A History and Theory of the Social Sciences: Not all That is Solid Melts into Air
Publication Year: 2001
Divided into two parts, this book examines the train of social theory from the 19th century, through to the `organization of modernity', in relation to ideas of social planning, and as contributors to the `rationalistic revolution' of the `golden age' of capitalism in the 1950s and 60s. Part two examines key concepts in the social sciences. It begins with some of the broadest concepts used by social scientists: choice, decision, action and institution and moves on to examine the `collectivist alternative': the concepts of society, culture and polity, which are often dismissed as untenable by postmodernists today. This is a major contribution to contemporary social theory and provides a host of essential insights into the task of social scie
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
Part I: Reconsidering the History of the Social Sciences
- Chapter 1: As a Philosophical Science Unjustifiable, as an Empirical Science Anything Else But New: Classical Sociology and the First Crisis of Modernity
- Chapter 2: Time of Politics, and Not of Law: Political Analysis during the First Crisis of Modernity
- Chapter 3: Adjusting Social Relations: Social Science and the Organisation of Modernity
- Chapter 4: The Mythical Promise of Societal Renewal: Social Science and Reform Coalitions
- Chapter 5: Out of Step: The Social Sciences in the Second Crisis of Modernity
Part II: Rethinking Key Concepts of the Social Sciences
Theory, Culture & Society[Page ii]
Theory, Culture & Society caters for the resurgence of interest in culture within contemporary social science and the humanities. Building on the heritage of classical social theory, the book series examines ways in which this tradition has been reshaped by a new generation of theorists. It also publishes theoretically informed analyses of everyday life, popular culture, and new intellectual movements.
EDITOR: Mike Featherstone, Nottingham Trent University
SERIES EDITORIAL BOARD
Roy Boyne, University of Durham
Mike Hepworth, University of Aberdeen
Scott Lash, Goldsmiths College, University of London
Roland Robertson, University of Pittsburgh
Bryan S. Turner, University of Cambridge
THE TCS CENTRE
The Theory, Culture & Society book series, the journals Theory, Culture & Society and Body & Society, and related conference, seminar and postgraduate programmes operate from the TCS Centre at Nottingham Trent University. For further details of the TCS Centre's activities please contact:
The TCS Centre, Room 175
Faculty of Humanities
Nottingham Trent University
Clifton Lane, Nottingham, NG11 8NS, UK
Recent volumes include:
Michel de Certeau
From Modernism to Hypermodernism
edited by John Armitage
Subject, Society and Culture
Norbert Elias and Modern Social Theory
Simulation and Social Theory
Society and Culture
Principles and Scarcity and Solidity
Bryan S. Turner and Chris Rojek
© Peter Wagner 2001
First published 2001
Published in association with Theory, Culture & Society, Nottingham Trent University
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by any means, only with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers.
SAGE Publications Ltd
6 Bonhill Street
London EC2A 4PU
SAGE Publications Inc
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd
32, M-Block Market
Greater Kailash – I
New Delhi 110 048
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 0-7619-6569-6 (pb)
Library of Congress catalog record available
Typeset by Keystroke, Jacaranda Lodge, Wolverhampton.
Printed in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Ltd, Trowbridge, Wiltshire
This book is elaborated on the basis of previously published articles, which have been edited and revised for the purpose of the overall argument developed here. It has not been possible, however, to fully update the historical analyses in the first part of the book. The original version of Chapter 8 was co-authored with Heidrun Friese. The following list gives the full bibliographical information, including the original titles, on the loci of first publication. Thanks are due to the publishers for permission to re-use the material.
Chapter 1: ‘Science of society lost: On the failure to establish sociology in Europe during the “classical” period’, in Discourses on society. The shaping of the social science disciplines, edited by Peter Wagner, Björn Wittrock and Richard Whitley. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991, 219–45.
Chapter 2: ‘The place of the discourse on politics among the social sciences: Political science in turn-of-the-century Europe’, in Texts, contexts, concepts. Studies on politics and power in language, edited by Sakari Hänninen and Kari Palonen. Helsinki: Finnish Political Science Association, 1990, 262–81.
Chapter 3: ‘ “Adjusting social relations”: Social science and social planning during the twentieth century’, in The Cambridge history of science, vol. 7, Modern social and behavioral sciences, edited by Theodore Porter and Dorothy Ross. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Chapter 4: ‘Social sciences and political projects: Reform coalitions between social scientists and policy-makers in France, Italy, and West Germany’, in The social direction of the public sciences, edited by Stuart S. Blume, Joske Bunders, Loet Leydesdorff and Richard Whitley. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1987, 277–306.
Chapter 5: ‘Liberty and discipline: Making sense of postmodernity, or, once again, toward a sociohistorical understanding of modernity’, Theory and Society, vol. 21, no. 4, August 1992, 467–92.
Chapter 6: ‘The bird in hand: Rational choice: the default mode of social theorising’, in Rational choice theory: resisting colonization, edited by Margaret Archer and Jonathan Tritter. London: Routledge, 2000, 19–35.
Chapter 7: ‘Dispute, uncertainty and institution in recent French debates’, The Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 2, no. 3, 1994, 270–89.
Chapter 8: ‘Not all that is solid melts into air: Modernity and contingency’ (with Heidrun Friese), in Spaces of culture. City/nation/world, edited by Mike Featherstone and Scott Lash. London: Sage, 1999, 101–15.
[Page viii]Chapter 9: ‘“An entirely new object of consciousness, of volition, of thought”: The coming into being and (almost) passing away of “society” as an object of the social sciences’, in Biographies of scientific objects, edited by Lorraine Daston. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000, 132–53.
Chapter 10: ‘Crises of modernity: Political sociology in historical contexts’, Social theory and sociology. The classics and beyond, edited by Stephen P. Turner. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1996, 97–115.
Chapter 11: ‘Modernity – One or many?’, in Blackwell companion to sociology, edited by Judith Blau. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000.
1 Let me again avoid here the broader philosophical issues and just refer in this respect to my Theorising modernity (Wagner 2001), which is in fact a companion volume to this book.
2 For a comprehensive discussion of the impact of such work on social theory and social science see Wittrock (1999); and for implications for the theorising of modernity Wittrock (2000). The analyses in the first part of this book, in particular, owe much to a long-standing cooperation with Björn Wittrock.
3 To avoid misunderstandings, I should add that I do not think that a sociologisation of law can solve the problem of normative political theory, namely the grounding of state action in social theory and political philosophy. This was, of course, the major dispute on law and politics in the inter-war period, with Heller, Schmitt and Kelsen as main participants in German-speaking areas, Duguit an important contributor in France. The legal positivists doubtlessly posed relevant questions, which remain of importance for more liberal states as well. Their legalistic purification, however, was quite obviously not the right direction when searching for answers.
4 Originally used by Pannwitz with reference to Nietzsche's analysis of the crisis of European culture, and later taken up by Arnold Toynbee and Irving Howe, among others, the notion has most extensively been applied in debates in literature, art and architecture; see Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie (1989: 1142–5). The term became popular, however, really only after Jean-François Lyotard had used it in a prominent place in his The postmodern condition (1984a, first in French in 1979). Since then, it has gratefully been received by many social scientists who struggled unsuccessfully with conceptual disorder.
5 The supportive evidence behind this brief exposition of the argument may require a note. On the one hand, I rely on my own work in a political sociology of the social sciences, in which the intellectual discourses on society are analysed in comparative and historical terms; see Wagner (1990) as well as the preceding chapters. If I present my analysis in the following by looking at ‘modern societies’ through the eyes of contemporary social theorists of the respective periods, I do so to point out the long-term evolution and transformation of certain epistemological and political problématiques (more detail on this in Wagner 2001). On the other hand, however, I want to go beyond a mere comparative intellectual history, as interesting as it is, and try to relate these accounts to the historical transformations of societies (as developed in Wagner 1994). My interest here is twofold: conceptually, it is in the rethinking of categories for the analysis of contemporary society; and epistemologically, it is in the location of discourses with regard to social reality.
6 The term was coined by the social democrat theorist Rudolf Hilferding in 1915; for its more recent analytical usage, see Winkler (1974) and the special issue of Geschichte und Gesellschaft 1984.
7 For analysis of this period in terms of early welfare institutions, see de Swaan (1988), Evers and Nowotny (1987), Ashford (1986), Ewald (1986). Some of the contributions to Rueschemeyer and Skockpol (1996) focus on the changes in the self-understanding of turn-of-the-century European societies.
8 Originally a concept of Italian political debates, this notion has been used in a more general sense (see Stone 1983; for Italy see Seton-Watson 1967). It refers to the opening of bourgeois politics to working-class representation or, at least, working-class concerns.
9 A comparative and historical discussion of economic indicators is provided by Maddison (1982). For a historically oriented economic theory of these transformations see Aglietta (1976), Boyer (1979). For a historical approach to the spreading of large-scale technological networks see Hughes (1983; 1989).
10 A classical analysis of such political reorganisation, using the Dutch example, is Lijphart (1975) on the ‘metamorphosis of the problem of the masses’ (a term suggested by Masses et politiques 1988); see, for instance, Kornhauser (1959), Agnoli and Brückner (1968).[Page 174]
11 Baudrillard draws widely and basically affirmatively on Marshall McLuhan's media theory, which is firmly rooted in the intellectual context of the post-industrialist discourse. Lyotard's Postmodern condition can be read as a somewhat radicalised version of the theorem of the ‘knowledge’ or ‘information society’.
12 In the 1960s, there was hardly a word about postmodernity. An exception was Talcott Parsons who ended his little book on The system of modern societies (1971: 143) by concluding that any ‘talk of “postmodern” society is thus decidedly premature’.
13 Again, these observations can be cast either in terms of a loss of both intelligibility and manageability of the world or in terms of an achievement, a recovery of what had been repressed by the imposition of homogenising modernist discourses and institutions on a heterogeneous social world. For the latter version of the argument, see prominently de Certeau (e.g. 1988: 4). See also Maffesoli (1988: 98), who distinguishes a (modern) functionally organised society from a much more open (postmodern) sociality.
