7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

1/42

International

Journal

of

Politics, Culture

an d

Society, Vol.

13, No. 4,

2000

II.

Discourses

on the

American Academy

The Department of Social Relations and

Systems Theory at Harvard: 1948-50

Arthur

J.

Vidich

INTRODUCTION

In Madison, where I studied in 1946-48, MA students thoughtof

the

Department

of

Sociology

and

Anthropology

as a

take

off

point

for

bigger andbetterthings elsewhere. Harvard and Columbia were believed

to be the

places where

one

could find

all the

answers

and the

fundamental

truths about the social sciences. Students attracted to Robert Lynd,

Robert MacIver, Robert Merton and C. Wright Mills (who was already

knownat Wisconsin as HansGerth'sstudent) went to Columbia. Talcott

Parsons had established a new Department of Social Relations at Harvard.

The center of gravityin the social scienceswas no longerin theMiddle

West. The once-prominent Chicago school had lost its luster. Edward

Shils,

who had

just published

a

little pamphlet entitled

The Present State

of American

Sociology (an early

Free

Pressimprint), was still a graduate

student. Berkeley was an

unknown

entity: it would not become a magnet

until

1952 when Herbert Blumerleft Chicago to head its new Department

of Sociology. Madison looked like

a way

station.

The

real thing

was in

the

east.

The idea of going to Harvard was given to me by W.W. Howells,

not so much because he knew anything about the Department of Social

Relations,butbecausehe hadintroducedhisstudentstoClyde Kluckhohn

when he came to Madison to lecture. Kluckhohn had been a 1928

graduate of the University of Wisconsin and was now regarded as a

major

figure

in the

field:

he was also a

collaborator with

Parsons in the

creation of the Department of Social Relations. The point was not to

hear Kluckhohn's lecture, but to be introduced to him. Kluckhohn's visit

had

more than

one

purpose.

He was

recruiting applicants

for the

607

2000 umanSciences Press, Inc.

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

2/42

608

Vidich

Department of Social Relations and Howells served as a link in the

recruitment network.

When

I

left

for

Harvard, Gerth

and

Howells suggested

I

extend

greetings respectively

to

Talcott Parsons

and

Ernest Hooton, Howells's

former professor of physical anthropology. Gerth had met Parsons when

he first arrived in the United States in 1937. Carl Friedrich had given

him

one of his first academic appointments that included tutoring in

German some of Parsons's gradua te students including Robert K. Merton

and Logan Wilson. I knew none of this at the time, bu t discovering it

later helped to clarify my own relationship with Parsons. In his work

as a tutor, Gerth had used as his texts some of Max Weber's essays

on The M ethodology of the Social

Sciences.

Gerth was a student of

Weber's work before coming to the United States: as he once recounted

in an

interview,

he had

read Politics

as a

Vocation when

he was a

gymnasium

student in Kassel and determined then and there to study

with

Weber, bu t only to discover whenhe arrived in Heidelberg in 1927

that Weber had already been dead for seven years. Gerth was regarded

by Parsons

as a competitor in

what

later became the Weber industry

in

the United States.

My

first priority in Cam bridge was to make ap pointm ents to see Ernest

Hooton, Talcott

Parsons

an d

Clyde Kluckhoh n. Getting appointments

to

see these famous professors was much easier than I had anticipated. This

was

1948 when there was

still

some social distance between professors and

students, sustained by a degree of form ality and the reluctance of students

to go imm ediately on a first name basis. The easy accessibility of professors

surprised me. Given the large number of new students wanting appoint-

ments, these professors must have devotedall oftheir time duringthe first

few

w eeks of the semester to student interviews. I had not yet learned th at

even at Harvard professors needed their students as much as students

needed them.

Hooton,who had hisoffice in thePeabody Museumand was not associ-

ated w ith social relations, sensed that I ha d no interest in physical anthropo l-

ogyand treated meaccordingly, accepting mygreetingsfrom Howells and

sendingme on myway.The museumwasfull of skeletons, precious stones

and archeological artifacts, the latter representing the plund er of years and

years of Harvardian expeditions. M y reaction to the Peabody M useum was

thatit did not fit my image of the kind of anthropologist I wan ted to be and

I

never

saw

Hootonagain. Clearly,

the old

anthropology departme nt

did not

mix easily with thatportionofanthropologyaffiliated withtheDepartment

of

Social Relations.It wasapparent even then thatthesplitofanthropology

into two programs was an a dministrative recognition th at physical and social

anthropology had almost nothing in common.

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

3/42

The Department ofSocial Relationsand Systems Theory atHarvard1948-50

609

CLYDEKLUCKHOHN AND HIS

RESEARCH

ON

NAVAHO VALUES

Clyde Kluckhohn's office waslocated in the

newly

created Russian

Research Center

of

which

he was

director:

his

receptionist-secretary

was

Helen Parsons, Parsons's

wife.

ThoughtheCenterwaslocated onlyashort

distancefrom thePeabody, inspiritit wasworlds apart.Itsconcerns were

theColdWar and Sovietology; ithoused specialists inEastern European,

Russian and Soviet affairs. Its raison d'etre was the application of the

knowledgeof the social sciences to the formationofsocial and political

policy in

what

w as

then

the new

cold-war, nuclear age:

it

owed

its

existence

toformer membersof theOfficeofStrategic Services(O.S.S.).Itspersonnel

wasmade

up in

part

of

academics

who had

moved fromwartime service

toacademia. Many anthropologists, including Kluckhohn,hadseen service

inwartime intelligence activities

and it was on the

strength

of

these services

thathe wasmade director of the Center. UnlikethePeabody, the Center

exudedan air ofcrisp, business-like

efficiency:

important visitors cameand

went,each

wanting

to consult a staff ofspecialists. It is here that I met

Kluckhohnfor thesecond time.

Though tense

and

highstrung,

as he

usually was,

and

overburdened

with administrative work, Kluckhohnhad prepared for our meeting. He

grilled

me

about

my

long-term academic plans

and

wanted

to

know what

kind

of ananthropologist Iwantedto b e.Thiswas abusiness-like conference

which left me

with

thefeeling that mycareer was notentirelyin my own

hands. Kluckhohnhad notonly passed on myadmission toHarvard, he

hadalso secured

for me the

Thayer Fellowship, providing

m e

withseveral

thousand

dollars

of

support

in

addition

to the

funding

I

received

from

the

GI Bill:he supported hisstudents generously. Despite hisintense work

scheduleand theexcessive demands madeonhim,he wassolicitousof his

students and regarded anthropology as his central professional concern.

Among other things,

he

directed

the

Navaho Values Study, known

as the

RamahProject,and fielded acorpsofgraduate studentsforresearch among

the

Indian tribes

of the

Southwest.

He

attempted

to be

knowledgeable

in

whatwere then considered to be the four sub-fields of theprofession

physical, archeological,

linguistic, and socio-culturaland attempted to

write

articles ineacho fthem.He hadhoped toinheritthestatusinanthro-

pology previously assumedbyFranz BoasandAlfred Kroeber. Aspartof

thisplan,hestakedhisclaimtoinheritKroeber'smantlebyediting together

withKroeber

the

book entitledDefinitions of Culture.Even then, viewing

him

as I did

from

thelimited perspectiveof agraduate student,hisambitions

appeared

to be

excessive,

if

only because

the field of

anthropology

was

alreadybecoming fragmented into various specializations. That hechose

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

4/42

610

Vidich

towriteonsubjectsfor thepurposeo festablishingareputation rather than

the

other

way

aroundwriting

on

subjects

he

regarded

as

important

and

basing hisreputation on themleft me with the impression that he was

less interested

in the

pursuit

of

truth than

the

management

of his

career

and theachievementof fame.

Kluckhohn's

study

of

Navajo values

had

been underway even before

thecreationof theDepartmentofSocial Relations.TheRockefeller Foun-

dation sponsored it and supported the field research of a multitudeof

investigators, so many, in

fact,

that the joking answer to the question,

Whatis thecompositiono f aNavajo family? was a husband,

wife,

two

children

and oneanthropologist. TheIndiansofAmerica's Southwesthad

longbeenasubjectofintensive studybyanthropologistsand archeologists,

andmany monographs hadbeen written about them. Kluckhohn's study

was

to bedistinguished fromearlier studiesby itsfocusonNavajo values,

1

atopic thatwasthen alsoofcentral

interest

toTalcott

Parsons

bothin his

work on hissocial system, action frame of reference and in his research

onsuburban middle-class families. Parsonsan dKluckhohn were collaborat-

ing

in

their research

on

values

at the

same time that Edward Shils

was in

residencein the

Department

ofSocial Relations

working with

Parsonson

whatwould become their jointly edited book,

Toward

a

General Theory

of

Action.

2Theassociation ofKluckhohn's value studies

with

theworkof

Parsons isindicated both by hiscontribution to that book and hisclaim,

inhis

report

to the

Rockefeller Foundation

on the first

three years

of his

project, that Toward

a

General

Theory of

Actionwas amajor publication

resulting

from

hisstudies.3

Appointed

by

Kluckhohn

as a

data analyst

on the

values study,

I

read

through the

entries

in theNavajo

research

files,which

contained cross-filed

entries excerpted fromfield

researchers'

notes, reports andmonographs.

Each excerpt

from

such sources was aparagraph inlengthandclassified

underacategory pertainingto agiven subject.Thecategories were,inpart,

the

same

as

those originally formulated

by

George

P.

Murdock

for his

HumanRelations AreaFilesatYale University.Acategory suchas eco-

nomics would contain numerous sub-categories classified according to

type

ofwork, usesofmoney, trading, welfare, construction ofhouses, etc.

Sub-categories such

as

uses

of

money would

be

sub-sub-categorized into

entries suchaslending, stealingand so on.Most paragraph length entries

contained references to more that one subject and would be cross-filed

underanothersub orsub-sub category:aparagraphonstealing,forexample,

would

also

be

cross-filed under

crime, interpersonal

conflict, morals,

and

so

forth.

Asmore data were gathered andcross-referenced, thenumberof

categories wasexpanded tomeet thedifferencesinnuances of data pro-

duced by different researchers. Even atthis relatively early stage of the

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

5/42

TheDepartment ofSocial Relations and Systems Theory at Harvard1948-50 611

research, the sub-categorization ofdataand thecross-referencingof it had

produced

a

substantial

file.

Iread through

all of the

entries under each major category

and

pro-

videdasummaryof itscontents. Sincethedata were alreadytooextensive

for anysingle individualto absorb, the method ofproducing summaries

had the purpose ofregaining some control over it. Kluckhohn needed a

shorthand versionof thecontentsof the filesbecause he did nothavethe

time toread them himself.My job was todescribe thegeneral contentof

a

category and gave an estimateofthose areasinwhichthe data were

deficient. I then attempted topoint out the relation of the data to the

problemofvaluesandsuggest some linesofanalysisinrelation tovalues.

Forexample,one set ofcategories Iexaminedwas Inheritance, After-

life

and Attitudetowardthe

Dead.

Although deathand thedead are

importantareasof

Navajo

lifewhich initself says nothingandaresur-

rounded bymany fears, anxieties, prohibitionsandsanctions,no one had

madesystematic observations

on

this aspect

o f

Navajo culture.

My

summary

of the content of thecategories wasmade underfivepointsdescription

of

burialsforboth infants andadults,the relationship between death and

witchcraft,

death statistics, problems that occur when

a

Navajo dies

in a

hospital and the

Navajo

fear of the dead. This summary, like others I

did, didn'tgoanywhere. Althoughone cantalk about death, architecture,

women,

and

children

and

summarize

the

contents

of

categories

as I

did,

the

result

is the

same data

in a

different form. Despite

the

fact that

the

fielddata were richincontent and

covered

vast

areas

ofNavajolife,they

could be

mademeaningfulonly

if

they were focused

on a

specificproblem

that

would provide

an

organizing principle

for

interpreting

the

data.

Nowhere

in the

data

I

encountered

was

there

a

reference

to the

central

institutional fact

of Navajo tribal life, namely, that the Navajo were a

legally

dependent tribal group underthejurisdictionof theUnited States

government

and the

Bureau

of

IndianAffairs. They could

not rightfully

becalled colonized, butwere subjectto asystemofindirect rule.Notthat

allresearchable problems couldbeexplainedintermsofthis relationship,

bu tfrom

the

beginning

the

institution

of the reservation had

transformed

theinternalorderofindigenous Navajo institutionsan dvalues.TheNavajo

had been deeply penetrated by the dominant society formore than100

yearsand the residuesofthis penetration remainto the present.

4

Kluckhohnapproached thestudyofvalues

from

the point ofviewof

their definition and classification, but not

from

their historical settingor

institutionalcontext. Whiletheterms

value

or

values

arebasic concepts

in

the field of the social sciences, to givea

precise

definition

to eitherof

them

can

only lead

to an

empirically unworkable definition. However,

if

on esetsup aproblemforinvestigationfor example, asking 'whatare the

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

6/42

612 Vidich

fundamental conflicts in

values among

the

Navajo people

an d

what

are

their institutional causes?' thenitwouldbepossible to

specify

whoholds

which

values

and how conflicts

arise when

the

values

are

expressed

in

action. Some values held by youth are distinct from those held by their

elders,

bu t

even

the

values held

by

youth

are not

necessarily held

by all

youth: some of these youth might have been returne d World War II veteran s

whose slant

on life may

have been influenced

by

the ir activities

as

Marine

Corps com munication specialists, a group rec ruited fo r their service because

the

Japanese were unable

to

crack

the

code

of the Navajo

language.

If

individuals,

status groups, classes

or

descent groups

are

specified,

it is

possible to examine what ideas, beliefs or values they hold and, if then,

one

asks what

is the

result

of

these conflicts

in

values

for the

organization

ofN avajo society, one h as a problem. However, the a ttempt to stu dy values

as

such led to the accumulation of data housed in files in the Peabody

Museum, but not to the definition of a problem.

Ironically, anthropological investigators

are

themselves part

of

this

penetration.Bytheirpresenceand the questions they ask, they alter the

social milieu in which they work and contribute to chan ging the character

of

thesocietythey study.At the timeof the values study, anthropological

investigators did not acknowledge thisfactbecause they

failed

to recognize

the

implications

and

consequences

of

their

ow n

role

as

members

of the

dominant society. In point of fact, research on the Navajoas

well

as

other Southwest Indian tribeshad become an academic industry whose

products were dissertations and advanced academic degrees.Itcannotbe

said th at this industry was simply a ma tter of the exploitation of a dependent

people.Th e

investigators also added

to the

local economy

by

paying

fo r

interviews and consuming native goods and services. In exchange for the

data given them

by the

Navajo,

the

anthropologists became

a

part

of

their

social world

and

helped

to

connect them with

the

larger external world.

Because anthropology

had

become

an

academic profession, research-

ers' field trips were fre que ntly of short du ration carried out dur ing sum mer

breaks, academic intersessions, sabbaticals, or leavesof a semester or an

academic year. Since research in the Southwest required no foreign travel,

researchers could make repeated trips

to the

same sites, visiting

and

revis-

itingthesam e info rma nts. Anthropologists no tonlyhad aneconomicpres-

ence in Navajo tribal

life,

but also a social one, forming lasting friendships

and emotional bonds with Navajo informants. I do no t know if any Harvard

anthropologist went native

an d

married into

the

tribe,

bu t

this cannot

bediscounted as apossibility. Fromasocialpointofview,anthropologists

were integrated into Nav ajo tribal networks , status systems, economyand

authoritative relations.

As a

result,

the

data

in th e files had

been collected

by

many different investigators

at

different times,

by different

methods,

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

7/42

TheDepartmentofSocialRelations and Systems Theory atHarvard 1948-50

613

from different angles

of

perception

and for

different purposes, leaving

an

analystwith out clues to researchers' biases.

