Abstract
This paper examines the reasons for the variable incidence and differing forms of historical sociology in several different historical periods, with a focus on Germany and the USA. It examines the flows of social scientists between those two countries due to forced exile from Nazi Germany, the American military occupation after 1945, and the voluntary exchange of scholars. The article focuses on extrascientific determinants such as political support for historical scholarship and macrosocial crisis or stability, as well as determinants that are more proximate or internal to the scientific field, such as the ongoing struggle between different epistemologies and the ability of historical sociology to sequester itself into a protected subfield. Historical sociology was one of the two poles of German sociology before 1933, whereas historical sociology had only a handful of proponents in the USA at that time. After 1933, the majority of German historical sociologists went into exile, most of them to the USA. For reasons explored here, the historical orientation of these exiled intellectuals had little resonance in the USA until the 1970s. Rather than being epistemologically “domesticated” in the 1980s, as Calhoun (1996) argued, historical sociology established itself as a subfield that is large enough to produce an internal polarization between an autonomous pole that relates mainly to history and other external allies and a heteronomous pole that mimics the protocols that dominate the sociological discipline as a whole, including a neopositivist epistemology of “covering laws” and at attraction to rational choice theory and quantitative methods, or qualitative simulacra of multivariate statistical analysis. In Germany, historical sociology failed to survive the Nazi period. Several leading Weimar-era historical sociologists stayed in Germany after 1933 but were unable to reestablish their prominence either because of their Nazi collaboration or because their work was dismissed by a new generation trained during the Nazi period for presentist, policy-oriented, “American-style”, or else trained in the USA after the war. The handful of exiled historical sociologists who returned to Germany after 1945 were marginalized, stopped working historically, or moved into other disciplines like Political Science. The explanation of these trends has to be multicausal and conjunctural. The influx of historical sociologists to the USA from Germany was unable to produce a historicization of the discipline until 1970s, when positivist hegemony was challenged for other reasons. The crisis of Fordism undermined the social regularities that had made positivist “constant conjunctions” seem plausible and at the same time rendered historicist ontologies more plausible. The neo-Marxist historical sociology gave rise to a neo-institutionalist counter-trend, which was itself eventually countered by a culturalist and conjuncturalist turn (Adams et al. 2005). In Germany, however, the society-wide destabilization of Fordism did not lead to a historicization of sociology. The extinguishing of the Weimar-era historical school in sociology meant that only high theory and “American-style” empirical social research remained as vital options. As a result, the crisis of Fordism and the ensuing social discontinuities and complexities did not give rise to historical sociology but were felt mainly within theory (e.g., the “risk society” theory of Ulrich Beck).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
On the early historical section see the memo entitled “Committee on Sociological History. A Committee of Social Scientists and Historians,” April 9, 1980, which lists Cahnman as one of four “Former Chairmen.” Werner Cahnman papers, Leo Baeck Institute. Folder 2/55 (“General-Chronological,” 1913–1980).
In the subfield of political theory within American political science, for example, the prevailing views of “value-freedom” and normativity and of the hierarchy of empirical and theoretical work are directly opposite the dominant views of the same matters within the discipline as a whole. The creation of a subfield may protect a rare plant like poetry, political theory, or historical sociology, but it may also immunize the rest of the field against the subfield’s heterodox messages (Mihic et al. 2005).
Kiser and Hechter’s (1991) call for general laws echoes a widely read treatment of American sociology from the 1950s which argues that “at no time during the development of sociology has the existence of a system of fundamental, natural laws which govern the behavior of men been seriously questioned” (Hinkle and Hinke 1954, p. 9).
The GSA stopped operations between 1934 and 1946. Sociology lost almost all autonomy during the Nazi era; the entire sociological discipline was distrusted as repressed as left-leaning and heavily Jewish (but see footnote 14). Most of the sociologists who continued working in Nazi Germany oriented themselves toward official policy agendas, published in Nazi journals, and subordinated their discipline to “interdisciplinary” projects. For example, the ethnosociologists Richard Thurnwald and Wilhelm Mühlmann increasingly aligned their scientific agendas and conceptual vocabulary with Nazi ideology in the late 1930s, designing policies of compulsory assimilation, forced labor, and national socialist colonial rule (Steinmetz forthcoming).
Survey of Baccalaureate and Graduate Programs in Sociology, 2000–2001, conducted by the American Sociological Association.
