Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T15:14:49.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Mannheim for All Seasons: Bloor, Merton, and the Roots of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

David Kaiser
David Kaiser
Affiliation:
Department of History of ScienceHarvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

David Bloor often wrote that Karl Mannheim had “stopped short” in his sociology of knowledge, lacking the nerve to consider the natural sciences sociologically. While this assessment runs counter to Mannheim's own work, which responded in quite specific ways both to an encroaching “modernity” and a looming fascism, Bloor's depiction becomes clearer when considered in the light of his principal introduction to Mannheim's work — a series of essays by Robert Merton. Bloor's reading and appropriation of Mannheim emerged from his background in experimental psychology and his attempts to supercede Merton's own structural-functionalist program for the sociology of knowledge. By retracing this extended trail of readings and re-readings, we may begin to understand the roots of Bloor's curious interpretation of Mannheim's sociology of knowledge, and inquire in a reflexive way about the present and future directions of science studies.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , Spring 1998 , pp. 51 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderton, Keith M. 1993. The Limits of Science: A Social, Political, and Moral Agenda for Epistemology in Nineteenth Century Germany. Harvard University: unpublished dissertation.Google Scholar
Ashmore, Malcolm. 1989. The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, Leon. 1994. Critical Theory and the Sociology of Knowledge: A Comparative Study in the Theory of Ideology. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bannister, Robert C. 1987. Sociology and Scientism: The American Quest for Objectivity, 1880–1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, Barry 1974. Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Barnes, Barry. 1991. “How Not To Do the Sociology of Knowledge.” Annals of Scholarship 8:321–335.Google Scholar
Barnes, Barry. 1994. “How Not To Do the Sociology of Knowledge.”. In Rethinking Objectivity, edited by Megill, Allan, 21–35. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, S. B. and Dolby, R. G. A. 1970. “The Scientific Ethos: A deviant viewpoint.” European Journal of Sociology 11:3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Barry and David, Bloor. 1982. “Relativism, Rationalism and the Sociology of Knowledge.” In Rationality and Relativism, edited by Hollis, Martin and Lukes, Steven, 21–47. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Barnes, Barry, David, Bloor, and John, Henry 1996. Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
Beller, Mara 1992. “The Birth of Bohr's Complementarity: The Context and the Dialogues.”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23: 147–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrew, Benjamin, ed. 1989. The Problems of Modernity: Adorno and Benjamin. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Betanzos, Ramon J. 1988. “Wilhelm Dilthey: An Introduction.”. In Introduction to the Human Sciences by Wilhelm Dilthey, translated by Betanzos, R. J., 9–63. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Bloor, David. 1973. “Wittgenstein and Mannheim on the Sociology of Mathematics.”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 4:173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloor, David. [1976] 1991. Knowledge and Social Imagery. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bloor, David. 1982. “Durkheim and Mauss Revisited: Classification and the Sociology of Knowledge.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 13:267–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloor, David. 1983. Wittgenstein: A Social Theory of Knowledge. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloor, David. 1992. “Left and Right Wittgensteinians,” in Science as Practice and Culture, edited by Pickering, Andrew, 266–282. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bloor, David. 1996. “Idealism and the Sociology of Knowledge.” Social Studies of Science 26:839–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloor, David. 1997. “Remember the Strong Program?” Science, Technology, and Human Values 22:373–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulhof, Ilse. 1980. Wilhelm Dilthey: A Hermeneutic Approach to the Study of History and Culture. Boston: Marinus Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy, Cat, Jordi Fleck, K., and Uebel, T. 1996. Otto Neurath: Philosophy between Science and Politics. New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chartier, Roger. 1988. Cultural History: Between Practices and Representations. Translated by Cochrane, Lydia G.. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Harry M. 1983. “The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: Studies of Contemporary Science.” Annual Review of Sociology 9:265–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilthey, Wilhelm. [1883] 1988. Introduction to the Human Sciences: An Attempt to Lay a Foundation for the Study of Society and History. Translated and edited by Betanzos, Ramon J.. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Dolby, R. G. A. [1971] 1972. “The Sociology of Knowledge in Natural Science.” In Sociology of Science: Selected Readings, edited by Barnes, Barry, 309–320. Longon: Penguin. Originally published in Social Studies of Science 1 (1971): 3–21.Google Scholar