When

I was

analyzing this data

in the

summer

of

1949,

in an office

shared with Ann Parsons, a co-worker, the data had not been

identified

by

reference

to who had

obtained

it,

when

it was

gathered,

and

where

i t

had

been

collected. It had the same disembodied qualityas the data that

Murdock

had

deposited

in his

Human Relations Area Files

which he had

used to write

Our Primitive Contemporaries.

Murdock had not collected

his owndata,andKluckhohnhad notcollectedthe dataI wasanalyzing.

However, Murdock,

wh o

cast

his

data

in an

evolutionary

and

com parative

framework,

was able to presen t images (stories) of imag inary societies as

if

theyhad existed at ap articular point in time:h is book served a useful

pedagogical purpose

for

instructors

who

taugh t college courses

in

introduc-

tory anthropology from the perspective ofcultur al evolution.The Ramah

Navajo

files could not be used for such purposes because there was not a

mass market

for a

synthetic ethnography

of the

Navajo.

The

purpose

of

the Navajo values project had a higher aim: making a contribution to a

theory of values.

Earlier

in his

career,

Kluckhohnhad

researched

and

written

two

mono-

graphs

on the

NavajoNavajo Witchcraft

and

Children

of

the

People

(with

Dorothea Leighton). He was an experienced field worker and probably

knew

more than anyone

in his

time about

the

Navajo,

but he did not

producea final volume for the values study. It is worth speculating on why

this was the

case.

Ioffer two explanations: he had lost a 'feel' for the d ata,

and he had become an academic adm inistrator at both the Ru ssian Research

Center

and the V alues Project. The organ izational app aratu s of the Center

and the Project required

fundraising,

periodic reports to sponsors, and

management of a large bureaucratic machine: the apparatus of research

became

an end in

itself

and

took

its own

course.

As a

result,

he had

little

time

to devote to understanding the data collected for the values study.

Large-scale interdisciplinary projects generate more data th an

can be

digested

by a

single individual,

or for

that matter

by any

collection

of

researchers. Despitethis problem, areportmust be written if only to satisfy

sponsors and author a book that leaves a mark on the field. In short, the

project needed a writer, who should havebeenKluckhoh n. But Kluckhohn

was too far

removed

from the

spirit

of the

project

and the

research

of his

subordinates to be able to immerse himself in the specifics of empirical

data. Digests andsynthesesofdata suchas I wassupposed to dowereno

substitute for first hand knowledge of the field data. As a result, the

Navajo

values study produced innumerable

reports,

monographs

and

special stud-

ies, but not a single report on its primary goal. It did not have a writer

who could pick andchoosedata and find a perspective from

which

a report

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

8/42

614

Vidich

could

be

written. This

was and

remains

the

fundamental deficiency

of

organized group research. When

thepersonwho

frames

the

research prob-

lembecomes an administrator, the project can only be completed with the

help

of a

ghost. Talcott Parsons

did not

make Kluckhohn's mistake.

He

kept his independence and wrote his own books.

TALCOTT PARSONS AND THE DEPARTMENT

OF SOCIAL RELATIONS

Parsons's office was located in Harvard Yard on the second floor of

Emerson Hall, the former headquarters of Harvard's social gospelers and

now the hub of the Department of Social Relations. On arrivingfor my

appointment,

I was

received with

an

unhurried graciousness,

as if

Parsons

had nothing to do but see me. Inasmuch as I was to study anthropology, my

excuse for requesting the interview was to extend Hans Gerth's greetings. I

started by saying something like I studied withGerth at Wisconsin and

he

asked

me to

send

you his

regards. Parsons's abrupt response

was

Gerth

should learn how to writeEnglish. I had not expected the sharp retort

an d

pursued

the

matter

no

further.This

was m y first

encounter with

the

competitiveness among Weberians

in the

United States.

I

learnedfromthis

incident and many subsequent occasions as well that the competition to

claim priority

in the

translation

of

Weber's work

was

intense.

In

1946,

Gerth and C. Wright Millshad published From Max

Weber:

Essays in

Sociology,

the first English edition of Weber's sociological writings, an

event that

had

apparently annoyed Parsons.5

In

1930, Parsons

had

translated

The

Protestant Ethic

and the

Spirit

of Capitalism

and,

in

1937,

had

published

The

Structureof SocialAction,a book claiming to supercede Weber's

soci-

ology.

Despite

Parsons's

irritation at the mention of Gerth's name, he did

not hold my association withGerth against me. On the contrary, he invited

mywife

and me toSunday afternoontea in hishomean dremembered me

byname whenever

we met in or out of the

classroom. Making

it a

point

to know his students,

Parsons

brought them into his intellectual foldwith

an indulgent, paternal embrace that wasdifficult to resist. He showed no

animus toward students who criticized hiswriting style or rejected Th e

Structure

o fSocial Action, bu t tolerated theman dengaged themindiscus-

sions

to

convince them

of

theirerrors.

For

example, most

first-year

students

found

Th e

Structure

of

Social Action no t only ponderous in style, bu t

excessive

in its

pretensions.

As

graduate students

we

found

it

easy

to

criticize

his

book.

The

best illustration that comes

to

mind

is

Jesse Pitts's

performance

at the first

student-faculty party. Pitts took

the

occasion

to

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

9/42

The

Department

of

Social Relations

and

Systems Theory

at

Harvard

1948-50

615

spoof The Structure of SocialAction.Providingthe entertainment for the

evening,

he

entered

the

stage

with

an

elaborately constructed tinker toy,

announcing

in atone ofmock solemnity, Thisis

The

Structure

of

Social

Action.

The

most critical among

us,

Pitts walked directly

to

Parsons

to

present him

with

his creation. Though

Pitts's

irreverence was excessive,

Parsons treated the performance as a joke and laughed, relievingwhatwas

otherwise a tense moment and allowing the rest of us to laugh too. Beginning

as Parsons's severest critic, Pitts later became a disciple and one of Parsons's

co-editorsof the

multi-volume

collection

ofsociological

essays,

Theories

of Society. I've digressed onthis point because, as Ishall show later, the

case of Pitts helps to explain why so many of Parsons's students, despite

their initial negative reactions, eventually became Parsonians.

The Social Relations Department was created in 1946 as an administra-

tivemechanism to support

Parsons's

main intellectual

projectframing

a

theory for ademocratic social system. Itscurriculum included courses in

sociology, anthropology, social psychology and clinical psychology, but not

political science or economics, the latter a peculiar omission in lightof

Parsons's

original education as an economist. The range of courses spread

over all these disciplines distinguished the Department of Social Relations

from

Harvard's sociology department

of the

late thirties

and

early forties.

Before and

during

the

war,

the

departmental stage

was

shared

by

Pitirim

Sorokin and Parsons. Students during that period included Kingsley Davis,

Robert Merton, Wilbert Moore, Arthur Davis, Nicholas Demerath, Robin

Williams,

Edward Devereaux, and Logan Wilson. Their readings would

have includedParsons'seconomic essays, TheStructureof SocialAction,

and

also the works of Sorokin and Carl Zimmerman. In the

1930's,

Parsons

was

still a disciple of Joseph Schumpeter, Thomas Nixon Carver and Frank

William

Taussig

and

wrote articles

on

capitalism while working

on

The

Structure

o f

SocialAction.6He had not yetformulatedhistheoretical con-

ception of thesocialsystem. Duringthewar, Parsons submittedproposals

to the Research and Analysis branch of theO.S.S.and concerned himself

withtheproblems posedbyGerman fascism.Hisworkonfascism reinforced

his

fears

for the future of

democracy

and

civil order

in the

United States.

Later he developed the idea of formulating a social relations curriculum

andframed a comprehensive theory of the social system. During the years

that the class of 1948 was in residence, the social relations curriculum was

still

not sharply focused.

Later,

the theory of the social system would provide a liberal image

of

whatasocialordershouldbe.When Parsons wrote about substantive

issues such as racial equality, the

family,

responsibility and obligations, the

power structure (his critique of C.Wright Mills's, ThePowerElite), the

functions

of the

executive,

and the

other dimensions

of

American society,

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

10/42

616

Vidich

hespokefromhissoul, almostas anEmersonianandcertainlyas aChristian

ethicist concerned about the moral order of society. At the time I was at

Harvard, he was not yet the full-fledged formal social theorist he would

becomelater whenfour-fold tables and the harmonics of the system became

almost ends

in

themselves, more like

a

sociological metaphysics.