See “DGS—Gesamterhebung, Soziologie an deutschen Hochschulen”, at http://www.soziologie.de/.
Von Schelting published his Habilitation thesis as Max Webers Wissenschaftslehre (Max Weber’s Theory of Science) in 1934 and worked on the translation of the first part of Weber’s Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft with Edward Shils, Talcott Parsons, and A.M. Henderson, which appeared in 1947 as The Theory of Social and Economic Organization.
W. Cahnman papers, Leo Baeck Institute, New York City.
According to the recollections of Craig Calhoun, Theda Skocpol talked him into running for secretary of the comparative-historical section in 1981 against a candidate associated with the interpretivist, neo-historicist Weberian camp (Stephen Kalberg). Calhoun recalls that opposition was also motivated by a perception of the Cahnman group as hostile to Marxism. (Personal communication to the author from Craig Calhoun).
For a wonderful treatment of this fraught relationship between these two isolated men, see the forthcoming biography of Mills by John H. Summers, who presented a paper at the Eastern sociological association meetings in Baltimore on March 20, 2009. Gerth left behind some 2,000 pages of unpublished manuscripts (Bensman et al. 1982, p. xi).
For example, the notion of the Geisteswissenschaften as distinct from the natural sciences, anathema to American social science positivists, was developed by the neo-Kantian Wilhelm Windelband. Heidegger staked out an even less positivist position, one that was hostile to the very idea of a social science. As Bourdieu notes, in Heidegger, “there is a hatred of statistics (harping on the theme of the ‘average’) seen as a symbol of all the operations of ‘levelling down’ which threaten the person (here called Dasein) and its most precious attributes, its ‘originality’ and ‘privacy’” (Bourdieu 1991, p. 79).
See the comments by Peter Coulmas in Klingemann (1988), however, which suggest that Walther did not completely abandon his historical orientation during the Nazi period.
About half of the historical sociologists listed in Table 1 were Jewish. This does not mean, however, that historical sociology was associated mainly with Jewish sociologists. Some leading figures such as Werner Cahnman, Norbert Elias, Siegfried Landshut, Karl Mannheim, Albert Salomon, and Franz Oppenheimer were Jewish, but Max and Alfred Weber, Hans Freyer, Hans Gerth, Carl Mayer, Hans Speier, and Paul Honigsheim were not.
References
Abbott, A. (2005). The idea of outcome in U.S. sociology. In G. Steinmetz (Ed.), The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its epistemological others (pp. 393–426). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Adams, J., Clemens, E. S., & Orloff, A. S. (2005). Introduction: social theory, modernity, and the three waves of historical sociology. In J. Adams, E. S. Clemens & A. S. Orloff (Eds.), Remaking modernity: Politics, history, and sociology (pp. 1–72). Durham: Duke University Press.
Adorno, T. (1968). Scientific experiences of a European scholar in America. Perspectives in American History, 2, 338–370.
Adorno, T. (1972). Zur gegenwärtigen Stellung der empirischen Sozialforschung in Deutschland (1951/52). In T. Adorno (Ed.), Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 8 (pp. 478–493). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Albert, H. (1956). Entmythologisierung der Sozialwissenschaften. Die Bedeutung der analytischen Soziologie für die soziologische Erkenntnis. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 8(2), 243–271.
Anderson, N. (1923). The Hobo; The sociology of the homeless man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Anderson, N. (1956). Die Darmstadt-Studie. Ein informeller Rückblick. In König René (Ed.), Soziologie der Gemeinde, special issue Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie Sonderheft 1 (pp. 144–171). Cologne: Westdeutscher.
Aron, R. (1935). La sociologie allemande contemporaine. Paris: Alcan.
Averbeck, S. (1999). Ernst Manheims wissenschaftliches Jahrhundert: Erkenntnistheorie und Empirie. Newsletter—Archiv für die Geschichte der Soziologie in Österreich, 19, 1–20.
Averbeck, S. (2005). Ernst Manheim’s Träger der öffentlichen Meinung: Eine Theorie der Öffentlichkeit 30 Jahre vor Jurgen Habermas. In F. Baron, et al. (Eds.), Authority, culture, and communication: The sociology of Ernest Manheim (pp. 43–70). Heidelberg: Synchron.
