3658925934

32 Ibid.
33 The importance of his contribution is suggested by a reference to it more than half a century later: “Not since Gabriel Tarde . . . has
there been any real attempt to formulate a theoretical explanation of the innovative process and of the individual and social circumstances
involved therein.” R. T. La Piere, “Editor’s Introduction,” in H. G. Barnett, Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1953), p. v.
34 An example of difficulties emerging from Tarde’s imprecise application of central concepts concerns the essentially interchangeable
use he made of the terms “invention” and “discovery.” At many points Tarde needed a term that would generally cover all new ideas;
although the term invention in common parlance (in both French and English) is slightly more restricted than this meaning, it is a
defensible extrapolation from standard usage. But all “discoveries” are not the creations of individual minds. The term implies a more
passive role on the part of the “discoverer,” and suggests that the “discovery” existed prior to the activities of any particular individuals
seeking it. To “invent” a new means of transportation demands a more actively creative role than to “discover” a previously unknown
territory. In seeking to develop a truly general conceptual framework, Tarde necessarily ignored a number of distinctions such as this one;
the most frequent result was greater generality. But in cases such as the propositions about factors contributing to invention, the results
were simply not applicable, or at least less applicable, to some instances of discovery. Greater precision than Tarde generally
demonstrated would have helped clarify matters such as this.
35 Part II, 6, below.
36 Harvey C. Lehman, Age and Achievement (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953).
37 On this debate in the history of science, see A. Rupert Hall, “Merton Revisited,” History of Science, vol. 2 (1963).
38 In the last part of the nineteenth century, international fairs were much more important for international competition on a reasonably
high intellectual level than they have become in more recent decades. That Frédéric Le Play organized several World’s Fairs under the
Second Empire suggests the esteem with which the fairs were regarded by intellectuals no less than the general public. A few years
later, the unveiling of the impressive Eiffel Tower at the 1889 World’s Fair was widely regarded as a spectacular device for establishing
the engineering and metallurgical skills of the French to help them recapture international markets for heavy steel and machine products
from the Germans.
39 Some of the patterns by which isolation can nevertheless contribute to innovation are taken up in Terry N. Clark, “Marginality,
Eclecticism, and Innovation,” Revue Internationale de Sociologie, 2d ser., vol. 3, no. 1–3 (December, 1967): 12–27; and Clark,
“Institutionalization of Innovations in Higher Education: Four Models,” Administrative Science Quarterly 13, no. 1 (June, 1968): 1–25.
40 The Laws of Imitation (New York: Henry Holt, 1903), p. xiv.
41 Part III, 8, below.
42 Part III, 9, below.
43 For a survey of research in this area, see J. W. Brehm and A. R. Cohen, Explorations in Cognitive Dissonance (New York:
Wiley, 1962).
44 Part III, 8, below.
45 Part III, 9, below.
46 Espinas emphasizes the Christian glorification of the “inner man” behind Tarde’s intellectualism here. See “Notice sur la vie et les
œuvres de M Gabriel de Tarde,” pp. 316ff.
47 This same proposition has been discussed by Toynbee and Deutsch among others. See Karl Deutsch, The Nerves of Government
(New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963), p. 160.
48 Part III, 9, below, and L’opinion et la foule (Paris: Alcan, 1902).
49 David Riesman, Constraint and Variety in American Education (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1958). Diffusion
models for higher education are reviewed and criticized in Clark, “Institutionalization of Innovations.”
50 Robert K. Merton, “The Matthew Effect in Science,” Science 159, no. 3810 (January 5, 1968) : 56–63.
51 James S. Coleman, Elihu Katz, and Herbert Menzel, Medical Innovation (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966).
52 Part II, 5, below.
53 Here, Tarde’s discussion contains the basic ideas behind the concept of “cross pressure” as used in voting behavior studies. See
Bernard R. Berelson, Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and William N. McPhee, Voting (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954).
54 See James S. Coleman, Community Conflict (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1957).
55 J. W. Burrow, Evolution and Society.
56 Robert H. Lowie, History of Ethnological Theory (New York: Farrar and Rinehart, 1937), p. 137.
57 See, for example, Talcott Parsons, Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall, 1966) and Robert M. Marsh, Comparative Sociology (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1967).
58 Tarde did not use the term personality as an analytic concept, nor were his general substitutes—spirit, soul, character, etc.—
developed with precision. The only two related concepts he elaborated systematically were belief and desire.
59 Part IV, 11, below.
60 See section x, below.
61 Social Laws, p. 197.
62 Part III, 10, below.
63 Part V, 12, below.