Ermarth, Michael. 1978. Wilhelm Dilthey: The Critique of Historical Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fine, Arthur. 1996. “Science Made Up: Constructivist Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.” In The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, edited by Galison, Peter and Stump, David J., 231–254. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 1998. “On the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge and its Philosophical Agenda.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 29:239–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisby, David. 1976. “Introduction to the English Translation.” In The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, edited by Adorno, Theodor and translated by Adey, Glyn and Frisby, David, ix–xliv. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Frisby, David. 1986. Fragments of Modernity: Theories of Modernity in the Work of Simmel, Kracauer and Benjamin. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gábor, Éva. 1975. “Karl Mannheim's Letters to Lukács, 1910–1916.” New Hungarian Quarterly 16:93–105.Google Scholar
Galison, Peter. 1990. “Aufbau/Bauhaus: Logical Positivism and Architectural Modernism.” Critical Inquiry 16:709–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galison, Peter. 1996. “Constructing Modernism: The Cultural Location of Aufbau.” In The Origins of Logical Empiricism, edited by Giere, R. N and Richardson, A. W, 17–44. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony. 1987. Social Theory and Modern Sociology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gluck, Mary. 1985. Georg Lukács and His Generation, 1900–1918. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Heims, Steven J. 1991. Constructing a Social Science for Postwar America: The Cybernetics Group, 1945–1953. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Herf, Jeffrey. 1984. Reactionary Modernism: Technology, Culture, and Politics in Weimar and the Third Reich. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Høffding, Harald. [1894] 1908. A History of Modern Philosophy, 2 volumes. Translated by Meyer, B. E.. London: Macmillan Publishing Company. Originally published in Danish in 1894.Google Scholar
Hollinger, David A. 1983. “The Defense of Democracy and Robert K. Merton's Formulation of the Scientific Ethos.” Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present 42:1–15.Google Scholar
Hollinger, David A. 1990. “Free Enterprise and Free Inquiry: The Emergence of Laissez-Faire Communitarianism in the Ideology of Science in the United States.” New Literary History 21:897–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollinger, David A. 1995. “Science as a Weapon in Kulturkämpfe in the United States during and after World War II.” Isis 86:440–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horkheimer, Max. [1930] 1993. “A New Concept of Ideology?,” translated and reprinted in Between Philosophy and Social Science: Selected Early Writings, edited by Hunter, G Frederick, Kramer, Matthew S., and Torpey, John, 129–149. Cambridge: MIT Press. Originally published in Archiv für die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung 15 (1930):33–56.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, Max and Theodor, Adorno. [1947] 1989. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Translated by Cumming, John. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Lynn, Hunt, ed. 1989. The New Cultural History. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Igger, Georg G. 1962. “The Image of Ranke in American and German Historical Thought.” History and Theory 2:17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jay, Martin. 1973. The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923–1950. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Jay, Martin. 1974. “The Frankfurt School's Critique of Karl Mannheim and the Sociology of Knowledge.” Telos 20 (Summer 1974):72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jay, Martin. 1984. Adorno. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jay, Martin. 1993. Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, David. 1992. “More Roots of Complementarity: Kantian Aspects and Influences.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23:213–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. [1787] 1929. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Smith, Norman Kemp. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Käsler, Dirk. [1979] 1988. Max Weber: An Introduction to his Life and Work. Translated by Hurd, Philippa. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kettler, David, Volker, Meja, and Nico, Stehr. 1984. Karl Mannheim. New York: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Kettler, David and Volker, Meja. 1995. Karl Mannheim and the Crisis of Liberalism: The Secret of These New Times. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Köhnke, Klaus C. [1986] 1991. The Rise of Neo-Kantianism: German Academic Philosophy between Idealism and Positivism. Translated by Hollingdale, R. J.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuklick, Henrika. 1983. “The Sociology of Knowledge: Retrospect and Prospect.” Annual Review of Sociology 9:287–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lears, T. J Jackson. 1981. No Place of Grace: Antimodernism and the Transformation of American Culture, 1880–1920. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Lears, T. J Jackson. 1993. “Sherwood Anderson: Looking for the White Spot,” in The Power of Culture: Critical Essays in American History, edited by Fox, Richard W. and Jackson, T. J. Jackson, 13–37. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Liebersohn, Harry. 1988. Fate and Utopia in German Sociology, 1870–1923. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Loader, Colin. 1985. The Intellectual Development of Karl Mannheim. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Longhurst, Brian. 1989. Karl Mannheim and the Contemporary Sociology of Knowledge. New York: St. Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukács, Georg. 1986. Georg Lukács:Selected Correspondence, 1902–1920. Edited and translated by Marcus, Judith and Zoltán Tar. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael. 1992. “Extending Wittgenstein: The Pivotal Move from Episte-mology to the Sociology of Science,” in Science as Practice and Culture, edited by Pickering, Andrew, 215–265. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael. 1993. Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Makkreel, Rudolf A. 1975. Dilthey: Philosopher of the Human Studies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mannheim, Karl. [1918, 1922] 1953. “Structural Analysis of Epistemology.” Translated and reprinted in Essays on Sociology and Social Psychology, edited by Kecskemeti, P, 15–73. New York: Oxford University Press. Originally published in Athenaeum 4 (1918):233–247, 315–330, and Kant-Studien 57 (1922).Google Scholar
Mannheim, Karl. [1920] 1971. “Review of Georg Lukács' Theory of the Novel.” Translated and reprinted in From Karl Mannheim, edited by Wolff, K. H, 3–7. New York: Oxford University Press. Originally published in Logos 9 (1920):298–302.Google Scholar
Mannheim, Karl. [1921/1922] 1952. “On the Interpretation of Weltanschauung.” Translated and reprinted in Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, edited by Kecskemeti, P, 33–83. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Originally published in Jahrbuch für Kuntsgeschichte 1 (1921/1922):226–274.Google Scholar
Mannheim, Karl. [1922] 1982. The Distinctive Character of Cultural Sociological Knowledge. Translated and reprinted in Structures of Thinking, edited by Kettler, David, Volker, Meja, and Nico, Stehr, 31–139. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Mannheim, Karl. [1924] 1952. “Historicism.” Translated and reprinted in Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, edited by Kecskemeti, P, 84–133. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Originally published in Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozial-politik 52 (1924):l–60.Google Scholar
Mannheim, Karl. [1925] 1971. “The Problem of a Sociology of Knowledge.” Translated and reprinted in From Karl Mannheim, edited by Wolff, K. H, 134–190. New York: Oxford University Press. Originally published in Archivfür Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 53 (1925):577–652.Google Scholar
Lears, T. J Jackson. 1993. “Sherwood Anderson: Looking for the White Spot,” in The Power of Culture: Critical Essays in American History, edited by Fox, Richard W. and Lears, T. J. Jackson, 13–37. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Liebersohn, Harry. 1988. Fate and Utopia in German Sociology, 1870–1923. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Loader, Colin. 1985. The Intellectual Development of Karl Mannheim. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Longhurst, Brian. 1989. Karl Mannheim and the Contemporary Sociology of Knowledge. New York: St. Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukács, Georg. 1986. Georg Lukács:Selected Correspondence, 1902–1920. Edited and translated by Marcus, Judith and Zoltán Tar. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael. 1992. “Extending Wittgenstein: The Pivotal Move from Episte-mology to the Sociology of Science,” in Science as Practice and Culture, edited by Pickering, Andrew, 215–265. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael. 1993. Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Makkreel, Rudolf A. 1975. Dilthey: Philosopher of the Human Studies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mannheim, Karl. [1918, 1922] 1953. “Structural Analysis of Epistemology.” Translated and reprinted in Essays on Sociology and Social Psychology, edited by Kecskemeti, P, 15–73. New York: Oxford University Press. Originally published in Athenaeum 4 (1918):233–247, 315–330, and Kant-Studien 57 (1922).Google Scholar
