As they probe the perennial riddle of the proper direction of social science, these three recent historical works communicate a sense of missed opportunities and forgotten dreams. Two (Fine and Johnston) focus exclusively on sociology, while Smith deals also with history, economics, political science and social psychology. The authors (including Fine's thirteen contributors) unanimously affirm the value of social science, yet they are troubled by trends of the past several decades. 1 The treatments are limited to the United States, but have more general implications.
The analyses cover more than half of the present century. Smith addresses "the debate over objectivity and purpose" during the interwar years of 1918 to 1941; Fine and his collaborators examine work by Chicago scholars in the immediate post-World War II period of 1945 to 1960; and Johnston (with an epic Russian sweep) chronicles Sorokin's creativity from 1911 to 1968. Each study seeks an understanding of how recent social science has been molded by earlier efforts and choices of direction.
All three volumes are pervaded by a yearning to recapture the passion of social science, even "the romance of a profession" (in Don Martindale's phrase). Indeed, there are mythic aspects to these researches, including the self-conscious sense that today's investigators need the inspiration of a legendary past. Each book presents larger-than-life role models. Johnston's is a mighty Sorokin whose pioneering works tower over those of lesser mortals, and who does battle against his own profession for the sake of altruistic love. 2 Smith extols the prophetic Robert Lynd and his Veblenian jeremiad against pecuniary culture. For the Fine group, Robert Park, W. I. Thomas and Everett C. Hughes are titans of old, and even dissident Mary Jo Deegan sings a counterpoint saga of the "golden age" of the Jane Addams circle.
Johnston and the Fine group offer more hopeful possibilities, while Smith provides a critical reading of social science gone astray. All agree that sociology and related fields cannot be a creative force through mere imitation of natural science paradigms of professional work. Social science, they argue, must somehow remain an adventure of heart and conscience, as well an inquiry of critical intellect. In this sense, they concur with Sorokin's preachment that sociology should strive to reunite "the trinity of the true, the beautiful and the good." Whatever their weaknesses, these works may inspire hopefulness, invite renewed creativity, and celebrate the worth of sociology in a time of malaise.
It is most convenient to begin with Smith's examination of the debate between "instrumentalists" and "purposivists" in the 1920s and 1930s. The former group favored a naturalscience model that bracketed questions of ultimate value and willingly served the interests of policy makers, especially in government and business. The latter, by contrast, were committed reformers in the tradition of American Progressivism, for whom social science always embodied moral passion. The purposivist approach is also praised as an application of the educational and social ideas of John Dewey.
Smith presents the debate by selecting representative figures from five disciplines, who