Skip to: Main Content

Courses, Workshops & Presentations

Writing by Topic

Dialectical Social Science

pdf version (PDF: 126k)

"Dialectical Social Science," from Theoretical Perspectives in Sociology, edited by Scott G. McNall (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1979), pp. 214-231.

Friedrichs (1970: 51-56; 1972b) has hailed the prospect of a dialectical sociology as an alternative to mainstream social theory, and has sug­gested the possibility of a dialectical paradigm to mediate the split between system and conflict theorists as well as between Marxists and non-Marxists. Although Friedrichs calls for a reformulation of the epistemological basis of sociology, his exemplar (1972a) leaves this necessary foundation undeveloped. Despite the emergence of a radical sociology and anthropology and a parallel post-behavioral movement in political science, no school of dialectical social science has yet found a wide recognition as such. This lack of recognition may be due less to the challenge of a "renaissant behavioralism," as Friedrichs (1974) recently argued, than to a continued lack of understanding about what theories are found within dialectical social science. The association of "dialecti­cal" with "materialism," and thus, with orthodox Marxism, may make many academicians wary, as Friedrichs (1970: 326) suggests. A more important source of confusion is the fact that not all theories within dialectical social science are radical, and not all radical or Marxian theories are dialectical. A dialectical social science is not simply an ideological project of the political left. By outlining two approaches to dialectical social science, which share certain assumptions about the nature of human society but have ontological assumptions with vastly different ideological implications, I will show that the concept of dialectical social science encompasses far more than the tradition of critical Marxism and deserves a methodological elaboration in its own right.

Confusion over the status of dialectical social science is evident, for example, in the popular recent work on sociology by Ritzer (1975). He sees it as a multiple paradigm science, but does not acknowledge a dialectical paradigm. Ritzer's analysis is particularly valuable in distin­guishing theories from broader paradigms, and in recognizing that the fundamental split in sociology is not between structural-functionalism and conflict theory. Setting aside the problematic application of the paradigm concept in this context, at least two major problems emerge from Ritzer's discussion. First, he chooses to emphasize the arbitrary and irrational elements underlying the formulation of paradigms, taken from the first edition of Kuhn (1962), but he rejects Kuhn's (1972: 174-210) revision, which places added emphasis on the scientific foundations of paradigms. This leads Ritzer away from basing his distinctions of contending paradigms on the alternative epistemological foundations of social science, and he is consequently distracted by the current partisan debates within sociology. The limitations of this approach are evident when one looks beyond the discipline of sociology to the social sciences as a whole. Second, Ritzer's notion of "paradigm bridgers," including such great figures in the field as Marx, Weber, and Parsons, is inadequate, as it offers only an eclectic rather than a theoretical basis for paradigm reconciliation. Ritzer fails to see dialecti­cal social science in its own right, and he establishes only a residual category for such schools as critical theory.

DEFINITION OF DIALECTIC

Since much confusion exists over the use of the term "dialectic," I will attempt to clarify the way in which it is to be understood in speaking of dialectical social science. Dialectic has a distinguished conceptual history dating back as far as the pre-Socratic philosophers (Abbagnano, et al., 1971). The wealth of significations of dialectic has been indicated by Gurvitch (Bosserman, 1968), Schneider (1971), and Sorokin (1964). Included are immanent change, contradiction, paradox, negation, com­plementarity, ambiguity, polarization, and reciprocity. Van den Berghe (1963) and Turner (1974; 1975) use dialectic to refer to what is better described as conflict theory, while Gross's (1961) neodialectical approach aims at synthesizing a pluralism of views. To many dialectic is identified with the notorious triad "thesis-antithesis-synthesis," which is, in turn, associated with Marxism, despite the fact that this formula was popular­ized by Fichte, never used by Hegel, and seldom employed by Marx (Mueller, 1958; Lichtheim, 1970: 7).

For our purposes here, the term "dialectic" will be used to refer to the mutual formative process between humans and society. North American sociologists may be most familiar with this usage in the work of Peter Berger and his associates, who have given a succinct summary of the three dialectical moments of externalization, objectivation, and internal­ization: "Society is a human product. Society is an objective reality. Man is a social product" (Berger and Luckmann, 1966: 61). This dialectical theory combines what Berger calls a quasi-Weberian emphasis on subjectivity and a quasi-Durkheimian emphasis on objectivity, both "the subjective foundation and the objective facticity of the societal phenomenon" (Berger, 1967:187).