14 These statements are not merely ex post analytical ones; varieties of them can be found throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in liberal debate about social organisation (see ch. 3).
15 That ‘modernisation’ is a socially uneven process is, of course, widely accepted. The main affirmative argument would state that people have to forgo present preferences and to subject themselves to externally induced change to reap a better future. The argument is much more difficult, however, not to say impossible in liberal terms, if it has to be assumed that these people have to give up their identity, as it is historically constituted, in favour of a, to them unknown, transformed self of future generations; and that they would do so under the pressure of a hegemonic representation of society. This holds for liberal theories (of ‘development’ and ‘modernisation’) as well as for theories of socialist transformation.
16 See, for instance, Jean Baudrillard's (1986) description of the United States, which, all critical elements notwithstanding, does not lack fascination for the object. Another expression of this ambivalence can be found in the high-tech romanticism of Wim Wenders’ movies: see (i.e. literally watch) Bis ans Ende der Welt (1991).
17 Thus, I concur with Umberto Eco's (1975) remark that the notion of representation has been in crisis from the very day it was coined. More important than the philosophical is the historico-sociological difference in this regard.
18 Wittrock and Lindström (1984). On the extraordinary character of this growth period, one can consult Maddison (1982); on the difficulties of understanding this extraordinary character, see Lutz (1984). A broader — and somewhat different — discussion of the historical experience of modernity is offered in Wagner (2001: ch. 4).
19 But note the remarks made by Michel Maffesoli (1988) on a general need for ‘religion’ in the broad sense of reconnecting an individual to a social group and a collective representation. Significant also is Alan Wolfe's (1989) argument for a renewed concern for morality and, one could suggest, civil religion. See now Eisenstadt (1998).
20 In this perspective, I propose to talk about a second major crisis of modernity rather than about postmodernity, ‘crisis’ here denoting a historical period of particularly strong expression of the general ambivalence of modernity (see Wagner 1994).
21 Or at least not for the purposes of my reasoning. Arguably, there are sexual connotations in this proverb as in the other ones in different languages that I will quote below. A consideration of those connotations would make this introductory argument much more complex. Since it seems safe to assert, however, that my line of reasoning would only be further strengthened through their inclusion, I will largely leave them out for the sake of brevity.
22 If this were the case, however, one could also ask why the ‘Germans’ did not develop or appropriate the much clearer form of ‘English’ wisdom. As we know, even folk wisdom travels. Those who may be inclined to think that the German form typifies the common obscurity of continental thinking should be aware that there is a version of this wisdom in French which is closer to the English than to the German, at least with regard to the quantitative aspect. In ‘Un “tiens” vaut mieux que deux “tu l'auras’”, the temporal dimension is explicitly introduced in addition as an aspect of human interaction (bringing in issues of trust). Rational choice theorising is notorious for having difficulties in dealing with future time, since the preferred strategy, namely discounting the future, is open to a number of objections.[Page 175]
23 May it not be the case that these proverbs refer to birds, among the many goods one may want to have, because they are always inclined to fly away, because of the difficulty of durable possession?
24 Eagles as well as doves can symbolise freedom, but possibly the eagle — as a state symbol – stands rather for collective freedom and collective self-determination and the dove for individual freedom.
25 This is, however, far from saying that communication and compromise are impossible, as is sometimes alleged.
26 In the view of its own proponents, the real history of rational choice theory only starts in the middle of the twentieth century, but an insight into its deeper roots or ‘predecessors’ can occasionally be found. Similarly and significantly, rational choice thinking also lacks a long historical view on the development of Western societies, although it could and should have one, a matter to which I return below.
27 Whatever dissonance there may be between sensations and this image will then be treated as the secondary problem of the relation between theory and empirical observation.
28 But then it may be the cunning of reason rather than its progress of which we find evidence here. From the middle of the twentieth century onwards, we find the earlier European view of America partially confirmed when, even if no overall individualist-rationalist way of life emerges in America, at least its intellectual foundations proliferate at — predominantly — US universities.
29 This issue can obviously not be pursued here. Let it just be noted that approaches that see modernity strongly in terms of the destruction of ‘traditions’, i.e. of the withering away of common registers of moral-political evaluation, tend to underestimate the human ability to recreate richer forms of social life, even after crises. This is a theme insistently put forward by Hans Joas (1992a; 1996).
30 As doves of rationalism have recently argued: ‘In the absence of strong environmental constraints, we believe that rational choice is a weak theory, with limited predictive power… The theory of rational choice is most powerful in contexts where choice is limited’ (Satz and Ferejohn 1994: 72). The authors, however, move from that insight to arguing for the compatibility of rationalism with ‘structuralism’ without considering the criticism the latter approach has encountered over the past twenty years. Chapter 7 will show how such resort to structuralism can be avoided.
31 This chapter is dedicated to the memory of Michael Pollak, who contributed to the approach analysed here.
32 Here are early traces of the distinction between conscious and unconscious parts of social life which was to become of great import in structuralism: ‘Even when we have collaborated in their genesis, we can only with difficulty obtain even a confused and inexact insight into the true nature of our action and the causes which determined it’ (Durkheim 1938: xlv; see also König 1991: 66–8; Schülein 1987: 38). In attempts to bridge this dichotomy, Anthony Giddens (1984) elaborated the concept of ‘practical consciousness’, Pierre Bourdieu (1979) the one of sens pratique.
33 Thévenot (1989: 154) provides a deconstruction of the classical economic assumptions on the coordination of action, counterposing to the three postulates on rationality, on the commodity character of goods and on the market nature of social relations the three open questions as to the competence of persons, the qualities of objects and the forms of coordination.
34 Boltanski (1990: part I), Quéré (1992: 51–2). As in many of the situations that have been studied verbal reasoning was a key element in reaching an agreement, linguistic competences figure strongly in the analyses. However, the French researchers do not merely follow the ‘linguistic turn’ prominent in much of recent work in the human sciences, but try to link studies of languages of dispute and justification to other resources that may be brought into situations, not least material objects. I shall return to this issue below.
35 See also Boltanski's ambition to overcome the isolation of the ‘human sciences of the specific’ from those dealing with the general aspects of human life, speaking of a ‘separation on which the division into disciplines is built’ (1990: 22). In his view, a ‘catastrophic distinction [is made] between the disciplines of the collective and the disciplines of the singular, a distinction that cuts deeply through the human sciences — as well as through the institutions to whom these sciences deliver their insights’ (1990: 262; see also 255, 323–34).
36 Other examples are the investigation of the formation of the social category of the cadres that had already been published by Luc Boltanski in 1982. Alain Desrosières and Laurent Thévenot have studied the emergence of socio-professional categories more generally in France as well as in [Page 176]cross-national comparison. Thévenot has looked at Taylor's ‘scientific work organisation’; Robert Boyer and André Orléan have read Henry Ford's wage policy as the beginning of new economic conventions. Some studies dealing with the construction of historical phenomena, such as those by Noiriel (1992) and, in a broader understanding, by Charle (1990), may also be ranged under the ‘new social sciences’.
37 See also Thévenot (1993: 286): ‘This type of explanation provides a good representation of those spaces of action in which a way of qualifying that achieves consensus guarantees the evaluation of behaviour.‘
38 Thévenot (1993: 286). This distinction is related to different possible ways of dealing with the unforeseen, namely whether to interpret it as irrelevant ‘noise’, as an error on the part of the actors which has to be pointed out to them, as a deficiency of a thing or a person in need of durable correction, or — most seriously — as entailing the need to introduce new objects for a general restructuring of the situation; see Thévenot (1993: 280).
39 The concept of safeguarding order by shared belief leads to the cultural approach to social analysis discussed in ch. 8; for the idea of systematic articulation to the concept of society, see ch. 9.
40 Boltanski and Thévenot (1991: 18). The recourse to something general is a typical element of decision-making in the course of a controversy. A denunciation of socially unacceptable behaviour, for instance, has to indicate criteria for what is allowed and what is forbidden and has to create a link between these criteria and the situation in question. Any denunciation is an appeal to some sort of universality (Boltanski 1990: 256).
41 Cités marchande, inspirée, de l'opinion, domestique, civique, industrielle. The approach has now been further developed towards a comparison of societally acceptable forms of justification across situations in the US and France (Lamont and Thévenot 2000) and towards a historical analysis of changing modes of justification leading to overall societal transformation (Boltanski and Chiapello 1999).
42 Boltanski and Thévenot (1991: 189). Functionalists — as well as their critics — may want to discover subsystems and their codes here. It seems more appropriate, though, to say that Boltanski and Thévenot try to stand such reasoning on its head; see their use of the term ‘complexity’, for instance (1991: 57, 266).
43 ‘Reality, in such a perspective, is exactly the critical space that opens the possibility, available to persons, to move between different worlds, to tie into them, or to deny validity to one of them by making recourse to another one’ (Boltanski 1990: 86).
44 See Thévenot (1992), describing objections to Michael Walzer's theory of spheres of justice in institutional terms. I will leave undiscussed here the question of whether Walzer indeed tends to see his ‘spheres’ as empirically identifiable institutions.
45 Boltanski (1990: 30). Striking parallels to such reasoning can be found in Axel Honneth's recent Struggle for recognition (1995 ).
46 To give an example, I may refer to the state of debate on institutions in international sociology. Time and again it is repeated that institutions have to be analysed from a double perspective, as being constructed in human interaction and as pre-existing the human beings whose actions they shape (see Schülein 1987: 40; Göhler and Schmalz-Bruns 1988: 322; Hechter et al. 1990). As a very general statement, this is certainly valid. To rest content with it, however, means to accept and consolidate a basic cleavage in sociology as well as in the other social sciences — a cleavage between theories of interaction and constitution of sociality on the one hand, and theories of societal developments to which individuals are exposed, on the other.
