so ciol 710

Social Theory from Marx to Parsons

Kieran Healy
[email protected]

Fall 2022. Reuben-Cooke, 331.

Mondays, 12:00pm–2:30pm.

Say what you mean. Bear witness. Iterate.

John M. Ford, “De Vermis”.

course description
This graduate-level course is an intensive introduction to some main themes in social
theory. It is the first of a two-part sequence required of first year Ph.D students in
the sociology department. It is a not a general introduction to the history of social or
political thought. For the purposes of the course, “social theory” means theory that has
been influential within the discipline of sociology. Even if you may not see much of
this work directly “used” in current work, a good understanding of it is necessary for
graduate students hoping to have any sort of informed understanding of how people
in the discipline think, and why they think that way. Indirectly, we will also try to self-
consciously develop habits of reading, thinking, and discussion that are intellectually
productive rather than sterile, generative rather than merely “critical”, and on the whole
scholarly rather than stupid.

1 4a8ebc7 on 2022/08/14
 2

expectations
This is a graduate seminar. I take it for granted that you have a basic interest in the
material, an enthusiastic attitude toward participation, and a respectful attitude to your
peers. I expect you to attend each meeting, do the required reading thoroughly and in
advance, and participate actively in class. Participating actively means contributing to
class discussion, something that involves both speaking and listening. You should also
be reading beyond the course requirements as much as possible.
The main purpose of the first year graduate sequence is to teach you some core
things about the field that are required for you to do good work, but which you do
not already know. This has some implications that might not be immediately obvious.
First, I am not making you read this stuff in order to waste your time, or to evangelize
its content to you as if it were all revealed truth, or to haze you in some weird fashion.
Second, your role in the class is to try to learn things you don’t already know and not,
for example, to try to impress me, your peers, or yourself with how clever you are.
Third, this point also applies to my role as the instructor. Fourth, the people in the
room—including me—are not your competitors or enemies; they are your interlocutors.
Academic disciplines are just highly-structured, long-running conversations. This is
where you start learning what the conversation topics are, what the standards of evalu-
ation look like, and where you begin thinking about making your own contributions.
So please, trust the process. Everything will go better if you do.

requirements
In addition to reading, attendance, and participation, two other kinds of work are
required:

1. Except for the first week, each week you will write a brief (up to two pages) memo
and send it to me in PDF format via the class Dropbox folder. It is due by 3pm
the day before class. This is a hard deadline. Your memo should discuss a topic,
a problem, or questions arising from the week’s reading. The memos are writing
and thinking exercises. I do not expect a polished short essay. However, I do
expect them to engage with the readings in a clear and intelligent way. Use them
to develop ideas informally, and raise issues that seem to you worth discussing
in class or pursuing further in your own writing. I will read them each week and
sometimes give you written feedback, in addition to using them to help focus
class discussion. You are required to share your memos with everyone else in
the class. (Putting them in the class Dropbox folder will accomplish this.)
The memos are not summaries of or your notes on the readings. A summary is
unnecessary because you can assume we have all read the material. Meanwhile,
 3

you should be taking reading notes separately. Nor are memos the place to
express your gut reaction to what you read. Neither I nor, I regret to say, anyone
else is interested in whether you “liked” or “disliked” any reading or author in
some general sense. While such reactions are inevitable, they should galvanize
your memos by prompting you to reflect on and analytically detail your reactions.
They do not constitute an interesting response in and of themselves.

2. A final paper is required. It should be fifteen to twenty pages in length and

address an interesting substantive question of your choice, discussing at least
two possible explanations for it, using the perspectives developed in the seminar.
Exegetical or purely conceptual papers—e.g., papers wholly devoted to questions
internal to some theory—will not be accepted. You should work on your paper
throughout the semester. I encourage you to discuss the topic with me ahead of
time.