In 1948, the social relations curriculumfloatedideas in alldirections.

It was

full

of

intellectual confusions

and

contradictions

and

attracted

a

remarkable collection of professors, instructors and graduate students,

whom

Parsons organized into

a

loosely knit adm inistrative unit.

It

included

parts of the older pre war department of sociology in the professorships

ofSorokin and Zimmerman. Parsons did not then have the dominance that

he achieved later. Moreover, he was striving to revive interest in Th e

Structureo fSocial

Action

(1937), the reception ofwhichhad been delayed

by

the war. Some ten yearsafter its publication, Parsons rehabilitated the

book bymakingit the focusof the department's proseminar.

However,

in

1948 stud ents could

respondto

professors

of

theirchoice,

not

onlyParsons, Sorokin

and

Zimmerman,

bu t

George Homans, Freed

Bales, Kluckhohn, Henry Murray, Richard Solomon,Gordon Allport and

SamuelStouffer. Moreover, these professors were housed in a number of

separate buildings: some anthropologists were in the Peabody; Kluc kho hn,

Alex Inkeles and Barrington Moore, Jr. were in the Russian Research

Center; and Stouffer, Homans and Parsons were in Emerson Hall. The

psychologists Gordon Allport, Richard Solomon andJeromeBruner were

in

Emerson Hall, while

the

psychoanalysts were

in

still other buildings:

E.G. Boring, B.F. Skinner and George Miller were in the basement of

Mem orial Hall, and though they had noaffiliations

with

the Social Rela tions

program weream eaning ful presence fo rpsychology students. H enry Mu r-

ray had his own

headquarters m ade famous

in the

book,Love'sStory Told:

A Life, Henry A. Murray.

7 The

dispersion

of

facultyoffices lent

a

sense

of

freedom and lightness to academiclife:one didn't feel under surveillance.

The Depa rtmen t was composed of too m any divisive elements to be brou ght

unde r an ything like systems of culture, personality, economics and society.

In

this hybrid department,the mix ofstudents included aspiring sociol-

ogists, anthropologists, psychologists and clinicians. Each subset oriented

itself to adifferent groupo f

faculty.

Because ofthis multiplicityofintellec-

tual orientations, every first-year student was required to enroll in the

Dep artmen t's proseminar, a kind of collective baptismal ceremony designed

tocertify us as mem bers of a common congregation. The seminar consisted

ofw eekly lectures givenby senior professors on the

staff.

Parsons, Kluck-

hohn,Murray, Allport, Sorokin and Robert White are the names I remem-

ber as lecturers. I don't remember Stouffer lecturing, but if he was not

included it was because he was then ru nning his IBM cards for the multi-

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

11/42

TheDepartment ofSocial Relationsand

Systems

Theory atHarvard

1948-50

617

volumestudy,TheAmericanSoldier.Theseminar served as adisplay case

for

senior professors. Junior professors not included were Alex Inkeles,

BarringtonMoore Jr., Freed Bales, Florence Kluckhohn, Frederick Mos-

teller,

L.

Postman, M.B. Smith, Benjamin Paul, Jerome Bruner,

E.

Hanf-

mann, not to mention the then lesser lights, David Aberle, Evon Vogt,

John Roberts andGardner Lindzey. Noticeably missingfrom theseminar

roster

of

lecturers were

th e

traditional anthropologists located

in the

Pea-

bodyMuseum.

Theseminar leftonewitha

lopsided

imageof the

total

Social

Relations

faculty.

It was

heavily weighted

on the

side

of

Parsons, Kluckhohn

and

Murray. However, Murray used someof histimeto ridicule the idea of a

systematic

sociology: hewouldsaythings like

Speech

ishealthier than

silence, even though

one

knowsthat

what

one

says

is

vague

and

inconclu-

sive. 8

Or :

Every

ma n

knows something about himself

which

he's willing

to tell,andsomething about himself that he's not willingto tell.There's

also something about himself thathe

doesn't

knowandcan't

tell.

9Murray

inhabited

the

worlds

of

Herman Melville

and

Jungian psychology

and

provided anantidote to anyclaimsfor arational, objective interpretation

of thesocial world,not tomentiontheideaof asocial system.Hisviewof

thesocial scienceswasquixoticandgave couragetothoseo f us whorejected

the ideaofclosed systems.

Parsons dominated

the

seminar, giving Kluckhohn

a

supporting role

and allowing Sorokin a single appearance. To the students, it wasclear

that

Parsons

was the

leadingfigure:

he

held

the key

that would open

the

door to a future career. To underscore this point, Parsons distributed to

the class hispaper, Towards aCommon Language for the Area of the

Social

Sciences,

which proposed

the

development

of a

common vocabulary

designed totranscend disciplinary differencesandprovide mutual under-

standingbetween them. This paper left adeep impressionon me notonly

because

it

claimed that there could

be

such

a

thing

as a

common language

through which social analysis mightbereported, but also because George

Orwell hadjust published

1984

in

which

hedescribed

processes

ofthought

control

by

linguistic means.

Not

that Parsons would have

had any

such

intention.Hiscommon languagewasthatof aconvinced believerinsocial

science,more like that

of a

founder

of a

secular sect.

The

purpose

of the

proseminarwas to lay out thedistinctive intellectual line that

Parsons

was

then

formulating

for his

version

of

sociology.

THE

PROSEMINAR:1948-49

Because the Social Relations curriculum included four disciplines,

the proseminar would be the means for their cross-fertilization. Each

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

12/42

618

Vidich

lecturer introduced us to the vocab ulary of his (there were no women

lecturers) discipline and its subject matter as he saw it.

There

could

even

be

cross-fertilization

within

disciplines,

fo r

example, when there

were

two or

more lecturers from

the

same discipline

as was the

case

for sociology (Parsons and Sorokin) and psychology (Murray, White and

Allport). Exposure to am ultiplicityof vocabularies did not lead inevitably

to cross-fertilization or to an interdisciplinary perspective. Add ing to

the centrifugality of disciplinary vocabularies, each of the lecturers

recommended the works of

authors

whom they regarded as significant

figures

in

their fields. The names of Max and Alfred Weber, Emile

Durkheim, Sigmund Freud,

Alfred

Kroeber, Franz Boas, Gregory Bate-

son, Susanne Langer, G.H. Mead, Leslie White, McDougall, Watson,

Jung

and many others were added as crucial authors. Notably absent

from the lists were the works of Karl Marx, Thorstein Veblen, and

Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

It

soon became

evident to us that no one could grasp the substance or the vocabularies

of all the disciplines or read all the books in a semester or even a year.

Yet we

confronted

an

examination that would include questions

involving

interdisciplinary knowledge. The prospect of this examination led us to

our own solution to this graduate student problem.

Approaching our anxieties rationally, we formed interdisciplinary

study

groups.Each member of a group consisting of

four

or five students

was

assigned responsibility to provide digests ofbooksand summaries of

lecture notes. For example, one of us wouldreport on Durkheim's The

Rules of

Sociological Method,

another

on Suicide, and a

third

on

The

Division

of

Labor

in

Society. Reports were duplicated, distributed, and

discussed

with

members of the group, and in

some cases

exchanged

with

other groups. In our graduate student argot, these digests were known as

hamburgers. We had put intopractice a division of labor.

By this method,

it was

possible

to

acquire second-hand knowledge

of dozens of major works prior to the examination. One could appear

knowledgeable about books

one had

never read

andcoursesone had

never

taken. For m e it led to a certain vagueness regarding whichcoursesI actually

took

at

Harvard

and

which books

I

actually

read.A

furtherconsequence

of

this approach to scholarship was that it was not until years later tha t I had

the occasion to read some of the classic texts, although my second-hand

knowledge of them enabled me to pass the ex amin ation. The class of 1948

wasresourceful, and gave its own pragm atic meaning to cross-fertilization

and inter-disciplinary studies.

