A Missing Legacy?

Robert K. Merton did not identify as a sociologist of culture and would have rejected this label as an attempt to pigeonhole his sociological style. When forced to adopt professional titles, he used to introduce himself to nonacademic audiences simply as a sociologist or, while addressing colleagues, resorting to the denominations of those American Sociological Association (ASA) and International Sociological Association (ISA) sections he belonged to: sociological theory and sociology of science. In his New York Times obituary (it is their policy to make the eulogy conform to the deceased person's thought, so that one might even take the commendation literally as a personal statement), it is handed down to posterity that Merton coined the concept of “theories of the middle range,” which refers to “undertakings that steered clear of grand speculative and abstract doctrines while also avoiding pedantic inquiries that were unlikely to yield significant results.” His contribution to the study of science is synthesized with the same brevity with which, according to Merton, scientists should provide information about themselves and their actions: “Merton gained his pioneering reputation as a sociologist of science, exploring how scientists behave and what it is that motivates, rewards, and intimidates them.”

Although RKM (Robert K. Merton loved abbreviations, even when it came to his own name) did not make “culture” the subject of his sociological research and did not consider it as the sole guiding principle of his investigations, his work nevertheless offers several insights worthy of consideration for those who have devoted themselves, in one way or another, to the sociology of culture. If some scholars in this subfield wanted to make RKM a “reference individual” (Merton 1968b, 357–359), they would easily turn to his publications that examine cultural productions empirically, but there are also other writings in which cultural characteristics are given an important place in the design of sociological research. Monographs that belong to the former category include Science, Technolog y and Society in Seventeenth Century England (Merton 1938a [1970)], Mass Persuasion (Merton 1946 [2004]), On the Shoulders of Giants (Merton 1965 [1985]), and The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity (Merton and Barber 2004), as well as countless of his essays (almost all his contributions on the different aspects of scientists’ activities, however, are collected in one volume: Merton 1979).

A Book Proposal

Early in March 1949 Everett C. Hughes sent a letter to the director of the university press of his home university. In it he described briefly two attachments: the outline of a proposed book and a sample chapter. The letter was a follow-up to some previous conversations between Hughes and his prospective editor. The ‘memorandum’ explains what the author wants to do. The ‘material’ for the proposed book would be the ‘diary’ that Hughes kept during his stay in Germany in the first half of 1948. The ‘form’ it would take would be a chronological first-person account.

My reason for preserving chronology is to keep the Mss [manuscript] an honest report of the development of my impressions. The diary is a record of what one American saw, thought and felt, not merely about Germany, but about being an American in an occupied country.

[…]

Tentatively, I suggest that certain theme or topical headings be set in here and there to indicate that a major incident of discussion of the given topic occurs at that point. (Everett C. Hughes, Memo on proposed book, Box 100, Folder 6, Everett C. Hughes Papers, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library)

The memorandum then lists a set of themes that would run through the manuscript and that would be brought to a head around one or more incidents or dramatic passages. As Hughes envisioned it, the book would have 13 chapter-like parts. What follows is a selective presentation of the tentative table of contents and illustrative remarks offered by Hughes.

Hughes starts by saying he would cover the moods of the Germans – ‘Ach, armes Deutschland!’ (Alas, poor Germany!). Some Germans he met had expressed the feeling they never again would be able to smile, everything was hopeless, it was a crime to express hope, celebrate holidays and so on. However, Hughes indicates that he met also spontaneous gaiety.

Hughes lists politicsas a second topic, which he intended to portray via accounts and descriptions of meetings, posters and informal talks. He notes that he had encountered different psychological complexes: the one claiming ‘all must share the loss equally’, which was connected with the notion of a ‘levelling-down democracy’, the ‘nothing can be done under occupation’ complex and the one that utters ‘better stay out of politics’.

INTRODUCTION

As indicated by the title of this book, “Forced Migration and Scientific Change,” I shall not discuss the normal case of scientific change - what the internal view would refer to as “cognitive progress” - but scientific change at the social as well as institutional levels. The discussion focuses on three aspects. First, I will concentrate on the forms of scientific systems that existed in the different German-speaking countries before their governments drove many scientists into exile; in this case, the analysis will look at the changes that science and scientific systems underwent in the wake of this “output” of émigrés, and thus assess the situation in terms of social and/or cognitive “losses.” A second approach will focus on the cohort of émigrés and investigate the changes that individuals, scientific schools, or - if evidence for this can be furnished - whole disciplines underwent during the process of emigration. Generally, the level of aggregation of such an analysis will be relatively low - that is, close to the individual. A third course - practically inverse to the first approach - will focus on the changes disciplines and scientific systems experienced in those countries that assimilated larger numbers of émigrés. An analysis of the “input” will be conducted under the heading of “gains.”