Alienation as a Concept in the Social Sciences

  • Peter C. Ludz


‘Alienation’ and alienated have become words of our everyday language. When someone states: ‘Alienation is a major problem in the city’ or speaks of our ‘alienated society’, he is immediately understood. This sort of common understanding of alienation first developed in recent times, after the term had gained a central position in the social sciences, especially in sociology, political science, psychology and philosophy.1


American Sociological Review Work Alienation Sociological Tradition Political Alienation Contemporary Social Science 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. Nisbet, The Quest for Community (New York: Oxford Univ. Pr., 1953), p. 15Google Scholar
  2. 1a.
    W. Kaufmann, ‘The Inevitability of Alienation’, Introduction to R. Schacht, Alienation (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970), p. XV]Google Scholar
  3. 1b.
    D. Bell, ‘The “Rediscovery” of Alienation: Some Notes Along the Quest for the Historical Marx,’ The Journal of Philosophy 56 (Nov., 1959), p. 950.Google Scholar
  4. 1c.
    See further C. Bonjean et al., Sociological Measurement (San Francisco: Chandler, 1967), who contribute the findings of a content analysis of four major sociological journals to support this statement.Google Scholar
  5. 2.
    Kaufmann, p. XIII.Google Scholar
  6. 3.
    The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. P. Edwards (New York: Macmillan and Free Press, 1967ff,), vol. 1, p. 76.Google Scholar
  7. 4.
    P. Naville, ‘De l’idée d’aliénation à l’analyse du monde moderne,’ Etudes (Bruxelles), 1962, no. 1, pp. 58–63Google Scholar
  8. 4a.
    P. Naville, ‘Aliénation et exploitation,’ Cahiers d’Etude des Sociétés Industrielles et de l’Automation 6 (1964), pp. 161–164.Google Scholar
  9. 5.
    W. Kaufmann, ‘On Alienation,’ Inquiry 8 (Summer, 1965), pp. 141–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 6.
    Thesaurus linguae latinae, editus auctoritate et Consilio Academiarum quinque Germanicarum (Leipzig: Teubner, 1900ff.), vol. 1, cols. 1558–1560.Google Scholar
  11. 7.
    The Oxford English Dictionary, eds. J. A. H. Murray et al. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1933), vol. 1, p. 219.Google Scholar
  12. 7a.
    P. Larousse, Grand dictionnaire universel du 19e siècle (Paris, 1865), vol. 1, p. 203.Google Scholar
  13. 8.
    See, however, P. C. Ludz, ‘Entfremdung,’ Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, eds. H. Conze and R. Koselleck (Stuttgart: Klett, 1972ff.), supp. vol., forthcoming.Google Scholar
  14. 9.
    R. K. Merton, ‘Anomie, Anomia, and Social Interaction,’ Anomie and Deviant Behavior, ed. M. B. Clinard (London: The Free Press and Macmillan, 1964), pp. 227ff.Google Scholar
  15. 10.
    G. Nettler, ‘A Measure of Alienation,’ American Sociological Review 22 (December, 1957), pp. 670–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 11.
    L. Srole, ‘Social Integration and Certain Corollaries: An Exploratory Study,’ American Sociological Review 21 (December, 1956), pp. 709–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 12.
    For an exception to this rule cf. H. McClosky and J. H. Schaar, ‘Psychological Dimensions of Anomy,’ American Sociological Review 30 (February, 1965), pp. 14–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 13.
    Nettler, ‘A Measure...’ (loc.cit., n. 10), p. 672.Google Scholar
  19. 14.
    J. Horton, ‘The Dehumanization of Anomie and Alienation,’ British Journal of Sociology 15 (December, 1964), p. 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 15.
    M. Rosner, ‘Aliénation, fétichisme, anomie,’ Lhomme et la société, no. 11 (Jan.-March, 1969), p. 94.Google Scholar
  21. 16.
    Horton, ‘The Dehumanization...’ (loc.cit., n. 14), p. 289Google Scholar
  22. 16a.