47 Non-French relatives can be found in that tradition of the social sciences that reaches from Max Weber to Norbert Elias to Anthony Giddens and Michael Mann. For my own attempt see Wagner (1994). One thought, appearing only at the margins hitherto, seems to be particularly promising. The emphasis on the situativity of action and on varieties of exigences of coordination makes it possible not only to distinguish historically varying criteria of justification, but also to consider the need for an accord itself in historico-sociological terms. Historical social configurations may be distinct not only with regard to validity and strength of criteria of justification, but also with regard to the extent to which ‘situations have to be dealt with in common’ at all (Boltanski and Thévenot 1991: 51).
48 Beyond the recent shift which is in the centre of our interest here, both modes of construction [Page 177]obviously have a long history in the human sciences and the direct comparison of structural and cultural analyses is part of the sociological stock in trade (for a useful recent example see Wuthnow 1992).
49 The key terms we will need are used in confusingly variable ways in the literature. ‘Social theory’ is meant here in comprehensive terms, referring to every theorising interested in relations between human beings. It specifically includes both of what we call ‘structural’ and ‘cultural’ theory.
50 And if there is a reflexive impact of social theory on the world, then, even more perversely, it may be regarded as enhancing the dissolution of its own object, which tends to disappear, not least, under the analytical gaze of the sociologist, to rephrase a common conservative reasoning.
51 In the tradition of structural anthropology, the term more profoundly refers to basic, and mostly unconscious, ways of ordering the social life.
52 The difference between the two kinds of theorising on this point has implications for the role of the theorist, an issue we will only mention but not elaborate on in this chapter.
53 Some readers may want to dispute whether these views on structure and culture are still held. We shall come back to this question. For a general confirmation, one may consult Light and Keller (1985), which is a fairly open-minded sociology textbook. For recent contributions which raise issues related to ours see Sewell (1992) and Emirbayer and Goodwin (1994).
54 For an ambitious critique see Turner (1994). Searle (1995) resorts to biological explanation for ‘collective intentionality’, which is at the root of bounded social institutions.
55 The relation between political and intellectual positions is never unequivocal. Thirty years ago, the term ‘structure’ had a rather critical flavour and ‘culture’ a conservative one. This relation has almost been reversed.
56 For comprehensive discussions see Friese (2001a). What is at stake here, politically speaking, is what could be termed the inevitability of (some kind of) liberalism.
57 We should also at least mention two important kinds of reasoning which do not neatly fit our categorisation. Daniel Bell's Cultural contradictions of capitalism (1976) and Fredric Jameson's Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalism (1991) link cultural to structural factors by means of a theoretical reflection on contradictions and affinities. As stimulating as the reading of these works may be, they are but very thinly rooted in empirical observations. In contrast, works such as Pierre Bourdieu's Distinction (1984) and, more comprehensively, Michèle Lamont's Money, morals and manners (1992) connect cultural to structural phenomena via sophisticated empirical designs and open thus a way to discuss interrelations without imposing the one on the other.
58 For the use of the term ‘strength’ for a quite similar purpose, there referring to symbolic boundaries, see Lamont (1992: 181–2).
59 One might envisage cultural analysis going the same path of increasing empirical sophistication which has led structural analysis to concepts such as ‘contradictory class locations’ (Eric Olin Wright), which keep asking the same question — how is structure related to action? — but have robbed themselves of any possibility to answer it.
60 Johan Heilbron argues rightly that the term ‘society’ in the early social sciences allowed one to relate concerns of moral philosophy, dealing with manners, to political philosophy proper. My own argument could be read as saying that the creation of this relation also entailed some degree of conflation of concerns.
61 To avoid some of the epistemological issues related to attempts to describe an emergent entity before it exists or at times when its existence is in doubt (issues to which Bruno Latour 2000 refers), I shall use the terms ‘structure of social relations’ as well as ‘moral-political order’ to denote what often is called ‘society’. The former of these terms places the emphasis on the extension, form and nature of connections between human beings. It tries to be less presupposition-rich than related terms (on the theoretical and methodological issues related to such choice of terminology, see ch. 7). The latter refers to the central concern of the ‘moral and political sciences’, often regarded as the predecessor of the social sciences.
62 Keith Michael Baker (1990), in particular, has emphasised the changes of political language which took place before the French Revolution and, in his terminology, contributed to ‘inventing’ it. Nevertheless, it was the event of the Revolution that made some intellectual positions almost untenable and thus brought about a considerable shift in the discursive balance. See on this broad topic the works of Michel Foucault and, more recently, François Furet in France; of the Cambridge intellectual historians [Page 178]around Quentin Skinner in England; and the works on ‘history of concepts’ around Reinhart Koselleck in Germany.
63 Jacques Donzelot traced the long-term developments in France in his essay under the suggestive title L'invention du social. Essai sur le déclin des passions politiques (1984). I should note that ‘the social’ is synonymous with ‘society’, when, as is often the case, it is conceptualised as a realm between ‘the private’ and ‘the political’. Other understandings of the ‘social’, often a result of further differentiations within this discourse, will be dealt with below.
64 As is reflected, for instance, in the title of Hegel's Philosophy of right, a term, incidentally, which was still used in Germany in the early twentieth century for quasi-sociological undertakings in the study of ‘society’.
65 In response to Mohl as well as to other authors who separate state and society, Treitschke ponders upon why this ‘erroneous political theory’ of the ‘separation of state and society’ should have emerged at this time and place, the European nineteenth century, and he finds some reason in the unnatural situation, as in the Germany of the 1850s, where state and society do not match (1927: 88). Significantly, he uses here a sociological mode of explanation (though a rather crude one), by deriving an intellectual state of affairs from a socio-political one.
66 For about half a century, if not longer, Treitschke has to be considered the winner of this dispute in Germany. A re-edition of his Gesellschaftswissenschaft in 1927 — in ‘the era of sociology’ — carries a foreword by Erich Rothacker (incidentally, one of Jürgen Habermas’ teachers) who claims Treitschke for a German tradition of the scientific study of societal life which should be preferred to French and English biologism (Rothacker 1927: VII-VIII).
67 A useful first step to determine whether a scientific object is said to exist is obviously a look at codified statements on what the science in question is about, i.e. handbooks and dictionaries. As sociology became somewhat codified and consolidated only after the turn of the nineteenth century, such publications emerged from the 1930s onwards, with a second wave of grand attempts being pursued during the expansion of the discipline at universities in the 1960s. Since then, markets seem to have been big enough for a somewhat steady flow of new works and new editions of old works. The closing decades of the nineteenth century abounded with publications on ‘the foundations of sociology’ and the like. However, these are rather the proposals and projects of individual authors, trying to assert their own version of sociology, than attempts at comprehensive representation of a consolidated discipline. It would be an interesting study in itself, not to be pursued here, to trace the changes in the characterisation of ‘society’ in these publications over time, across languages and — given the continued and sometimes deliberate personal imprint of the author(s) in some such works — between authors. The two works discussed are the only two international encyclopaedias of the social sciences up to the present; a new, third one is scheduled to be published in 2001 (Smelser and Baltes in press).
68 This is not necessarily exactly the same as saying that microbes did not exist before their discovery/invention by Louis Pasteur, as Bruno Latour (2000) claims. The existence of ‘society’ has sometimes been made explicitly dependent on, even shared, human knowledge of it by sociologists. Latour provocatively extends such a viewpoint to the ‘natural sciences’. But even in the social sciences, the more conventional approaches insisted on a knowledge-independent existence of scientific objects.
69 Without specification of the term ‘social order’, which Parsons accepted as a problem inherited from Hobbes through all of the history of social philosophy, this sentence reads tautologically. It was left to American sociological approaches inspired by Simmel and pragmatism to disentangle what social order is and how it comes about; see most recently Strong (1994).
70 I owe the information about Mayhew's position at that time to a personal communication from Neil Smelser. See also Johnson (1961: 10), where society is characterised by ‘(1) definite territory, (2) sexual reproduction, (3) comprehensive culture, and (4) independence’. Or: ‘A society exists to the degree that a territorially bounded population maintains ties of association and interdependence and enjoys autonomy’ (Lenski 1970: 9, as quoted in Horton and Hunt 1972: 49). Or: ‘The most complex macrostructure is a society, a comprehensive grouping of people who share the same territory and participate in a common culture’ (Light and Keller 1985: 93). Other encyclopaedic works consulted include Ogburn and Nimkoff (1947), Mitchell (1968), Lengermann (1974), Geiger (1931), Ambros (1965), Endruweit and Trommsdorf (1989), Reinold (1992), Fuchs-Heinritz et al. (1994).
71 Harry M. Johnson's (1961: 13) remark that ‘the concept society, although unrealistic, might have as great scientific interest as, let us say, the concept of perfect competition in economics’ is [Page 179]amazingly blunt about the problematic relation between concepts and experience. In his view ‘concepts’ seem to refer to some overarching guides for social analysis and/or social life, but — unlike Weber's ideal types, for instance, which are no real socio-historical phenomena either, but whose validity is measured against empirical findings — their relation to reality is not exactly an issue. The concept of perfect competition in economics has at least had the advantage of having acquired strong discourse-organising power, which cannot to the same degree be said about ‘society’ in sociology (see also Jorland 2000 on the concept of ‘value’).
72 Significantly, the former is more typically the Scottish-English view, the latter the French one: see Heilbron (1998).
73 My own choice of terminology is guided by the need to avoid those, often more familiar, terms in other views which are strongly shaped by conceptual or historical presuppositions (see ch. 7). The notion of society, for instance, makes an assumption on the coherence of social practices; the (economic) idea of interest makes an assumption of autonomy and rationality shaping the view on self-identity. An analysis of conceptual transformations over time is seriously hampered by maintaining such loaded terms.
74 Parallel to this theorising an alternative approach, the critical theories of mass society, was developed which regarded basically the same phenomenon, namely the closure of modernity, as a threat and a loss; see ch. 5.