a word about the approach

As is standard practice in our field, the department requires its graduate students
complete a two-semester survey course in social (or “sociological”) theory. Theory
within sociology is in a strange position. In principle, the core ideas of a discipline—its
theories—are what hold it together intellectually. Disciplines are not subjects or topics.
An intellectual discipline is a way of thinking about and investigating a possibly quite
varied set of subjects and topics. But there are no longer any theorists in sociology.
There are theories and theory courses, people who teach theory, and theory journals.
Inside research papers there are theory sections. Inside the American Sociological
Association there is a Theory Section, too. There are career returns to being thought of
as the sort of clever person who can do good theory. Indeed, you cannot get published in
a top-flight journal without convincing the reviewers that you have made a theoretical
contribution. It’s true that there are people in the field who started out as theorists,
and who still think of themselves primarily as such, but they are old. Since the late
1980s there has been no occupational position of “theorist” within American sociology.
No-one gets a job as a theorist.1
As a consequence, many people are not sure what, from a disciplinary point of
view, theory in sociology is supposed to be any more, or how it should be done, or
what if anything distinguishes it from intellectual history, or philosophy, or normative
political theory, or humanities-style “Theory”, or applied mathematics, or some sort of
1
For more on this, see Lamont (2004) and also Healy (2007). Crudely, the sort of people who once
would have thought of themselves—and hoped to be hired—primarily as theorists now typically think of
themselves as sociologists of culture instead, or (much less often) as disciplinary historians of ideas.
 4

conspiracy against first-year graduate students. And yet, a presumed acquaintance with
a particular stream of thought—beginning perhaps with Smith or Marx, proceeding
through the late 19th and early 20th centuries, pausing to throw stones at the beached
and rotting carcass of Functionalism, and ending with one of several more recent
thinkers in an attitude of reverence or contempt, according to taste—is very nearly the
only material you can rely on being shared by everyone across the field, along with a
statistics sequence up to the generalized linear model and a proseminar outlining how
to submit a paper to the ASA Meetings.
As the course unfolds, we will examine the reasons for this odd state of affairs.
We shall also take advantage of it in order to sharpen our sense of how sociologists
think about and come up with explanations for the phenomena they study. One of
the advantages of reading the material we do—even when it may seem desperately
out-of-fashion or hopelessly inadequate—is that it allows us to see, in a fairly clear way,
the distinctive (bad) habits of mind and (terrible) explanatory moves that still very
much characterize the theories sociologists are temperamentally inclined to produce.
In deference to our professional duty, we follow much of the standard “theory
stream” this semester. In the Spring you will move to a survey of contemporary work
in the sequel to this course. Inevitably, a great deal will get left out, both now and
next semester. Some of what is omitted might be covered in the theory sections of
other courses offered by the department. The rest will be covered in the extracurricular
reading that you will be doing in your spare time.

readings
All required readings will be available either via a link in the syllabus or through the
course Dropbox. Recommended readings are where you might go next if you want to
pursue a topic a little further. I encourage you to buy and read as many of the required
and recommended books as you can. These books—even the quite obscure ones—are
generally available for purchase new or used online.
If you do not have a strong background in social theory coming in to the class, it is
worth reading one or more of the following books:

Barry Barnes. 1995. The Elements of Social Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Craig Calhoun, ed. 2007. Sociology in America: A history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Thomas J. Fararo. 1989. The Meaning of General Theoretical Sociology. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Johan Heilbron. 1995. The Rise of Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Susan James. 1984. The Content of Social Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

If you do have a strong background in social theory coming into the class, you are
probably overestimating how strong it really is, so start reading anyway.
 5

schedule
1. turn your key, sir
Required
Claude Lévi-Strauss. 2011. Tristes Tropiques. New York: Penguin. Chapter 38, “A Little
Glass of Rum”.
Krishan Kumar. 1991. Prophecy and Progress: The sociology of industrial and post-
industrial society. London: Penguin. Chapters 1–3.
Geoffrey Hawthorn. 1987. Enlightenment and Despair: A history of social theory. Second
edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Introduction, Chapters 1–2.
Justin E.H. Smith. 2015. Nature, Human Nature, & Human Difference: Race in Early
Modern Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Pp. 1–69, 207–268.