The best hamburgers I

possess

were written as proseminar reports by

committees composed of four or five students.10 An extensive exegesis

would

serve no purpose, scholarly or otherwise; however, the reports are

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

13/42

The Department of Social Relations and

Systems

Theory at

Harvard

1948-50

619

useful

as

illustrations

of the

aims

of the

Social Relations curriculum

and

help explain

the

intellectual orientation

of the

department.

The proseminar was a one year course, designated Social Relations

201 (Fall 1948) and 201A (Spring 1949). Students were organized into study

teams. Each team

was

assigned

a

topic

on

which

a

collective report would

be subm itted. There were eighteen teams and twelve topics so that in some

cases more than one team was assigned the same topic. The titles of the

proseminar syllabus topics follow:

1.

Science-making: Reality

and Scientific

Language; determ inants

and

consequences

of different

conceptual schemes; criteria

of

worth;

differences between physicalandsocial science,

2.

Assumptions

of

Basic Social

Science,

3. Fundamental Concepts

Defined

(six teams),

4. Fundamental Propositions and Hypotheses (two teams),

5. Analysis and Evaluation of Current Theories (three teams),

6. Strategic Problems (two teams),

7.

Social Science

and the

Realm

of

Value,

8.

Applications

of

Social Science (two teams).

Each team was assigned Parsons, K luckhohn, or M urray as its

faculty

super-

visor.

The course began on October 4with an introductory lecture on the

subject,

Historical

Survey: Constituents

of

Basic Social Science. Social

Science

and the

WorldCrisis. Since

the

proseminar

was

essentially Par-

sons's creation, I assume he gave this lecture. Subsequent lectures were

given byvarious membersof theSocial RelationsstaffwhomIhave already

identified.

I do not

remember whether

the

topics

of the

lecturers corres-

ponded withtheteamtopics.Probably, theydidnot, because the purpose

ofthe lectures w as to expose students to the senior m embers of the

faculty;

certainly

Sorokin's lecture couldnot be madeto fitinto either theSocial

Relations

or

proseminar mold.

The

procedure

of

establishing teams und er

professorial supervision was a feature of the proseminar that stood apart

from

the

w eekly lectures

and

insured that Parsons, Kluckhohn,

and

Murray

would supervise and guide student teams.

Attached

to the

syllabus

of

topics

was the

following reading list:

READING LIST

To bereadbyOctober11:

Conant,

J. B.,

On

Understanding

Science

Kluckhohn, F.,

A Consideration of Method

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

14/42

620

Vidich

Northrop,F. S. C, Th eLogic of theSciencesand theHumanities,

(Ch.

I-VIII;

XIV-XXI)

To be

read

by

October

18:

Parsons,

T., etal., Toward a Common Language for the Area of the

Social Sciences

To bereadin anyorder,allthree before December 13:

Kluckhohn,

C., &

Murray,

H. A.,

Personalityin

Nature, Society,

and

Culture

Murphy,G.,Personality.

A

Biosocial Approach, (Omit Part III)

Parsons,T.,

The

Structure

of

Social Action

(Omit Part III)

Thereadingsonthis list were intendedtoprovide studentswithacore

of

common understanding

and a

basis

for the

evaluation

of the

works

o f

other authors.Inadditiontothis reading list, eachof theteamswasprovided

with additional listsofbooks fromwhicha

report

was to be

produced.

We

wereadisparate groupofstudentswithspecific interestsin theconventional

disciplines.Theproseminar aimedto put all of us on thesame wavelength.

Itwasbecauseofthesemultiple reading listsand ourneedto getontothe

right

wavelength that students were

led to

interdisciplinary cooperation

and thecreationof thehamburger method.

ThebesthamburgerreportsIpossesswere written underthecategory

Analysis

and

Evaluation

of

Current

Theories. Three

groups were

as-

signed this category,

one

group each under

the

supervision respectively

of

Parsons,

KluckhohnandMurray.Ineach case current theories wereto be

evaluated

from

the point of view in the books of our professors. The

reports Ipossess

were written

by

Parsons's committee. Parsons assigned

the committee four

books: Parsons's

TheStructureof Social Action, G.H.

Mead's

Mind, Self and Society,

Pitirim Sorokin's Society,

CultureandPer-

sonality, and MaxWeber's

Theory

of

Social

and

Economic Organization.

Each of the reports is four or five single-spaced pages inlength and was

duplicated fo rcirculationon amimeograph machine, thenthe

state

of the

art

in

copying.

The

reports

are not

signed

and

hence

are

anonymous works.

One

committee

was

asked

to

summarize

the key

themes

inTheStructure

of Social Action, and the others were to evaluate Mead's, Sorokin's and

Weber's

books

in light of their relevance to Parsons's action frame of

reference

and

voluntaristic theory

of

action.

A

summary

of the

four reports

reveals something

of the

intellectual orientation

of the

proseminar.

In the

followingexcerpts

I

presentonly

the first and

last paragraphs

of

eachreport.

Ihave corrected a few of theauthors' typographical errorsandmisspellings.

Th e central point of each report isclear: Th e Structureo f Social Action

wasto betakenas astandard. Other books wereto beevaluated

from

the

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

15/42

The Department of Social Relations and Systems Theory atHarvard1948-50 621

point of view of Parsonian truths.

Hence,

the committee begins its report

with

a

review

of The Structure of Social

Action.

Parsons:

The Structure

of

Social

ction(1937)

Sincethepointof

departure.

. .fortheanalysisof. . .

significant

worksinsociologi-

caltheoryi sProfessor Parsons's TheStructure

of

SocialAction, theprimary purpose

ofthis paperis tooutlinebriefly the action frame ofreferenceand thevoluntaristic

theory

of

action

as

found

in

that book.

An d

secondarily

our

purpose

is to

show

the

emergence

of

vo luntaristic theory

of

action from

a

critical analysis

of the

work

of four

recent European social scientists-Marshall, Pareto, Durk heim and Weber.

Thus our interest is not in the

theories

of

these

men, but in the single body of

systematic

theoretical reasoning which

can be

traced through

a

critical analysis

of

the

writings

of

this group.

This paper concludes that Positivism has been seen to break down whe n applied

to the phenomenon of action because it eliminates the creative, voluntaristic

character of action by dispensing with the analytic significance of values and

other normative elements. The idealistic system of thought, on the other hand,

while

stressing the imp ortance of the subjective, value-oriented eleme nts in action

eliminates the obstacles to the realization of values. According to thinkers in this

tradition, man is not subject to law in the physical sense, but is free. Comprehension

of his

action

may be

grasped only

by the

intuition

of

total wholes which

it is

illegitimate to break down into elements for casual analysis.The work of Max

Weber shows that this tradition also tends to break down towards a voluntaristic

system of action. While demonstrating the soundness of the subjective reference

of the

idealistic theories,

the

work

o f

Weber breaks

from

this tradition

by

placing

the role of value elements in the context of a voluntaristic system rather than

that of idealistic emanationism. Further Weber rejects the premises ofidealism

in

subsuming facts under general

concepts

of analytical significance . . . the

generalized structural elements of the voluntaristic system of action emergent

from

the works of these four men

fall

into three groups ... I. Hered ity and

environment

... II.

Intermediate intrinsic means-end

sector . . .

III. Ultimate

value system

. . .

with

a

fourth element binding them

all

together (pp. 718-719).

IV. Effort: The voluntaristic element, which is the relating factor between norma-

tive

and conditiona l elem ents of action, is necessitated by the

fact

that norms do

not

realize themselves,

but are

realized only through action.

The

analyses

of the

works

of

Mead, Sorokin

and

Weber were

to be

used as

tools

to confirm

Parsons's

conclusions in

The Structure of Social

Action.The

point

of

each analysis, except

for

that

of

Sorokin,

is to

give

duecreditto Mead's andWeber'scontributions to the

advancement

of the

theory of action.

