‘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.
This paper was originally written as introduction to the annotated bibliography ‘Alienation as a Concept in the Social Sciences’ (Current Sociology, vol. 21, 1973, no. 1). For the purposes of the discussions at the VIIIth World Congress of Sociology and of this publication it has been revised and re-footnoted.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
R. Nisbet, The Quest for Community (New York: Oxford Univ. Pr., 1953), p. 15
W. Kaufmann, ‘The Inevitability of Alienation’, Introduction to R. Schacht, Alienation (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970), p. XV]
D. Bell, ‘The “Rediscovery” of Alienation: Some Notes Along the Quest for the Historical Marx,’ The Journal of Philosophy 56 (Nov., 1959), p. 950.
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.
Kaufmann, p. XIII.
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. P. Edwards (New York: Macmillan and Free Press, 1967ff,), vol. 1, p. 76.
P. Naville, ‘De l’idée d’aliénation à l’analyse du monde moderne,’ Etudes (Bruxelles), 1962, no. 1, pp. 58–63
P. Naville, ‘Aliénation et exploitation,’ Cahiers d’Etude des Sociétés Industrielles et de l’Automation 6 (1964), pp. 161–164.
W. Kaufmann, ‘On Alienation,’ Inquiry 8 (Summer, 1965), pp. 141–165.
Thesaurus linguae latinae, editus auctoritate et Consilio Academiarum quinque Germanicarum (Leipzig: Teubner, 1900ff.), vol. 1, cols. 1558–1560.
The Oxford English Dictionary, eds. J. A. H. Murray et al. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1933), vol. 1, p. 219.
P. Larousse, Grand dictionnaire universel du 19e siècle (Paris, 1865), vol. 1, p. 203.
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.
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.
G. Nettler, ‘A Measure of Alienation,’ American Sociological Review 22 (December, 1957), pp. 670–677.
L. Srole, ‘Social Integration and Certain Corollaries: An Exploratory Study,’ American Sociological Review 21 (December, 1956), pp. 709–716.
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.
Nettler, ‘A Measure...’ (loc.cit., n. 10), p. 672.
J. Horton, ‘The Dehumanization of Anomie and Alienation,’ British Journal of Sociology 15 (December, 1964), p. 285.
M. Rosner, ‘Aliénation, fétichisme, anomie,’ L’homme et la société, no. 11 (Jan.-March, 1969), p. 94.
Horton, ‘The Dehumanization...’ (loc.cit., n. 14), p. 289
J. E. Horton and W. E. Thompson, ‘Powerlessness and Political Negativism,’ American Journal of Sociology 67 (March, 1962), p. 486.
Merton, ‘Anomie, Anomia,...’ (loc.cit., n. 9), p. 217.
M. Seeman, ‘On the Meaning of Alienation,’ American Sociological Review 24 (December, 1959), pp. 783–791.
M. A. Faia, ‘Alienation, Structural Strain, and Political Deviancy: A Test of Merton’s Hypothesis,’ Social Problems 14 (Spring, 1967), pp. 389–413.
R. A. Cloward and L. E. Ohlin, Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1960).
The same is true for the Russian term otchuzdhenie, cf. Filosofskaja entsiklopedija, ed. Institut filosofii akademii nauk SSSR (Moscow, 1967), esp. p. 191.
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)
I. Mészáros, Marx’s Theory of Alienation (London: Merlin, 1970).
K. Marx, Early Writings, transl. and ed. T. B. Bottomore (London: Watts, 1963), p. 209.
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.
E. Bloch, Das Prinzip Hoffnung, vol. 1 (Berlin: Aufbau Verlag, 1954), esp. part II: ‘Das antizipierende Bewusstsein’ (pp. 57 ff.).
Oilman, Alienation ... (loc.cit., n. 22), p. 234.
S. Jenkner, Arbeitsteilung und allseitige Entwicklung des Menschen im Werk von Karl Marx (Diss, rer.pol., Göttingen, 1965), p. 206.