As Berger and Luckmann (1966: 196-201) acknowledge, the social dialectic, which is the essence of man's self-production, was identified by Karl Marx in his early writings. Marx critiqued Hegel's idealism, as in the famous statement in Capital that Hegel's dialectic was "standing on its head" and must be "turned right side up again" to "discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell" (Marx, 1967:20). Yet Marx also distinguished his position from earlier versions of mechanistic material­ism in his first and third "theses on Feuerbach" (Marx and Engels, 1959: 204; see also Avineri, 1970: 68-9). Marx's method is dialectical: "As society itself produces man as man, so is society produced by him" (Marx, 1964: 137). This understanding of Marx's theory has begun to gain a wider acceptance by sociologists, as exemplified by recent articles by Appelbaum (1978a, 1978b).

The dialectical heritage disappears in the popular stereotype of Marxian social theory as a variety of economic determinism. Although Marx never used the term, the positivistic orthodoxy of "dialectical materialism" was developed by his successors (see Wetter, 1958). Consid­erable responsibility for the positivistic interpretation rests with the official versions of Marxism propagated by the Second (Socialist), Third (Communist), and Fourth (Trotskyist) Internationals. These variations on orthodox Marxism emphasize a deterministic approach modeled after the natural sciences. One explanation of this deviation is that several of Marx's important works written between 1844 and 1860 were not published until the late 1920s and 1930s and were thus not available when the various versions of orthodox Marxism crystallized. Other accounts point to a latent positivism in Marx's theory (Wellmer, 1971: 67-119) or to Engels's infatuation with the natural sciences (Hodges, 1965; Coulter, 1971). The development of the dialectical heritage of Marx is found in the tradition of Western Marxism, a lineage that begins with Lukacs's critique in 1923 of Engels's positivist interpre­tation of the dialectic:  "He does not even mention the most vital interaction, namely the dialectical relation between subject and object in the historical process" (Lukacs, 1971: 3).

ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGICAL BASES FOR SOCIAL SCIENCE

This definition of dialectic as the mutually formative relationship between humans and society allows us to situate dialectical social science in relation to earlier efforts, overlooked or ignored by Ritzer, to ground a classification system for sociological theories in alternative epistemological bases for social science. Wagner (1963) proposed a grouping of theories into three broad categories. Positive sociological theories approach sociology as a natural science (including neo-­positivism, human ecology, structural functionalism, social behavioral­ism, and bio-psychological theory of culture). Interpretative sociology approaches sociology as a social science as opposed to a natural science (including theory of cultural understanding, interpretative sociology of action and interaction, interpretative social psychology, and social phenomenology). Nonscientific or evaluative social theories (including social-philosophical, humanitarian reform, and ideological social the­ories) is a category that includes some theories which are covered by the rubric of our dialectical social science.

Wilson (1970) distinguishes between the normative paradigm, based on the natural science model (including social behavior, structural-­functionalism, and conflict theories), and the interpretive paradigm, based on a recognition of meanings by the social actor (including symbolic interaction and ethnomethodology theories). The distinctions made by Wagner and Wilson parallel the split between what Radnitsky (1973) terms the "Anglo-Saxon" and "Continental" schools of meta­science. Habermas (1972) distinguishes among the empirical-analytic sciences in the natural science tradition of Anglo-American positivism, the historical-hermeneutic sciences in the tradition of Continental idealism, and the critical sciences of the Hegelian-Marxian tradition. Following Habermas, Fay (1975) terms the alternative approaches as positivist, interpretive, and critical social science. Table 1 presents a comparison of several of these systems of classification of social theory, organized to contrast what I would call positivistic and interpretive social science and dialectical social science.

In the systems compared in Table 1, there appears to be a consensus about the character of interpretive social science (Ritzer's social defini­tions paradigm). On the other hand, whether positivistic theories are best viewed as comprising one positivistic paradigm will undoubtedly remain a subject for further debate. In distinguishing between the social

Table 1

A Comparison of Systems of Classification of Social Science

  Positivistic Social Science Interpretive Social Science Dialectical Social Science
Wagner (1963) Positive Sociological Theories Interpretative sociologies Nonscientific or evaluative social theories
Wilson (1970) Normative Paradigm Interpretive Paradigm  
Habermas (1972) Empirical-Analytic sciences Historical-Hermeneutic sciences Critical Sciences
Fay (1975) Positivist social science Interpretive social science Critical social science
Ritzer (1975) Social facts paradigm
Social behavior paradigm
Biologism
Social definitions paradigm Critical theory

 

facts and social behavior paradigms, for example, Ritzer appears to be assigning different names to the Continental collectivistic positivist and the Anglo-American individualistic positivist traditions (see Parsons, 1961: 85-97), a distinction that has been elaborated in the case of exchange theory by Ekeh (1974). To clarify the meaning of dialectical social science, I will differentiate two varieties, the conservative human­ism of the Berger group and the dialectical tradition of Western Marx­ism. I contrast these with various theories sometimes termed dialectical, which may be better understood as existing within positivistic social science.