    J. E. Horton and W. E. Thompson, ‘Powerlessness and Political Negativism,’ American Journal of Sociology 67 (March, 1962), p. 486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 17.
    Merton, ‘Anomie, Anomia,...’ (loc.cit., n. 9), p. 217.Google Scholar
  24. 18.
    M. Seeman, ‘On the Meaning of Alienation,’ American Sociological Review 24 (December, 1959), pp. 783–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 19.
    M. A. Faia, ‘Alienation, Structural Strain, and Political Deviancy: A Test of Merton’s Hypothesis,’ Social Problems 14 (Spring, 1967), pp. 389–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 20.
    R. A. Cloward and L. E. Ohlin, Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1960).Google Scholar
  27. 21.
    The same is true for the Russian term otchuzdhenie, cf. Filosofskaja entsiklopedija, ed. Institut filosofii akademii nauk SSSR (Moscow, 1967), esp. p. 191.Google Scholar
  28. 22.
    In strictly Marxist interpretations resp. in works stressing a critical (dialectical) approach such analytical separation of dimensions in Marx is not tolerated. Instead when reference is made to Marx’s theory of alienation, all three dimensions are discussed simultaneously. See for example, B. Oilman, Alienation: Marx’s Conception of Man in Capitalist Society (London etc.: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1971)Google Scholar
  29. 22a.
    I. Mészáros, Marx’s Theory of Alienation (London: Merlin, 1970).Google Scholar
  30. 23.
    K. Marx, Early Writings, transl. and ed. T. B. Bottomore (London: Watts, 1963), p. 209.Google Scholar
  31. 24.
    See his essay ‘Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat’ (Die Verding-lichung und das Bewusstsein des Proletariats, 1923) in his History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics, transl. R. Livingstone (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1971), pp. 83ff.Google Scholar
  32. 25.
    E. Bloch, Das Prinzip Hoffnung, vol. 1 (Berlin: Aufbau Verlag, 1954), esp. part II: ‘Das antizipierende Bewusstsein’ (pp. 57 ff.).Google Scholar
  33. 26.
    Oilman, Alienation ... (loc.cit., n. 22), p. 234.Google Scholar
  34. 27.
    S. Jenkner, Arbeitsteilung und allseitige Entwicklung des Menschen im Werk von Karl Marx (Diss, rer.pol., Göttingen, 1965), p. 206.Google Scholar
  35. 28.
    K. Marx, Frühe Schriften, eds. H.-J. Lieber and P. Furth (Stuttgart: Cotta, 1962), pp. 560ff.; English translation: Marx, Early Writings (loc.cit., n. 23), pp. 124ff. -This is the only place in Marx’s work where he deals with alienation in a systematic way.Google Scholar
  36. 29.
    Schacht, Alienation (loc.cit., n. 1). p. 112.Google Scholar
  37. 30.
    R. Blauner, ‘Work Satisfaction and Industrial Trends in Modern Society,’ Labor and Trade Unionism: An Interdisciplinary Reader, eds. W. Galenson and S. M. Lipset (New York: Wiley, 1960), pp. 339.Google Scholar
  38. 31.
    K. Marx and F. Engels, Werke, ed. Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED, vol. 19 (Berlin: Dietz, 1962), pp. 230–237.Google Scholar
  39. 32.
    E. Fromm, The Sane Society (New York: Holt, Winston & Rinehart, 1955), p. 120.Google Scholar
  40. 33.
    Fromm, p. 360.Google Scholar
  41. 34.
    See his introduction to Socialist Humanism: An International Symposium, ed. E. Fromm (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966), p. IX.Google Scholar
  42. 35.
    K. Keniston, ‘The Psychology of Alienated Students,’ The Self in Social Interaction, eds. C. Gordon and K. J. Gergen, vol. 1 (New York: Wiley, 1968), p. 405.Google Scholar
  43. 36.