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.
Schacht, Alienation (loc.cit., n. 1). p. 112.
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.
K. Marx and F. Engels, Werke, ed. Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED, vol. 19 (Berlin: Dietz, 1962), pp. 230–237.
E. Fromm, The Sane Society (New York: Holt, Winston & Rinehart, 1955), p. 120.
Fromm, p. 360.
See his introduction to Socialist Humanism: An International Symposium, ed. E. Fromm (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966), p. IX.
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.
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.
H. Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man (Boston: Beacon, 1964), p. 11.
J. Habermas, ‘Zwischen Philosophie und Wissenschaft: Marxismus als Kritik,’ in J. Habermas, Theorie und Praxis (Neuwied-Berlin: Luchterhand, 1963), p. 163.
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).
M. Rosner, ‘Aliénation, fétichisme, anomie,’ L’Homme et la société 11 (Jan.-March, 1969), pp. 81–107
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.
See for example, G. Novack, ‘Alienation,’ International Socialist Review 20 (Fall, 1959), pp. 107–119
C. Taylor, ‘Alienation and Community,’ University and Left Review 2 (Autumn, 1958), pp. 11–18
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.
T. I. Oisermann, Die Entfremdung als historische Kategorie (Berlin: Dietz, 1965)
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.
E. Kamenka, Marxism and Ethics (London; Macmillan; New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1969), p. 30
R. Supek, Sociologia i socijalizam: Eseji (Zagreb: Znanje, 1966)
L. S. Feuer, ‘What is Alienation? ...’ (loc.cit., n. 36).
For the critique of bureaucracies see, for example, L. Tadic, ‘La bureaucratie, organisation réifiée,’ Praxis. Edition Internationale 4 (1968), no. 1–2, pp. 133–143
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.
Quotations from E. Durkheim, Suicide, transl. J. A. Spaulding and G. Simpson (New York: Free Press, 1951), pp. 246–254.
Both printed in his Social Theory and Social Structure, rev. and enl. ed. (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1957), pp. 131–194.
Merton, ‘Anomie, Anomia ...’ (loc.cit., n. 9), pp. 215f.
Merton, Social Theory ... (loc.cit., n. 45), p. 162.
Supportive: Srole, ‘Social Integration ...’ (loc.cit., n. 11)
W. Bell, ‘Anomie, Social Isolation, and the Class Structure,’ Sociometry 20 (June, 1957), pp. 105–116.
Questioning: A. H. Roberts and M. Rokeach, ‘Anomie, Authoritarianism and Prejudice: A Replication,’ American Journal of Sociology 61 (January, 1956), pp. 355–358
E. H. Mizruchi, ‘Aspiration and Poverty: A Neglected Aspect of Merton’s Anomie,’ Sociological Quarterly 8 (Autumn, 1967), pp. 439–446.
Cf. further L. Rhodes, ‘Anomia, Aspiration, and Status,’ Social Forces 42 (May, 1964), pp. 434–440.
R. Aron, Progress and Disillusion: The Dialectics of Modern Society (London: Pall Mall Press, 1968), p. 152.
Schacht, Alienation (loc.cit., n. 1), p. LIX.
See the enumeration in D. G. Dean, ‘Alienation and Political Apathy,’ Social Forces 38 (March, 1960), pp. 185ff.
See his study The Sociological Tradition (New York: Basic Books, 1966).
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.
Kaufmann, ‘The Inevitability of Alienation,’ (loc.cit., n. 1), p. XLV.
J. Schaar, Escape from Authority (New York: Basic Books, 1961), p. 174.
W. Gehlen, Der Mensch, 6th pr. (Bonn: Athenäum, 1958), pp. 65ff.
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.
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).
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, 1925
A. Schutz, The Stranger’ (1944), in his Collected Papers, ed. A. Broderson (The Hague: M. Nijhoff), vol. 2, 1964, pp. 91–105.
See, for example, Disputation zwischen Christen und Marxisten, ed. M. Stöhr (München: Kaiser, 1966).
