Suchergebnisse

The theory of the mass society is central to the thinking of the principal aristocratic, Cath, or Existentialist critics of contemporary Western society. Exerpts are presented representative of the views of Ortega y Gasset, E. Junger, K. Mannheim, Gabriel Marcel, E. Lederer & others. These views are criticized as (1) not reflecting the richly striated soc relations of the real world; (2) confusing judgments as to the quality of modern experience with statements concerning the disorganization of society created by industrialization & by the demand of the masses for equality, (3) overlooking the human capacity for adaptiveness & creativeness in shaping new soc forms; (4) completely riddling the distinction between Gemeinschaften & Gesellschaften with value judgments; & (5) caricaturing life in mass society to the point that an attack on sci itself results. In addition to contradictions in usage, ambiguities in terminology & a lack of historical sense, the theory of mass society harbors a defense of an aristocratic cultural tradition that carries with it a doubt that the large mass of mankind can ever become truly educated or acquire an appreciation of culture. Soc & cultural change is probably greater & more rapid today in the US than in any other country, but the assumption that soc disorder & anomie inevitably attend such change is not borne out in this case. The theory of the mass society no longer serves as a description of Western society, but as an ideology of romantic protest against contemporary society. J. A. Fishman.

While the expose of racist theories has done much good in the field of ethnic relations, soc sci'ts should not forget that the mere denial of race as a factor in accounting for the cultural heterogeneity of mankind still leaves that heterogeneity unexplained. 3 other hypo's to account for such diff's have been advanced. The views of representative advocates are presented for (1) environmentalism, (2) evolutionism, & (3) the historical approach. With respect to (1), the hard fact is that quite diff cultures exist within the same physical milieu & similar cultures arise in contrasting environments. Theory (2) actually leaves the central question of cultural diff's untouched, (3) attributes diff cultures to diff's in the experiences of their carriers. The failure to explain cultural diff's in cultural terms has meant that racism could be combatted only negatively, & only on its own biological ground, since no positive alternative was offered that provided a better explanation of cultural diff's. The best early organized expression of the historical point of view is to be found in certain of Hume's essays. What particularly distinguishes this analysis of the problem is its insistence on regarding cultural diff's as having come to be in the course of certain classifiable historical experiences of contact & communication. J. A. Fishman.

In cross-cultural studies of att's, the greatest progress has come from 3 basic approaches: (a) the identification & manipulation of cultural characteristics related to attitude formation & change; (b) the impact of one culture on another; & (c) the intervening factor of language & conceptual processes in the relation between attitude & behavior. Cross-cultural studies of nat character show promise of identifying att's that are most & least subject to cultural influence & establishing possible dimensions of culture. Studies of inter-cultural impact provide increased understanding of the function & origin of stereotypes; the role of reference groups in the process by which elements are selected from complex context for assimilation into attitude systems; the conditions under which interaction will produce specified changes of att's; & the impact of new experience on the characteristics of attitude change. Communication theory & attitude change theory are being integrated in studies of cultural diffusion. Despite formidable methodological problems, the crosscultural study of language & attitude processes is increasing understanding of the meanings of common concepts among cultures, of the relationship between concept formation & language, & of the adaptability of language in culture change. C. M. Coughenour.

This occasional but substantial joumal, devoted by its title to the philosophy of history, will publish, we are told in an editorial note, material "principally in four areas: theories of history, cause, law, explanation, generalisation, determinism; historiography, studies of historians, historical figures and events which illuminate general historiographical problems; method of history, interpretation, selection of facts, objectivity, social and cultural implications of the historian's method; related disciplines, relationship of problems in historical theory and method to those of economic, psychological and other social sciences." The distinctions here drawn seem, on the whole, to be indicative rather than analytical: "determinism" is grouped a little oddly with its neighbours, and it is not quite clear how the third area ("method of history") is related either to the first or to the second; but all in all, there is little doubt what the province of a journal of philosophy of history is here taken to he be.To borrow words from the opening lines of the first contribution, an article entitled "History and Theory" by Sir Isaiah Berlin (a member of the editorial committee), "history is what historians do"; and philosophy of history is a mode of enquiry into what it is and how they do it. This philosophy is concerned with the explanation rather than the explicandum; its tools are analytical and its statements second-order statements. Some exceptions to this view can be found in the issues so far published and there may be more to come.