Mead:

Mind Self

and

Society

(1934)

George Mead , a pragm atic social psychologist, is not prim arily concerned in Mind,

Self and Society

with

the

problems

of the

specific delimitation

and

delineation

of

a

generalized theory of social systems. Rath er, he focuses his attention arou nd on e

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

16/42

622

Vidich

ofthecrucialandcentral considerationsofsuchageneralized theoryandinevitably

entwines

muchofsuchageneralized theory. Mead's primary problemcan belooked

at,

using

the

terms

of

Professor Parsons,

as the

nature

of

role,

the

link between

the

sub-system of the

actor,

as a

psychological behaving entity,

and

social structure,

as

apatterned systemofsocial relationships . . .

Finally

it may be

said that Mead's approach

was

that

of an

analytical realist,

for the

scientific

concepts withwhichhedealtdid notcorrespond toconcretephenomena,

but to

elements

in

themwhich

he

analytically separated

from

other elements.

Al-

though

Mead did notelaboratea generalized theory of action, his penetratingtreat-

ment of anecessary constructinsuchatheoryhasbeenamonumental contribution.

Sorokin:Society,Culture and Personality:TheirStructureand

Dynamics. A SystemofGeneralSociology

(1947)

(Note: Sorokin

was

still

a

major figure

in

American

and

international sociology,

but

this

work could

not

easily

be

absorbed into

an

action

frame

of

reference.

In

the year 1948, he had already been administratively relegated to the margins of

the department and it was to be understood by students in this class that he need

not be taken seriously. Hence, the irreverent tone of Sorokin's hamburger.)

To an

infidel,thispetitum

opus* of

Sorokin

has a

curious resemblance

to the

Bible.

Both works are characterized by a wealth of information, often esoteric;

by manifest zeal, hortatory injunctions

and

jeremiads;

by

great concern

for the

chosen race and censure for outlanders; and, I might add, a certain amountof

confusion

for the uninitiated. Ostensibly, however, in contrast to the moral concern

of

the

Bible, Sorokin

is

concerned with

the

objective analysis

of

sociocultural

phenomena, which is distinguished

from

other

fields

by . . . the presence of mind

orthought.

Since Sorokinis . . .anidealist, regard ing sociocultural phenomenaasemanations

of

theWeltanschauungof anepoch, undertheactionframeofreferencetheindivid-

ual

is

left

with no choice. The situation is determined in terms of values, norms

and meanings, and to the same source can his perception and

selection

of ends and

means be attributed. The escape clause indicates either biological factors or the

mysteriousX, forwhich there is noexplanation. Inclosing, Iwould like to note

that

it is

only limitations

of

carbon paper that precludes systematic criticism

of

Sorokin'sposition. But perhaps theaboveanalysis suggests points of attack.

Max

Weber. The

Theory

of SocialandEconomic Organization,

Trans.

by

A. M.Hendersonand T.Parsons,

Edited

withan Introduction

byT.

Parsons

(1947)

The

development

of

Weber's theory

and

methodology stands

in

sharp opposition

to

that branch

of

German idealistic philosophy

which

denied

the

possibility

of

empirically or scientifically validatinggeneralized conceptual schemesastheyap-

plied to the human or cultural areas. He emphasizes the

need

for such general

*The mere 723pages of this work compared with the fourequally long volumesof

Social

and

Cultural Dynamics.

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

17/42

The Department of Social Relations and Systems Theory at Harvard 1948-50

623

theoretical conceptual categories

in any

adequate causal explanation and,proceed-

ing from

theframeofreferenceof

action,

he attempts toestablish a systematic

conceptualization, hischief methodological toolbeing thatof the ideal type.The

latter refers essentiallyto alogicalandnon-normative constructionofthoseelements

ofreality conceived

in a

pattern. Insofar

as

action

is in

conformity with

the

rational

ideal type,

it is

rational

and

insofar

as it

deviates fromthis ideal type,

it is

irrational.

There

is a

tendency notable here, upon whichParsons

has

commented, namely

a

tendency todichotomize action into rational andirrational categories andthen to

treat those

categoriesasantithetical even where on an empirical level theymay

wellbeactinginconcertasintegrated elements . . .

This position has been criticized by

Parsons

asresulting from Weber's

failure

to

distinguishhishypothetically concrete typeconceptsandtheir empirical generaliza-

tion

on the one

hand, from

the

categories

of a

generalized theoretical system

on

the other . . . Although Weber did not formulate anexplicit theory of a total

functioning

social system of action, he did, by the clarity of his developed, logically

interrelated scheme

of

idealtypes

of

socialaction,

as

well

as by the

breadth

of his

scientific vision and the consistency and insight of his empirical applications make

a

contribution that places

him in the

front rank

ofsocial science theorists.

My

purposeinpresenting these somewhat pretentiousand attimes irrev-

erentsummariesis togiveanimpressionof the

weltanshauung

wesharedin

1948. Evidentin thetreatmentweaccorded other thinkers,TheStructureof

Social

Action

was to be the

base

from whichour

education should proceed.

SinceKluckhohn'sandMurray's books wereto be thestandardsforevaluat-

ing

anthropological and psychological works, our professors seemed to be-

lieve

that the truth was substantially in place at Harvard University. It is not

too hardto see in allthisa

form

ofmegalomaniaandnaivete.

While

constructinghissystem, Parsons turnedhisstudents into collabo-

rators. Parsons wasworking throughhis ownintellectual transition

from

The Structure of SocialAction to hisstructural-functional theory in The

Social System.

Drawing

on

terminologies

of

cultural anthropology, depth

psychology,

social psychology,

and

sociology,

he

appropriated various social

science vocabularies intohis ownoverarching theory.If, for example,the

workof Mead or Weber was distorted in carrying out his project, this was

beside the point. Parsons wasless interested inWeber or Mead thanin

borrowing fromthem categories andconcepts useful for hispurposes. We

were not so

much guinea pigs

as

potential Parsonians. Nowhere

is

this more

explicitlystated thaninParsons's preface to

Toward

a General Theory of

Action,

where he describes how he created discussion groups to help

... in

clarifying

the problems we

faced individually

in our teaching and

research aswell as in our

corporate

capacity

as a

department (emphasis

added). The discussion groups included not only a

core

group of professors,

but

also

what

Parsons calls

a

larger, younger group

of

junior

staff and

students.

11

This

form

of

collective intellectual work

was a

method

for

propa-

gating his

perspective

and

achieving consensus among

the

participants

in

the proseminar. The Parsonianinfluencewas impossible to ignore because

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

18/42

624

Vidich

he had set the

agenda:

not

only

for the

proseminar

bu t

also

for the

inter-

locking committees subsumed und er

his

m anagement

in a

corporate depart-

ment. This administrative structure of committees is a

fact

that helps to

explain the propagation of so many Parsonians.

The proseminar stressed abstract social

scientific

categories and con-

ceptsthat aspiring social scientists would need

in

qualifying

to

practice

the

craft.Its syllabus covered the n atu re of science,differencesb etween physical

and social sciences, the basic assumptions of social science, fundamental

concepts, propositions

and

hypotheses,analysis

and

evaluation

of

theories,

strategic problems, the rea lm of values and , lastly, problem s connected with

applications of social science. Thefocusof our readings was on propositions,

theories,

the

nature

of

science

an d

concepts. However, concepts were

no t

understood

as

theoretical terms packed with

a

specific conte nt.

In

contrast

to the

predom inantly abstract theme s

of the

proseminar syllabus,

tw o

topics,

strategicproblems and the applicationsofsocialscience, were meant

to bridge the gapbetween conceptsand empirical realities. According to

the logic of the proseminar, the content of concepts would be found by

identifying problems

to

which they could

be

applied.

The

application

of

conceptstostrategic problems w ould providetheraison d'etrefor thesocial

utility

of the

social sciences.

Th e

means

for

applyingconcepts would

be

provided

by

something called Basic Social Science.