Bahr, E. (2007). Weimar on the Pacific: German exile culture in Los Angeles and the crisis of modernism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Barnes, H. E., & Becker, H. (1938). Social thought from lore to science (vol. 1). Boston: Heath.
Barth, F., Gingrich, A., Parkin, R., & Silverman, S. (2005). One discipline, four ways: British, German, French, and American Anthropology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Becker, C. H. (1925). Vom Wesen der deutschen Universität. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer.
Becker, H. P. (1930). Ionia and Athens. Studies in Secularization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.
Becker, H. P. (1934). Historical Sociology. In L. L. Bernard (Ed.), The fields and methods of sociology (pp. 18–34). New York: Long and Smith.
Bendix, R. (1943). The Rise and Acceptance of German Sociology. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Chicago.
Bensman, J., Vidich, A. J., & Gerth, N. (eds). (1982). Politics, character, and culture: Perspectives from Hans Gerth. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Bernard, L. L. (1909). The Teaching of Sociology in the United States. The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Oct., 1909), pp. 164–213.
Bleek, W. (2001). Geschichte der Politikwissenschaft in Deutschland. München: Beck.
Blomert, R. (1999). Intellektuelle im Aufbruch: Karl Mannheim, Alfred Weber, Norbert Elias und die Heidelberger Sozialwissenschaften der Zwischenkriegszeit. München: Hanser.
Bock, M. (1994). Entwicklung der Soziologie und die Krise der Geisteswissenschaften in den 20er Jahren. In K. W. Nörr (Ed.), Geisteswissenschaften zwischen Kaiserreich und Republik (pp. 159–185). Stuttgart: Steiner.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). The political ontology of Martin Heidegger. Oxford: Polity.
Bourdieu, P. (2000). Propos sur le champ politique. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (2000). The organic ethnologist of Algerian Migration. Ethnolography, 1, 173–182.
Brecht, B. (1998 [1940]). Flüchtlingsgespräche. In W. Hecht, et al. (Eds.), Bertolt Brecht. Werke (Vol. 18) (pp. 195–327). Berlin: Aufbau.
Cahnman, W. J. (1943). The Mediterranean and Caribbean Regions—a comparison in race and culture contacts. Social Forces, 22, 209–214.
Cahnman, W. J. (1960). Review of From history to sociology: The transition in German historical thinking, by Carlo Antoni. American Sociological Review, 25, 120–121.
Cahnman, W. J. (1966). The historical sociology of cities: a critical review. Social Forces, 45, 155–161.
Cahnmann, W. J. (1978). Historische Soziologie: Was sie ist und was nicht. Die deutsche Universitäts-Zeitung vereinigt mit Hochschul-Dienst, 15, 458–462.
Cahnman, W. J. (1989). German Jewry: Its history and sociology: Selected essays by Werner J. Cahnman. Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Cahnman, W. J., & Boskoff, A. (1964). Sociology and history: Review and outlook. In W. J. Cahnman & A. Boskoff (Eds.), Sociology and history: Theory and research (pp. 560–580). New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Calhoun, C. (ed). (2007). Sociology in America. A history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Calhoun, C., & VanAntwerpen, J. (2007). Orthodoxy, heterodoxy, and hierarchy: “Mainstream” sociology and its challenges. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Sociology in America. A history (pp. 367–410). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Calhoun, C. (1996). The rise and domestication of historical sociology. In T. J. McDonald (Ed.), The historic turn in the human sciences (pp. 305–338). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Cohen, G. A. (2001). Karl Marx’s theory of history: A defence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Comhaire, J., & Cahnman, W. J. (1962). How cities grew: The historical sociology of cities. Madison, NJ: Florham Park.
Coser, L. (1984). Refugee scholars in America. Their impact and their experiences. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Derks, H. (2001). Review of Soziologie im Dritten Reich, by Carsten Klingemann. The European Legacy, 6, 491–499.
Diesener, G. (1993). Karl Lamprecht weiterdenken: Universal- und Kulturgeschichte heute. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.