Recommended
Ronald L. Meek. 1976. Social Science and the Ignoble Savage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Margaret Gilbert. 1992. On Social Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil. 2010. “The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explana-
tory depth.” Cognitive Science 26 (5): 521–562. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1.

2. smith, marx, and modernity

Adam Smith. 2000. The Wealth of Nations. New York: Modern Library. Excerpts.
Marshall Berman. 1983. All That is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity.
London: Verso, pp.15–130.
Karl Marx. 1992. Early Writings. London: Penguin, excerpts from the “Economic and
Philosophical Manuscripts”.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels “Manifesto of the Communist Party”.
E.P. Thompson. 1967. “Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism.” Past &
Present 38:56–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/past/38.1.56.
Terrell Carver. 2010. “Marx and the Politics of Sarcasm.” Socialism and Democracy 24
(3): 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2010.513608.

Recommended
Maurice Dobb. 1973. Theories of Value and Distribution Since Adam Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Emma Rothschild. 2001. Economic Sentiments. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Jonathan Sperber. 2014. Karl Marx: A Nineteenth Century Life. New York: Liverlight.
Allen Wood. 2004. Karl Marx. Second edition. New York: Routledge.
 6

3. marx’s political economy

Required
Robert C. Tucker, ed. 1978. The Marx–Engels Reader. New York: W.W. Norton.
Read the following selections:

⋅ Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (pp. 3–6). [link]

⋅ “Wage Labor and Capital” (pp. 203–217).

Karl Marx. 1990. Capital. Vol. One. Translated by Ben Fowkes. London: Penguin.
Excerpts.
Robert Paul Wolff. 1988. Moneybags Must Be So Lucky: On the literary structure of
Capital. Amherst: University of Massachussetts Press.

Recommended
Allen Wood. 2004. Karl Marx. Second edition. New York: Routledge.
Duncan Foley. 1986. Understanding Capital: Marx’s Economic Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
G.A. Cohen. 2000. Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence. Expanded edition. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Adam Przeworski. 1985. Capitalism and Social Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frank Parkin. 1979. Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique. New York: Columbia University
Press.

4. weber on action and interpretation

Required
Max Weber. 1978. Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pp.
3–56, 518–589.
Max Weber. 2001. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Routledge.
Max Weber. 2020. Charisma and Disenchantment: The Vocation Lectures. Translated
by Damion Searls. New York: NYRB Classics.

Recommended
Reinhard Bendix. 1977. Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. Berkeley: California.
Stephen Kalberg. 1996. “On the Neglect of Weber’s Protestant Ethic as a Theoretical Treatise: Demarcating
the Parameters of Postwar American Sociological Theory.” Sociological Theory 14 (1): 49–70.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/202152.
David Beetham. 1974. Max Weber and the theory of modern politics. London: Allen & Unwin.
 7

5. weber on class, rationalization and bureaucracy

Required
Max Weber. 1978. Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pp.
212–254, 302–307, 926–939, 956–963, 973–975, 980–989, 990–994, 1111–1125.
Michael Mann. 1986. The Sources of Social Power, volume I: A history of power from the
beginning to A.D. 1760. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Pp 1–104.

Recommended
Randall Collins. 1980. “Weber’s Last theory of Capitalism: A Systematization.” Classical Theory, Social
Prerequisites of Markets and Capitalism, American Sociological Review 45:925–40. http://www.
jstor.org/stable/2094910.
Charles Camic, Philip S. Gorski, and David M. Trubek, eds. 2005. Max Weber’s ‘Economy and Society’: A
Critical Companion. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Wolfgang Mommsen. 1989. “The Antinomical Structure of Max Weber’s Political Thought.” In The
Political and Social Theory of Max Weber, 24–43. Cambridge: Polity Press.
“The History of the Piano”, in W.G. Runciman, ed. 1978. Weber: Selections in translation. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Max Weber. 1995. General Economic History. New Brunswick: Transaction.

6. durkheim and the division of labor

Required
Émile Durkheim. 1984. The Division of Labor in Society. Translated by W.D. Halls. New
York: Free Press.
Émile Durkheim. 2007. On Suicide. Alexander Riley, editor; Robin Buss, translator.
New York: Penguin. Excerpts.
John Levi Martin. 2000. “What Do Animals Do All Day? The Division of Labor, Class
Bodies, and Totemic Thinking in the Popular Imagination.” Poetics 27:195–231.
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0304422X9900025X.

Recommended
Steven Lukes. 1992. Émile Durkheim: His life and work. London: Penguin.
Anthony Giddens, ed. 1972. Émile Durkheim: Selected Writings. New York: Cambridge University Press,
Pp. 1–50.
Susan Stedman Jones. 2001. Durkheim Reconsidered. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Warren Schmaus. 2004. Rethinking Durkheim and His Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
 8

7. durkheim on social structure and moral order

Required
Mary Douglas. 2002. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo.
New York: Routledge.
Émile Durkheim. 1997. The Elementary forms of Religious Life. Karen Fields, Translator.
Free Press. Excerpts.
Karen E. Fields and Barbara J. Fields. 2017. Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American
Life. New York: Verso.

Recommended
Peter Bearman. 1997. “Generalized Exchange.” American Journal of Sociology 102:1383–1415.
Mary Douglas. 1996. Natural Symbols. New York: Routledge.
Marcel Mauss. 2000. The Gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. New York: Norton.
Albert Bergesen. 2004. “Durkheim’s Theory of the Mental Categories: A review of the evidence.” Annual
Review of Sociology 30:395–408. http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.
soc.30.012703.110549.

8. simmel’s formal sociology

Required
Donald Levine, ed. 1972. Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press. Read the following selections:

⋅ “How is Society Possible?” and “The Problem of Sociology” (Pp. 6–35).

⋅ “Conflict” (Pp.70–95).

⋅ “Group Expansion and the Development of Individuality” (Pp. 251–293).

⋅ “The Stranger”, “Fashion”, “The Metropolis and Mental Life” (Pp. 143–149, 294–
339.)

Georg Simmel. [1907]1978. The Philosophy of Money. Boston: Routledge & Kegan,
excerpts.
Ronald L. Breiger. 1974. “The Duality of Persons and Groups.” Social Forces 53:181–190.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2576011.

Recommended
David Frisby. 1984. Georg Simmel. London: Routledge.
 9

9. american individuals, society, and social reform

Required
Jane Addams. 1905. “Problems of Municipal Administration.” American Journal of
Sociology 10 (4): 425–444. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i328576.
Charlotte Perkins Gilman. 1997. Women and Economics: A Study of the Economic
Relation Between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution. New York:
Dover Books, excerpts.
George Herbert Mead. 1981. Selected Writings: George Herbert Mead. Edited by A.J.
Reck. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, excerpts.
W.E.B. Du Bois. 1994. The Souls of Black Folk. New York: Dover, excerpts.
W.E.B. Du Bois. 1997. Black Reconstruction in America, 1860–1880. New York: Free
Press, excerpts.

Recommended
Mary Jo Deegan. 1988. Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Aldon Morris. 2007. “Sociology of Race and W.E.B. Du Bois: The Path Not Taken”in Calhoun 2007,
503–534.
Craig Calhoun, ed. 2007. Sociology in America: A history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

10. society in turmoil

Required
Karl Polanyi. 1980. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of
Our Time. Cambridge: Beacon Press, Chapters 4–6, 11, 21.
Joseph Schumpeter. 1950. Captialism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper /
Row, Chapters 7, 11–12.

Recommended
Jonathan Levy. 2012. Freaks of Fortune: The Emerging World of Capitalism in America. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Tim Rogan. 2017. The Moral Economists. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Amy Dru Stanley. 1999. From Bondage to Contract. New York: Cambridge University Press.
 10

11. society in equipoise

Required
Talcott Parsons. 1968. The Structure of Social Action Volume I: Marshall, Pareto, Durkheim.
Second. New York: Free Press, Part I.
Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils. 1951. “Values, Motives and Systems of Action.”
In Toward a General Theory of Action, edited by Talcott Parsons and Edward A.
Shils, 53–79. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Robert K. Merton. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. Enlarged Edition. Glencoe:
Free Press. Pp. 39-117, 175-213.

Recommended
Barry Barnes. 1995. The Elements of Social Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press, Chapter 2,
“Functionalism”.
N.J. Demerath and Richard A. Peterson, eds. 1967. System, Change and Conflict. New York: Free Press.
Jon Elster. 1983. Explaining Technical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 2,
“Functional Explanation”.
David Lockwood. 1964. “Social Integration and System Integration.” In Explorations in Social Change,
edited by G.K. Zollschan and W. Hirsch, 249–267. London: Routledge.

11. methods and attitudes

Required
Jeffrey Alexander. 1987. “The Centrality of the Classics.” In Social Theory Today, edited
by Anthony Giddens and Jonathan Turner, 11–57. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Gabriel Abend. 2008. “The Meaning of ‘Theory’.” Sociological Theory 26:173–199.
Stanley Lieberson and Freda B. Lynn. 2002. “Barking up the Wrong Branch: Scientific
Alternatives to the Current Model of Sociological Science.” Annual Review of
Sociology 28:1–19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3069232.pdf.
Kieran Healy. 2017. “Fuck Nuance.” Sociological Theory 35:118–127.

Recommended
R. W. Connell. 1997. “Why Is Classical Theory Classical?” American Journal of Sociology 102:1511–1557.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2782710.
Randall Collins. 1997. “A Sociological Guilt Trip: Comment on Connell.” American Journal of Sociology
102:1558–1564. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2782711.
 11

remainder
Catch-up, byways, and matters arising.
 12

Breiger, Ronald L. 1974. “The Duality of Persons

and Groups.” Social Forces 53:181–190. http:
//www.jstor.org/stable/2576011.
Calhoun, Craig, ed. 2007. Sociology in America: A
history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

References Camic, Charles, Philip S. Gorski, and David M.

Trubek, eds. 2005. Max Weber’s ‘Economy
and Society’: A Critical Companion. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Carver, Terrell. 2010. “Marx and the Politics of Sar-
Abend, Gabriel. 2008. “The Meaning of ‘Theory’.” casm.” Socialism and Democracy 24 (3): 102–
Sociological Theory 26:173–199. 118. https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2010.
513608.
Addams, Jane. 1905. “Problems of Municipal Ad-
ministration.” American Journal of Sociology Cohen, G.A. 2000. Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A
10 (4): 425–444. https : / / www . jstor . org / Defence. Expanded edition. Princeton: Prince-
stable/i328576. ton University Press.

Alexander, Jeffrey. 1987. “The Centrality of the Clas- Collins, Randall. 1980. “Weber’s Last theory of Cap-
sics.” In Social Theory Today, edited by An- italism: A Systematization.” Classical Theory,
thony Giddens and Jonathan Turner, 11–57. Social Prerequisites of Markets and Capital-
Stanford: Stanford University Press. ism, American Sociological Review 45:925–40.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094910.
Barnes, Barry. 1995. The Elements of Social Theory.
Princeton: Princeton University Press. . 1997. “A Sociological Guilt Trip: Comment
on Connell.” American Journal of Sociology
Bearman, Peter. 1997. “Generalized Exchange.” Amer- 102:1558–1564. http://www.jstor.org/stable/
ican Journal of Sociology 102:1383–1415. 2782711.
Beetham, David. 1974. Max Weber and the theory Connell, R. W. 1997. “Why Is Classical Theory Clas-
of modern politics. London: Allen & Unwin. sical?” American Journal of Sociology 102:1511–
Bendix, Reinhard. 1977. Max Weber: An Intellectual 1557. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2782710.
Portrait. Berkeley: California. Deegan, Mary Jo. 1988. Jane Addams and the Men
Bergesen, Albert. 2004. “Durkheim’s Theory of the of the Chicago School. New Brunswick, NJ:
Mental Categories: A review of the evidence.” Transaction Publishers.
Annual Review of Sociology 30:395–408. http: Demerath, N.J., and Richard A. Peterson, eds. 1967.
//arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10. System, Change and Conflict. New York: Free
1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110549. Press.
Berman, Marshall. 1983. All That is Solid Melts into Dobb, Maurice. 1973. Theories of Value and Distri-
Air: The Experience of Modernity. London: bution Since Adam Smith. Cambridge: Cam-
Verso. bridge University Press.
Bois, W.E.B. Du. 1994. The Souls of Black Folk. New Douglas, Mary. 1996. Natural Symbols. New York:
York: Dover. Routledge.
. 1997. Black Reconstruction in America, 1860–
1880. New York: Free Press.
 13

Douglas, Mary. 2002. Purity and Danger: An Anal- . 2017. “Fuck Nuance.” Sociological Theory
ysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New 35:118–127.
York: Routledge.
Heilbron, Johan. 1995. The Rise of Social Theory.
Durkheim, Émile. 1984. The Division of Labor in Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Society. Translated by W.D. Halls. New York:
Free Press. James, Susan. 1984. The Content of Social Expla-
nation. Cambridge: Cambridge University
. 1997. The Elementary forms of Religious Press.
Life. Karen Fields, Translator. Free Press.
Jones, Susan Stedman. 2001. Durkheim Reconsid-
. 2007. On Suicide. Alexander Riley, editor; ered. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Robin Buss, translator. New York: Penguin.
Kalberg, Stephen. 1996. “On the Neglect of Weber’s
Elster, Jon. 1983. Explaining Technical Change. Cam- Protestant Ethic as a Theoretical Treatise: De-
bridge: Cambridge University Press. marcating the Parameters of Postwar Ameri-
can Sociological Theory.” Sociological Theory
Fararo, Thomas J. 1989. The Meaning of General 14 (1): 49–70. http://www.jstor.org/stable/
Theoretical Sociology. New York: Cambridge 202152.
University Press.
Kumar, Krishan. 1991. Prophecy and Progress: The
Fields, Karen E., and Barbara J. Fields. 2017. Race- sociology of industrial and post-industrial so-
craft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life. ciety. London: Penguin.
New York: Verso.
Lamont, Michèle. 2004. “The Theory Section and
Foley, Duncan. 1986. Understanding Capital: Marx’s Theory Satellites.” Perspectives 27, no. 1 (Jan-
Economic Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard uary): 1, 10, 14, 16.
University Press.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 2011. Tristes Tropiques. New
Frisby, David. 1984. Georg Simmel. London: Rout- York: Penguin.
ledge.
Levine, Donald, ed. 1972. Georg Simmel on Individ-
Giddens, Anthony, ed. 1972. Émile Durkheim: Se- uality and Social Forms. Chicago, IL: Univer-
lected Writings. New York: Cambridge Uni- sity of Chicago Press.
versity Press.
Levy, Jonathan. 2012. Freaks of Fortune: The Emerg-
Gilbert, Margaret. 1992. On Social Facts. Princeton: ing World of Capitalism in America. Cam-
Princeton University Press. bridge: Harvard University Press.
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. 1997. Women and Eco- Lieberson, Stanley, and Freda B. Lynn. 2002. “Bark-
nomics: A Study of the Economic Relation Be- ing up the Wrong Branch: Scientific Alterna-
tween Men and Women as a Factor in Social tives to the Current Model of Sociological
Evolution. New York: Dover Books. Science.” Annual Review of Sociology 28:1–
Hawthorn, Geoffrey. 1987. Enlightenment and De- 19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/
spair: A history of social theory. Second edi- 3069232.pdf.
tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lockwood, David. 1964. “Social Integration and
Healy, Kieran. 2007. “Sociology.” In A Companion System Integration.” In Explorations in So-
to Contemporary Political Philosophy, Second cial Change, edited by G.K. Zollschan and W.
edition, edited by Robert E. Goodin, Philip Hirsch, 249–267. London: Routledge.
Pettit, and Thomas Pogge, 1:88–117. Malden, Lukes, Steven. 1992. Émile Durkheim: His life and
MA: Blackwell. work. London: Penguin.
 14

Mann, Michael. 1986. The Sources of Social Power, Parsons, Talcott, and Edward A. Shils. 1951. “Values,
volume I: A history of power from the begin- Motives and Systems of Action.” In Toward
ning to A.D. 1760. Cambridge: Cambridge a General Theory of Action, edited by Talcott
University Press. Parsons and Edward A. Shils, 53–79. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press.
Martin, John Levi. 2000. “What Do Animals Do
All Day? The Division of Labor, Class Bodies, Polanyi, Karl. 1980. The Great Transformation: The
and Totemic Thinking in the Popular Imagi- Political and Economic Origins of Our Time.
nation.” Poetics 27:195–231. http://linkinghu Cambridge: Beacon Press.
b.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0304422X9900
025X. Przeworski, Adam. 1985. Capitalism and Social Democ-
racy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marx, Karl. 1990. Capital. Vol. One. Translated by
Ben Fowkes. London: Penguin. Rogan, Tim. 2017. The Moral Economists. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
. 1992. Early Writings. London: Penguin.
Rothschild, Emma. 2001. Economic Sentiments. Cam-
Mauss, Marcel. 2000. The Gift: The form and reason bridge: Harvard University Press.
for exchange in archaic societies. New York:
Norton. Rozenblit, Leonid, and Frank Keil. 2010. “The mis-
understood limits of folk science: an illusion
Mead, George Herbert. 1981. Selected Writings: George of explanatory depth.” Cognitive Science 26
Herbert Mead. Edited by A.J. Reck. Chicago: (5): 521–562. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1207 / s
University of Chicago Press. 15516709cog2605_1.
Meek, Ronald L. 1976. Social Science and the Ignoble Runciman, W.G., ed. 1978. Weber: Selections in trans-
Savage. Cambridge: Cambridge University lation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Press.
Schmaus, Warren. 2004. Rethinking Durkheim and
Merton, Robert K. 1968. Social Theory and Social His Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
Structure. Enlarged Edition. Glencoe: Free versity Press.
Press.
Schumpeter, Joseph. 1950. Captialism, Socialism,
Mommsen, Wolfgang. 1989. “The Antinomical Struc- and Democracy. New York: Harper / Row.
ture of Max Weber’s Political Thought.” In
The Political and Social Theory of Max Weber, Simmel, Georg. [1907]1978. The Philosophy of Money.
24–43. Cambridge: Polity Press. Boston: Routledge & Kegan.

Morris, Aldon. 2007. “Sociology of Race and W.E.B. Smith, Adam. 2000. The Wealth of Nations. New
Du Bois: The Path Not Taken.” In Calhoun York: Modern Library.
2007, 503–534. Smith, Justin E.H. 2015. Nature, Human Nature,
Parkin, Frank. 1979. Marxism and Class Theory: & Human Difference: Race in Early Modern
A Bourgeois Critique. New York: Columbia Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University
University Press. Press.

Parsons, Talcott. 1968. The Structure of Social Ac- Sperber, Jonathan. 2014. Karl Marx: A Nineteenth
tion Volume I: Marshall, Pareto, Durkheim. Century Life. New York: Liverlight.
Second. New York: Free Press. Stanley, Amy Dru. 1999. From Bondage to Contract.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
 15

Thompson, E.P. 1967. “Time, Work-Discipline and

Industrial Capitalism.” Past & Present 38:56–
97. https://doi.org/10.1093/past/38.1.56.
Tucker, Robert C., ed. 1978. The Marx–Engels Reader.
New York: W.W. Norton.
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
. 1995. General Economic History. New Brunswick:
Transaction.
. 2001. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism. London: Routledge.
. 2020. Charisma and Disenchantment: The
Vocation Lectures. Translated by Damion Searls.
New York: NYRB Classics.
Wolff, Robert Paul. 1988. Moneybags Must Be So
Lucky: On the literary structure of Capital.
Amherst: University of Massachussetts Press.
Wood, Allen. 2004. Karl Marx. Second edition. New
York: Routledge.