Sociological Perspectives

An examination of Emile Durkheim as a theorist is undertaken, with an emphasis on his formulation of abstract theoretical principles. Operating from the assumption that Durkheim formulated some of sociology's basic laws of human organization, his abstract principles are summarized with respect to system differentiation, system integration, and system disintegration. Most of these principles are seen to come from Durkheim's The Division of Labor in Society and Suicide. Other works, while intellectually important, are not viewed as theoretically significant as these.

The purpose of this essay is to facilitate an understanding of Durkheim's conception of social change. While the issue of social change is present in Durkheim's thought, it is ancillary to his concern with the relationship between the individual and society. It is suggested that Durkheim's conception of social change can be understood properly only by viewing it as part of his larger sociological concern with the changing relationship between individuals and society. Special attention is focused on the much neglected issue of Durkheim's conception and use of reason, which is pivotal to the linkage between individuals and society. It will be demonstrated that, from Durkheim's perspective, change in the social structures through which individuals associate affects the faculty of reason and the formation of “collective consciousness,” and thus the moral and normative regulation of social action.

There are a large number of similarities between Mead's social behaviorism and the modern behaviorism of Skinner, Bandura, and others. There are two main differences between the two schools, but the differences are not great and are for the most part overshadowed by the similarities. The evaluation of the similarities and differences presented here should help clarify the relationship between these two schools that share many important features and help establish contact between them. Efforts to increase contact between these two behavioral traditions promise to stimulate the growth and refinement of important sociological ideas.

Aligned with the tradition of Western Marxism, the work of Alvin Gouldner animates a concern with the political implications of social scientific research. The Western Marxian theme of theory and praxis finds its fullest elaboration in his most recent work. This same theme also provides the theoretical impetus to Gouldner's early industrial organization studies—Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy and Wildcat Strike. Vital to Gouldner's work is the notion that sociology must concern itself not only with what is but also with what human society might be. Gouldner's message is clear: The project of a critical social science cannot stop at mere “negativity.” Rather, it must incorporate the insights of empirical sociology. An examination of his earliest work on organizations and bureaucracy shows that Gouldner has superbly woven these two traditions together and significantly advanced the progress toward developing an adequate critical sociology. In order to demonstrate Gouldner's intellectual lineage with Western Marxism, some translation is necessary. One of the goals of this analysis is to show that the tradition of empirical social science is translatable into the dialectical tradition of social analysis. Gouldner's empirical studies share the same “cognitive interests”—although guided by a different style and method of investigation— with Western Marxism. These insights are offered in his empirical analyses of the recurrent dilemmas of power, leadership, organization, and the fate of democratic aspirations in the modern world. Gouldner's work stands as a significant attempt by an American sociologist to rethink the central issues confronting sociology and Marxism.

In recent years state and local governments have relied increasingly on a silent partner—the contract consultant—who is neither accountable nor responsive to democratic control. After discussing the rise in government consulting, this article suggests that the hiring of consultants is frequently motivated by a hidden agenda: The quest for legitimacy. On the basis of brief case histories of contract consulting, we argue that legitimacy comes as much from the consultancy process as from the substance of an expert's final report or specific recommendations. Using three additional cases, we indicate that reliance on the consultancy process can give rise to the increased effectiveness of “counter-consultants” that insurgent organizations may use to combat corporate or governmental adversaries.