BASIC SOCIAL SCIENCE IN THE M AKING

The concept

Basic

SocialScience isdefinedin the faculty guidelines

given to

students

in

Social Relations. These guidelinesone

for

each pro-

seminar topic areaprovided the perspective

from

which we were to frame

ou r

reports. Their detail

an d

comprehensivenessand even grandeur

reveal the depth of the faculty's commitment to itseffort to build a found a-

tion for the social sciences. I havecopies of two such guidelines, one for

ScienceMaking

and the

other

for

Fundamental Psychological Concepts

Defined, whichare listed as topics 1 and 3 on the proseminar syllabus

(the gu idelines, likethestudent reports, were authored anonymously).The

guideline on Science Maki ng is two pages in length. I reproduce it in

full inorder to show the faculty's intentions and ambitions. It contains

sectionsA, B and C(suggested readings) unde rtheheading

Social

Science

in the

Making :

SOCIAL SCIENCE

IN THE

MAKING

A. Scientific

methodology

is

commonly expounded under such headings

as:

observation and descriptionofsense-dataa nd their relations; abstraction, analysis

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

19/42

The

Department

of

Social Relations

and

Systems Theory

at Harvard

1948-50

625

and

identification

ofcomponent processes orvariables; concept; definition;

classifi-

cation

and

construction

of tentative

conceptual schemes; representation

of

relational

uniformities,

speculative manipulation

of

variables,

and

making

of

hypotheses

by

supposition;

verificationof

predictions (hypotheses)

by

observation

and

experiment;

constructionofpostulatesandtheorems; makingofhypothesesbylogical deduction,

etc.

Assuming a general knowledge of these mental

operations

as performed by

physical

scientists

and biological

scientists,

let us social

scientists

consider these ques-

tions(emphasis added):

Which of

these

(or

other not-above-mentioned) procedures

are

particularly

relevant to the

peculiar aims

and

tasks

of

basic social scientists and, therefore,

should be more fully

understood

by them? What

special points

should be

stressed

in describingthe methodologyof social science?

In

what

significant

respects

does the

subject matter

(and thepresent

stage

of

development) of basic

social

science

differ

from

that

of the

physical

and

biological

sciences?

(emphasis added).

What

modifications

of

strategy

and

tactics,

if

any,

and

what

modifications of

ideal theoretical forms,

if

any,

are

required

of

social scientists

as a consequence of these differences.

B.

Among

the

topics

whichmay

require consideration

are the following:

1.

Differences

infacts

collected

and

theories constructed

as the

result

of: a)

differentbasis assumptionsas to thenatureof

reality;

b)differentconcepts

and

terminologies;c)differentstagesin thedevelopmentofscientifictheory;

d)

different (practical) purposes motivating scientists;

e)

different social

problemsortasks requiring attention; f)different techniquesand gadgets;

etc.

2. The

inclusion

of

inner,

or

subjective,

processes

(reports

of

introspection)

associal science data.

3. Operational (or criterial definition of

concepts).

4.

Phenomenal concepts

as

compared with explanatory concepts (concepts

bypostulation).

5. The

problem

of

causation: single cause

vs.

mutual dependence

of

determi-

nants.

6.Problems createdby theuniquenessofsocial science entities (personalities,

socialgroups,cultural patterns)

and by the

uniqueness (emergent

novelty)

of all

social events,

and by the

irreversibility

of

developmental

processes.

7. Theimportanceinsocial scienceofqualitative

differences

(differentpatterns

orforms)ascomparedto quantitative

differences

(basicin thephysical sci-

ences).

8. The Baconian method

(fact

collecting and induction) as compared to the

Newtonian

method (postulation, deduction, and verification) for social

science.

9. Comparisonof theassumptionsofAristotleandGalileo (cf.

Kurt

Lewin's

article)as

applicable

to

social science.

C. Suggested Readings:

Conant, F.,Kluckhohn, Northrop,&Parsonset al.

Cohen, Morris,R.,A Preface to Logic

Hull, C. I., Principles

of

Behavior

(Chapter

1)

Langer,

S.,Philosophy in a New Key

(Penguin)

Lewin,

K.,

A Dynamic

Theory

of

Personality

Kauffman,

Felix,

Methodology in the Social Sciences

Urban, W. M.,

Language

and Reality

(relevant

sections)

Whyte, L. I.,

The

Next Development

of

Man.

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

20/42

626

Vidich

In

the first paragraph u nde r A, a general knowledge of the mental

operations

as

performed

by

physical scientists

and

biological scientists

is

assumed

for

describing

the

methodology

of

social science.

In the

third

paragraph,

the

statement asks:

In

whatsignificantrespects does

the

subject

matter (and

the

present stage

of

development)

of

Basic Social Science

differ

from

thatof thephysicaland biological

sciences?

In other words,

the aim of

Basic Social Science

is to be a

science like physics

and

biology,

but at

this stage

of its

developm ent certain modifications

of

strategy

and

tactics

. . . [and] of ideal

theoretical

forms . . . are required of social

scientists

before achievingfull status

as a

science. W hile

the

physical

and

biological sciences are intended to serve as an ideal for the socialsciences,

the latter for various important reasons as listed under paragraph B are

qualitatively different from thefo rmer. Still,thepointofdeparture for the

making ofBasic Social Scienceare theproceduresofinvestigation utilized

by physics

and

biology: though they

may be

qualitativelydifferent, there

is

the suggestion that physics and biology set the standard that ultimately

may

be

achieved

by

Basic Social Science. Though

not yet

fully established,

Basic Social Science was still being made.

The scientific methodology propou nded for Basic Social Sciencethat

is,

concern

for

inner

or

subjective

processes,

single cause versus mutual

dependence

of

determinants, qualitative compared

to

quantitative differ-

ences, the Baconian as compared to the Newtonian method, etc.ran

counter

to the

mundane practical realities

of

research.

The

fact that

a gap

existed between

an

idealized image

of

research

methods and research in action is illustrated by the student team that

worked on Fund amen tal Psychological Concepts Defined. Definitiona l

clarity

of concepts w as stressed in assignments given to students.

Parsons's

essay

Towarda

Common Language

for the

Area

of the

Social

Sciences

had set

this requirement

as a

standard.

The

facultyguideline

for the

defini-

tion

of

psychological concepts reads:

Compare definitions as given by various authors of the following fund amental

concepts. Attempt to

resolve

differences and to construct an

adequate

criterial

(and

if

necessary operational) definition

ofeach: Field

(total situation,

life

space),

ExternalSituation (structure of environment, stimuluspattern),Sign,

Press,

Need,

Drive, Action pattern

(action and

effect), Agency

(instrument),

Pathway, Barrier,

Goal

(also goal object,goal place), Cathexis, Valence,Sentiment, Attitude, Trait,

Unconsciouspsychicprocesses,Ego, Id, Superego, Ego Ideal,Repression,Projec-

tion, Differentiation (of personality), Integration (of personality),

Socialization,

Sublimation,Regression,Functional Autonomy.

The

guideline asks

for a

comparison

of

definitions

by

different authors,

a

resolution

of differences in

definition

and

construction

of

criterial

and

operational definitionsof each of the listed concepts. Two separate teams

produced reports on

definitions

of

fundamental

concepts. Both

reports,

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

21/42

TheDepartment of Social Relationsand Systems Theory atHarvard 1948-50

627

one ofeighteen and theotherof

thirty-five

single-spaced pages listdefini-

tions culled

from

psychological texts. In a preamble to the

thirty-five-page

report, theauthors state the purpose of their work

differently from

that

given in theguideline:

The purpose of this paper is to

clarify

certainconceptsbasic to the study of personal-

ity. Wehave borrowed freely fromfirst oneauthor then another, always selecting,

modifying and editingwith less concern that a certain author's case be presented

than that

the

resulting concepts might serve

as

workable tools

for the

student

sharing the dynamical, organismalview point.Thisapproach is committed to the

studyofsubmerged and elusive

processes

which

often

are approachable onlyby

inferences

from

other manifestations.

It

follows that definitive constructs

are on

theone hand difficult and on the other indispensable to progress in the field.

It

isfrom the

assumption that increased precision

in

conceptual definitionswill

result in less confusing inferences that wehave taken the first few modest steps

necessary in formulating criterial definitions for certain key constructs.