Ermakoff, I. (2008). Ruling oneself out: A theory of collective abdications. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Etzkorn, K. P. (1987). Paul Honigsheims wissenschaftlichen Wirkungen in den Vereinigten Staaten. In A. Silbermann and P. Röhrig (Eds.), Kultur, Volksbildung und Gesellschaft. Paul Honigsheim zum Gedenken seines 100. Geburtstages (pp. 51-66). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Faulenbach, B. (1982). Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy. In H.-U. Wehler (Ed.), Deutsche Historiker, vol. 9 (pp. 102–126). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Fleck, C. (2007). Transatlantische Bereicherungen. Zur Erfindung der empirischen Sozialforschung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Fourcade, M. (2009). Economists and societies: Discipline and profession in the United States, Britain, and France, 1890s to 1990s. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Francis, E. (1951). History and the social sciences: Some reflections on the re-integration of social science. The Review of Politics, 13, 354–374.
Francis, E. (1965). Ethnos und Demos. Soziologische Beiträge zur Volkstheorie. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Franzis, E. (1933). Bernard Bolzano, der pädagogische Gehalt seiner Lehre. Münster in Westfalen: Aschendorff.
Freyer, H. (1926). Soziologie als Geisteswissenschaft. Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, 26, 113–126.
Freyer, H. (1930). Soziologie als Wirklichkeitswissenschaft;logische Grundlegung des Systems der Soziologie. Leipzig: Teubner.
Freyer, H. (1931). Revolution von rechts. Jena: Diederichs.
Freyer, H. (1933). Herrschaft und Planung. Hamburg: Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt.
Freyer, H. (1954). Weltgeschichte Europas. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt.
Frisby, D. (1986). Fragments of modernity: Theories of modernity in the work of Simmel, Kracauer, and Benjamin. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Gemelli, G. (2000). Permanent connections: Paul Lazarsfeld, American Foundations and Europe (1930s–1960s). In G. Gemelli (Ed.), The “Unacceptables”: American Foundations and refugee scholars between the two wars and after (pp. 241–272). Brussels: Peter Lang.
Gerhardt, U. (2007). Denken der Demokratie. Die Soziologie im atlantischen Transfer des Besatzungsregimes. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Gerth, H. (1959). The relevance of history to the sociological ethos. Studies on the Left, 1, 7–14.
Gerth, H. (1976). Bürgerliche Intelligenz um 1800: zur Soziologie des deutschen Frühliberalismus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Gerth, N. (2002). “Between two worlds”: Hans Gerth. Jahrbuc h für Soziologiegeschichte 1999/2000. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Glatzer, W. (1994). Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie. Soziologie, 3, 216–231. special edition.
Grathoff, R. (1974). Biographisches. In A. Brecht, P. Berger & R. Grathoff (Eds.), Carl Mayer 1902/1974 (pp. 9–16). Konstanz: Verlagsanstalt Konstanz.
Grünfeld, E. (1913). Hafenkolonien und Kolonieähnliche Verhältnisse in China, Japan und Korea; eine kolonialpolitische Studie. Jena: Fischer.
Grünfeld, E. (1939). Die Peripheren: ein Kapitel Soziologie. Amsterdam: N. v. Noord-hollandsche uitgevers mij.
Grüttner, M., & Kinas, S. (2007). Die Vertreibung von Wissenschaftlern aus den deutschen Universitäten 1933–1945. Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 55, 123–186.
Gugolz, A. (1984). Charisma und Rationalität in der Gesellschaft: die Religionssoziologie Carl Mayers zwischen klassischen Theorien und moderner Wissenssoziologie. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Hagemann, H., & Krohn, C.-D. (eds). (1999). Biographisches Handbuch der deutschsprachigen wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Emigration nach 1933. München: Saur.
Hardin, B. (1977). The professionalization of sociology. A comparative study: Germany–USA. Frankfurt: Campus.
Heilbron, J. (2008). Qu’est-ce qu’une tradition nationale en sciences sociales? Revue d’Histoire des Sciences Humaines, 18, 3–16.
Heilbron, J., Guilhot, N., & Jeanpierre, L. (2008). Toward a transnational history of the social sciences. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 44, 146–160.
Henning, C. (2006). ‘Der übernationale Gedanke der geistigen Einheit’. Gottfried Salomon (-Delatour), der vergessene Soziologe der Verständigung. In A. Barboza & C. Henning (Eds.), Deutsch-jüdische Wissenschaftsschicksale: Studien über Identitätskonstruktionen in der Sozialwissenschaft (pp. 48–100). Bielefeld: Transcript.
Herman, E. (1996). The romance of American psychology: Political culture in the age of experts. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hinkle, R. C., Jr., & Hinke, G. (1954). The development of modern sociology, its nature and growth in the United States. New York: Random.
Holzner, B. (1965). Review of Sociology and History: Theory and Research, eds. Werner J. Cahnman and Alvin Boskoff. Social Forces, 43, 579–580.
Jay, M. (1975–1976). The extraterritorial life of Siegfried Kracauer. Salmagundi, 31–32, 49–106.
Kaesler, D., & Vogt, L. (eds). (2000). Hauptwerke der Soziologie. Stuttgart: Kröner.
Kaesler, D. (1984). Die frühe deutsche Soziologie 1900 bis 1934 und ihre Entstehungs-Milieus. Opladen: Westdeutscher.
Karger, U. (1978). Institutionsgeschichtliche Zäsuren in der deutschen Soziologie. Dargestellt am Beispiel der Deutschen Soziologentage. Dissertation, Ruhr-Universität Bochum.
Kiser, E., & Hechter, M. (1991). The role of general theory in comparative–historical sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1–30.
Klingemann, C. (1986). Soziologie an Hochschulen im NS-Staat (2). Zeitschrift für Hochschuldidaktik, 10, 127155.
Klingemann, C. (1988). Erinnerungen an das Seminar für Soziologie zwischen 1939 und 1945. In R. Wassner & M. Berghaus (Eds.), Wege zum Sozialen: 90 Jahre Soziologie in Hamburg (pp. 85–97). Opladen: Leske + Budric.
Klingemann, C. (1992). Social–scientific experts—no ideologues. Sociology and social research in the Third Reich. In P. Turner & D. Käsler (Eds.), Sociology responds to fascism (pp. 127–154). London: Sage.
Klingemann, C. (1996). Soziologie im Dritten Reich. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
König, R. (1958). Soziologie. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.
Köttgen, A. (1933). Deutsches Universitätsrecht. Tübingen: Mohr.
Kracauer, S. (1922). Soziologie als Wissenschaft: Eine erkenntnistheoretische Untersuchung. Dresden: Sibyllen.
Kracauer, S. (1952–1953). The challenge of qualitative content analysis. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 16, 631–642.
Kracauer, S. (1995 [1969]). History: The last things before the last. Princeton: Wiener.
Kracauer, S. (1998 [1930]). The salaried masses: Duty and distraction in Weimar Germany. London: Verso.
Krohn, C. D. (1993 [1987]). Intellectuals in exile: Refugee scholars and the new school for social research. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Krohn, C.-D. (2000). American Foundations and Refugee scholars between the Two Wars. In G. Gemelli (Ed.), The “Unacceptables”: American Foundations and Refugee Scholars between the Two Wars and After (pp. 35-50). Brussels: P.I.E.-Peter Lang. Wiese, 1948.
Kruse, V. (1999a). Analysen zur deutschen historischen Soziologie. Münster: LIT.
Kruse, V. (1999b). ‘Geschichts- und Sozialphilosophie’ oder Wirklichkeitswissenschaft?. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Kruse, V. (2001). Wozu Soziologiegeschichte? Das Beispiel der deutschen historischen Soziologie. Jahrbuch für Soziologiegeschichte, 1997(1998), 105–114.
Lamberti, M. (2006). The reception of refugee scholars from Nazi Germany in America: philanthropy and social change in higher education. Jewish Social Studies, 12, 157–192.
Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Landshut, S. (1929). Kritik der Soziologie. München: Duncker & Humblot.
Lazarsfeld, P. (1969). An episode in the history of social research: A memoir. In D. Fleming (Ed.), The intellectual migration. Europe and America, 1930–1960 (pp. 270–337). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lepsius, M. R. (1983). The development of sociology in Germany after World War II (1945–1968). International Journal of Sociology, 13, 3–88.
Lukács, G. (1981). The destruction of reason. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities.
Lüschen, G. (1994). 25 Years of German sociology after World War II: Institutionalization and theory. Soziologie, 3, 11–32. special edition.
Mahoney, J., & Rueschemeyer, D. (2003). Comparative–historical analysis: achievements and agendas. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative-historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 3–38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Maier, J. B., & Waxman, C. I. (1983). Ethnicity, identity, and history: Essays in memory of Werner J. Cahnman. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Manheim, E. (1979 [1933]). Aufklärung und öffentliche Meinung: Studien zur Soziologie der Öffentlichkeit im 18. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.
Mannheim, K. (1932a). Die Gegenwartsaufgaben der Soziologie: ihre Lehrgestalt. Tübingen: Mohr.
Mannheim, K. (1932b). Review of Methods in Social Science, by Stuart A. Rice. American Journal of Sociology, 38, 273–282.
Mannheim, K. (1952 [1924]). Historicism. In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Karl Mannheim, Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge (p. 84). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Maus, H. (1962). A short history of sociology. New York: Philosophical Library.
Mayer, C. (1935). Max Weber’s interpretation of Karl Marx. Social Research, 42, 701–719.
Mennell, S. (1992). Norbert Elias. An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Meyer, J. (1928). Die Entstehung des Patriziats in Nürnberg (Mitteilungen des Vereins für die Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg, vol. 27). Nürnberg: Schrag.
Michel, U. (1992). Wilhelm Emil Mühlmann (1904–1988)—ein deutscher Professor. Amnesie und Amnestie: Zum Verhältnis von Ethnologie und Politik im Nationalsozialsmus. Jahrbuch für Soziologiegeshichte, 1991, 69–117.
Mierendorff, M. (1959). Kracauer, Siegfried. In W. Bernsdorf (Ed.), Internationales Soziologen Lexikon (p. 280). Stuttgart: Enke.
Mihic, S., Engelmann, S. G., & Wingrove, E. R. (2005). Facts, values, and ‘real’ numbers. In G. Steinmetz (Ed.), The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its epistemological others (pp. 470–495). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mühlmann, W. E. (1932). Die geheime gesellschaft der Arior. Leiden: Brill.
Muller, J. Z. (1987). The other God that failed: Hans Freyer and the deradicalization of German conservatism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Murphy, M. (2005). ASA’s history in a ‘nutshell’. ASA Footnotes, March, 5.
Nicolaysen, R. (1997). Siegfried Landshut: die Wiederentdeckung der Politik. Frankfurt am Main: Jüdischer.
Oakes, G. (1987). Weber and the Southwest German School: The genesis of the concept of the historical individual. In T. Mommsen & J. Osterhammel (Eds.), Max Weber and his contemporaries (pp. 434–446). London: Unwin Hyman.
Oppenheimer, F. (1964). Erlebtes, erstrebtes, erreichtes: Lebenserinnerungen. Düsseldorf: Melzer.
Park, R. E., & Burgess, E. W. (1924). Introduction to the science of sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Plé, B. (2001). ‘Social Sciences’ in der Ordnungspolitik der USA: vom Kriegseinsatz zum Medium amerikanischer Kulturpolitik im Nachkriegsdeutschland, 1941–1957. Jahrbuch für Soziologiegeschichte, 1997–1998, 195–214.
Pollak, M. (1979). Paul F. Lazarsfeld, fondateur d'une multinationale scientifique. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 25, 45–59.
Raith, D. (1999). Lebenserfahrung und historische Distanz. Nina Rubinstein (1908–1996) und ihr Beitrag zur Soziologie der politischen Emigration. Archiv für die Geschichte der Soziologie in Österreich, 19, 32–41.
Remy, S. P. (2002). The Heidelberg myth: The nazification and denazification of a German University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Revel, J., & Wachtel, N. (1996). Une école pour les sciences sociales: de la VIe section à l’École des hautes études en sciences socials. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf.
Röhrig, P. (1987). Paul Honigsheim und die Volksbildung. In A. Silbermann and P. Röhrig (Eds.), Kultur, Volksbildung und Gesellschaft. Paul Honigsheim zum Gedenken seines 100. Geburtstages (pp. 101-120). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Ross, D. (1991). The origins of American social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roth, G. (1963). The social democrats in imperial Germany; a study in working-class isolation and national integration. Totowa, NJ: Bedminster.
Rubinstein, N. (2000). Die französische Emigration nach 1789: ein Beitrag zur Soziologie der politischen Emigration. Graz: Nausner & Nausner.
Rule, J. B. (2003). Lewis Coser: 1913–2003. Dissent, 50, 93–94.
Rutkoff, P. M., & Scott, W. B. (1986). New school: A history of the new school for social research. New York: Free.
Said, E. W. (2000). Reflections on exile. In E. W. Said (Ed.), Reflections on exile and other essays (pp. 173–186). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Salomon, G. (1922). Das Mittelalter als Ideal in der Romantik. München: Drei Masken.