    Freud did not use the term alienation in his scientific work. See, however, his letter to Romain Rolland, January 1936 (in: S. Freud, Gesammelte Werke, vol. 16, eds. A. Freud et al. (London: Imago Pubi., 1950), p. 254). In the discussion of alienation, however, comparisons are constantly made between the works of Freud and Marx. L. S. Feuer, for example, sees Marx and Engels as ‘Freudian forerunners’ and describes their view of alienation as a ‘romantic concept’ with ‘a preponderantly sexual connotation.’ L. S. Feuer, ‘What is Alienation? The Career of a Concept,’ reprinted in L. S. Feuer, Marx and the Intellectuals: A Set of Post-Ideological Essays (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1969), p. 76.Google Scholar
  44. 37.
    H. Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man (Boston: Beacon, 1964), p. 11.Google Scholar
  45. 38.
    J. Habermas, ‘Zwischen Philosophie und Wissenschaft: Marxismus als Kritik,’ in J. Habermas, Theorie und Praxis (Neuwied-Berlin: Luchterhand, 1963), p. 163.Google Scholar
  46. 39.
    Authors who apply the concept of reification by distinguishing it from that of alienation (e.g., L. Goldmann in his Recherches dialectiques (Paris: Gallimard, 1959), pp. 64ff.) rely not only on Hegel and Marx but also on Georg Lukács, especially on his work History and Class Consciousness (loc.cit., n. 24).Google Scholar
  47. 39a.
    M. Rosner, ‘Aliénation, fétichisme, anomie,’ L’Homme et la société 11 (Jan.-March, 1969), pp. 81–107Google Scholar
  48. 39b.
    and for an elucidation of the term reification within the realm of the sociology of knowledge P. L. Berger and S. Pullberg, ‘Reification and the Sociological Critique of Consciousness,’ History and Theory 4 (1965), no. 2, pp. 196–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 40.
    See for example, G. Novack, ‘Alienation,’ International Socialist Review 20 (Fall, 1959), pp. 107–119Google Scholar
  50. 40a.
    C. Taylor, ‘Alienation and Community,’ University and Left Review 2 (Autumn, 1958), pp. 11–18Google Scholar
  51. 40b.
    G. C. Le Roy, ‘The Concept of Alienation: An Attempt at a Definition,’ Marxism and Alienation: A Symposium, ed. H. Aptheker (New York: Humanities Press, 1965), pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
  52. 41.
    T. I. Oisermann, Die Entfremdung als historische Kategorie (Berlin: Dietz, 1965)Google Scholar
  53. 41a.
    see, however, for interesting nuances T. I. Oizerman, ‘Man and his Alienation,’ Philosophy, Science and Man (Moscow: U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, 1973), pp. 99–107.Google Scholar
  54. 42.
    E. Kamenka, Marxism and Ethics (London; Macmillan; New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1969), p. 30Google Scholar
  55. 42a.
    R. Supek, Sociologia i socijalizam: Eseji (Zagreb: Znanje, 1966)Google Scholar
  56. 42b.
    L. S. Feuer, ‘What is Alienation? ...’ (loc.cit., n. 36).Google Scholar
  57. 43.
    For the critique of bureaucracies see, for example, L. Tadic, ‘La bureaucratie, organisation réifiée,’ Praxis. Edition Internationale 4 (1968), no. 1–2, pp. 133–143Google Scholar
  58. 43a.
    for the critique of oligarchic political tendencies S. Stojanovic, ‘Social Self-Government and Socialist Community,’ Praxis. Edition Internationale 4 (1968), no. 1–2, pp. 104–116.Google Scholar
  59. 44.
    Quotations from E. Durkheim, Suicide, transl. J. A. Spaulding and G. Simpson (New York: Free Press, 1951), pp. 246–254.Google Scholar
  60. 45.
    Both printed in his Social Theory and Social Structure, rev. and enl. ed. (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1957), pp. 131–194.Google Scholar
  61. 46.
    Merton, ‘Anomie, Anomia ...’ (loc.cit., n. 9), pp. 215f.Google Scholar
  62. 47.
    Merton, Social Theory ... (loc.cit., n. 45), p. 162.Google Scholar
  63. 48.
    Supportive: Srole, ‘Social Integration ...’ (loc.cit., n. 11)Google Scholar
  64. 48a.
    W. Bell, ‘Anomie, Social Isolation, and the Class Structure,’ Sociometry 20 (June, 1957), pp. 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 48b.
    Questioning: A. H. Roberts and M. Rokeach, ‘Anomie, Authoritarianism and Prejudice: A Replication,’ American Journal of Sociology 61 (January, 1956), pp. 355–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 48c.
    E. H. Mizruchi, ‘Aspiration and Poverty: A Neglected Aspect of Merton’s Anomie,’ Sociological Quarterly 8 (Autumn, 1967), pp. 439–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 48d.
    Cf. further L. Rhodes, ‘Anomia, Aspiration, and Status,’ Social Forces 42 (May, 1964), pp. 434–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 49.
    R. Aron, Progress and Disillusion: The Dialectics of Modern Society (London: Pall Mall Press, 1968), p. 152.Google Scholar
  69. 50.
    Schacht, Alienation (loc.cit., n. 1), p. LIX.Google Scholar
  70. 51.
    See the enumeration in D. G. Dean, ‘Alienation and Political Apathy,’ Social Forces 38 (March, 1960), pp. 185ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 52.
    See his study The Sociological Tradition (New York: Basic Books, 1966).Google Scholar
  72. 53.
    A. Fischer in his introduction to Die Entfremdung des Menschen in einer heilen Gesell-schaft: Materialien zur Adaption und Denunziation eines Begriffs (München: Juventa Verlag, 1970), pp. 13ff.Google Scholar
  73. 54.
    Kaufmann, ‘The Inevitability of Alienation,’ (loc.cit., n. 1), p. XLV.Google Scholar
  74. 55.
    J. Schaar, Escape from Authority (New York: Basic Books, 1961), p. 174.Google Scholar
  75. 56.
    W. Gehlen, Der Mensch, 6th pr. (Bonn: Athenäum, 1958), pp. 65ff.Google Scholar
  76. 56a.
    W. Gehlen, Urmensch und Spätkultur, 2nd ed. (Frankfurt and Bonn: Athenäum, 1964), pp. 42ff. In this connection reference should also be made to the positive evaluation of the stranger or the alien.Google Scholar
  77. 56b.
    H. Cohen, for instance, stated, ‘In the alien... man discovered the idea of humanity’ (here quoted from the Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago etc.: W. Benton), vol. 1, 1963, p. 632).Google Scholar
  78. 56.
    From the vast literature on the stranger or alien cf. two classics: R. Michels, ‘Materialien zu einer Soziologie des Fremden,’ Jahrbuch für Soziologie, ed. G. Salomon, vol. 1, 1925Google Scholar
  79. 56a.
    A. Schutz, The Stranger’ (1944), in his Collected Papers, ed. A. Broderson (The Hague: M. Nijhoff), vol. 2, 1964, pp. 91–105.Google Scholar
  80. 57.
    See, for example, Disputation zwischen Christen und Marxisten, ed. M. Stöhr (München: Kaiser, 1966).Google Scholar
  81. 58.
    Fischer, Die Entfremdung des Menschen ... (loc.cit., n. 53), p. 83.Google Scholar
  82. 59.
    J. Horton, ‘The Dehumanisation ...’ (loc.cit., n. 14), p. 295.Google Scholar
  83. 60.
    For the general critique by critical social theorists cf., for instance, T. W. Adorno et al., Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie (Neuwied-Berlin: Luchter-hand, 1969)Google Scholar
  84. 60a.
    cf. also Seeman’s extensive debate with these critics, M. Seeman, ‘Alienation and Engagement,’ The Human Meaning of Social Change, eds. A. Campbell and P. E. Converse (New York: Russel Sage, 1972), pp. 505ff.Google Scholar
  85. 61.
    Seeman, ‘On the Meaning ...’ (loc.cit., n. 18), p. 783.Google Scholar
  86. 62.
    Seeman, ‘Alienation and Engagement’ (loc.cit., n. 60), p. 472.Google Scholar
  87. 63.
    Seeman, ‘On the Meaning ...’, p. 791.Google Scholar
  88. 64.
    Quotations in the following are taken either from the earlier essay of 1959 (‘On the Meaning ...’) or from the 1972 article (‘Alienation and Engagement’), in which Seeman sketches a summary of his views.Google Scholar
  89. 65.
    See the early comments by C. J. Browning et al., American Sociological Review 26 (October, 1961), pp. 780ff.Google Scholar
  90. 65a.
    further, among others, J. C. Mouledous and E. C. Mouledous, ‘Criticisms of the Concept of Alienation,’ American Journal of Sociology 70 (July, 1964), pp. 78–82Google Scholar
  91. 65b.
    also the lengthy discussion of Seeman’s views and critique by J. Israel, Alienation: From Marx to Modern Sociology. A Macro-Sociological Analysis (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1971)Google Scholar
  92. 65c.
    R. Schacht’s evaluation (loc. cit., n. 1, pp. 153ff.).Google Scholar
  93. 66.
    M. B. Scott, ‘The Social Sources of Alienation,’ Inquiry 6 (Spring, 1963), pp. 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 67.
    Seeman, ‘Alienation and Engagement’ (loc.cit., n. 60), pp. 512f.Google Scholar
  95. 68.
    G. K. Zollschan and P. Gibeau, ‘Concerning Alienation: A System of Categories for the Exploration of Rational and Irrational Behavior,’ Explorations in Social Change, eds. G. K. Zollschan and W. Hirsch (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1964), pp.152–174.Google Scholar
  96. 69.
    F. Geyer, ‘Alienation and General Systems Theory,’ Sociologia Neerlandica 10 (May, 1974), pp. 18–42.Google Scholar
  97. 70.
    K. Keniston, The Uncommitted (New York: Hartcourt, Brace & World, 1965), Appendix (pp. 451–475): ‘The Varieties of Alienation.’Google Scholar
  98. 71.
    Seeman, ‘Alienation and Engagement’ (loc.cit., n. 60); R. Schacht, Alienation (loc. cit., n. 1)Google Scholar
  99. 71a.
    see also H. Lefebvre, Critique de la vie quotidienne, 2nd ed. (Paris: L’Arche, 1958), p. 88, who points to similarities between such a view and the Marxist understanding of totalité. Google Scholar
  100. 72.
    E. Mandel, Entstehung und Entwicklung der ökonomischen Lehre von K. Marx (Frankfurt: Europ. Verlagsanstalt; Wien: Europa-Verlag, 1968), pp. 179f.Google Scholar
  101. 73.
    G. Klaus, Kybernetik in philosophischer Sicht, 2nd ed. (Berlin: Dietz, 1962), p. 430.Google Scholar
  102. 74.
    E. L. Struening and A. H. Richardson, who are concerned with measures of alienation and authoritarianism. E. L. Struening and A. H. Richardson, ‘A Factor Analytic Exploration of the Alienation, Anomia and Authoritarianism Domain,’ American Sociological Review 30 (October, 1965), pp. 768–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 75.
    Srole, ‘Social Integration ...’ (loc.cit., n. 11), p. 711.Google Scholar
  104. 76.
    Struening/Richardson, ‘A Factor Analytic Exploration ...’ (loc.cit., n. 74); C.R. Miller and E. W. Butler, ‘Anomia and Eunomia: A Methodological Evaluation of Srole’s Anomia Scale,’ American Sociological Review 31 (June, 1966), pp. 400–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 77.
    J. P. Robinson and P. R. Shaver, Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univ. of Michigan, Institut for Social Research, August 1969), p. 161.Google Scholar
  106. 77a.
    Robinson/Shaver base their argument on extensive testing by G. Lenski and J. Leggett, cf. their article ‘Caste, Class, and Deference in the Research Interview’AmericanJournal of Sociology 65 (1960), pp. 463–467.Google Scholar
  107. 78.
    H. P. Dreitzel, Die gesellschaftlichen Leiden und das Leiden an der Gesellschaft: Vorstudien zu einer Pathologie des Rollenverhaltens (Stuttgart: Enke, 1968), p. 95.Google Scholar
  108. 79.
    Nettler, ‘A Measure of Alienation’ (loc. cit., n. 10).Google Scholar
  109. 80.
    G. Nettler, Scales of Alienated Attitude, Revised (Department of Sociology, Univ. of Alberta, 1964, mimeo).Google Scholar
  110. 81.
    M. Rosenberg, ‘Misanthropy and Political Ideology,’ American Sociological Review 21 (December, 1956), pp. 690–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 82.
    Robinson/Shaver, Measure of Social Psychological Attitudes (loc.cit., n. 77), p. 200.Google Scholar
  112. 83.
    A. Davids, ‘Alienation, Social Apperception, and Ego Structure,’ Journal of Consulting Psychology 19 (1955), pp. 21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 83a.
    A. Davids, ‘Generality and Consistency of Relations Between the Alienation Syndrome and Cognitive Processes,’ Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51 (July, 1955), pp. 61–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 84.
    J. B. Rotter et al., ‘Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcements: A Major Variable in Behavior Theory,’ Decisions, Values, and Groups, ed. N. F. Washburne (Oxford: Pergamon Press, vol. 2, 1962), pp. 473–516.Google Scholar
  115. 85.
    For the first set of problems cf. M. Seeman, ‘Alienation, Membership, and Political Knowledge: A Comparative Study,’ Public Opinion Quarterly 30 (Fall, 1966), pp. 353–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 85a.
    M. Seeman and J. W. Evans, ‘Alienation and Learning in a Hospital Setting,’ American Sociological Review 27 (December, 1962), pp. 772–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 85b.
    M. Seeman, ‘Alienation and Social Learning in a Reformatory,’ American Journal of Sociology 69 (November, 1963), pp. 270–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 85c.
    M. Seeman, ‘Powerlessness and Knowledge: A Comparative Study of Alienation and Learning,’ Sociometry 30 (June, 1967), pp. 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 85d.
    For the second set of problems: A. G. Neal and M. Seeman, ‘Organizations and Powerlessness: A Test of the Mediation Hypothesis,’ American Sociological Review 29 (April, 1964), pp. 216–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 85e.
    For the third: M. Seeman, ‘On the Personal Consequences of Alienation in Work,’ American Sociological Review 32 (April, 1967), pp. 273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 86.
    A. G. Neal and S. Rettig, ‘Dimensions of Alienation Among Manual and Non-manual Workers,’ American Sociological Review 28 (August, 1963), pp. 599–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 87.
    G. A. Almond and S. Verba, The Civic Culture (Boston: Little, Brown, and Comp., 1963).Google Scholar
  123. 88.
    J. P. Clark, ‘Measuring Alienation Within a Social System,’ American Sociological Review 24 (December, 1959), p. 849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 89.
    R. Middleton, ‘Alienation, Race, and Education,’ American Sociological Review 28 (December, 1963), pp. 973–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 90.
    L. I. Pearlin, ‘Alienation from Work: A Study of Nursing Personnel,’ American Sociological Review 27 (June, 1962), pp. 314–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 91.
    L. A. Zurcher, Jr., et al., ‘Value Orientation, Role Conflict, and Alienation from Work: A Cross-Cultural Study,’ American Sociological Review 30 (August, 1965), pp.539–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 92.
    Seeman, ‘On the Personal Consequences of Alienation in Work’ (loc. cit., n. 85).Google Scholar
  128. 93.
    M. Aiken and J. Hage, ‘Organizational Alienation,’ American Sociological Review 31 (August, 1966), p. 497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 94.
    G. A. Miller, ‘Professionals in Bureaucracy: Alienation Among Industrial Scientists and Engineers,’ American Sociological Review 32 (October, 1967), pp. 755–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 95.
    C. M. Bonjean and M. D. Grimes, ‘Bureaucracy and Alienation: A Dimensional Approach,’ Social Forces 48 (March, 1970), pp. 365–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 96.
    J. M. Shepard, Technology, Division of Labor, and Alienation,’ Pacific Sociological Review 16 (January, 1973), pp. 61–88Google Scholar
  132. 96a.
    J. M. Shepard, Automation and Alienation: A Study of Office and Factory Workers (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1971).Google Scholar
  133. 97.
    R. Blauner, Alienation and Freedom: The Factory Worker and his Industry (Chicago-London: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 1964).Google Scholar
  134. 98.
    Blauner, p. 15.Google Scholar
  135. 99.
    Blauner, ‘Work Satisfaction ...’ (loc.cit., n. 30), pp. 354f.Google Scholar
  136. 100.
    See, for example, V. A. Yadov et al., Chelovek i ego rabota (Moscow: Mysl, 1967)Google Scholar
  137. 100a.
    also Trud i razvitie lichnosti, eds. A. G. Zdravomyslov and V. A. Yadov (Leningrad: Lenizdat, 1965).Google Scholar
  138. 100b.
    Comments by G. Fischer in his article ‘Sociology,’ Science and Ideology in Soviet Society, ed. G. Fischer (New York: Atherton, 1967), pp. 15ff.Google Scholar
  139. 101.
    A.W. Finifter, in Alienation and the Social System, ed. A.W. Finifter (New York: Wiley, 1972), pp. 185ff.Google Scholar
  140. 102.
    D. G. Dean, ‘Alienation: Its Meaning and Measurement,’ American Sociological Review 26 (October, 1961), pp. 753–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 102a.
    D. G. Dean, ‘Alienation and Political Apathy,’ (loc.cit., n. 51).Google Scholar
  142. 102b.
    J. E. Horton and W. E. Thompson, ‘Powerlessness and Political Negativism: A Study of Defeated Local Referendums,’ American Journal of Sociology 67 (March, 1962), pp. 485–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 102c.
    W. E. Thompson and J. E. Horton, ‘Political Alienation as a Force in Political Action,’ Social Forces 38 (March, 1960), pp. 190–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 102d.
    M. E. Olsen, ‘Two Categories of Political Alienation,’ Social Forces 47 (March, 1969), pp. 288–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 102e.
    M. Aiken et al., Economic Failure: Alienation and Extremism (Ann Arborg, Mich.: Univ. of Michigan Pr., 1968).Google Scholar
  146. 102f.
    W. A. Gamson, ‘The Fluoridation Dialogue: Is it an Ideological Conflict,’ Public Opinion Quarterly 25 (Winter, 1961), pp. 526–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 103.
    A. W. Finifter, ‘Dimensions of Political Alienation,’ American Political Science Review 64 (June, 1970), pp. 389–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 104.
    J. D. Aberbach, ‘Alienation and Political Behavior,’ American Political Science Review 64 (March, 1969), pp. 86–99.Google Scholar
  149. 105.
    M. B. Levin and M. Eden, ‘Political Strategy for the Alienated Voter,’ Public Opinion Quarterly 26 (Spring, 1962), pp. 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 106.
    Fischer, Die Entfremdung des Menschen ... (loc.cit., n. 53), p. 79.Google Scholar
  151. 107.
    G. Abcarian, ‘Radical Right and New Left: Commitment and Estrangement in American Society,’ Public Opinion and Politics: A Reader, ed. W. J. Crotty (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970), pp. 175–176Google Scholar
  152. 107a.
    G. Abcarian and S. M. Stanage, ‘Alienation and the Radical Right,’ The Journal of Politics 27 (November, 1965), p. 784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. 108.
    For this task (psycho-)linguistic research can provide some assistance, as David G. Hays has shown, cf. his paper ‘On “Alienation:” An Essay in the Psycholinguistics of Science’ (paper prepared for the Ad Hoc Group on Alienation Theory and Research at the VIIIth World Congress of Sociology, Toronto, Canada, August 1974; also published in this collection).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© H. E. Stenfert Kroese bv, Leiden 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter C. Ludz
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MunichGermany

Personalised recommendations