This article constitutes the second part of a discussion of the diffusion of Simmel's thought within the American sociological community initiated in the January issue of this Journal. His influence is traced with respect to the metropolitan mentality, small groups, interpersonal knowledge, conflict, and exchange. Different levels and historical functions of the appropriation of Simmel's work are identified in conclusion.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2777557.pdf

Simmel's Influence on American Sociology. I

Springfield's Sacred Canopy: Religion and Humour in The Simpsons

In America today there are government or corporation officials who .have eavesdropped on telephone calls (Wise, 1976; &dquo;AT & T monitored millions of calls,&dquo; 1975; Shapley, 1977), kept secrets about political assassinations (U.S. Senate, 1975), used computer programs to conceal embezzlement (Allen, 1977), or provided conflicting facts about the safety of nuclear power (Ebbins and Kasper, 1974; Congressional Digest, 1977). The public has learned repeatedly how little the ordinary citizen knows about what government agencies do and how much government agencies know about what ordinary citizens do. Yet sociology has done little to help people understand these social problems of getting, keeping, and using information. Sociologists have left the study of

Information Control A Conceptual Framework for Sociological Analysis

The paradox of secrecy

The ASA code of Ethics (American Soci ologist, 1968:318), as adopted several years ago, contains three rules dealing directly or indirectly with the subjects' right of privacy. Rule number 3 of the Code reads: "Every person is entitled to the right of privacy and dignity of treatment. The sociologist must respect these rights. ' ' Rule number 4 also has a bearing on the question of the subjects' right of privacy: "All research should avoid causing personal harm to subjects used in re search." Rule number 5 begins as follows: "Confidential information provided by a re search subject must be treated as such by the sociologist. ' ' Rule 3 implies that one must never conduct research without voluntary subject coopera tion, while rule 5 indicates that the sociolo gist's use of data must not exceed the limits set by the subject. Rule 4, a more general mandate, proscribes causing personal harm and discomfort to research subjects, presum ably including disclosure of any information about them against their wishes. These rules are not a dramatic departure for our disci pline and probably reflect the longstanding values of most sociologists, and it has only recently become clear the extent to which such rules impose limitations on our profes sion. These limitations have become increasingly evident, not because of developments within sociology, but due to events outside the disci pline. Recently, several dramatic disclosures involving the operation of government and big business have been made by Jack Ander son, well-known investigative reporter and

The protection of human subjects: a reexamination of the professional code of ethics.

Secrecy has become a major characteristic of most modern public and private organizations, partly as a result of bureaucratization and democratization and subsequent organizational dependence upon manipulation and persuasion. Though security and secrecy systems are seen as indispensable to the efficient functioning of modern organizations, they contain the seeds of their own destruction. Leaders utilize privileged information for self-enhancement purposes. Required information is denied within and between agencies. Secrecy systems take on latent functions leading to the protection of relatively useless and unreliable knowledge. The producers of such knowledge thereby maintain job security, and security systems become increasingly involved in matters of sensitivity. Analysis of these dysfunctions within the context of security conscious, military supported think-tanks suggests that secrecy functions to undermine the purposes for which it is utilized. Serious question, therefore, must be raised about the maintenance of secrecy systems in any form, and where they are necessary for obvious security purposes, about their modification and control.

Toward a Sociology of Secrecy and Security Systems

In order to identify key historical factors in the creation of the military-industrial complex, relevant theories of social change and their interrelationships are examined. Four major periods of historical change are related to variations in types of warfare and processes of political development. A theory of changing military roles in both democratic and nondemocratic societies is formulated. The militarization of modern society is seen as a result of evolutionary processes of change, rather than as a consequence of plots, cabals, coups, or a return to earlier periods of capture of the political process by military elites. Possible directions for future changes, which could modify and attenuate the power and influence of military complexes, are suggested.

To Arms: Changing Military Roles and the Military-Industrial Complex

/pdf/toward-a-radical-view-of-the-ecological-crisis-4qc9q36eql.pdf

Ritchie P. Lowry

Papers

Toward a Sociology of Secrecy and Security Systems

To Arms: Changing Military Roles and the Military-Industrial Complex

Toward a Radical View of the Ecological Crisis

From camelot policymaker to college professor