The American Sociologist

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 40–58 | Cite as

Sociologists of the unexpected: Edward A. Ross and Georg Sinimel on the unintended consequences of modernity

Abstract

The modern increase in opportunities for social activities also brings with it unintended side effects posed by the liberating potential and the acceleration of modern life. In this paper it is argued that the views reflected in Georg Simmel’s formal approach and in American sociologist Edward A. Ross’ reformative sociology are (1) complementary and (2) offer fresh insights for our current sociological understanding of unexpected consequences in contemporary “high modernity” or knowledge societies. A long forgotten nexus between the ideas of Simmel’s and the work of Ross will be reviewed in order to point out affinities between the two authors’ takes on the unintended and sometimes tragic moments in modern culture and their relevance for sociology today. Based on these discussions a fundamental mode for framing the unexpected in modern society as a recursively-linked component to the intended is illustrated.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, Henry. 1918. The Education of Henry Adams: An Autobiography. Boston: Houghton & Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  2. Bauer, Isadora. 1962. Die Tragik in der Existenz des modernen Menschen bei G Simmel. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, Ulrich. 1997. The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking Modernity in the Global Social Order. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, Ulrich; Bonss, Wolfgang and Christoph Lau. 2003. “The Theory of Reflexive Modernization: Problematic, Hypotheses and Research Programme.” Theory, Culture, & Society 20 (2): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell, Daniel. 1973. The Coming of Post-industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  6. Bökhme, Gernot and Nico Stehr. 1986. The Knowledge Society: The Growing Impact of Scientific Knowledge on Social Relations. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  7. Catton, William R., Jr. 2002. “Has the Durkheim Legacy Misled Sociology?” Pp. 90–115 in Dunlap, Riley E.; Büttel, Frederick H.; Dickens, Peter and August Gijswit (eds.), Sociological Theory and the Environment. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  8. Coser, Lewis A. 1977 [1971]. Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  9. —. 1982. “The Notion of Control in Sociological Theory.” Pp. 13–22 in Gibbs, Jack P. (ed.), Social Control: Views from the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Deflem, Mathieu. 2003. “The Sociology of the Sociology of Money: Simmel and the Contemporary Battle of the Classics.” Journal of Classical Sociology 3 (1): 67–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drucker, Peter F. 1969. The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to Our Changing Society. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  12. Durkheim, Emile. 1933 [1893]. The Division of Labor in Society. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fuhrman, Ellsworth R. 1980. The Sociology of Knowledge in America: 1883-1915. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
  14. Gassen, Kurt and Michael Landmann. 1958. Buch des Dankes an Georg Simmel: Briefe, Erinnerungen, Bibliographie; zu seinem 100. Geburtstag am 1. März 1958. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  15. Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. —. 1999. Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping Our Lives. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
  17. Gross, Matthias. 2001 a. Die Natur der Gesellschaft: Eine Geschichte der Umweltsoziologie. Weinheim, Germany: Juventa Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. —. 2001b. “Urban Nature, Modern Society, and the Marginal Man: Robert E. Park and Georg Simmel in Discussion.” Simmel Studies 11 (2): 235–253.Google Scholar
  19. —. 2002. “When Ecology and Sociology Meet: The Contributions of Edward A. Ross.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 38 (1): 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. —. 2003. Inventing Nature: Ecological Restoration by Public Experiments. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  21. Guggenheim, Michael and Helga Nowotny. 2003. “Joy in Repetition Makes the Future Disappear. A Critical Assessment of the Present State of STS.” Pp. 229–258 in Joerges, Bernward and Helga Nowotny (eds.), Social Studies of Science & Technology: Looking Back, Ahead. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. Ihde, Don and Evan Selinger. 2003. Chasing Technoscience: Matrix for Materiality. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jaworski, Gary D. 1997. Georg Simmel and the American Prospect. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  24. Köhnke, Klaus Christian. 1996. Der junge Simmel in Theoriebeziehungen und sozialen Bewegungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  25. Krohn, Wolfgang. 2001. “Knowledge Societies.” Pp. 8139–8143 in Smelser, Neil J. and Paul B. Baltes (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Krohn, Wolfgang and Johannes Weyer. 1994. “Society as a Laboratory: The Social Risks of Experimental Research,” Science and Public Policy 21 (3): 173–183.Google Scholar
