research for progressive movements - whether to work within the university and the profession or not - the types of tactics to use to promote radical sociology (confrontational vs. educational) What was the relationship of radical sociologists to the Black Caucus? the Chicano Caucus? the Women's Caucus? the Gay and Lesbian Caucus? Relationship to Progressive Movements One disagreement was between those who believed radical sociologists must be involved in progressive movements, and those who did not. Where did you stand on this question? - What did you see as the pros and cons of such involvement? Did you yourself participate, as a sociologist, in any research projects designed to aid progressive movements/organizations? - What were the project's goals? (for helping the movement, for developing sociological theory) - Was it successful? Why or why not? - Did the movement/organization react positively or negatively to your involvement as a sociologist? - How did fellow sociologists and university administrators react? Relationship to the University and the Profession As a radical sociologist, did you encounter any opposition or support from administrators or faculty at your university? - What types of opposition or support? From whom? In your recollection, to what extent did other radical sociologists encounter opposition or support from administrators or faculty at their universities? What effect, if any, did negative sanctions have on the radical sociology movement? What types of opposition or support did you encounter from the profession? - How was your radical work received by your colleagues--at professional meetings, in journal review processes, etc.? - Do you think being a radical sociologists hurt your career, helped it, or made no difference? Results When did your involvement in the radical sociology movement end? - Why (and how) did it end then? - radical sociology's success or failure - internal divisions - decline of progressive movements - fear of losing job/being marginalized - change in professional priorities In your opinion, what were the results of the radical sociology movement - positive and negative, intended and unintended? What did it fail to accomplish? Why? Who else would you recommend that I interview? Appendix C: Tentative Outline of Chapters CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION II. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIOLOGISTS AND SOCIAL CHANGE 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Liberal Perspectives 2.3 Marxist Perspectives 2.3.1 Intellectuals and Socialist Movements 2.3.2 The Dialectic of Theory and Practice 2.3.3 Ideology, Science, and the University 2.4 Evolving Perspectives on Sociology and Social Change III. RESEARCH PROCEDURES 3.1 Introduction and Rationale 3.2 Sampling Procedures 3.2.1 Radical Sociologists 3.2.2 Critics of Radical Sociology 3.3 Information Sources 3.3.1 Interviews 3.3.2 Other Resources 3.4 Method of Analysis 3.5 Issues of Validity and Reliability IV. THE EMERGENCE OF THE RADICAL SOCIOLOGY MOVEMENT 4.1 Introduction 4.2 The New Left and the Universities 4.2.1 Sociologists in New Left Organizations 4.2.2 Radicals in Academia: The New University Conference 4.2.3 The Emergence of Radical Sociology V. THE CONTENT OF RADICAL SOCIOLOGY: NEW LEFT IDEOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY 5.1 The Radical Critique of Established Sociology 5.1.1 The Critique of Sociological Methods 5.1.2 The Critique of Sociological Theory 5.2 The Radical Alternative: Research 5.2.1 Theory-building vs. Activism 5.3 The Radical Alternative: Teaching VI. STRATEGIES, TACTICS, AND ORGANIZATION: RADICAL SOCIOLOGY AS A NEW LEFT ORGANIZATION 6.4 Strategies and Tactics 6.4.1 Protest and Confrontation 6.4.2 Alternative Institutions 6.4.3 Integration into the Profession 6.5 Organization 6.5.1 Decentralization and Regional Organizations 6.5.2 Non-hierarchical Structure and Decision-making VII. INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL INFLUENCES ON THE MOVEMENT 7.1 Internal Dynamics of the Movement 7.1.1 The Trend Toward Orthodox Marxism 7.1.2 The Emergence of Women's Issues 7.2 External Influences on the Movement 7.2.1 The New Left and National Politics 7.2.2 The University: Repression and Accommodation 7.3 The Profession 7.4 The Academic Labor Market VIII. DISCUSSION: THE LIMITS AND POSSIBILITIES OF RADICAL SCHOLARSHIP 8.1 Successes and Failures of the Movement 8.1.1 The Effect of Radical Sociology on the Profession and the University 8.1.2 The Effect of Radical Sociology on Radical Movements 8.2 A Comparison of Radical Sociology with Radical Movements in Other Disciplines 8.3 Conclusion: Sociohistorical Change, Social Movements, and the Functions of Sociology 8.4 Suggestions for Further Research