THE CONSERVATIVE HUMANISM OF THE BERGER GROUP

The major theoretical statement of the theory group or cluster (see Mullins, 1973) centered on Berger is the treatise on the social construc­tion of reality as a problem in the sociology of knowledge (Berger and Luckmann, 1966). In this work the authors synthesize several streams of sociological thought. Externalization as an anthropological necessity derives from Hegel and Marx. Objectivation as reality sui generis is taken from Durkheim. Internalization is analyzed in terms of Mead's social psychology. Weber's concern for the subjective meaning of social action is interpreted via Schutz (see Schutz and Luckmann, 1973); habitualized human actions become institutionalized through reciprocal typifications. Social institutions require a "canopy of legitimations" ranging from "simple traditional affirmations" to "symbolic universes" of great complexity (Berger and Luckmann, 1966: 62, 94-97). For the Berger group a biological imperative for institutionalization and objec­tivation is outlined in Gehlin's notion of the lack of a specialized instinctual structure in humans; this world-openness requires the stability of institutionalized social structures (Berger and Kellner, 1965). A symbolic universe has the nomic function of ordering the world, thus providing a defense against "anomie terror" and chaos (Berger, 1967: 22-4).

Berger's concern for anomie draws on Durkheim's notion of homo duplex, the split of humans into a socialized self and a passionate, egoistic, non socialized self (Berger, 1967: 83-84; see also Durkheim, 1964). For Berger (1971: 3),   "Sociology leads to the understanding that order is the primary imperative of social life." Little wonder then that objectivation quickly becomes reification, the situation in which people lose sight of the social world as a human production, and that social roles and institutions are taken for granted. "Reification in this way comes close to being a functional imperative" (Berger and Pull berg, 1965: 208; see also Berger, 1966). While his humanistic perspective is debunking, ironic, and relativizing toward the status quo, Berger (1963: 39) is most skeptical of "all kinds of revolutionary utopianism." Distinguishing himself from American "conservatism" (a variety of classical liberalism), Berger (1972) characterizes his political stance, with some irony, as that of one of the last Habsburgian monarchists.

Berger's account of externalization in the service of Gehlen's impera­tive for order has been challenged by critics who point out its distinction from the Hegel-Marx version of externalization as human practical activity (Lafferty, 1977), or the psychoanalytical assumption of natural human tendencies and potentials (Carveth, 1977). Berger's version of objectivation is disputed by critics who charge that his account of communication and language in the processes of mutual typification and legitimation lacks a sense of the distortions that result from conflicting interests and disparities in power (Lichtman, 1970; Dreitzel, 1970). Berger develops an order vocabulary around the concept of anomie, in contrast to the Marxists, who develop a conflict vocabulary around the concept of alienation (see Horton, 1964, 1966). Berger attacks ideological mystifications in the domain of consciousness, but denies a Marxian concept of alienation that seeks its origins in historical modes and relatations of production (Brewster, 1966; Walton et al., 1970).

The theory group around Berger has achieved the most striking success in applying this conservative humanistic dialectical approach to the analysis of a variety of problems of everyday life: marriage as a mutual redefinition of the world through conversation (Berger and Kellner, 1964); the separation of public and private spheres in industrial society and its impact on identity formation (Luckmann and Berger, 1964); psychoanalysis as a technique for identity repair and maintenance (Berger, 1965). Largely on the basis of this work, the Berger group has often been classified, when it is considered at all, within such schools of interpretive social science as social phenomenology, symbolic interac­tionism, and ethnomethodology (Mullens, 1973; Ritzer, 1975). Being out of step with both the apologetics for capitalism of American conserva­tives and the technocratic elitism of American liberals, the Berger theory group may not develop beyond a small cluster into the wider movement of professional specialization. But if the idiosyncratic stance of Berger is not widely imitated, the work of his associated theory group certainly provides a stimulating introduction to dialectical social science. The Berger group has synthesized several important strands of contemporary sociological theory. Although it holds sharply different ontological assumptions and ideological commitments from the Marxists, the Berger cluster may help bridge the gap between North American interpretive social science and the dialectical tradition of Western Marxism.

THE DIALECTICAL TRADITION OF WESTERN MARXISM

The term "Western Marxism" was first used by Korsch (1970: 120) in 1930 to contrast with Russian or Soviet Marxism; it was popularized by Merleau-Ponty's (1973: 30-58) essay of that title on Lukacs. Such alterna­tive designations as "humanistic," "Hegelian," or "critical" Marxism can be construed more narrowly, and thus give a less satisfactory characterization of the broad tradition than does "Western Marxism." Two anthologies give a representative sampling: Grahl and Piccone (1973) and Howard and Klare (1972), although the latter includes chapters on Della Volpe and Althusser, structuralist Marxists whose work falls more within positivistic than dialectical social science. Only two monographs consider the tradition of Western Marxism, one hostile account (McInnes, 1972) and one mixed assessment by Anderson (1976), which also treats structuralists Della Volpe, Althusser, and Colletti.

An important contribution made by social theorists working within the tradition of Western Marxism has been the explication of the dialectical foundation of Marxism in Marx's ideas of alienation and praxis, an interpretation not popular with orthodox Marxists (see Hoffman, 1976). While social democrats (Bell, 1960; Feuer, 1963) and structuralist Marxists (Althusser, 1969: 51-86) have found common ground in asserting a split between the "young Marx" and the "mature Marx," the contemporary dialectical theorists have pointed out the essential continuity of Marx's concerns (Marcuse, 1941; Petrovic, 1967: 31-51; Avineri, 1968; Meszaros, 1970: 217-53; Ollman, 1971: 290; Bernstein, 1971: 11-83). Although the differences between orthodox and Western Marxism are often put in terms of varying interpretations of the relationship between Marx and Hegel, the question is complicated. The early Marxists most attracted to the natural science model - such as Engels, Plekhanov, and, later, Lenin - also saw themselves as Hegelian Marxists. But as Jacoby (1971: 135) points out, "The Hegel that was important to these Marxists was not the same Hegel important to Lukacs, et al.; to the former it was the Hegel of the universal movement of contradictions, of quantity to quality, of the processes of quasi-­automatic transformation; to the latter it was the Hegel of the historical movement of consciousness, of the subject-object dialectic" (see also Fetscher, 1971: 40-147).

At a time when the early figures in the tradition of Western Marxism - ­Lukacs, Korsch, and Gramsci - were forced to work as isolated individu­als, the Frankfurt School emerged in the early 1930s as the first major theory cluster within the tradition. The Frankfurt School has been closely identified with the idea of critical theory. As Lichtheim (1971: 174) summarizes, critical theory "measures social actuality against historical possibility." According to Schroyer, a leading interpreter of the Frank­furt School to North American sociology, what distinguishes critical from positivistic and interpretive sciences is critical science's "concern with the assessment of the socially unnecessary modes of authority, exploitation, alienation, repression. The interest of a critical science is the emancipation of all self-conscious agents from the seemingly 'natu­ral' forces of nature and history" (Schroyer, 1970: 225; 1973). Critical science exposes the ideological uses of technocratic consciousness: "the scientistic image of science has become the dominant legitimating system of advanced industrial society .... the fundamental false con­sciousness of our epoch" (Schroyer, 1970: 212-3; see also Habermas, 1970: 81-122).

Efforts to combine the existential and phenomenological traditions with Marxism (on post-war France, see Poster, 1975) show promise of illuminating the analysis of such features of everyday life as culture, the family, sexuality, and work. For Merleau-Ponty (1964a: 134) Husserl's emphasis on intersubjectivity opened the prospect of a social theory that is neither positivistic nor idealistic, but truly dialectical: "Man no longer appears as a product of his environment or an absolute legislator but emerges as a product-producer, the locus where necessity can turn into concrete liberty." Merleau-Ponty (1964b: 20) brings to phenomenology a sense of the life-world as an historical world: "We are in the field of history as we are in the field of language or existence" (see also O'Neill, 1970, 1972). His triad of existence, language, and history suggests Habermas's triad of work, language, and domination as the three media of human existence, although-with the exception of Marcuse - the Frankfurt theorists have been skeptical of phenomenology (see Rovatti, 1973). Sartre's "open Marxism" (1963: 57-67) analyzes the mediations between individuals and social classes, seeking concrete categories to replace abstract universals. The Italian theorist Paci (1972) has been an influential interpreter of the importance for Marxism of the later work of Husserl (1970), which describes the occluded precategorial foundations of the life-world. In North America Piccone (1973) and the journal Telos have developed phenomenological Marxism as the most fruitful ground for revitalizing the Western Marxist tradition (see also Dallmayr, 1973; Reid and Yanarella, 1974; Smart, 1976; Reid, 1977).

Another important stream of thought, not identified with a particular theory cluster or group in sociology, derives from Gramsci's analysis of hegemony in Western societies. Williams (1960: 587) summarizes Gram­sci's notion of hegemony as "an order in which a certain way of life and thought is dominant, in which one concept of reality is diffused throughout society in all its institutional and private manifestations." Hegemony emphasizes the obtaining of consent rather than the use of force in establishing and maintaining relations of dominance in society. Wolpe (1969: 117) calls attention to the similarity of hegemony as "the set of guiding ideas which permeate consciousness and legitimate the social arrangements" to Berger's concept of a symbolic universe. The ramifica­tions of Gramsci's concept of hegemony are beginning to be studied closely (see Martinelli, 1968; Femia, 1975), and the implications of the concept for sociology developed (Sallach, 1974; Livingstone, 1976). Gramsci's work has been an important influence on Genovese (1972: 391-422), whose study of "the world the slaves made" (1974) is an exemplar of dialectical analysis in social history.

The perspectives of Western Marxism have informed and influenced a number of writers working within the traditions of North American social science, including Birnbaum (1969, 1971) on the sociology of advanced industrial society, Gouldner (1976) on ideology and technol­ogy, and Schwartz's (1976) dialectical analysis of a social movement. Other writers have developed perspectives on dialectical theory through a confrontation of the Hegelian-Marxian tradition with the work of Gurvitch (Bruyn, 1974) or with Schutz's social phenomenology (Ras­mussen, 1973).

DIALECTIC IN POSITIVISTIC SOCIAL SCIENCE

This rapid survey of Berger's conservative humanism and the tradition of Western Marxism should be adequate to establish the distinction between dialectical social science and other varieties of orthodox Marxism and conflict theory. Szymanski's (1972, 1973) assertion that Marxism is a version of functionalism and a deterministic materialism with a methodology modeled after the "hard" sciences is clearly a claim to a position within positivistic social science. A similar formulation was made in 1921 by Bukharin (1969) in his presentation of historical materialism as a system of sociology; the argument drew a rebuttal from Lukacs and from Gramsci (1971: 419-72). Outside the boundaries of Marxism, the label of dialectic to describe duality, polarity, conflict, and contradiction in Blau's exchange theory (Weinstein and Weinstein, 1972; Blau, 1972) is not sufficient to remove this school of thought from the positivistic social science. A case in point is the hostile reaction of positivistic exchange theorists (Abbott et al., 1973) to the effort by Singelmann (1972) to develop a dialectical synthesis of exchange and symbolic interaction theories.

One might expect the insights of the developing structural Marxism to make an important contribution to dialectical social science. Thus far, however, adherents of structural Marxism have remained opposed to integrating an analysis of human subjectivity into their theories. They persist in dichotomizing Marxism into expressive and structural ap­proaches (Burawoy, 1978) and maintaining that "a synthesis of 'objec­tive' and 'subjective' components is impossible within the Marxist tradition" (Burawoy, 1977:16). Therborn (1970, 1971) charges the Frank­furt school with reducing science and politics to philosophy, and with severing theory and practice. In general, orthodox and structural Marx­ists join in dismissing the dialectical tradition of Western Marxism as critical idealism.

CONCLUSION

I have attempted a brief sketch of two varieties of dialectical social science that share certain premises about the nature of human society while holding distinct ontological assumptions with sharply differing political and ideological consequences. Both the Berger group and the dialectical tradition of Western Marxism view the social world as the intersection of active human subjects confronting objective, historical structures. The conservative humanism of the Berger group posits an imperative for order based on a human need to avoid anomie. The dialectical tradition of Western Marxism seeks emancipation from historically unnecessary forms of alienation produced by a class-structured society. The strands of theory developed by the Frankfurt school, the existential and phenomenological Marxists, and the Grams­cians have by no means been successfully synthesized to date, nor have they been fully integrated with the traditions of sociological theory. The Berger group has made an important contribution by synthesizing a dialectical perspective within sociological traditions. Contrary to the assertions of the structural Marxists, the prospect of a synthesis within the dialectical tradition of Western Marxism holds great promise (see Sallach, 1973a, 1973b) for illuminating studies ranging from social history to the analysis of everyday life.

Several recent studies on the methodology of the social sciences, from a variety of standpoints, appear to be converging on a methodological framework for dialectical social science. The revival of a methodological controversy in German sociology (Adorno et al., 1976) and the discus­sion of the relationship between Marxism and social science in France (Sartre, 1963; Goldmann, 1969) are examples from continental Europe. Fay (1975: 92-110) has elaborated the methodological implications for the tradition of critical theory. Bernstein (1976) considers the contribu­tions of empiricism, language analysis, phenomenology, and critical theory to a dialectical social and political theory. Giddens (1976) offers new rules of sociological method beginning from an interpretive posi­tion, while Keat and Urry (1975), beginning from a structuralist Marxist perspective, leave room for a synthesis of subjective and objective theories in positing a realist conception of the philosophy of social science. The differences that remain to be reconciled are many, but the outlook is hopeful. The choice is not "for sociology" or "for Marx," as some would have it, but for an understanding of the obdurate reality of the socially constructed world that can assist human subjects in the transformation of that world.

REFERENCES

ABBAGNANO, NICOLA, et al.
1971 La Evolucion de la Dialectica, Barcelona: Ediciones Martinez Roca.

ABBOTT, CARRELL W., CHARLES R. BROWN, and PAUL V. CROSBIE
1973 "Exchange as symbolic interaction: for what?" American Sociological Review 38    (August): 504-506.

ADORNO, THEODOR W., et al.
1976 The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology. New York: Harper & Row.

ALTHUSSER, LOUIS
1970 For Marx. New York: Vintage.

ANDERSON, PERRY
1976 Considerations on Western Marxism. London: New Left Books.

APPELBAUM, RICHARD P.
1978a "Marxist method: structural constraints and social praxis." The Ameri­can Sociologist 13 (February): 73-81.
1978b "Marx's theory of the falling rate of profit: towards a dialectical analysis of structural social change." American Sociological Review 43 (February): 67-80.

AVINERI, SHLOMO
1968 The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BELL, DANIEL
1960 The End of Ideology. New York: Free Press.

BERGER, PETER L.
1963 Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
1965 "Toward a sociological understanding of psychoanalysis." Social Re­search 32 (Spring): 26-41.
1966 "Response to Brewster." New Left Review No. 35 (January-February): 75-77.
1967 The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
1971 "Sociology and freedom." The American Sociologist 6 (February): 1-5.
1972 "Two paradoxes." National Review 24 (May 12): 507-511.

BERGER, PETER L., and HANSFRIED KELLNER
1964 "Marriage and the construction of reality." Diogenes No. 46 (Sum­mer): 1-24.
1965 "Arnold Gehlen and the theory of institutions." Social Research 32 (Spring): 110-5.

BERGER, PETER L., and THOMAS LUCKMANN
1966 The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise III the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

BERGER, PETER L., and STANLEY PULLBERG
1965 "Reification and the sociological critique of consciousness." History and Theory 4 (2): 196-211.

BERNSTEIN, RICHARD J.
1971 Praxis and Action. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1976 The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory. Philadelphia: Univer­sity of Pennsylvania Press.

BIRNBAUM, NORMAN
1969 The Crisis of Industrial Society. New York: Oxford University Press.
1971 Toward a Critical Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.

BLAU, PETER M.
1972 "Dialectical sociology: comments." Sociological Inquiry 42 (2): 182-188.

BOSSERMAN, PHILLIP
1968 Dialectical Sociology: An Analysis of the Sociology of George Gurvitch. Boston: Sargent.

BREWSTER, BEN
1966 "Comment on Berger and Pullberg." New Left Review No. 35 (January­February): 72-75.

BRUYN, SEVERYN T.
1974 "The dialectical society." Cultural Hermeneutics 2 (April): 167-209.

BUKHARIN, NIKOLAI
1969 Historical Materialism: A System of Sociology. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press.

BURAWOY, MICHAEL
1977 "Marxism and Sociology." Contemporary Sociology 6 (January): 9-17.
1978 "Contemporary currents in Marxist theory." The American Sociologist 13 (February): 50-64.

CARVETH, DONALD L.
1977 "The disembodied dialectic: a psychoanalytic critique of sociological relativism." Theory and Society 4 (Spring): 73-102.

COULTER, JEFF
1971 "Marxism and the Engels paradox." Pp. 129-56 in Ralph Miliband and John Saville (eds.), The Socialist Register 1971. London: Merlin.

DALLMAYR, FRED R.
1973 "Phenomenology and marxism: a salute to Enzo Paci." Pp. 305-56 in George Psathas (ed.), Phenomenology and Sociology: Issues and Appli­cations. New York: Wiley.

DREITZEL, HANS PETER
1970 "Introduction: patterns of communicative behavior." Pp. vii-XXII In Hans Peter Dreitzel (ed.), Recent Sociology No.2. New York: Macmillan.

DURKHEIM, EMILE
1964 "The dualism of human nature and its sociological conditions." Pp. 325-40 in Kurt H. Wolff (ed.), Essays on Sociology and Philosophy. New York: Harper Torch books.

EKEH, PETER P.
1974 Social Exchange Theory: The Two Traditions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

FAY, BRIAN
1975 Social Theory and Political Practice. London: George Allen and Unwin.

FEMIA, JOSEPH
1975 "Hegemony and consciousness in the thought of Antonio Gramsci." Political Studies 23 (March): 29-48.

FETSCHER, IRVING
1971 Marx and Marxism. New York: Herder and Herder.

FEUER, LEWIS
1963 "What is alienation? the career of a concept." Pp. 127-47 in Maurice Stein and Arthur Vidich (eds.), Sociology on Trial. Englewood Cliffs, N.].: Prentice-Hall.

FRIEDRICKS, ROBERT W.
1970 A Sociology of Sociology. New York: Free Press.
1972a "Dialectical sociology: an exemplar for the 1970s." Social Forces 50 (June ): 447 -55.
1972b "Dialectical sociology: toward a resolution of the current 'crisis' in Western sociology." The British Journal of Sociology 23 (September): 263-74.
1974 "The potential impact of B.F. Skinner upon American sociology." The American Sociologist 9 (February): 3-8.

GENOVESE, EUGENE D.
1972 In Red and Black: Marxian Explorations In Southern and Afro­American History. New York: Vintage.
1976 Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made. New York: Vintage.

GIDDENS, ANTHONY
1976 New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of Interpretative Sociologies. New York: Basic Books.

GOLDMANN, LUCIEN
1969 The Human Sciences and Philosophy. London: Jonathan Cape.

GOULDNER, ALVIN W.
1976 The Dialectic of Ideology and Technology: The Origins, Grammar and Future of Ideology. New York: Seabury Press.

GRAHL, BART, and PAUL PICCONE (eds.)
1973 Towards a New Marxism. St. Louis: Telos Press.

GRAMSCI, ANTONIO
1971 Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.

GROSS, LLEWELLYN
1961 "Preface to a meta theoretical framework for sociology." The American Journal of Sociology 67 (September): 125-43.

HABERMAS, JURGEN
1970 Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science and Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
1972 Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon Press.

HODGES, DONALD CLARK
1965 "Engels' contribution to Marxism." Pp. 297-310 in Ralph Miliband and John Saville (eds.), The Socialist Register 1965. London: Merlin.

HOFFMAN, JOHN
1975 Marxism and the Theory of Praxis: A Critique of Some New Versions of Old Fallacies. New York: International Publishers.

HORTON, JOHN
1964 "The dehumanization of anomie and alienation: a problem in the ideology of sociology." British Journal of Sociology 14 (4): 283-300.
1966 "Order and conflict theories of social problems as competing ideologies."
The American Journal of Sociology 71 (May): 701-713.

HOWARD, DICK, and KARL E. KLARE (eds.)
1972 The Unknown Dimension: European Marxism Since Lenin. New York: Basic Books.

HUSSERL, EDMUND
1970 The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

JACOBY, RUSSELL
1971 "Toward a critique of automatic marxism." Telos No. 10 (Win­ter): 119-146.

KEAT, RUSSELL, and JOHN URRY
1975 Social Theory as Science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

KORSCH, KARL
1970 Marxism and Philosophy. New York: Monthly Review Press.

KUHN, THOMAS S.
1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Second edition, enlarged. Chi­cago: University of Chicago Press.

LAFFERTY, WILLIAM M.
1977 "Externalization and dialectics: taking the brackets off Berger and Luckmann's sociology of knowledge." Cultural Hermeneutics 4 (April): 139-161.

LICHTHEIM, GEORGE
1970 Marxism: An Historical and Critical Study, 2nd ed. New York: Praeger.
1971 From Marx to Hegel. New York: Herder and Herder.

LICHTMAN, RICHARD
1970 "Symbolic interactionism and social reality: some Marxist queries."
Berkeley Journal of Sociology 15:75-94.

LIVINGSTONE, DAVID W.
1976 "On hegemony in corporate capitalist states." Sociological Inquiry 46 (3-4):235-250.

LUCKMANN, THOMAS, and PETER BERGER
1964 "Social mobility and personal identity." European Journal of Sociology 5 (2): 331-344.

LUKACS, GEORG
1971 History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. London: Merlin.

McINNES, NEIL
1972 The Western Marxists. New York: Library Press.

MARCUSE, HERBERT
1941 Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory. New York:
Oxford University Press.

MARTINELLI, ALBERTO
1968 "In defense of the dialectic: Antonio Gramsci's theory of revolution."
Berkeley Journal of Sociology 13: 1-27.

MARX, KARL
1964 The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Edited by Dirk J. Struik. New York: International Publishers.
1967 Capital. Volume I. New York: International Publishers.

MARX, KARL, and FRIEDRICH ENGELS
1959 Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy. Edited by Louis S. Feuer. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

MERLEAU-PONTY, MAURICE
1964a Sense and Non-Sense. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.
1964b Signs. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
1973 Adventures of the Dialectic. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.

MESZAROS, ISTVAN
1970 Marx's Theory of Alienation. London: Merlin.

MUELLER, GUSTAV E.
1958 "The Hegel legend of 'thesis-antithesis-synthesis.'" Journal of the History of Ideas 19 (June): 411-414.

MULLENS, NICHOLAS C.
1973 Theories and Theory Groups in Contemporary American Sociology. New York: Harper & Row

OLLMAN, BERTELL
1971 Alienation: Marx's Conception of Man in Capitalist Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O'NEILL, JOHN
1970 Perception, Expression and History: The Social Phenomenology of Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.
1972 Sociology as a Skin Trade: Essays Toward a Reflexive Sociology. New York: Harper & Row.

PACI, ENZO
1972 The Function of the Sciences and the Meaning of Man. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.

PARSONS, TALCOTT
1961 "Editorial foreward: the general interpretation of action." Pp. 85-97 in Talcott Parsons et al. (eds.), Theories of Society: Foundations of Modern Sociological Theory. New York: Free Press.

PETROVIC, GAJO
1967 Marx in the Mid-Twentieth Century. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor.

PICCONE, PAUL
1971 "Phenomenological marxism." Telos No.9 (Fall): 3-31

POSTER, MARK
1975 Existential Marxism in Postwar France: From Sartre to Althusser.
Princeton, N.].: Princeton University Press.

RADNITSKY, GERARD
1973 Contemporary Schools of Metascience. Third enlarged. Chicago: Henry Regnery.

RASMUSSEN, DAVID M.
1973 "Between autonomy and sociality." Cultural Hermeneutics 1 (Novem­ber):3-45.

REID, HERBERT G.
1977 "Critical phenomenology and the dialectical foundations of social change." Dialectical Anthropology 2 (May): 107 -130.

REID, HERBERT G., and ERNEST J. YANARELLA
1974 "Toward a post-modern theory of American political science and cul­ture: perspectives from critical marxism and phenomenology." Cultural Hermeneutics 2 (November): 91-166.

RITZER, GEORGE
1975 Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

ROVATTI, PIER ALDO
1973 "Critical theory and phenemonology." Telos No. 15 (Spring):25-40.

SALLACH, DAVID
1973a "Class consciousness and the everyday world in the work of Marx and Schutz." The Insurgent Sociologist 3 (Summer): 27-37.
1973b "Critical theory and critical sociology: the second synthesis." Socio­logical Inquiry 43 (2): 131-40.
1974 "Class domination and ideological hegemony." The Sociological Quar­terly 15 (Winter): 38-50.

SARTRE, JEAN-PAUL
1963 Search for a Method. New York: Vintage.

SCHNEIDER, LOUIS
1971 "Dialectic in sociology." American Sociological Review 36 (Au­gust): 667-678.

SCHROYER, TRENT
1970 "Toward a critical theory for advanced industrial society." Pp. 210-34 in Hans Peter Dreitzel (ed.), Recent Sociology No.2. New York: Macmillan.
1973 The Critique of Domination: The Origins and Development of Critical Theory. Boston: Beacon Press.

SCHUTZ, ALFRED, and THOMAS LUCKMANN
1973 The Structures of the Life-World. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern Univer­sity Press.

SCHWARTZ, MICHAEL
1976 Radical Protest and Social Structure: The Southern Farmers' Alliance and Cotton Tenancy, 1880-1890. New York: Academic Press.

SINGELMANN, PETER
1972 "Exchange as symbolic interaction: convergences between two theoreti­cal perspectives." American Sociological Review 37 (August): 414-424.

SMART, BARRY
1976 Sociology, Phenomenology, and Marxian Analysis. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

SOROKIN, PITIRIM A.
1964 "Comments on Schneider's observations and criticisms." Pp. 401-431 in George W. Zollschan and Walter Hirsch (eds.), Explorations in Social Change. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

SZYMANSKI, ALBERT
1972 "Dialectical functionalism: a further answer to Lidz." Sociological Inquiry 42 (2): 145-153.
1973 "Marxism and science." The Insurgent Sociologist 3 (Spring): 25-38.

THERBORN, GORAN
1970 "The Frankfurt school." New Left Review No. 63 (September-­October): 65-96.
1971 "Jürgen Habermas: a new eclecticism." New Left Review No. 67 (May­-June): 69-83.

TURNER, JONATHAN H.
1974 The Structure of Sociological Theory. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey.
1975 "A strategy for reformulating the dialectical and functional theories of conflict." Social Forces 52 (March): 433-444.

VAN DEN BERGHE, PIERRE L.
1963 "Dialectic and functionalism: toward a theoretical synthesis." American Sociological Review 28 (October): 695-705.

WAGNER, HELMUT R.
1963 "Types of sociological theory: toward a system of classification." Ameri­can Sociological Review 28 (October): 735-742.

WALTON, PAUL, ANDREW GAMBLE, and JEFF COULTER
1970 "Philosophical anthropology in Marxism." Social Research 37 (Sum­mer): 259-274.

WEINSTEIN, MICHAEL A., and DEENA WEINSTEIN
1972 "Blau's dialectical sociology." Sociological Inquiry 42 (2): 173-182.

WELLMER, ALBRECHT
1971 Critical Theory of Society. New York: Herder and Herder.

WETTER, GUSTAV A.
1958 Dialectical Materialism. New York: Praeger.

WILLIAMS, GWYN A.
1960 "The concept of 'egemonia' in the thought of Antonio Gramsci: some notes on interpretation." Journal of the History of Ideas 21 (October-­December): 586-599.

WILSON, THOMAS P.
1970 "Concepts of interaction and forms of sociological explanation." Ameri­can Sociological Review 35 (August): 697-710.

WOLPE, HAROLD
1969 "The problem of the development of revolutionary consciousness."
Telos No. 4 (Fall): 113-144.