Mannheim, Karl. [1920] 1971. “Review of Georg Lukács' Theory of the Novel.” Translated and reprinted in From Karl Mannheim, edited by Wolff, K. H, 3–7. New York: Oxford University Press. Originally published in Logos 9 (1920):298–302.Google Scholar
Mannheim, Karl. [1921/1922] 1952. “On the Interpretation of Weltanschauung.” Translated and reprinted in Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, edited by Kecskemeti, P, 33–83. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Originally published in Jahrbuch für Kuntsgeschichte 1 (1921/1922):226–274.Google Scholar
Mannheim, Karl. [1922] 1982. The Distinctive Character of Cultural Sociological Knowledge. Translated and reprinted in Structures of Thinking, edited by Kettler, David, Volker, Meja, and Nico, Stehr, 31–139. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Mannheim, Karl. [1924] 1952. “Historicism.” Translated and reprinted in Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, edited by Kecskemeti, P, 84–133. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Originally published in Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozial-politik 52 (1924):l–60.Google Scholar
Mannheim, Karl. [1925] 1971. “The Problem of a Sociology of Knowledge.” Translated and reprinted in From Karl Mannheim, edited by Wolff, K. H, 134–190. New York: Oxford University Press. Originally published in Archivfür Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 53 (1925):577–652.Google Scholar
Marcus, George E. and Michael, M. J. Fischer. 1986. Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Volker, Meja and Stehr, Nico, eds. 1990. Knowledge and Politics: The Sociology of Knowledge Dispute. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, Everett. 1989. “Robert K. Merton: The Celebration and Defense of Science.” Science in Context 3:271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1936. “Civilization and Culture.” Sociology and Social Research 21:103–113.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1937. “The sociology of knowledge.“ Isis 27:493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K. [1938] 1973. “Science and the Social Order.” Reprinted in The Sociology of Science, edited by Storer, N. W, 254–266. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Originally published in Philosophy of Science 5:321–337. This essay was also reprinted in all three editions of Social Theory and Social Structure.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. [1941] 1957. “Karl Mannheim and the Sociology of Knowledge.” Reprinted in Social Theory and Social Structure, 489–508. New York: Free Press. Originally published in Journal of Liberal Religion 2: 125–147.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. [1942] 1973. “The Normative Structure of Science.” Reprinted in The Sociology of Science, edited by Storer, N. W, 267–278. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Originally published under the title “Science and Technology in a Democratic Order” in Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1:115–126. This essay was also reprinted under the title “Science and Democratic Social Structure” in all three editions of Social Theory and Social Structure.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. [1945] 1973. “Paradigm for the Sociology of Knowledge.” Reprinted in The Sociology of Science, edited by Storer, N. W, 7–40. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Originally published under the title “The Sociology of Knowledge” Twentieth-Century Sociology, edited by Georges Gurvitch and Wilbert E. Moore, 366–405. New York: Philosophical Library. This essay was also reprinted in all three editions of Social Theory and Social Structure.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. [1949; 1957] 1968. Social Theory and Social Sfrwctare. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. [1957] 1973. “Priorities in Scientific Discovery.” Reprinted in The Sociology of Science, edited by Storer, N. W, 286–324. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Originally published in American Sociological Review 22 (1957): 635–659.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. [1970] 1973. “Social and Cultural Contexts of Science.” Reprinted in The Sociology of Science, edited by Storer, N. W, 173–190. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Originally published under the title “Preface: 1970” in Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth-Century England, vii–xxix 2nd Ed. New York: Howard Fertig, Inc.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1973. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Edited and with an introduction by Storer, Norman W.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Neurath, Otto. 1973. Empiricism and Sociology. Edited by Neurath, Marie and Cohen, Robert S. and translated by Foulkes, Paul and Neurath, Marie. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novick, Peter. 1988. That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historical Profession. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakes, Guy. 1988. Weber and Rickert: Concept Formation in the Cultural Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pels, Dick. 1993. “Missionary Sociology between Left and Right: A Critical Introduction to Mannheim.” Theory, Culture & Society 10:45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pels, Dick. 1996. “Karl Mannheim and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: Toward a New Agenda.” Sociological Theory 14:30–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proctor, Robert N. 1991. “Value-Free Science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Remling, Gunter W. 1975. The Sociology of Karl Mannheim. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Rice, Stuart A., ed. 1931. Methods in Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rickert, Heinrich. [1902] 1986. The Limits of Concept Formation in the Natural Sciences. Translated and edited by Oakes, Guy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ringer, Fritz K. [1969] 1990. The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890–1933.2nd Ed. Hanover: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
Ringer, Fritz K. 1993. “The Origins of Mannheim's Sociology of Knowledge,” in The Social Dimensions of Science, edited by McMullin, Ernan, 47–67. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Ross, Dorothy. 1991. The Origins of American Social Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ringer, Fritz K. 1994. “Modernist Social Science in the Land of the New/Old.” In Modernist Impulses in the Human Sciences, 1870–1930, edited by Ross, Dorothy, 171–189. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Rossi, Pietro. 1975. “The Ideological Valences of Twentieth-Century Historicism,” in Essays on Historicism: History and Theory 14:15–29. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Sárközi, M. 1986. “The Influence of Georg Lukács on the Young Karl Mannheim in the Light of a Newly Discovered Diary.” The Slavonic and East European Review 64:432–439.Google Scholar
Scheler, Max. [1926] 1980. Problems of a Sociology of Knowledge. Translated by Frings, Manfred S.. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Schmaus, Warren. 1994. Durkheim's Philosophy of Science and the Sociology of Knowledge: Creating an Intellectual Niche. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shapin, Steven. 1995. “Here and Everywhere: Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.” Annual Review of Sociology 21:289–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shils, Edward. 1970. “Tradition, Ecology, and Institution in the History of Sociology.” Daedalus 99:760–825.Google Scholar
Sica, Alan. 1988. Weber, Irrationality, and Social Order. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sorell, Tom. 1991. Scientism: Philosophy and the Infatuation with Science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stikkers, Kenneth W. 1980. “Introduction.” In Problems of a Sociology of Knowledge, by Max Scheler, translated by Frings, M. S., 1–30. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Storer, Norman W. 1973. “Introduction.” In The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, by Robert K. Merton, edited by Storer, N. W, 11–31. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Theweleit, Klaus. [1978] 1989. Male Fantasies. 2 volumes. Translated by Carter, Erica and Turner, Chris. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Tönnies, Ferdinand. [1887] 1920. Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundbegreiffe der reinen Soziologie. 3rd Ed. Berlin: K. Curtius.Google Scholar
Uebel, Thomas E., ed. 1991. Rediscovering the Forgotten Vienna Circle: Austrian Studies on Otto Neurath and the Vienna Circle. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, Andrew. 1992. “Cambridge Mathematics and Cavendish Physics: Cunningham, Campbell, and Einstein's Relativity, 1905–1911. Part I: The Uses of Theory.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23:625–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, Andrew. 1993. “Cambridge Mathematics and Cavendish Physics: Cunningham, Campbell, and Einstein's Relativity, 1905–1911. Part II: Comparing Traditions in Cambridge Physics.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 24:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max. [1904] 1949. “xObjectivity” In Social Science and Social Policy.” In Methodology of the Social Sciences, translated and edited by Shills, Edward A. and Finch, Henry A., 49–112. New York: Free Press. Originally published in Archivfür Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 19 (1904):22–87.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. [1917] 1949. “The Meaning of‘Ethical Neutrality’in Sociology and Economics.” In The Methodology of the Social Sciences, translated and edited by Shils, Edward A. and Finch, Henry A., 1–48. New York: Free Press. Originally published in Logos 7 (1917):40–88.Google Scholar
Windelband, Wilhelm. [1894] 1980. “History and Natural Science.” Translated by Oakes, Guy. History and Theory 19:165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wirth, Otto. 1937. Wilhelm Scherer, Josef Nadler, and Wilhelm Dilthey as Literary Historians. Chicago: University of Chicago Libraries, private edition.Google Scholar
Wohl, Robert. 1979. The Generation of 1914. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Woldring, Henk E. S. 1986. Karl Mannheim: The Development of His Thought. New York: St. Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar