Cahnman was a defender of the richness of Tönnies’ work, which he argues has been unfairly relegated to someone who is given a misinformed hand-wave in textbooks & that’s about it.

There’s also some really interesting essays, like his first hand experience with Rudolf Hess and the rise of Naziism.

Yea I know both Timasheff & Gurvitch were Petrazycki’s students. My understanding is that Gurvitch took Petrazycki’s idea of law based in a psychology of emotions, which lended itself to liberalism, and flipped it to be based in a sociology of emotions, which lended itself to a liberal socialism.

Timasheff was the only one who really developed Petrazycki’s ideas for the sociology of law continue to be an “illustrious unknown” in the field despite having published his book (though many quote his work) in USA. Perhaps too ambitious for his time The link between Gurvitch and Parsons was Pound.

I think that foreign element alone is a major key to understanding how none of these sociologists were able to build a group of devoted followers like Parsons who would carry their research projects past their deaths. I’m sure there are other reasons as well, but I’m certain that is a major reason.

There is probably an autobiographical element in the allure I have for them since I have exiled Iraqi family who encountered similar tribulations but in completely different fields- namely a genius forged by conflict that is foreign to the nations they ultimately ended up in.

In lower intensity “mass” rituals, in which individuals are most “closed” (and is most characteristic of modernity), group properties largely exert a “pressure” on the individual.

Even when Durkheim talked about a “collective conscience”, it is largely discussed as something above the interactants.

This is probably the key point on which Gurvitch, who is clearly drawing on Proudhon, takes Durkheim to school on. Particularly in high intensity “communion” rituals, in which individuals are most “open”, group properties “fuse” to the individual rather than merely exert a “pressure” on them.

Notably, Proudhon held a similar conception of the relationship between theology, philosophy, & science. Instead of science superseding the others, he argued that science must essentially complete them. Unsurprisingly, Proudhon was held in high regard within “subjectivist sociology” & the Narodniks.

This 1874 work was an important one for classical Russian “subjectivist sociology”, whose most unique feature was that it was essentially a middle ground between positivist sociology and Marxist sociology and was directly connected to the Narodnik socialist movement in Russia.

However, for being subtitled “against the positivists”, there isn’t as much dialogue about positivism as you’d expect. The majority of the book is him outlining the main currents of philosophical thought in the West since the Enlightenment to show how they culminated in Comte’s positivism.

For Solovyov, sociological positivism, which he argued as the logical outcome of all Western philosophy, was ultimately the culmination of the split between the Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and then the rise of Protestantism. The West gradually placed reason above faith, emotion, intuition, etc.

The sociologist Pierre Ansart argued that both Marxism and Anarchism had shared roots in Saint-Simonism. It’s commonly argued that the central thesis of Saint-Simon is the replacement of government with administration.

Yes it does!

The people that made the argument that basically all social interaction follows a smooth flow would claim that they were following Goffman’s functionalism. However, like you point out, and which Collins also emphasizes, there is also an underlying conflict theory in Goffman’s functionalist approach.

When you are predominantly studying task groups in lab environments, I think it can give the impression that all social life follows a “smooth flow”. However it doesn’t take much awareness of everyday reality to realize that micro interaction is also rife with “rough flows”, if you can call it that.

Sorry to hear that. Most grants that are getting cut are near the end of their funding. It’s pretty imperative at the moment to try to avoid no cost extensions since it seems like most grants are being cut at this stage (I work in a grants department.)