75 Politically, the right to diversity — to be different and to handle things differently — is a claim that stems from such reasoning. Other than calls for equality, such claims have proven difficult to deal with under the rules of organised modernity.
76 A major difference between the two situations is that sociological debate proved to be more continuous and persistent in the more recent one. I would attribute this fact mainly to the firm institutional establishment of social science at universities and other academic institutions. Thus, a minimal precondition for the continuity of a discourse was provided. This continuity meant that much rethinking of theories, concepts and methods could and would take place under the broad assumption of the possibility of a social science.
77 See Offe (1989: 755); also Hindess (1991). Elements of the debate among communitarians and liberals have focused on this question, with the communitarians arguing for reinforcing coherence, for building polities on identities. However, some of the most reflective contributions to the debate, such as Charles Taylor's (1989b: 532; 1989a) and Michael Walzer's (1990), have, while accepting the proposition, raised the issue of the degree to which such a strong relation is actually required — as well as normatively defendable. See Frazer and Lacey (1993) for a critical assessment of the debate in related terms.
(Translations from non-English sources are mine.)The Great Society in perspectiveWashington: Brookings, 1978.,‘Soziologie und empirische Sozialforschung’, in T.W.Adorno et al., eds, Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen SoziologieNeuwied: Luchterhand, 1969.,Régulation et crises du capitalismeParis: Calmann-Lévy, 1976.,Die Transformation der DemokratieFrankfurt/M: EVA, 1968.and ,The invisible hand of planning. Capitalism, social science, and the state in the 1920sPrinceton: Princeton University Press, 1985.,‘Formal and substantive voluntarism in the work of Talcott Parsons: A theoretical and ideological reinterpretation’, American Sociological Review, vol. 43, 1978, 177–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2094698,Alexander, Jeffrey C., ed., NeofunctionalismBeverly Hills: Sage, 1985.The civic culture. Political attitudes and democracy in five nationsPrinceton: Princeton University Press, 1963.and ,Vom Wirtschaftswunder zur WirtschaftskriseBerlin: Olle und Wolter, 1979., and ,‘Gesellschaft’, in Handwörterbuch der SozialwissenschaftenStuttgart, Tübingen, Göttingen: Fischer, Mohr, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965, 427–33.,Culture and agency. The place of culture in social theoryCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.,Alle origini dell'Italia industrialeNapoli: Guida, 1974.,The human conditionChicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958.,Between past and futureNew York: Viking, 1961.,‘The imaginary constitution of modernity’, in GiovanniBusino et al., eds, Autonomie et autotransformation de la société. La philosophie militante de Cornelius CastoriadisGeneva: Droz, 1989, 323–37.,‘Multiple modernities and civilizational contexts: Reflections on the Japanese experience’, unpublished paper, 1998.,The industrial society. Three essays on ideology and developmentNew York: Simon and Schuster, 1968.,The emergence of the welfare statesOxford: Blackwell, 1986.,‘La Cultura’, in Storia d'Italia, vol. IV. 2, Turin: Einaudi, 1975.,‘From “Rechtsstaat” and the “rule of law” to the “welfare” or “regulatory state”’, Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie, vol. 6, no. 2, 1985.,Condorcet. From natural philosophy to social mathematicsChicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1975.,Inventing the French RevolutionCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.,‘Sociologia e positivismo in Italia, 1850–1910,’ in FilippoBarbano and GiorgioSola, eds, Sociologia e scienze sociali in Italia, 1861–1890Milan: Angeli, 1985.,‘Der Gerber-Laband'sche Positivismus’, in Markus J.Sattler, ed., Staat und RechtMünchen: List, 1972.,A l'ombre des majorités silencieuses. La fin du socialParis: Denoël-Gonthier, 1982 (English tr. In the shadow of the silent majoritiesNew York: Semiotext(e), 1983).,L'AmériqueParis: Grasset, 1986.,Legislators and interpreters. On modernity, post-modernity and intellectualsCambridge: Polity Press, 1987.,Modernity and ambivalenceCambridge: Polity, 1991., [Page 181]Intimations of postmodernityLondon: Routledge, 1992.,‘Soziologie und Modernisierung’, Soziale Welt, vol. 35, 1984, 381–406.and ,Reflexive modernizationCambridge: Polity, 1994., and ,The coming of post-industrial society. A venture in social forecastingNew York: Basic Books, 1973.,The cultural contradictions of capitalismLondon: Heinemann, 1976.,‘A tale of two sociologies: The critical and the pragmatic stance in contemporary French sociology’, European Journal of Social Theory, vol. 2, no. 3, 1999, 379–96.,‘Tradition and modernity reconsidered’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 9, 1967, 292–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500004540,The homeless mind. Modernization and consciousnessNew York: Vintage, 1973., and ,All that is solid melts into air. The experience of modernityNew York: Simon and Schuster, 1982.,Von der Kameralausbildung zum JuristenprivilegBerlin: Kolloquium, 1972.,‘The theoretical significance of co-operative research’, in Stuart S.Blume et al., eds, The social direction of the public sciencesDordrecht: Reidel, 1987, 3–38.,‘Profilo ideologico del novecento’, in Storia della letteratura, vol. 9, Milan: Garzanti, 1969.,Les cadres. La formation d'un groupe socialParis: Minuit, 1982 (English tr. The making of a class. Cadres in French societyCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).,L'amour et la justice comme compétences. Trois essais de sociologie de l'actionParis: Métailié, 1990.,Le nouvel esprit du capitalismeParis: Gallimard, 1999.and ,Boltanski, Luc and LaurentThévenot, eds, Justesse et justice dans le travailParis: CEE-PUF, 1986.De la justification. Les économies de la grandeurParis: Gallimard, 1991.and ,‘The sociology of critical capacity’, European Journal of Social Theory, vol. 2, no. 3, 1999, 359–77.and ,‘Structuralism and theory of sociological knowledge’, Social Research, vol. 35, no. 4, 1968, 681–706.,‘The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason’, Social Science Information, vol. 14, no. 6, 1975, 19–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/053901847501400602,Distinction. A social critique of the judgment of tasteLondon: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984.,Le sens pratiqueParis: Minuit, 1979 (English tr. The logic of practiceCambridge: Polity, 1990).,‘Sociology and philosophy in France since 1945: Death and resurrection of a philosophy without subject’, Social Research, vol. 34, no. 1, 1967, 162–212.and ,La reproductionParis: Minuit, 1970.and ,Quelques idées sur la création d'une Faculté libre d'enseignement supérieureParis: Laine, 1871.,‘La crise actuelle: Une mise en perspective historique’, Critique de l'économie politique, vol. 7/8, 1979, 5–113.,‘Les transformations des conventions salariales entre théorie et histoire: D'Henry Ford au fordisme’, Revue économique, vol. 42, no. 2, March 1991, 233–72.and ,‘The theory and politics of postmodernism: By way of an introduction’, in Roy Boyne and Ali Rattansi, Postmodernism and societyNew York: St Martin's Press, 1990.and ,La mesure de l'Etat. Administrateurs et géomètres au XVIIIe siècleParis: Michel, 1994.,‘Science policy advisory councils in France, the Netherlands and the United States’, Social Studies of Science, vol. 9, 1979, 167–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631277900900202and ,Le scienze polinche nello stato modernoTorino: UTET, 1888.,The script of life in modern society. Entry into adulthood in a changing worldChicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989., [Page 182]‘Social planning and the mores’, in Ernest W.Burgess and HerbertBlumer, eds, Human side of social planning. Selected papers from the proceedings of the American Sociological Society 1935Chicago: American Sociological Society, 1935.,Reflections on the Revolution in France, ed. L.G.Mitchell, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993 (first 1790).,Cassese, Sabino, ed., L'amministrazione pubblica in ItaliaBologna: Mulino, 1974.‘Giolittismo e burocrazia nella “cultura della riviste’”, in Storia d'Italia, Annali 4: Intellettuali e potereTorino: Einaudi, 1981.,Le monde morcelé. Les carrefours du labyrinthe IIIParis: Seuil, 1990.,Naissance des ‘intellectuels’, 1880–1900Paris: Minuit, 1990.,La faute professionnelleParis: Métailié, 1991a.,‘Forces et faiblesses de la nouvelle anthropologie des sciences’, Critique, vol. 47, no. 529–30, 1991b, 459–78.,Prophets and patrons. The French university and the emergence of the social sciencesCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.,The predicament of cultureCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988.,Modern capitalist planning. The French modelCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969.,‘Social theory, social research and a theory of action’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 91, 1986, 1309–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/228423,That noble science of politics. A study in 19th century intellectual historyCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511559365, and ,Conversazioni critiche, vol. I, Bari, 1942.,Le phénomène bureaucratiqueParis: Le Seuil, 1963.,‘The cultural revolution: Notes on the changes of the intellectual climate in France’, Daedalus, Winter 1964, 514–42.,‘Pour une analyse sociologique de la planification française’, Revue française de sociologie, vol. 6, 1965, 147–63.,From opportunity to entitlement. The transformation and decline of Great Society liberalismLawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1996.,The writing of historyNew York: Columbia University Press, 1988.,Philosophical critiques of policy analysis. Lindblom, Habermas and the Great SocietyGainesville: University of Florida Press, 1988.,Zur Psychologie des SozialismusJena: Diedrichs, 1926.,‘L'inchiesta alla Fiat nel 1961’, Quaderni Rossi, no. 5, March 1965., and ,In care of the stateCambridge: Polity Press, 1988.,‘Structure, sign and play in the discourse of the human sciences’, in Writing and differenceLondon: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978, 278–93.,‘Histoire de formes: statistiques et sciences sociales avant 1940’, Revue française de sociologie, vol. 26, 1985.,‘How to make things which hold together: Social science, statistics and the state’, in PeterWagner, BjörnWittrock and RichardWhitley, eds, Discourses on society. The shaping of the social science disciplinesDordrecht: Kluwer, 1991, 195–218.,La politique des grands nombres. Histoire de la raison statistiqueParis: La découverte, 1993 (English tr. The politics of large numbers. A history of statistical reasoning, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998).,Science and ideology in the policy sciencesNew York: Aldine, 1982.,‘Agir dans plusieurs mondes’, Critique, vol. 47, no. 529–30, 1991, 427–58.,L'invention du social. Essai sur le déclin des passions politiquesParis: Fayard, 1984.,‘The mobilization of society’, in GrahamBurchell, ColinGordon and PeterMiller, eds, The Foucault effect. Studies in governmentalityChicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.,L'empire du sens. L'humanisation des sciences humainesParis: La découverte, 1995.,‘Réflexions sur une chronologie: Le développement des sciences sociales en France de 1945 à la fin de l'année 1960’, Revue française de sociologie, vol. 23, 1982., [Page 183]Drouard, Alain, ed., Le développement des sciences sociales en France au tournant des années soixanteParis: CNRS, 1983.Dryzek, John S. and DouglasTorgerson, eds, Democracy and the policy sciencesDordrecht: Kluwer, 1993.