Main trends of research in the social and human ... - unesdoc - Unesco

Sociology 135
‘marginal men’ were crucial, i.e., those who simultaneously belonged to intel-
lectual and power circles, without being completely integrated into either. The
number of such studies is steadily increasing, and the influence of the sociolog-
ical mode of thought is unmistakable. Generalizations are already emerging:
e.g., modifications of the Weberian theory of bureaucracy or studies in the so-
ciology of occupations, which give new understanding of the ambivalent elements
inherent in all contemporary professions.1Qo
Social psychology
Until recently, dicussions on the relations between sociology and social
psychology were of a rather undefined nature. Fortunately, the trend is now
toward more orderly analysis. Thus, in a widely-read compendium on Modern
Sociological Theory (1957),19’ Kimball Young merely lists a number of topics
which the two fields have in common. His main sub-titles reflect the random
character of his review: interaction, role theory, public opinion, apparatus of
persuasion, leadership, etc. By 1960, the Trait6 de Sociologie organized by Gurvitch
already approached the matter in a more systematic way, by showing how
the two disciplines could combine forces. Three of the papers focus upon social
units. In one, Stoetzel deals with the psychology of interpersonal relations within
a broad context.IQ2 He considers three approaches: I) general psychology including
philosophy; 2) sociology and ethnology; 3) social psychology. To the
sociologist he assigns the institutional and more or less formalized elements in
interpersonal relations. The objects of social psychological studies are for him
perception of people, choice of partners, the role of power in personal relations
and the psychology of small groups. It is the latter topic that is developed by
Bourrica~d.~Q3 He raises the question of whether the categories developed in
small group research are really relevant for broader sociological studies; it is
clear that basically he doubts this. As his main example he chooses the notion of
‘popularity’ which he extends to cover topics like leadership and consensus.
While appreciating the contributions of men like Bales, he points out that ‘there
exists a big gap between the sociometric model and social reality’. Social
stratification and political legitimation are among the problems with which
small group studies cannot deal, states Bourricaud. Lefebvre does not agree. In
his contribution on the‘Psychology of Social Classes’,IQ4 he argues that although
the Marxist notion of class (which he supports) is not a psychological but an
economical concept, once it is properly conceptualized, it is possible to describe
the psychology of various social groups as derived from their structural positions.
Lefebvre makes keen observations on the collective psychology of the bourgeoisie,
the working class and the peasant.
The French effort is thus organized around levels of social complexity. But
within such levels what the authors select for specific treatment remains rather
arbitrary. A higher degree of systematization - at least in principle - is achieved
by W. Moore in a recent paper on ‘Social Structure and Beha~ior’.~QS As the
title indicates, he gives a specific turn to the relation between sociology and
social psychology. The actions of people are determined partly their by motivation
and partly by the social constraints which society exercises. Using the