Fischer, Die Entfremdung des Menschen ... (loc.cit., n. 53), p. 83.
J. Horton, ‘The Dehumanisation ...’ (loc.cit., n. 14), p. 295.
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)
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.
Seeman, ‘On the Meaning ...’ (loc.cit., n. 18), p. 783.
Seeman, ‘Alienation and Engagement’ (loc.cit., n. 60), p. 472.
Seeman, ‘On the Meaning ...’, p. 791.
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.
See the early comments by C. J. Browning et al., American Sociological Review 26 (October, 1961), pp. 780ff.
further, among others, J. C. Mouledous and E. C. Mouledous, ‘Criticisms of the Concept of Alienation,’ American Journal of Sociology 70 (July, 1964), pp. 78–82
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)
R. Schacht’s evaluation (loc. cit., n. 1, pp. 153ff.).
M. B. Scott, ‘The Social Sources of Alienation,’ Inquiry 6 (Spring, 1963), pp. 57–69.
Seeman, ‘Alienation and Engagement’ (loc.cit., n. 60), pp. 512f.
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.
F. Geyer, ‘Alienation and General Systems Theory,’ Sociologia Neerlandica 10 (May, 1974), pp. 18–42.
K. Keniston, The Uncommitted (New York: Hartcourt, Brace & World, 1965), Appendix (pp. 451–475): ‘The Varieties of Alienation.’
Seeman, ‘Alienation and Engagement’ (loc.cit., n. 60); R. Schacht, Alienation (loc. cit., n. 1)
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.
E. Mandel, Entstehung und Entwicklung der ökonomischen Lehre von K. Marx (Frankfurt: Europ. Verlagsanstalt; Wien: Europa-Verlag, 1968), pp. 179f.
G. Klaus, Kybernetik in philosophischer Sicht, 2nd ed. (Berlin: Dietz, 1962), p. 430.
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.
Srole, ‘Social Integration ...’ (loc.cit., n. 11), p. 711.
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.
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.
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.
H. P. Dreitzel, Die gesellschaftlichen Leiden und das Leiden an der Gesellschaft: Vorstudien zu einer Pathologie des Rollenverhaltens (Stuttgart: Enke, 1968), p. 95.
Nettler, ‘A Measure of Alienation’ (loc. cit., n. 10).
G. Nettler, Scales of Alienated Attitude, Revised (Department of Sociology, Univ. of Alberta, 1964, mimeo).
M. Rosenberg, ‘Misanthropy and Political Ideology,’ American Sociological Review 21 (December, 1956), pp. 690–695.
Robinson/Shaver, Measure of Social Psychological Attitudes (loc.cit., n. 77), p. 200.
A. Davids, ‘Alienation, Social Apperception, and Ego Structure,’ Journal of Consulting Psychology 19 (1955), pp. 21–27
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.
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.
For the first set of problems cf. M. Seeman, ‘Alienation, Membership, and Political Knowledge: A Comparative Study,’ Public Opinion Quarterly 30 (Fall, 1966), pp. 353–367
M. Seeman and J. W. Evans, ‘Alienation and Learning in a Hospital Setting,’ American Sociological Review 27 (December, 1962), pp. 772–782
M. Seeman, ‘Alienation and Social Learning in a Reformatory,’ American Journal of Sociology 69 (November, 1963), pp. 270–284
M. Seeman, ‘Powerlessness and Knowledge: A Comparative Study of Alienation and Learning,’ Sociometry 30 (June, 1967), pp. 105–123.
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.
For the third: M. Seeman, ‘On the Personal Consequences of Alienation in Work,’ American Sociological Review 32 (April, 1967), pp. 273–285.
A. G. Neal and S. Rettig, ‘Dimensions of Alienation Among Manual and Non-manual Workers,’ American Sociological Review 28 (August, 1963), pp. 599–608.