‘Les ouvriers et le progrès technique: Mont-Saint-Martin vingt ans après’, Sociologie de Travail, vol. 22, 1980.,‘Cours de science sociale: leçon d'ouverture’, Revue international d'éducation, vol. 15, no. 1, 1888.,The rules of sociological method (tr. Sarah A.Solovay and John H.Mueller; ed. George E.G.Catlin), London: Collier-Macmillan, 1938 (first in French 1895).,Leçons de sociologieParis: PUF, 1950.,‘Sociologie et sciences sociales’, in Emile Durkheim, La science sociale et l'actionParis: Presses Universitaires Françaises, 1970 (first 1909).,The state tradition in Western EuropeOxford: Robertson, 1980.,‘Capitalism, modernism and postmodernism’, New Left Review, no. 152, July/August 1985.,The idea of cultureOxford: Blackwell, 2000.,Travels in hyperrealityOrlando: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1990 (first 1975).,Antinomien der ModerneFrankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1998.,The forms of sociology. Paradigms and crisesNew York: Wiley, 1976.and ,‘Verwaltungswissenschaft: Die Herausbildung der Disziplin’, in Jens JoachimHesse, ed., Politikwissenschaft und Verwaltungswissenschaft, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, special issue 13, 1982.,‘Introduction’, in JonElster, ed., Rational choiceOxford: Blackwell, 1986, 1–33.,‘Research, bureaucracy, and the drift of epistemic criteria’, in BjörnWittrock and AantElzinga, eds, The university research system. Public policies of the home of scientistsStockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1985.,‘Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 99, no. 6, May 1994, 1411–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/230450and ,Endruweit, Günter and GiselaTrommsdorf, eds, Wörterbuch der SoziologieStuttgart: Enke, 1989.The condition of the working class in England in 1844Oxford: Blackwell, 1958.,‘Une rupture avec la sociologie critique?’, EspacesTemps, no. 49–50, 1992, 33–40.,EspacesTemps, no. 49–50, 1992, issue focused on ‘Ce qu'agir veut dire’, 5–60.The moral dimension. Toward a new economicsNew York: The Free Press, 1988.,Über den Umgang mit Unsicherheit. Die Entdeckung der Gestaltbarkeit von GesellschaftFrankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1987.and ,L'Etat-providenceParis: Grasset, 1986.,‘Verwaltungswissenschaft: Ein Paradigma und seine Karriere’, in Jens JoachimHesse, ed., Politikwissenschaft und Verwaltungswissenschaft, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, special issue 13, 1982, 55–73.,‘Les Sciences de l'Etat entre déterminisme et libéralisme’, Revue française de sociologie, vol. 22, no. 3, 1981.,‘L'absence de la sociologie politique dans les classifications durkheimiennes des sciences sociales’, Revue française de science politique, vol. 32, no. 1, 1982.,‘Histoire de la science politique’, in MadeleineGrawitz and JeanLeca, eds, Traité de science politique, vol. 1, Paris: PUF, 1985.,‘Changement social et sciences sociales en Italie’, Revue française de sociologie, vol. 7, 1966.,Roma da capitale a periferiaBari, 1971.,Una sociologia alternativaBari: De Donato, 1972.,Introduzione alla sociologiaRome: Riuniti, 1981.,‘La scienza giuridica: Il dibattito sul metodo e la costruzione della teoria giuridica della stato’, Il pensiero politico, vol. 15, no. 1, 1982., [Page 184]Technocracy and the politics of expertiseNewbury Park: Sage, 1990.,L'ordre du discoursParis: Gallimard, 1971.,The birth of the clinique. An archeology of medical perceptionNew York: Pantheon, 1973.,Discipline and punish. The birth of the prisonNew York: Vintage, 1977.,‘Technologies of the self’, in Luther H.Martin, HuckGutman and Patrick H.Hutton, eds, Technologies of the self. A seminar with Michel FoucaultAmherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1988.,‘Les sciences sociales: utilisation, dépendance, autonomie’, Sociologie du Travail, vol. 23, 1981.,The politics of community. A feminist critique of the liberal-communitarian debateHemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993.and ,Pareto. La teoria dell' equilibrioBari: Laterza, 1976 (first in French 1974).,‘Social change, trade union politics, and sociology of work’, in Stuart S.Blume et al., eds, The social direction of the public sciencesDordrecht: Reidel, 1987, 249–76.,‘Social science and the “Swedish model”: Sociology at the service of the welfare state’, in PeterWagner et al., eds, Discourses on society. The shaping of the social science disciplinesDordrecht: Kluwer, 1991, 247–70.,La recherche administrative et le réformisme politique, mimeo, Paris: CSO, 1974.and ,‘Zitationen der Geschichte: Zur (Re)Konstruktion von Vergangenheit in einem sizilianischen Ort’, Historische Anthropologie, vol. 2, no. 1, 1994, 39–62.,Lampedusa. Historische Anthropologie einer InselFrankfurt/M: Campus, 1996.,‘Geschichte im Alltag’, in JörnRüsen and Klaus E.Müller, eds, Historische SinnbildungReinbek: Rowohlt, 1997, 328–52.,Friese, Heidrun, ed., IdentitiesOxford: Berghahn, 2001a.Friese, Heidrun, ed., The moment. Time and rupture in modern thoughtLiverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2001b.Fragments of modernity. Theories of modernity in the works of Simmel, Kracauer and BenjaminCambridge: Polity Press, 1985.,‘Georg Simmel and the study of modernity’, in MichaelKaern, Bernard S.Phillips and Robert S.Cohen, eds, Georg Simmel and contemporary sociologyDordrecht: Kluwer, 1990, 57–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0459-0_5,SocietyChichester: Horwood, and London: Tavistock, 1986.and ,‘Empirische Sozialforschung als politische Aktion’, Soziale Welt, vol. 21/22, 1970–1, 2–17.,Lexikon zur SoziologieWiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1994.et al.,Furner, Mary O. and BarrySupple, eds, The state and economic knowledge. The American and British experiencesNew York: Woodrow Wilson International Center and Cambridge University Press, 1990.Undoing the social. Towards a deconstructive sociologyMilton Keynes: Open University Press, 1991.,‘Die Institutionalisierung soziologischer Paradigmen’, in WolfLepenies, ed., Geschichte der SoziologieFrankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1981.,‘Gesellschaft’, in AlfredVierkandt, ed., Handwörterbuch der Soziologie1931, 201–11.,II mito dello stato nuovo dall'antigiolittismo al fascismoRome: Laterza, 1982.,Über öffentliche RechteTübingen, 1852.,‘Über die Teilbarkeit deutscher Staatsgebiete’, Zeitschrift für deutsches Staatsrecht und deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, vol. 1, no. 1, 1865.,Geschichte und Gesellschaft, vol. 10, no. 1, 1984.‘Diritto e società nel pensiero socialista’, Sociologia del diritto, vol. 7, no. 1, 1980.,Miseria e nobiltà della ricerca in ItaliaMilan: Feltrinelli, 1970.,The constitution of societyCambridge: Polity Press, 1984.,The nation-state and violenceCambridge: Polity Press, 1985., [Page 185]Giddens, Anthony, ed., Durkheim on politics and the stateCambridge: Polity Press, 1986.The consequences of modernityCambridge: Polity Press, 1990.,The empire of chanceCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.et al.,‘L'acharnement politique ou l'effort de représentation’, in Françoisd'Arcy, ed., La représentationParis: Economica, 1985, 89–97.and ,‘The teaching of political economy in nineteenth-century Italy and the characteristics of its institutionalization’, in PeterWagner et al., eds., Discourses on society. The shaping of the social science disciplinesDordrecht: Kluwer, 1991, 303–28.,‘Perspektiven der Theorie politischer Institutionen’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, vol. 29, 1988, 309–49.and ,Sciences humaines et philosophieParis: Gonthier, 1966.,‘Politikwissenschaftliche Forschung zur Verwaltung’, Die öffentliche Verwaltung, vol. 23, 1970.,Cultures and societies in a changing worldThousand Oaks: Pine Forge, 1994.,Red ViennaNew York: Oxford University Press, 1991.,‘Planification éonomique et recherches sociologiques’, Revue française de sociologie, vol. 5, 1964, 435–46.,Haag, Fritz, HelgaKrüger, WiltrudSchwärzel and JohannesWildt, eds, Aktionsforschung. Forschungsstrategien, Forschungsfelder und ForschungspläneMunich: Juventa, 1972.Theorie des kommunikativen HandelnsFrankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1981.,Der philosophische Diskurs der ModerneFrankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1985.,The taming of chanceCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.,The decline of liberalism as an ideologyNew York: Fertig, 1971 (first 1943).,Cultural complexity. Studies in the social organization of meaningNew York: Columbia University Press, 1992.,Positivist republic. Auguste Comte and the reconstruction of American liberalism, 1865–1920University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.,‘Einführung’, in Hans-HermannHartwich, ed., Policy-Forschung in der Bundesrepublik DeutschlandOpladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1985. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-90082-1,The condition of postmodernity. An enquiry into the origins of cultural changeOxford: Blackwell, 1989.,Enlightenment and despair. A history of sociology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.,Hayward, Jack and MichaelWatson, eds, Planning, politics and public policy. The British, French and Italian experienceCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.Hechter, Michael, Karl-DieterOpp and ReinhardWippler, eds, Social institutions. Their emergence, maintenance and effectsBerlin: de Gruyter, 1990.‘Les métamorphoses du durkheimisme, 1920–1940’, Revue française de sociologie, vol. 36, no. 2, 1985, 225ff.,‘Particularités et particularismes de la sociologie aux Pays-Bas’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, no. 74, 1988, 76–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/arss.1988.2437,The rise of social theoryCambridge: Polity Press, 1995.,‘French moralists and the anthropology of the modern era: On the genesis of the notions of “interest” and “commercial society’”, in JohanHeilbron, LarsMagnusson and BjörnWittrock, eds, The rise of the social sciences and the formation of modernityDordrecht: Kluwer, 1998, 77–106.,‘Natural philosophy and social science’, in TheodorePorter and DorothyRoss, eds, The social and behavioral sciencesNew York: Cambridge University Press, in press (Cambridge History of Science).,Heilbron, Johan, LarsMagnusson and BjörnWittrock, eds, The rise of the social sciences and the formation of modernityDordrecht: Kluwer, 1998 (Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, vol. 20).Everyday LifeLondon: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984.,Can modernity survive?Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990.,‘Staat’, in AlfredVierkandt, ed., Handwörterbuch der SoziologieStuttgart: Enke, 1931., [Page 186]‘Aufgabe einer modernen Regierungslehre’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, vol. 6, 1965.,‘Der staatsrechtliche Positivismus in der Weimarer Republik’, Der Staat, vol. 28, no. 3, 1989, 377–403.,‘Imaginary presuppositions of democracy’, Economy and Society, vol. 20, no. 2, 1991, 173–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085149100000008,Parlament und Verwaltung, vol. 2, Stuttgart, 1968.,Staatsapparat und Reproduktion des KapitalsFrankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1974.,Materialien zur Wissenschafts- und BildungspolitikFrankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1971.and ,Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, eds JoachimRitter and KarlfriedGründer, Basel: Schwabe, 1989, vol. 7, 1142–5.‘Description d'une conjoncture en sociologie’, EspacesTemps, no. 49–50, 1992: 6–25.,Age of extremes. The short twentieth century 1914–1991London: Michael Joseph, 1994.,Holloway, John and SolPicciotto, eds., State and capital. A Marxist debateLondon: Arnold, 1978.Kampf um AnerkennungFrankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1992 (English tr. The struggle for recognitionCambridge: Polity, 1995).,‘Socialist natural law, commercial society, political economy: A contribution to the idea of social science’, paper presented at the conference on ‘The rise of the social sciences’, Uppsala, June 1993.,Horn, Klaus, ed., Aktionsforschung: Balanceakt ohne Netz?Frankfurt/M: Syndikat, 1979.SociologyTokyo: McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, 1972.and ,Consciousness and society. The reorientation in European social thought, 1890–1920New York: Vintage, 1958.,Networks of powerBaltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983.,American genesis. A century of invention and technological enthusiasmNew York: Viking, 1989.,‘Foreword' to Jean-François Lyotard, The postmodern condition. A report on knowledgeMinneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 1984.,Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalismDurham, NC: Duke University Press, 1991.,Wittgenstein's ViennaLondon: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1973.and ,Die Kreativität des HandelnsFrankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1992a (English tr. The creativity of actionCambridge: Polity, 1996).,‘Von der Philosophie des Pragmatismus zu einer soziologischen Forschungstradition’, Pragmatismus und GesellschaftstheorieFrankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1992b, 23–65 (English tr. ‘Symbolic interactionism’, in AnthonyGiddens and Jonathan H.Turner, eds, Social theory todayCambridge: Polity, 1987, 82–116; and reprinted as ‘Pragmatism in American sociology’, in HansJoas, Pragmatism and social theoryChicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993, 14–51).,‘An underestimated alternative: America and the limits of “critical theory”’, in Pragmatism and social theoryChicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993, 79–93.,Die Entstehung der WerteFrankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1996 (English tr. The genesis of valuesCambridge: Polity, 2000).,Sociology: a systematic introductionLondon: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961.,‘The coming into being and passing away of value theories in economics (1776–1976)’, in LorraineDaston, ed., Biographies of scientific objectsChicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000, 117–31.,‘Durkheim, les sciences sociales et l'Université: bilan d'un sémi-échec’, Revue française de sociologie, vol. 17, no. 2, 1976, 267–311.,Die frühe deutsche Soziologie und ihre Entstehungs-MilieusOpladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1984.,Die Entwicklung der westdeutschen PolitikwissenschaftFrankfurt/M: Campus, 1977.,Empirische SozialforschungMunich: Beck, 1982., [Page 187]Karl Mannheim and the crisis of liberalism. The secret of these new timesNew Brunswick: Transaction, 1995.and ,‘Heimatsoziologie oder Ordnungsinstrument? Fachgeschichtliche Aspekte der Soziologie in Deutschland zwischen 1933 und 1945’, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, special issue 23, 1981.,Uncertain victory. Social democracy and progressivism in European and American thought, 1870–1920New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.,‘Einleitung’, to Emile Durkheim, Die Regeln der soziologischen MethodeFrankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1991: 21–82.,The politics of mass societyNew York: Free Press, 1959.,‘Du marché à l'interaction’, Critique, vol. 47, no. 529–30, 1991, 479–91.,Lacey, Michael J. and Mary O.Furner, eds, The state and social investigation in Britain and the United StatesCambridge: Woodrow Wilson Center and Cambridge University Press, 1993.Durkheim et le politiqueParis and Montréal: Presses de la FNSP and Presses de l'Université de Montréal, 1981.,Money, morals and manners. The culture of the French and American upper-middle classChicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992.,Lamont, Michèle and LaurentThévenot, eds, Rethinking comparative cultural sociology. Polities and repertoires of evaluation in France and the United StatesNew York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511628108‘Intervento socialista nella lotta operaia: L'inchiesta operaia di Marx’, Quaderni Rossi, no. 5, March 1965.,Italy. The politics of planningSyracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1966.,Sociology of postmodernismLondon: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1990.,‘Expert systems or situated interpretation? Culture and institutions in disorganized capitalism’, in UlrichBeck, AnthonyGiddens and ScottLash, eds, Reflexive modernizationCambridge: Polity, 1994, 198–215.,The end of organized capitalismCambridge: Polity Press, 1987.and ,‘La fin de la société des nations’, Traverses, no. 33–4, 1985, 36–43.,‘On the partial existence of existing and nonexisting objects’, in LorraineDaston, ed., Biograpies of scientific objectsChicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000, 247–69.,‘The spirit of place’, in The symbolic meaning. The uncollected versions of studies in classic American literature (ed. ArminArnold), Fontwell: Centaur Press, 1962.,The plumed serpent (Quetzalcoatl)Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.,‘La science politique dans le champs intellectuel francais’, Revue française de science politique, vol. 32, no. 4–5, 1982.,Definitions of sociology. A historical approachColumbus, OH: Merrill, 1974.,Human societies. A macrolevel introduction to sociologyNew York: McGraw Hill, 1970.,L'analisi sociale durante il fascismoNaples: Liguori, 1974.,‘Italian sociology within the framework of contemporary sociology’, in Contemporary sociology in Western Europe and America. Proceedings of the First International Congress of Social Sciences of the Luigi Sturzo Institute Rome, 1967.,‘Die Entwicklung der Soziologie nach dem 2. Weltkrieg 1945–1967’, in GüntherLüschen, ed., Deutsche Soziologie seit 1945, special issue of the Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, no. 21, 1979.,Lerner, Daniel and HaroldLasswell, eds, The policy sciencesStanford: Stanford University Press, 1951.SociologyNew York: Knopf, 1985.and ,The politics of accommodation. Pluralism and democracy in the NetherlandsBerkeley: University of California Press, 1975.,Inquiry and change. The troubled attempt to understand and shape societyNew Haven and New York: Yale University Press and Russell Sage Foundation, 1990.,The intellectual development of Karl Mannheim. Culture, politics, and planningCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985., [Page 188]‘Planning in a democracy’, in Ernest W.Burgess and HerbertBlumer, eds, Human side of social planning. Selected papers from the proceedings of the American Sociological Society 1935Chicago: American Sociological Society, 1935.,‘Systemtheoretische Argumentationen: Eine Entgegnung auf Jürgen Habermas’, in NiklasLuhmann and JürgenHabermas, eds, Theorie der Gesellschaft oder SozialtechnologieFrankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1971.,Die Zerstörung der VernunftBerlin: Aufbau, 1954.,Emile DurkheimLondon: Allen Lane, 1973.,Der kurze Traum immerwährender ProsperitätFrankfurt/M: Campus, 1984.,La condition postmoderneParis: Minuit, 1979 (GeoffBennington and BrianMassumi, L., tr., The postmodern condition. A report on knowledgeMinneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 1984a).,Le tombeau de l'intellectuel, et autres papiersParis: Galilée, 1984b.,‘Une ligne de résistance’, Traverses, no. 33–4, 1985a, 60–5.,‘Histoire universelle et différences culturelles’, Critique, 1985b (English tr. ‘Universal history and cultural differences’, in AndrewBenjamin, ed., The Lyotard readerOxford: Blackwell, 1989, 314–24).,‘Sociology’, in E.Seligman, ed., Encyclopedia of the social sciencesNew York: Macmillan, 1934, 232–47.,Phases of capitalist developmentOxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.,Le temps des tribus. Le déclin de l'individualisme dans les sociétés de masseParis: Méridiens Klincksieck, 1988.,Recasting bourgeois Europe. Stabilization in France, Germany and Italy in the decade after World War IPrinceton: Princeton University Press, 1975.,Maier, Charles S., ed., Changing boundaries of the political. Essays on the evolving balance between state and society, public and private in EuropeCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.Die ältere deutsche Staats- und VerwaltungslehreMunich: Beck, 1980 (first 1966).,La cité de l'hommeParis: Fayard, 1994.,A history and philosophy of the social sciencesOxford: Blackwell, 1987.,‘The social science disciplines: The American model’, in PeterWagner et al., eds, Discourses on society. The shaping of the social science disciplinesDordrecht: Kluwer, 1991, 45–71.,The sources of social power, vol. I, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511570896,Man and society in an age of reconstructionLondon: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1940.,Diagnosis of our time. Wartime essays of a sociologistLondon: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1943.,Freedom, power and democratic planningLondon: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1951.,One-dimensional man. Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial societiesBoston: Beacon, 1964.,Die Paritätische Kommission. Aufgeklärter Technokorporatismus in ÖsterreichVienna: Internationale Publikationen, 1982.,‘Il condizionamento della ricerca’, in PietroRossi, ed., Ricerca sociologica e ruolo del sociologoBologna: Mulino, 1972.,L'istituto superiore di sociologia di Milano, mimeo, Milan, 1984.,Le Plan ou l'anti-hasardParis: Gallimard, 1965.,Autocritique des années soixante par un Commissaire au Plan (Bulletin de l'Institut d'histoire du temps présent, supplément no. 1, 1981, série ‘Politique économique’, no. 1).,Masses et politiques, special issue of Hermes: cognition, communication, politiqueParis: Editions du CNRS, 1988.The persistence of the Old Regime: Europe to the Great WarNew York: Pantheon, 1981.,‘Society’, in DavidL. Sills, ed., International encyclopedia of the social sciencesNew York: Macmillan, 1968.,PlanungsorganisationMünchen: Piper, 1973.and ,Naturzustand und Naturgeschichte der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Die Ursprünge der bürgerlichen Sozialtheorie als Geschichtsphilosophie und Sozialwissenschaft bei Samuel Pufendorf, John Locke und Adam Smith[Page 189]Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973.,L'insegnamento della giurisprudenza nelle Università del Regno (Nuova Antologia, no. 11) 1869.,‘Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht’, in W.Lexis, ed., Die deutschen UniversitätenBerlin: Asher, 1893.,‘La divisione nelle scienze sociali’, Rassegna di scienze sociali e politiche, vol. 3, no. 55, 1885, 341–56.,‘The status of sociology in Italy’, Social Forces, vol. 9, October 1930. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2570079,‘I Machiavellini’, L'Espresso, no. 29, 1983, 66–7.,A dictionary of sociologyChicago: Aldine, 1968.,‘Gesellschafts-Wissenschaften und Staats-Wissenschaften’, Zeitschrift für die gesammte Staatswissenschaft, vol. 2, Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1851, 3–71.,Teorica dei governi et governo parlamentareTorino: UTET, 1982.,‘Storici, giuristi e stato: Ipotesi sulla cultura delle istituzioni nell'Italia del “900”’, Il pensiero politico, vol. 15, no. 2, 1982.,Giuristi e scienze sociali nell' Italia liberaleVenice: Marsilio, 1981.and ,Die Struktur der Moderne. Grundmuster und differentielle Gestaltung des institutionellen Aufbaus der modernen GesellschaftenFrankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1984.,Otto Neurath und der Wiener Kreis. Revolutionäre Wissenschaftlichkeit als AnspruchFrankfurt/M: Campus, 1981.,‘The state as a conceptual variable’, World Politics, vol. 20, 1968. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2009684,La tyrannie du national. Le droit d'asile en Europe 1793–1993Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1992.,‘Lost in the funhouse: Baudrillard and the politics of postmodernism’, in RoyBoyne and AliRattansi, eds, Postmodernism and societyNew York: St Martin's Press, 1990.,‘Knowledge for certainty: Poverty, welfare institutions and the institutionalization of social science’, in PeterWagner et al., eds, Discourses on society. The shaping of the social science disciplinesDordrecht: Kluwer, 1991, 23–41.,‘Competitive party democracy and the Keynesian welfare state’, Policy Sciences, vol. 15, 1983, 225–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00136826,Disorganized capitalismCambridge: MIT Press, 1987.,‘Fessel und Bremse: Moralische und institutionelle Aspekte “intelligenter Selbstbeschränkung’”, in AxelHonneth et al., eds, Zwischenbetrachtungen. Im Prozeß der AufklärungFrankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1989, 739–74.,‘Man and his institutions’, in Ernest W.Burgess and HerbertBlumer, eds, Human side of social planning. Selected papers from the proceedings of the American Sociological Society 1935Chicago: American Sociological Society, 1935.,A handbook of sociologyLondon: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1947.and ,Metasociology. An inquiry into the origins and validity of social thoughtOslo: Norwegian University Press, 1988.,Economic planning and democracyHarmondsworth: Penguin, 1966.,‘Contribution to the seminar “Uso socialista dell'inchiesta operaia’”, Turin, 1964, published in Quaderni Rossi, no. 5, March 1965, quoted from the reprint in ClaudioPozzoli, ed., Spätkapitalismus und KlassenkampfFrankfurt: Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 1972.,Trattato di sociologia generale,,2nd edn, Florence: Barbera, 1923.‘Society’, in E.Seligman, ed., Encyclopedia of the social sciencesNew York: Macmillan, 1934, 225–32.,The system of modern societiesEnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1971.,Scritti corsariMilan: Garzanti, 1975.,Die deutschen Universitäten und das UniversitätsstudiumBerlin: Asher, 1902.,‘La sociologie dans l'Italie de l'après-guerre’, Revue française de sociologie, vol. 21, 1980, 234ff., [Page 190]‘Sociology, politics and society in post-war Italy’, Theory and Society, vol. 10, 1981. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00240397,Le service public dans la théorie de l'Etat de Léon DuguitParis: Pichon and Durand-Auzias, 1972.,‘L'efficacité par l'ambiguité’, Sociologie et sociétés, vol. 7, 1975.,‘La planification des sciences sociales’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, no. 2/3, 1976, 105–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/arss.1976.3455,Gesellschaft und Soziologie in FrankreichKönigstein/Ts: Hain, 1978.,‘Paul F. Lazarsfeld: Fondateur d'une multinationale scientifique’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, no. 25, 1979, 45–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/arss.1979.2622,Vienne. Une identité blesséeParis: Gallimard, 1984.,The open society and its enemiesLondon: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1945.,The rise of statistical thinking, 1820–1900Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.,Trust in numbers. The pursuit of objectivity in science and public lifePrinceton: Princeton University Press, 1995.,‘Le sociologue et le touriste’, EspacesTemps, no. 49–50, 1992, 41–60.,‘Language de l'action et questionnement sociologique’, in PaulLadrière, PatrickPharo and LouisQuéré, eds, La théorie de l'action. Le sujet pratique en débatParis: CNRS, 1993: 53–83.,Soziologie-LexikonMünchen: Oldenbourg, 1992.,Revue économique, vol. 40, no. 2, 1989, special issue on ‘L'économie des conventions’.‘Gesellschaft, bürgerliche’, in OttoBrunner, WernerConze and ReinhardKoselleck, eds, Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, vol. 2, Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1975a.,‘Gesellschaft, Gemeinschaft’, in OttoBrunner, WernerConze and ReinhardKoselleck, eds, Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, vol. 2, Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1975b.,The decline of the German MandarinsBoston: Harvard University Press, 1969.,Contingency, irony, and solidarityCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.,The origins of American social scienceCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.,‘Sur la sociologie italienne vue par Diana Pinto’, Revue française de sociologie, vol. 23, 1982.,‘Presentazione’, in PietroRossi, ed., Ricerca sociologica e ruolo del sociologoBologna: Mulino, 1972.,‘La sociologia nella seconda metà del'ottocento: Dall'impiego di schemi storico-evolutivi alla formulazione di modelli analitici’, Il pensiero politico, vol. 15, no. 1, 1982, 188–215.,‘Zur Einführung’, in Heinrich von Treitschke, Die Gesellschaftswissenschaft. Ein kritischer VersuchHalle: Niemeyer, 1927.,The three missions. Universities in the Western worldCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.and ,Rueschemeyer, Dietrich and ThedaSkocpol, eds, Social knowledge and the origins of modern social policiesPrinceton and New York: Princeton University Press and Russell Sage Foundation, 1996.‘“Sentimental pessimism” and ethnographic experience, or, Why culture is not a disappearing “object”’, in LorraineDaston, ed., Biographies of scientific objectsChicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000, 158–202.,‘The four “worlds” of contemporary industry’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 16, no. 2, 1992, 169–94.and ,Les mondes du productionParis: Editions de l'EHESS, 1993 (English tr. Worlds of productionCambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press)., and ,Salais, Robert and LaurentThévenot, eds, Le travail. Marchés, règles, conventionsParis: Economica, 1986.L ‘invention du chômageParis: PUF, 1986., and ,‘Rational choice and social theory’, The Journal of Philosophy, 1994, 71–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2940928and ,‘Il dibattito metodologico in Francia’, in PietroRossi, ed., Ricerca sociologica e ruolo del sociologoBologna: Mulino, 1972.,Historische Nationalökonomie und Sozialstatistik als GesellschaftswissenschaftenWien: Böhlau, 1971., [Page 191]‘Verwaltungswissenschaft als Teil der Politikwissenschaft’, reprinted in , Planung als politischer ProzeßNeuwied: Luchterhand, 1973.,‘Auf der Suche nach neuen Problemlösungsstrategien: die Entwicklung der politischen Planung auf Bundesebene’, in RenateMayntz and Fritz W.Scharpf, eds, PlanungsorganisationMünchen: Piper, 1973.,‘Amministrazione e costituzione: Verso la nascita della scienza politica’, Il pensiero politico, vol. 15, no. 1, 1982.,‘“Science and politics” as a political factor: German and Italian social sciences in the nineteenth century’, in PeterWagner et al., eds, Discourses on society. The shaping of the social science disciplinesDordrecht: Kluwer, 1991, 93–120.,Fin de siècle Vienna. Politics and cultureNew York: Knopf, 1980.,Theorie der Institution. Eine dogmengeschichtliche und konzeptionelle AnalyseOpladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1987.,Capitalism, socialism, and democracyNew York: Harper, 1947.,The construction of social realityNew York: Free Press, 1995.,Liberalism and the origins of European social theoryOxford: Blackwell, 1983.,Italy from liberalism to fascism 1870–1925London: Methuen, 1967.,‘Artisans, factory workers, and the formation of the French working class, 1789–1848’, in IraKatznelson and Aristide R.Zolberg, eds, Working-class formation. Nineteenth-century patterns in Europe and the United StatesPrinceton: Princeton University Press, 1986.,‘A theory of structure: Duality, agency and transformation’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 98, no. 1, July 1992, 1–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/229967,‘Alexander Hamilton and the language of political science’, in AnthonyPagden, ed., The languages of political theory in early-modern EuropeCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.,‘Modernization of the lifeworld: Universality and plurality in the process of modernization’, in Rationality and modernity. Essays in philosophical pragmaticsOslo: Skandinavian University Press, 1993, 215–59.,The problematic of sociology. The Berlin Simmel lecturesBerkeley: University of California Press, 1997.Smelser, Neil and PaulBaltes, eds, International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciencesOxford: Pergamon, in press.Everyday life as problematic. A feminist sociologyBoston: Northeastern University Press, 1987.,Behaviorism and logical positivismStanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1986.,‘Sviluppi e scenari della sociologia italiana, 1861–1890’, in GiorgoSola and FilippoBarbano, eds, Sociologia e scienze sociali in Italia, 1861–1890Milan: Angeli, 1985.,‘Sociology in France: An empiricist view’, in HowardBaker and AlvinBoskoff, eds, Modern sociological theory in continuity and changeNew York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1956.Europe transformed 1878–1919Glasgow: Fontana, 1983.,The problem of order. What unites and divides societyCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.,Sources of the self. The making of the modern identityCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989a.,‘At cross-purposes: The liberal-communitarian debate’, in Nancy L.Rosenblum, ed., Liberalism and the moral lifeCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989b, 159–82.,‘Irreducibly social goods’, in Philosophical argumentsCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995, 127–45.,Science, class and societyLondon: New Left Books, 1976.,‘Les investissements de forme’, in LaurentThévenot, ed., Conventions économiquesParis: PUF, 1985a, 21–71 (English version published as ‘Rules and implements: Investment in forms’, Social Science Information, vol. 23, no. 1, 1984, 1–45).,Thévenot, Laurent, ed., Conventions économiques (Cahiers du centre d'études de l'emploi)Paris: PUF, 1985b.[Page 192]‘Equilibre et rationalité dans un univers complexe’, Revue économique, vol. 40, no. 2, 1989, 147–98.,‘L'action qui convient’, in PatrickPharo and LouisQuéré, eds, Les formes de l'action. Sémantique et sociologie (Raison pratiques no. 1)Paris: Editions de l'EHESS, 1990, 39–69.,‘Un pluralisme sans rélativisme? Théories et pratiques du sens de la justice’, in JoëlleAffichard and Jean-Baptistede Foucauld, eds, Justice sociale et inégalitéParis: Editions Esprit, 1992, 221–53.,‘Agir avec d'autres: Conventions et objets dans l'action coordonnée’, in PaulLadrière, PatrickPharo and LouisQuéré, eds, La théorie de l'action. Le sujet pratique en débatParis: CNRS Editions, 1993, 275–89.,Kritik der öffentlichen MeinungBerlin: Springer, 1922.,‘The emergence of sociology in Austria 1885–1935’, Archives européennes de sociologie, vol. 17, 1976. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003975600007359,‘Transformation of professional education in the 19th century’, in SheldonRothblatt and BjörnWittrock, eds, The three missions. Universities in the Western worldCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.,La sociologie d'actionParis: Seuil, 1965.,Le movement de mai ou le communisme utopiqueParis: Seuil, 1968.,La société post-industrielleParis: Denoël, 1969 (English tr. Leonard F.X.Mayhew, The post-industrial societyLondon: Wildwood House, 1974).,Die Gesellschaftswissenschaft. Ein kritischer VersuchHalle: Niemeyer, 1927 (first 1859).,Sociologi e centri del potereBari: Laterza, 1962.,‘Considerazioni sulla sociologia del positivismo italiano’, Quaderni di sociologia, vol. 29, no. 2, 1980–1.,The social theory of practicesChicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994.,‘Die niederländische Soziologie: Geschichte, Gestalt und Wirkung’, in JoachimMatthes, ed., Soziologie und Gesellschaft in den Niederlanden, Neuwied: Luchterhand, 1965.,The quest of control. A critique of the rational-central-rule approach in public affairsLondon: Wiley, 1976.,Vor dem Keynesianismus. Die Planwirtschaftsdebatte der frühen dreissiger Jahre im Kontext der ‘organisierten Moderne’Berlin: WZB, 1995.,Die Grundbegriffe des Staatsrechts und die neuesten StaatsrechtstheorienTübingen: Mohr, 1915 (first 1874).,Die soziale Funktion des staatsrechtlichen PositivismusFrankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1974.,‘Die Soziologie als Einzelwissenschaft’, in Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft (Schmollers Jahrbuch), vol. 44, 1920.,‘Social science and the state in continental Western Europe: The political structuration of disciplinary discourse’, International Social Science Journal, vol. 41, no. 4, 1989, 509–28.,Sozialwissenschaften und Staat. Frankreich, Italien, Deutschland 1890–1980Frankfurt/M: Campus, 1990.,A sociology of modernity. Liberty and disciplineLondon: Routledge, 1994.,‘After Justification: Repertoires of evaluation and the sociology of modernity’, European Journal of Social Theory, vol. 2, no. 3, 1999a, 341–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13684319922224572,‘The resistance that modernity constantly provokes: Europe, America and social theory’, Thesis Eleven, no. 58, 1999b, 39–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0725513699058000004,Theorising modernity. Inescapability and attainability in social theoryLondon: Sage, 2001.,‘States, institutions, and discourses: A comparative perspective on the structuration of the social sciences’, in PeterWagner, BjörnWittrock and RichardWhitley, eds, Discourses on society. The shaping of the social science disciplinesDordrecht: Kluwer, 1991, 331–57.and ,‘Social sciences and modern states’, in PeterWagner, Carol H.Weiss, BjörnWittrock and HellmutWollmann, eds, Social sciences and modern states. National experiences and theoretical crossroads[Page 193]Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 28–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511983993.002, and ,Spheres of justice. A defense of pluralism and equalityNew York, Basic Books, 1983.,‘The communitarian critique of liberalism’, Political Theory, vol. 18, no. 1, 1990, 6–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591790018001002,Die Krise des modernen Staatsgedankens in EuropaStuttgart and Berlin: DVA, 1925.,‘Die “Objektivität” sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis’ (1904), in JohannesWinckelmann, ed., Max Weber, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre,,4th edn, Tübingen: Mohr, 1973.Privatrechtsgeschichte der Neuzeit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der deutschen EntwicklungGöttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1952.,Winkler, Heinrich August, ed., Organisierter KapitalismusGöttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1974.‘Dinosaurs or dolphins? Rise and resurgence of the research-oriented university’, in BjörnWittrock and AantElzinga, eds, The university research system. Public policies for the home of scientistsStockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1985a.,‘Social knowledge and public policy: Eight models of interaction’, in HelgaNowotny and Jane LambiriDimaki, eds, The difficult dialogue between producers and users of social science researchVienna: European Centre for Social Welfare Training and Research, 1985b, 89–109.,‘Rise and development of the modern State: Democracy in context’, in DianeSainsbury, ed., Democracy, state and justice. Essays in honor of Elias BergStockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1988, 113–25.,‘Cultural identity and nationhood: The reconstitution of Germany’, in ThorstenNyborm and MartinTrow, eds, University and society: the social role of higher education and researchLondon: Jessica Kingsley, 1991, 76–87.,‘Social theory and intellectual history: Towards a rethinking of the formation of modernity’, in FredrikEngelstad and RagnvaldKalleberg, eds, Social time and social change. Perspectives on sociology and history, Oslo: Skandinavian University Press, 1999, 187–232.,‘Modernity: one, none, or many? European origins and modernity as a global condition’, Daedalus, vol. 129, no. 1, Winter 2000, 31–60.,Den stora programmens tidStockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1984.and ,‘Policy constitution through discourse: State-centered societies in transition’, in Douglas E.Ashford, ed., History and context in public policyPittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996.and ,Social sciences and societal developments. The missing perspectiveBerlin: WZB, 1987.and ,Whose keeper? Social science and moral obligationBerkeley: University of California Press, 1989.,‘Policy analysis: Some observations on the West German scene’, Policy Sciences, vol. 17, 1984. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00229727,‘Policy analysis in West Germany's federal government: A case of unfinished governmental and administrative modernization?’, Governance, vol. 2, no. 3, July 1989. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.1989.tb00092.x,The religion of humanity. The impact of Comtean positivism on Victorian BritainCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.,‘Cultural change and sociological theory’, in HansHaferkamp and Neil J.Smelser, eds, Social change and modernityBerkeley: University of California Press, 1992, 256–76.,The fetishism of modernitiesNotre Dame: The University of Notre Dame Press, 1997.,Le chômage en Allemagne. Socio-histoire d'une catégorie nationale de l'action publique (1871–1927)Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, 2000.,Zimmermann, Bénédicte, ClaudeDidry and PeterWagner, eds, Le travail et la nation. Histoire croisée de la France et de l'AllemagneParis: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, 1999.