Salomon, A. (1935). Max Weber’s methodology. Social Research, 1, 147–163.
Sayad, A. (1999). La double absence: Des illusions de l’émigré aux souffrances de l'immigré. Paris: Seuil.
Schäfer, G. (1990). Wider die Inszenierung des Vergessens: Hans Freyer und die Soziologie in Leipzig 1925–1945. Jahrbuch für Soziologie, 1990, 121–177.
Scheler, M. (1926). Die Wissensformen und die Gesellschaft. Leipzig: der Neue-geist.
Schelsky, H. (1959). Ortsbestimmung der deutschen Soziologie. Düsseldorf: Diederich.
Schelsky, H. (1961). Der Mensch in der wissenschaftlichen Zivilisation. Köln: Westdeutscher.
Scheuch, E. (1990). Von der deutschen Soziologie zur Soziologie in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 15, 30–50.
Schweber, L. (2006). Disciplining statistics: Demography and vital statistics in France and England, 1830–1885. Durham: Duke University Press.
Sewell, W. H. (1996). Three temporalities: Toward an eventful sociology. In T. J. McDonald (Ed.), The historic turn in the human sciences (pp. 245–280). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Sewell, W. H. (2005). The political unconscious of social and cultural history, or, confessions of a former positivist historian. In W. H. Sewell Jr. (Ed.), Logics of history: Social theory and social transformation (pp. 22–80). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Siefer, G., & Abrahams, F. (1994). Studying sociology in postwar Germany: A historical synopsis of the development of academic learning programs at German Institutions of Higher Learning. Soziologie, 3, 284–297. special edition.
Sigrist, C., & Kößler, R. (1985). Soziologie in Heidelberg. In K. Buselmeier, D. Harth & C. Jansen (Eds.), Auch eine Geschichte der Universität Heidelberg (pp. 79–99). Mannheim: Edition Quadrat.
Silbermann, A., & Röhrig, P. (eds). (1987). Kultur, Volksbildung und Gesellschaft. Paul Honigsheim zum Gedenken seines 100. Geburtstages. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Small, A. (1905). General sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, D. N. (2005). Facing change and danger. The sociology of Ernest Manheim. In F. Baron, et al. (Eds.), Authority, culture, and communication: The sociology of Ernest Manheim (pp. 3–23). Heidelberg: Synchron.
Speier, H. (1986). German white-collar workers and the rise of Hitler. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Speier, H. (1989). The truth in hell and other essays on politics and culture, 1935–1987. New York: Oxford University Press.
Spohn, W. (1996). Zur Programmatik und Entwicklung der neuen historischen Soziologie. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 3, 363–374.
Steinert, H. (1990). Die fünfte Fakultät: Strömungen in der Geschichte der Sozialwissenschaften an der Universität Frankfurt. In H. Steinert (Ed.), Die (mindestens) zwei Sozialwissenschaften in Frankfurt und ihre Geschichte. Frankfurt am Main: J.W. Goethe-Universität.
Steinmetz, G. (1997). German exceptionalism and the origins of Nazism: The career of a concept. In I. Kershaw & M. Lewin (Eds.), Stalinism and nazism: Dictatorships in comparison (pp. 251–284). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steinmetz, G. (1999). Culture and the State. In G. Steinmetz (Ed.), State/culture. Historical studies of the state in the social sciences (pp. 1–49). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Steinmetz, G. (2004). Odious comparisons: Incommensurability, the case study, and “small N’s in sociology”. Sociological Theory, 22, 371–400.
Steinmetz, G. (2005a). American sociology’s epistemological unconscious and the transition to post-fordism: the case of historical sociology. In J. Adams, et al. (Eds.), Remaking modernity: Politics, processes and history in sociology (pp. 109–157). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Steinmetz, G. (2005b). Scientific authority and the transition to post-fordism: The plausibility of positivism in American sociology since 1945. In G. Steinmetz (Ed.), The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its epistemological others (pp. 275–323). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Steinmetz, G. (2005c). Introduction. In G. Steinmetz (Ed.), The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its epistemological others (pp. 1–56). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Steinmetz, G. (2007a). American Sociology before and after World War Two: The (temporary) settling of a disciplinary field. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Sociology in America. A history (pp. 258–293). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Steinmetz, G. (2007b). Fordism and the positivist revenant: Response to Burris, Fourcade-Gourinchas, and Riley. Social Science History, 31, 127–152.