  27. Krohn, Wolfgang and Wolfgang van den Daele. 1998. “Science as an Agent of Change: Finalization and Experimental Implementation.” Social Science Information 37 (1): 191–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lane, Robert E. 1966. “The Decline of Politics and Ideology in a Knowledgeable Society.” American Sociological Review 31(5): 649–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leek, Ralph M. 2000. Georg Simmel and Avant-garde Sociology: The Birth of Modernity, 1880-1920. Amherst, N.Y.: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
  30. Levine, Donald N. 1988. The Flight from Ambiguity: Essays in Social and Cultural Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. —. 2000. “On the Critique of’Utilitarian’ Theories of Action: Newly Identified Convergences among Simmel, Weber, and Parsons.” Theory, Culture, & Society 17 (1): 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levine, Donald N.; Carter, Ellwood B. and Eleanor M. Gorman. 1976. “Simmel’s Influence on American Sociology-pt. I and II.” American Journal of Sociology 81 (4/5): 813–845; 1112-1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lichtblau, Klaus. 1984. “Das ’Pathos der Distanz’-Präliminarien zur Nietzsche-Rezeption bei Georg Simmel. ” Pp. 231–281 in Dahme, Heinz-Jürgen and Otthein Rammstedt (eds.), Georg Simmel und die Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  34. Lopata, Helena Z. 1976. “Expertization of Everyone and the Revolt of the Client.” The Sociological Quarterly 17 (4): 435–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Machlup, Fritz. 1962. The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. McMahon, Sean H. 1999. Social Control and Public Intellect: The Legacy of Edward A. Ross. New York: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  37. Merton, Robert K. 1936. “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action.” American Sociological Review 1 (6): 894–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. —. 1968 [1949]. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  39. Mulkay, Michael J. 1979. Science and the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  40. Nichols, Lawrence T. 1996. “Intergenerational Solidarity in the Creation of Science: The Ross-Sorokin Correspondence, 1921-1931.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 32 (2): 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. —. 1997. “Sociological Paradigms and Civilizational Studies: Complementary Contributions of E. A. Ross and P. A. Sorokin.” Comparative Civilizations Review 36 (1): 16–37.Google Scholar
  42. —. 2001. “Parsons and Simmel at Harvard: Scientific Paradigms and Organizational Culture.” Pp. 1–28 in Trevino, A. Javier (ed.), Talcott Parsons Today: His Theory and Legacy in Contemporary Sociology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  43. Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1993 [1872]. The Birth of Tragedy Out of the Spirit of Music. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  44. Nowotny, Helga; Scott, Peter und Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  45. Papilloud, Christian. 2003. La Réciprocité. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  46. Park, Robert E. 1940. “News as a Form of Knowledge: A Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge.” American Journal of Sociology 45 (5): 669–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Portes, Alejandro. 2000. “The Hidden Abode: Sociology as Analysis of the Unexpected.” American Sociological Review 65 (1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Price, Derek J. de Solla. 1961. Science since Babylon. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Ross, Edward A. 1916 [1901]. Social Control: A Survey of the Foundations of Order. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  50. —. 1901. “The Causes of Race Superiority.” Annals of “the American Academy of Political and Social Science 18 (1): 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. —. 1905. Foundations of Sociology. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  52. —. 1909. “Review of Georg Simmel’s Soziologie.” Philosophical Review 18 (6): 672–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. —. 1929 [1909]. Social Psychology: An Outline and Source Book. NewYork: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  54. —. 1911. “Sociological Observations in Inner China.” American journal of Sociology 17 (6): 721–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. —. 1918. “Social Decadence.” American Journal of Sociology 23 (5): 620–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. —. 1920. The Principles of Sociology. New York: The Century Co.Google Scholar
  57. —. 1926. “The Population Boosters.” Journal of ’Applied Sociology 9: 403–409.Google Scholar
  58. —. 1927a. “The Man-Stifled Orient.” Century 114: 275–280.Google Scholar
  59. —. 1927b. Standing Room Only? New York: The Century Co.Google Scholar
  60. —. 1934. “The Population Pyramid.” Pp. 134–140 in McKenzie, Roderick D. (ed.), Readings in Human Ecology (pp. 134-140). Ann Arbor, Michigan: George Wahr.Google Scholar
  61. —. 1936. Seventy Years of it: An Autobiography. New York: The Century Co.Google Scholar
  62. Simmel, Georg. 1989 [1890]. Über Sociale Differenzierung (Gesamtausgabe 2). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  63. —. 1895. “The Problem of Sociology.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 6 (3): 412–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. —. 1897/1898. “The Persistence of Social Groups I — III,” American Journal of Sociology 3 (5): 662–698; 3 (6): 829-836; 4(1): 35-50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. —. 1900. Philosophie des Geldes. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  66. —. 1903. “Die Großstädte und das Geistesleben,“ Jahrbuch der Gehestiftung 9: 187–206.Google Scholar
  67. —. 1912 [1906]. Die Religion. Frankfurt am Main: Rütten & Loening.Google Scholar
  68. —. 1907. Schopenhauer und Nietzsche: Ein Vortragszyklus. München und Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  69. —. 1992 [1908]. Soziologie: Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  70. —. 1909. “Die Zukunft unserer Kultur: Stimmen über Kulturtendenzen und Kulturpolitik,” Frankfurter Zeitung, 1. Morgenblatt (hf A 14): 2–3.Google Scholar
  71. —. 1910. “Note on the Problem: How is Society Possible?” American Journal of Sociology 16 (5): 372–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. —. 1998 [1911]. Philosophische Kultur. Gesammelte Essais. Berlin: Wagenbach.Google Scholar
  73. —. 1918. Der Konflikt der Kultur. Ein Vortrag. München und Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  74. —. 1993. Das Individuum und die Freiheit. Essais. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.Google Scholar
  75. Sorokin, Pitirim A. 1941. The Crisis of our Age: The Social and Cultural Outlook. NewYork: Dutton.Google Scholar
  76. Spellman, William E. 1979. “The Economics of Edward Alsworth Ross,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 38 (2): 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stehr, Nico. 1994. Knowledge Societies: The Transformation of Labor, Property, and Knowledge in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  78. Tanner, Laurel N. and Daniel Tanner. 1987. “Environmentalism in American Pedagogy: The Legacy of Lester Ward,” Teachers College Records (4): 537-547.Google Scholar
  79. Vidich, Arthur J. and Stanford M. Lyman. 1985. American Sociology: Worldly Rejections of Religion and their Directions. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Ward, Lester F. 1903. Pure Sociology: A Treatise on the Origin and Spontaneous Development of Society. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  81. Weigert, Andrew J. 1997. Self Interaction, and Natural Environment: Refocusing our Eyesight. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  82. Weinberg, Julius. 1972. Edward Alsworth Ross and the Sociology ofProgressivism. Madison: The State Historical Society of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  83. Wildavsky, Aaron. 1995. But Is It True? A Citizen’s Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Wolff, Kurt H. 2003. What it Contains. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  85. Woolgar, Steve. 1983. “Irony in the Social Sciences.” Pp. 239–266 in Knorr Cetina, Karin and Michael Mulkay (eds.), Science Observed: Perspectives in the Social Study of Science. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  86. Znaniecki, Florian. 1940. The Social Role of the Man of Knowledge. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bielefeld UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Science and Technology Studies (IWT), Department of SociologyBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations