Product Code Database
Alvin Ward Gouldner (July 29, 1920 – December 15, 1980) was an American Sociology, lecturer, and radical activist.
His early works such as Patterns in Industrial Bureaucracy can be seen as important as they worked within the existing fields of sociology but adopted the principles of a critical intellectual. This can be seen more clearly in his 1964 work Anti-Minotaur: The Myth of Value Free Sociology, where he claimed that sociology could not be objective and that Max Weber had never intended to make such a claim.
He is probably most remembered in the academy for his 1970 work The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. This work argued that sociology must turn away from producing objective truths and understand the subjective nature of sociology and knowledge in general and how it is bound up with the context of the times. This book was used by many schools of sociology as analysis of their own theory and methods. However, Gouldner was not the first sociologist to be critical of objective knowledge of society, see for example Theodor W. Adorno's Negative Dialectics.
Subsequently, much of Gouldner's work was concerned with critiquing modern sociology and the nature of the intellectual. He argued that ideology often produced false premises and was used as a tool by a ruling elite and that therefore critical subjective thought is much more important than objective thought.
Gouldner devotes the largest portion of his book to Talcott Parsons and to the Parsonian brand of functionalism, which in his eyes dominated American sociological thinking in the 1930s, 40's, and 50's. However, many, including the late sociologist Bennett Berger, find faults in Gouldner's argument. Berger believed that Parsonianism never dominated American sociology and that sociologists of that era followed their own preset tracks. Additionally, Berger points out how the most popular books during the 1950s were non-Parsonian. Berger sees Gouldner's criticism of Parsons as superficial, with Berger pointing out how Gouldner implies that Parsons is a fraud and that his reputation rests on his Harvard association. Furthermore, Berger claims Gouldner makes claims with no evidence, like that Parsons initially opposed government intervention for social reform. Gouldner's criticism isn't without a nuanced approach however, as he trained under one of Parsons' students, Robert Merton. Berger points out how Gouldner uses this to not only a critique of Parsons' most basic ideas, but as a basis for a sociological analysis of the biographical sources of those ideas and their relevance to issues associated with laissez-faire capitalism in the 1930s and the problems of Welfare State capitalism in the 1950s and 1960s.
Another criticism Gouldner beams at Parsons's discussion of change is Parsons's alleged failure to give technology the place it deserves. John Rhoads, a late sociology professor from Northern Illinois University, highlights Gouldner's view that Parsons lists cultural legitimation, money, and democratic associations but omits science and technology as revolutionary universals. Gouldner held the view that Parsons had an objective of proving the superiority of America over the Soviet bloc of nations. In his view, the US institutionalized some evolutionary universals such as money and markets, legal codes, and democratic associations, which were not fully developed within totalitarian systems. However, totalitarian societies did possess science and technology and compared favorably with the United States. Yet, Rhoads believes that Gouldner's opinion that Parsons is attempting to demonstrate American superiority is wrong. He highlights how Parsons does include technology as a universal: “These four features of even the simplest system – “religion,” communication with language, social organization through kinship, and technology – may be regarded as an integrated set of evolutionary universals at even the earliest human level. No known human society has existed without all four in relatively definite relations to each other.”
In the context of Gouldner's work, wildcat strikes represent a form of worker resistance against bureaucratic authority and control. He viewed them as examples of the tension between formal structures of power (such as management and unions) and the informal, everyday experiences of workers who feel marginalized or oppressed by those structures. When a pattern of work conditions not specified in the contract, but which the workers had every reason to count on, was destroyed, the resultant dissatisfaction and insecurity generated a wildcat strike and its "illegitimate" demands. Current History, vol. 27, no. 156, 1954, pp. 128–128. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/45308696. Accessed 28 Sept. 2024. Some of these principles seem obvious truisms clothed pretentiously, but all ring true, and many provide genuine insight toward the author's goal of erecting a bridge between pure and applied sociology. In his study of the gypsum plant, Gouldner identified that when management imposed stricter bureaucratic rules and tried to enforce greater control, workers reacted with forms of informal resistance, including wildcat strikes.
In The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class (1979), Alvin Gouldner describes the rise of a new class of technical intelligentsia and humanistic intellectuals that have altered previous traditional systems and structures of power. Gouldner states that this class originated during significant historical societal shifts, such as the loss of the church's control over knowledge and the shift away from Latin to common languages. These changes allowed intellectuals to integrate more into everyday life. Additionally, Feudalism’s decline and the market economy’s growing prominence gave this New Class more separation and independence from the traditional elite, and the rise of public education systems further pushed them to shape society beyond the rule of local authority.
Throughout the piece, Gouldner mentions various “distinguishable conceptions” of the New Class.Grusky, D. (2011). The Inequality Reader: Contemporary and Foundational Readings in Race, Class, and Gender (2nd ed.) Routledge. pp 117–123. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494468 In many, such as New Class as Benign Technocrats, the class is described as more trustworthy and selfless, differing from Gouldner's view that the class acts often in their self-interest. Another common thread throughout the different theses of the New Class is their association and alliance with the traditional elite class. In some viewpoints, such as New Class as Old Class Ally, and New Class as Servants of Power, the class is seen as a group that uplifts and serves the old moneyed elite class. These ideas go on to say that the New Class will eventually become combined with the aforementioned traditional elites, creating a refined high society superior to its predecessors. Gouldner rejects this statement as well, for similar reasons to his opposition to New Class as Benign Technocrats as he believed that both groups would act in their own interests and would be willing to “exploit the other”. Finally, Gouldner reveals his own viewpoint, New Class as Flawed Universal Class, identifying the New Class as “elitist and self-seeking”, using their unique set of skills and knowledge to increase their control and influence. Moreover, he details the tensions within the class itself, noting the internal divisions between technical intelligentsia and humanistic intellectuals.
The most prominent criticisms of The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class are based on two primary arguments. Bill Martin (sociologist) and Iván Szelényi point out that a common criticism of Gouldner's work was its timing. Gouldner's thesis was released too late, and by the time the book was published the middle-class radicalism he mentions was already fading, being replaced by a “new conservatism” that many educated youth adopted.Szelenyi, Ivan, and Bill Martin. “The Three Waves of New Class Theories.” Theory and Society, vol. 17, no. 5, 1988, pp. 645–667. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/657634. Accessed 30 Sept. 2024. Additionally, Martin and Szelenyi note that critics also argue if the New Class should even be described as a class due to its lack of economic foundation that defines the traditional Marxist definition of a class.
The text is split into three sections: Marxism and the Intellectuals, The Ecology of Marxism, and Against Fragmentation; the first of which recapitulates Gouldner's “New class” and refers to the intelligentsia’s dialectical stratification; the second of which details the historical, political, and theoretical contexts of Marxism as well as contemporary focalized theories; the last of which accounts for the rationality of Marxism and asks why the theory was widely accepted at the time.
The work was met critically by others at the time. Historian Martin Jay contended that the work thwarted itself into dichotomies and fragments while attempting to unifying a single social theory because of Gouldner’s deep confliction with Marxist contradictions and gaps. Historian Walter L. Adamson questions Gouldner’s motivations behind his ideas, particularly of his deeming the intelligentsia as the potential last class; he also questions whether Gouldner’s framing of Marxist theory could be structured differently and if that framing is more plausible in society. Sociologist James J. Chriss summarizes Against Fragmentation as a work where Gouldner’s ideas are picked apart for understanding at one level but are found to hold contradictions at another, the limitations being the inability to show complexity wholly and still being able to see what may be forgotten.
One of the main limitations that Gouldner highlights within the functionalist theory is the idea behind reciprocity, and its role in the social system established by Parsons. Since reciprocity is the mutual exchange of obligations and benefits between individuals, it becomes essential to the social stability experienced within the society.A. Gouldner, `Reciprocity and Autonomy in Functional Theory’ in L. Gross (ed.), "Symposium on Sociological Theory" ( Row, Peterson, Evanston, 1959 ) However, Gouldner proposes that reciprocity can bring social stability, yet by itself is not enough to ensure this. Combining autonomy with reciprocity is the key component to which Gouldner suggests stability within a social system, creating a balance between mutual exchange and a sense of personal independence while trying to avoid power imbalances among individuals and institutions.
|
|