Steinmetz, G. (2007c). Transdisciplinarity as a nonimperial encounter: For an open sociology. Thesis Eleven, 92, 48–65.
Stendenbach, F. J. (1964). Sociology in Germany since 1945. Social Science Information, 3, 7–51.
Stölting, E. (1984). Kontinuitäten und Brüche in der deutschen Soziologie 1933/34. Soziale Welt, 35, 48–59.
Strauss, H. A., & Röder, W. (eds). (1983). International biographical dictionary of central European Émigrés 1933–1945, Vol. II. München: Saur.
Sutherland, D. E. (1974). On the migration of sociological structures, 1933–1941: A forgotten episode in the history of American sociology and a case study in the sociology of sociology. Current Sociology, 22, 87–121.
Szöllösi-Janze, M. (2001). National socialism and the sciences: Reflections, conclusions, and historical perspectives. In M. Szöllösi-Janze (Ed.), Science in the third Reich (pp. 1–36). Oxford: Berg.
Troeltsch, E. (1924). Der Historismus und seine Überwindung; fünf Vorträge. Berlin: Heise.
Üner, E. (1994). Soziologie als Wirklichkeitswissenschaft. Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft, 2, 7–12.
von Below, G. (1926). Zum Streit um das Wesen der Soziologie. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 124, 218–242.
von Borch, H. (1955). Grundlagen der Geschichtssoziologie. In A. Weber, et al. (Eds.), Einführung in die Soziologie (pp. 171–205). München: Piper.
von Ferber, C. (1956). Die Entwicklung des Lehrkörpers der deutschen Universitäten und Hochschulen 1864–1954. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht.
von Martin, A. (1948). Geist und Gesellschaft: Soziologische Skizzen zur europäischen Kulturgeschichte. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht.
von Martin, A. (1951). Die bürgerlich-kapitalistische Dynamik der Neuzeit seit der Renaissance. Historische Zeitschrift, 172, 37–64.
von Wiese, L. (1948). Erster Vortrag. Die gegenwärtige Situation, soziologisch Betrachtet. In Verhandlungen des Achten Deutschen Soziologentages (pp. 20–41). Tübingen: Verlag J.C.B. Mohr.
Wagner, P., et al. (eds). (1999). Social sciences and modern states: National experiences and theoretical crossroads. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walther, A. (1927). Soziologie und Sozialwissenschaften in Amerika. Karlsruhe: Braun.
Wassner, R. (1985). Andreas Walther und die Soziologie in Hamburg. Dokumente, Materialien, Reflexionen. Hamburg: Institut für Soziologie der Universität Hamburg.
Wassner, R. (1986). Andreas Walther und das Seminar für Soziologie in Hamburg zwischen 1926 und 1945. Ein wissenschaftsbiographischer Umriss. In S. Papcke (Ed.), Ordnung und Theorie: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Soziologie in Deutschland (pp. 396–420). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Weber, A. (1921). Prinzipelles zur Kultursoziologie. Archiv für Sozialwissenschaften und Sozialpolitik, 47, 1–49.
Weber, A. (1927). Ideen zur Staats- und Kultursoziologie. Karlsruhe: Braun.
Weber, A. (1931). Kultursoziologie. In A. Vierkandt (Ed.), Handwörterbuch der Soziologie (pp. 284–294). Stuttgart: Ferdinant Enke.
Weber, A. (1935). Kulturgeschichte als Kultursoziologie. Leiden: Sijthoff's uitgeversmaatschappij.
Weber, M. (1946). Science as a vocation. In H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 129–158). New York: Oxford University Press.
Weyer, J. (1984). Westdeutsche Soziologie 1945–1960. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Wiggershaus, R. (1994). The Frankfurt School: Its history, theories, and political significance. Cambridge: Polity.
Witte, K. (1987). Siegfried Kracauer in Exil. Exilforschung, 5, 135–149.
Wittebur, K. (1991). Die deutsche Soziologie im Exil 1933–1945: Eine biographische Karthographie. Münster: Lit.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Steinmetz, G. Ideas in Exile: Refugees from Nazi Germany and the Failure to Transplant Historical Sociology into the United States. Int J Polit Cult Soc 23, 1–27 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-009-9062-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-009-9062-z