The

enterprise

was a

hodge podge

of

terms

and definitions, a free

borrowingofdefinitions from

psychology that

had

little

or no

relation

to

each

other.The

enterprise,

in

short,

was a

distillation

of

definitions taken

fromthe

extant psychological

literature.

Presumably,

theresearch

method

employed

was one of

scanning book indexes, locating page numbers,

and

copyingdefinitions. However, since the meaningof aconcept is

given

by

the context in which it is used, this assignment led only to a new list of

definitions. The report seems to acknowledge this consequence by its

opaque statement that this approach is committed to the study of sub-

merged

and

elusive processes

which are

approachable only

by

inferences

from

other manifestations, a statement which seems to have very little

meaning,

if

any.

Faculty aspirations

for

training recruits

in its new

social science

ex-

ceededby a

large margin

the

capacities

of the raw

materials

with whichit

wasworking. From the point of view of the recruits who were to be molded,

the

experience

was

primarily

one of

learning

new

vocabularies that

we

understood were essential

to our

educationafter all, eminent Harvard

scholars were our guides. Eager to learn, we could

justify

our intellectual

effort

on the grounds that we would become interdisciplinary social scien-

tists. However, these team assignments had the peculiar quality of bearing

no

relationship

to any

specific empirical problem

in the

study

of

society,

culture,

or

personality. They were designed instead

to

showthat

the

con-

cepts used by social science investigators could have fixed meanings. The

apparatus

of

concepts

replaced

a

concern

for

specifying

a

research problem.

Hence

the

concern

for finding

definitions

offundamental

concepts,

funda-

mentalpropositions

and

hypotheses,

and the

evaluation

of

theories

from

the point of view ofdistilling

from

them their common elements. The

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

22/42

628 Vidich

objectiveofcreating Basic Social Science was tocreatethemethodological

apparatus that would establish

the

social sciences

as

science.

TH EAIMSOFBASIC SOCIAL SCIENCE

Th e

clearest statement

of the

aims

of

Basic Social Science

is

contained

in

apaperheaded 'Social Relations 201A' anddated January3,1949.It is

a six-page,single-spaced faculty guideline called SomeAssumptions of

Basic Social

Science.

Itlistsitsassumptions under

four

headings:A. The

Operations andAimsofSocial Scientists, B.Constitutional Assumptions,

C.Psychological Assumptions,D.Socio-Cultural Assumptions.Forpresent

purposes, adiscussionofpointAaloneand the twopoints subsumed under

it

are

sufficient

to describe itsaims. In abbreviated form, point A runs

asfollows:

A. TheOperationsandAimsof Social Scientists.

1. If science is both nomothetic an d idiographic then anything which exists is

amenabletoscientificstudy.. . It isassumed tha t thereare no apriorilimitations

tounderstanding human behavior.

2.

The

methods

of

sciences

are

multiple

. . .

Observation

of

objects

of

sense

. . .

Descriptions of

objects

of sense . . .

Ordering

of

facts

by

classes

and

con-

cepts . . .Formation of conceptual schemes according to principles of

utility

an d parsimony with th esequential deduction of hypotheses.

3.

Theaimsofscience aremultiple. . . Prediction ofevents. . .Explanationof

events

. . .

Control

of

events.

Theseaimsandtheir concomitant methods promiseacapacitytopre-

dict, explainandcontrol events.Thequestionof whowould control events

is

not specifiedin this document. Perhaps social scientists would exercise

such

control in astyle similarto that ofphysicists when workingintheir

laboratories. As I

will

indicate below, suchanassumption couldbeunder-

stoodonlyon the basis ofsocial scientists' work during their World War

IIgovernmental service.

Point 4underAdistinguishes between

basic

andnon-basic social sci-

ences. Basic Social Sciencesarethose already withinthefoldof the Depart-

ment

of

Social Relations. Non-basic social sciences

are

history, economics

andpolitical science:

4. Basic social science is thestudyof the speciesman, the cultureh ebuilds, an d

of

man as anindividual.Itincludes clinicalandsocial psychology, sociologyan d

social anthropology. The term basic differentiates itself from the other social

sciences; history, economics an d political science, an d implies that these latter

assume

the

conclusions

of

basicsocial science

(emphasis added).

Point

5

cautions that cross-fertilization

of the

Basic Social Sciences

is

not yet accomplished:

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

23/42

The Department of Social Relations and

Systems Theory

at

Harvard 1948-50

629

5. Basic Social Science is not an accomp lished entity. W e recognize that the sciences

included in the

genus

each

have

their own conceptual

schemes

whichat present

are not completely translatable one

into

another. Basic

Social

Science

strictly

speaking

implies

a

goal

the

formation

of a

common

theoretical system

from

whichthe

theoretical schemes

of the subsumed can be deduced

(emphasis added).

BasicSocial Science strictly speaking implies agoal, the formation

of

a common theoretical system. Its objective was to establish a set of

propositions common to the fields embraced in the Department. Once a

common theoretical system wasframed, it would be ava ilable to historians,

economists and political scientists whose workwouldbe premised upon it.

Point 4 has a decided imperial ring to it. However, Point 5 concedes that

atthe time of our studies, a Basic Social Science had not yet accomplished

its goal. There is here the suggestion that our mentors had not yet come

to anagreementon howmuchofeach discipline wouldbe included in the

final

formulation

of Basic Social Science: territorial agreements had not yet

been adjudicated . Howev er, deliberations were to proceed in an ecum enical

spirit by the representatives of the disciplines. The enterprise as a whole

rested

on a comm itment to finding a comm on theoretical system

fromwhich

the theoretical schemes of the subsumed [clinical and social psychology,

sociology and anthropology] can be

deduced.

Once

fully

completed, Basic

Social Science theo ry would

define

theinv ariant elementsin anoverarching

and

universally applicable theoretical construct. Ecumenicism was to be

social scientificallybenevolent, but not universal. The Basic Social Science

project was extraordina rily ambitious and promised no less than a m ethod

or a

foundation

from which all

research could

be

conducted.

It is not

clear

how the

goal

of

creating

a

common theoretical system

would

provide

a

foundation

for the

scientific

aim of

Prediction

of

events

. . .

Explanation

of

events

. . .

Control

of

events.

That

is, how

can

specific claims be derived

from

a general theory? And, on the other

hand,

how can a

general theory

be

used

to

predict

and

control events? This

was

the problem of

linking

the theoretical scheme to action in historically

specific

situations, institutions and events. This task was assigned to prosem -

inar

team 6, Strategic Problems, and team 8, Applications of Social

Science. Since the common theoretical system for Basic Social Science

was

not yet in place, the student teams

found

themselves in uncharted

territory. Yet, according

to the

logic

of the

proseminar syllabus,

if

Basic

Social Science was to provide the theoretical foundation for the rational

application of the social sciences, then its applied potential would need

dem onstration. It was not inten ded t hat social science should be a d isinter-

ested intellectual activity, but that it should provide gu idance to other

non-basic social sciences as

well

as to enter the world and guide it in its

transformations. But finding the

method

by which the

nomothetic could

byapplied to the idiographic and vice-versa proved to be an insu rmo untab le

7/21/2019 (Har) Vidich 2000 - DSR1

24/42

630

Vidich

and

embarrassing problem

for the

proseminar teams given these assign-

ments.

Writers of thereport on Strategic AreasofResearch inBasic Social

Science noted

in

their preamble that they encountered difficulties

in

car-

rying

ou t their assignment and could not find a criteria for defining a

strategicproblem:

Speech

is

healthierthan

silence,

even though

one

knows that what

one

says

is

vague

and

inconclusive

(Murray).

In accordancewiththe idiosyncrasies of itswriters,this reportpresentsdiscussions

ofseven problems in which research isneeded.Itsintent is toraise

questions,

not

to

provide

or

summarize answers.

The problems

discussed

are not

thought

to

exhaust

a list of

important

areasofresearch.Whether they were strategicproblemswas

itselfa problem to the group.

Left to their ow nresources, the team came upwith seven problem

areas

and an

eighth item listing research then being conducted

by the

membersof t