G. A. Almond and S. Verba, The Civic Culture (Boston: Little, Brown, and Comp., 1963).
J. P. Clark, ‘Measuring Alienation Within a Social System,’ American Sociological Review 24 (December, 1959), p. 849.
R. Middleton, ‘Alienation, Race, and Education,’ American Sociological Review 28 (December, 1963), pp. 973–977.
L. I. Pearlin, ‘Alienation from Work: A Study of Nursing Personnel,’ American Sociological Review 27 (June, 1962), pp. 314–326.
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.
Seeman, ‘On the Personal Consequences of Alienation in Work’ (loc. cit., n. 85).
M. Aiken and J. Hage, ‘Organizational Alienation,’ American Sociological Review 31 (August, 1966), p. 497.
G. A. Miller, ‘Professionals in Bureaucracy: Alienation Among Industrial Scientists and Engineers,’ American Sociological Review 32 (October, 1967), pp. 755–768.
C. M. Bonjean and M. D. Grimes, ‘Bureaucracy and Alienation: A Dimensional Approach,’ Social Forces 48 (March, 1970), pp. 365–373.
J. M. Shepard, Technology, Division of Labor, and Alienation,’ Pacific Sociological Review 16 (January, 1973), pp. 61–88
J. M. Shepard, Automation and Alienation: A Study of Office and Factory Workers (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1971).
R. Blauner, Alienation and Freedom: The Factory Worker and his Industry (Chicago-London: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 1964).
Blauner, p. 15.
Blauner, ‘Work Satisfaction ...’ (loc.cit., n. 30), pp. 354f.
See, for example, V. A. Yadov et al., Chelovek i ego rabota (Moscow: Mysl, 1967)
also Trud i razvitie lichnosti, eds. A. G. Zdravomyslov and V. A. Yadov (Leningrad: Lenizdat, 1965).
Comments by G. Fischer in his article ‘Sociology,’ Science and Ideology in Soviet Society, ed. G. Fischer (New York: Atherton, 1967), pp. 15ff.
A.W. Finifter, in Alienation and the Social System, ed. A.W. Finifter (New York: Wiley, 1972), pp. 185ff.
D. G. Dean, ‘Alienation: Its Meaning and Measurement,’ American Sociological Review 26 (October, 1961), pp. 753–758
D. G. Dean, ‘Alienation and Political Apathy,’ (loc.cit., n. 51).
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. 485–493
W. E. Thompson and J. E. Horton, ‘Political Alienation as a Force in Political Action,’ Social Forces 38 (March, 1960), pp. 190–195.
M. E. Olsen, ‘Two Categories of Political Alienation,’ Social Forces 47 (March, 1969), pp. 288–299.
M. Aiken et al., Economic Failure: Alienation and Extremism (Ann Arborg, Mich.: Univ. of Michigan Pr., 1968).
W. A. Gamson, ‘The Fluoridation Dialogue: Is it an Ideological Conflict,’ Public Opinion Quarterly 25 (Winter, 1961), pp. 526–537.
A. W. Finifter, ‘Dimensions of Political Alienation,’ American Political Science Review 64 (June, 1970), pp. 389–410.
J. D. Aberbach, ‘Alienation and Political Behavior,’ American Political Science Review 64 (March, 1969), pp. 86–99.
M. B. Levin and M. Eden, ‘Political Strategy for the Alienated Voter,’ Public Opinion Quarterly 26 (Spring, 1962), pp. 47–63.
Fischer, Die Entfremdung des Menschen ... (loc.cit., n. 53), p. 79.
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. 175–176
G. Abcarian and S. M. Stanage, ‘Alienation and the Radical Right,’ The Journal of Politics 27 (November, 1965), p. 784.
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).
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
© 1976 H. E. Stenfert Kroese bv, Leiden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ludz, P.C. (1976). Alienation as a Concept in the Social Sciences. In: Geyer, R.F., Schweitzer, D.R. (eds) Theories of Alienation. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8813-5_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-90-207-0630-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4684-8813-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive