Professional Documents
Culture Documents
and Organisational
AIlalysis
Elements of the SocioloRY of Corporate L({e
Gibson BUlT'H'eBm
lecturer in the Department of Behaviour in Organisations,
University of lancaster, England
Gareth Morgalm
Associate Professor of Organisational Behaviour and
Industrial Relations, York University. Toronto
ASHGATE
Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgan 1979
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without Contents
the prior permission of the publisher
which they sought to emulate. It allowed us to identify embryonic PART I: IN SEARCH OF A FRAMEWORK
theories and anticipate potential lines of development. it allowed
us to write this boole.
in the following chapters we seek to present our analytical
scheme and to use it to negotiate a way through the literature on
soci~1 theory and org~nisational analysis. We have aimed to pre-
sentlt as clearly and directly as we can whilst avoiding the pitfalls 10 Assumptions about the
of oversimplification. But the concepts of one paradigm cannot
easily be interpreted in terms of those of another. To understand Nature of Social Science
a new paradigm one has to explore it from the inside in terms of
its own distinctive problematic. Thus, whilst we have'made every Central to our thesis is the idea that 'all theories of organisation are
efforlto present our account as plainly as possible as far as the use based upon a philosophy of science and a theory of society' .in this
of the English language is concerned, we have necessarily had to chapter we wish to address ourselves to the first aspect of this
draw upon concepts which may at times be unfamiliar. thesis and to examine some of the philosophical assumptions
. The r,emaining chaJ;>ters in Part i define the nature of our two key which underwrite different approaches to social science. We shall
dimenSIOns of analysIs and the paradigms which arise within their argue that it is convenient to conceptualise social science in terms
bounds. In this analysis we polarise a number of issues and mance of four sets of assumptions related to ontology, epistemology,
much use of rough dichotomisations as a means of presenting OUf human nature and methodology.
case. We do so not merely for the purposes of classification but to All social scientists approach their subject via eJ\plicit or implicit
forge a working tool. We advocate our scheme as a heuristic device assumptions about the nature of the social world and the way in
rather than as a set of rigid definitions. which it may be investigated. First, there are assumptions of an
in Part II we put our analytical framework into operation. For ontological nature - assumptions which concern the very essence
each of our four paradigms we conduct an analysis of relevant of the phenomena under investigation. Social scientists, for
so.cial .theory and then proceed to relate theories of organisation to eJ\ample, are faced with a basic ontological question: whether the
tillS wider background. lEach of the paradigms is treated in terms 'reality' to be investigated is eJ\ternal to the individual - imposing
~onsistent wit.h. it,S own distinctive frame of reference. No attempt itself on individual consciousness from without - or the product of
IS made to cnticise and evaluate from a perspective outside the individual consciousness; whether 'reality' is of an 'objective'
paradigm. S.uch criticism is all too easy but self-defeating, since it nature, or the product of individual cognition; whether 'reality' is a
IS usually directed at the foundations of the paradigm itself. Ail given 'out there' in the world, or the product of one's mind.
four paradigms can successfUlly be demolished in these terms. Associated with this ontological issue, is a second set of
What we seek to do is to develop the perspective characteristic off assumptions of an epistemological nature. These are assumptions
the paradigm and draw out some of its 'implications for social about the grounds of knowledge - about how one might begin to
analysis. in so doing we have found that we are frequently able to understand the world and communicate this as knowledge to
strengthen the conceptualisations which each paradigm generates fellow human beings. These assumptions entail ideas, for eJ\ample,
as far as the study of organisations is concerned. Our guiding rule about what forms of knowledge can be obtained, and how one can
has been to seek to offer something to each paradigm within the sort out what is to be regarded as 'true' from what is to be regarded
terms of its own problematic. The chapters in Part II therefore as 'false'. Indeed, this dichotomy of 'true' and 'false' itself pre-
are ~ssentially eJ\pository i~ nature. They seek to' provide ~ supposes a certain epistemological stance. It is predicated upon a
detailed framework upon which future debate might fruitfully be view of the nature of knowledge itself: whether, for example, it is
based. possible to identify and communicate the nature of knowledge as
Part. m. pre~ents a slJ(~rt conclusion which focuses upon some of being hard, real and capable of being transmitted in tangible form,
the prinCipal Issues which emerge from our analysis. or whether 'knowledge' is of a softer, more subjective, spiritual or
even transcendental kind, based on eJ\perience and insight of a
2 SocioloRical Paradi/?ms and OrRanisational Analysis Assumptions about the Nature oj Social Science 3
unique ~nd .essenti~lIy personal nature. The epistemological social world as ifit were a hard, external, objective reality. then the
~ssumptlOns In these Instances determine extreme positions on the scientific endeavour is likely to focus upon an analysis of relation-
Issue of whether knowledge is something which can be acquired on ships and regularities between the various elements which it com-
~he one hand. or is something which has to be personally exper- prises. The concern. therefore. is with the identification and defini-
Ienced on the other. tion of these elements and with the discovery of ways in which
Associated with the ontological and epistemological issues. but these relationships can be expressed. The methodological issues of
concept~ally separate from them. is a third set of assumptions importance are thus the concepts themselves. their measurement
concermng human. nature an? in .particular. the relationship and the identification of underlying themes. This perspective
between human beings and their environment. All social science. e){presses itself most forcefully in a search for universal laws
clearly .mu.st be predicated upon this type of assumption. since which explain and govern the reality which is being observed.
human ~Ife IS. essentially the subject and object of enquiry. Thus, If one subscribes to the alternative view of social reality. which
we can Identify perspectives in social science which entail a view stresses the importance of the subjective experience of individuals
of human beings responding in a mechanistic or even deterministic in the creation of the social world. then the search for understand-
fashion to the situations encountered in their external world. This ing focuses upon different issues and approaches t?em in differe~t
view tends to be one in which human beings and their experiences ways. The principal concern is with an understanding of the way In
are regarded as products of the environment; one in which humans which the individual creates. modifies and interprets the world in
are conditioned by their external circumstances. This extreme which he or she finds himself. The emphasis in extreme cases tends
perspecti~e can be contrasted with one which attributes to human to be placed upon the explanation and understanding of what ~s
b~i~gs a m~ch more creative role: with a perspective where 'free unique and particular to the individual rather than of what IS
will OCCUPI~S the ~entre of the stage; where man is regarded as the general and universal. This approach questions whet~er there
creator of hiS environment. the controller as opposed to the con- exists an external reality worthy of study. In methodological terms
trolled, the master rather than the marionette. In these two it is an approach which emphasises the relativistic nature of the
ext~eme views of the relationship between human beings and their social world to such an extent that it may be perceived as 'anti-
environment we are identifying a great philosophical debate scientific' by reference to the ground rules commonly applied in
between the advocates of determinism on the one hand and the natural sciences.
voluntarism on the other. Whilst there are social theories which
adhere to eac~ of t~ese.extremes,as we shall see, the assumptions Th0 subjective-objective dimension
of many SOCial SCientists are pitched somewhere in the range The subjectivist The objectivist
between. approach to !IIpproach to
social sci0nce social science
The three sets of assumptions outlined above have direct
implications of a metJlOdoloRical nature. Each one has important
cons.eq~encesfor t~e way in Which. one attemp~s to investigate and
ob~aln kn0':'Vledge about the social world. Different ontologies.
epl~temo.logl~s and models of human nature are likely to incline
SOCial sClent!sts. t?wards different methodologies. The possible
range of ch?l.ce IS Indeed so large that what is regarded as science
by ~he tradl~lOnal '.natural scientist' covers but a small range of
optIOns. nt. IS p~sslbl~, for, example, to identify methodologies
~mployed In social sCience research which treat the social world
~Ik~ ~he natural world. as being hard. real and external to the
individual, and others which view it as being of a much softer
personal and more subjective quality. '
If one subscribes to a view of the former kind. which treats the !Figure 1.1 A scheme for analysing assumptions about the nature of social science
4 Sociological Paradigms and OrKaflisational Analysis Assumptions about the Nature of Sodal Science 5
Hn this brief sketch of various ontological, epistemological, Anti-positivism-positivism: the
human and methodological standpoints which characterise
approaches to social sciences, we have sought to illustrate two
epistemological delbate 4
broad and somewhat polarised perspectives. !Figure 1.1 seeks to
depict these in a more rigorous fashion in terms of what we shall Hi has been maintained that 'tille word "positivist" like the word
describe as the subjective-objective dimension. Hi identifies the "bourgeois" has become more of a derogatory epithet than a
four sets of assumptions relevant to our understanding of social useful descriptive concept'. S We intend to use it here in the latter
science, characterising each by the descriptive labels under which sense, as a descriptive concept which can be used to characterise a
they have been debated in the literature on social philosophy. Hn particular type of epistemology. Most of the descriptions of
the following section of this chapter we will review each of tile four H)ositivism in current usage refer to one or more off the ontological,
debates in necessarily brief but more systematic terms. epistemological and methodological dimensions of our scheme for
analysing assumptions with regard to social science. It is also
sometimes mistakenly equated with empiricism. Such confiatiollls
cloud basic issues and contribute to the use of the term in at
The Strands of Debate derogatory sense.
Nominalism-realism: the ontological delbateR We use 'positivist' here to characterise epistemologies which
sede to explain and predict what happens in the social world by
These terms have been the subject of much discussion in the searching for regularities and causal relationships between its con-
literature and there are great areas of controversy surrounding stituent dements. Positivist epistemology is in essence based uporll
them. The nominalist position revolves around the assumption the traditional approaches which dominate the natural sciences.
that the social world external to individual cognition is made up off Positivists may differ in terms of detailed approach. Some would
nothing more than names, concepts and labels which are used to claim, for eRailllple, that hYlPothesised regularities can be verified
structure reality. The nominalist does not admit to there being any by an adequate experimental research programme. Others would
'real' structure to the world which these concepts are used to maintain that hypotheses can only be falsified and neVer demon-
describe. The 'names' used are regarded as artificial creations strated to be 'true'.6 However. both 'verilficationists' and 'fal-
whose utility is based upon their convenience as tools for describ- silficatioll1lists' would accept that the growth of Imowledge is essen-
ing, making sense of and negotiating the external world. Nominal- tially a cumulative pmcess in which new insights are added to the
ism is often equated with conventionalism, and we will make no e,dsting stock of Imowledge and false hypotheses eliminated.
distinction between them. 2 The epistemology of anti-positivism may talee various forms but
Realism. on the other hand. postulates that the social world is formly set against the utility of a search for laws or umderlyill1lg
external to individual cognition is a real world made up of hard, regularities in the world of social affairs.lFor the anti-positivist. the
tangible and relatively immutable structures. Whether or not we social world is essentially relativistic and can only be understood
label and perceive these structures, the realists maintain, they stili ffmm the point of view of the individuals who IlIre directly ill1lvolved
exist as empirical entities. We may not even be aware of the in the activities which are to be studied. Anti-positivists reject th(\';
existence of certain crucial structures and therefore have no st~ndPoiDlt off the 'observer'. whidu charactenises positivist
'names' or concepts to articulate them. 1F0r the realist, the social en>nstemology, as a valid vantage poillllt for understlllndinll1l RmmaB1l
world e)(ists independently of an individual's appreciation of it. activiti~s. They maintain that one can only 'understand' by
The individual is seen as being born into and living within a social occupymg the frame olfreferelfllce olfthe Pllllrticipall1t ilfll action. One
world which has a reality of its own. It is not something which the lInllls ao Ulll1lderstamll from the inside rather than the olUtside. lFrom
indivi~ual creates-it ex~sts 'out there'; ontologically it is prior to this point olf view social scielOlce is seenn as beillbg essertlltiatny all
the eXistence and conscIOusness of any single human being. 1F0r subjective rather tnUaln llUIll objectiV<e elOlaerprise. Anti-positivists
the realist, the social world has an existence which is as hard and ae111l\\J\ to reject the 1Ol0aioll1l ahat science cllIn generate objecaive
concrete as the natural world.] Rmowledge ofr' all1lY Reiaud."
6 Sociological Paradigms and Organisational A.nalysis A.ssumptions aboul the Nature of Social Science "I
Voluntarism-determinism: the 'human nature' quant.itativ~ tedmiques .for the analysis of data. Surveys,
questIOnnaires, personality tests and standardised research
debate instruments of all kinds are prominent among the tools which
comprise nomothetic methodology. 10
This debate revolves around the issue of what model of man is
reflected in any given social-scientific theory. At one extreme we
can identify a determinist view which regards man and his Analysnng AssumptnoJnls about the Nature of
activities as being completely determined by the situation or Social ScieJnlce
'environment' in which he is located. At another e"treme we can
identify the voluntarist view that man is completely autonomous l~ese four s~ts of assumptions with regard to the nature olf social
and free-willed. Insofar as social science theories are concerned to sCI~nce prOVide an e"tremely powerful tool for the analysis of
understand human activities, they must incline implicitly or SOCial theorr. in mU~h of t~e literature there is a tendency to
explicitly to one or other of these points of view, or adopt an conti.ate the Issues which are mvolved. We wish to argue here that
intermediate standpoint which allows for the influence of both con.slder~ble.~dvantagesaccrue from treating these four strands of
situational and voluntary factors in accounting for the activities of soclal~sclentdlc debate as ~naly~ically distinct. While in practice
human beings. Such assumptions are essential elements in social- ther~ IS often a strong relatIOnship bet.ween the positions adopted
scientific theories, since they define in broad terms the nature of on each. of the ~our strands, assumptions about each can in fact
the relationships between man and the society in which he lives.o vary. qUite considerably. It is worth ex.amining this point in more
detail.
The ex tr~me. posi tions on each of the four strands are reflected in
th~ two major mtellectual traditions which have dominated social
Ideographic-nomothetic theory: the method- sCience over .tlhe last two. hundred years. The first of these is
ological debate usually descnbed as 'SOCIOlogical positivism'. in essence this
reflects th~ attempt to apply models and methods derived from the
The ideographic approach to social science is based on the view natural s~l~nces to the study of human affairs. h treats the social
that one can only understand the social world by obtaining first- world as If It wer.e t~e natural world, adopting a 'realist' approach
hand knowledge of the subject under investigation. It thus places to o~tology. TIus IS backed up by a 'positivist' epistemology
considerable stress upon getting close to one's subject and ~elatlvely :d~terministic' yiews of human nature and the use of
e"ploring its detailed background and life history. The ideographic nomothetiC methodologies. The second intellectual traditioR1l
approach emphasises the analysis of the subjective accounts that of '<?e.rman idealism' ,stands in complete opposition to this.l~
which one generates by 'getting inside' situations and involving es~ence It ~s b~se,d u'p~~ the,pre~ise that the ultimate reality of the
oneself in the everyday flow of life - the detailed analysis of the umvers~ lies I~ spmt .or Idea rather than in the data of sense
insights generated by such encounters with one's subject and the per~eptlOn. It IS essentially 'nominalist' in its approach to social
insights revealed in impressionistic accounts found in diaries, reality: In co~tr~st to the natural sciences, it stresses the
biographies and journalistic records. The ideographic method ~ssentlally subjective nature of human affairs, denying the utility
stresses the importance of letting one's subject unfold its nature and .rele~ance. of the models and methods of natural science to
and characteristics during the process of investigation. 9 ~tudles I~ ,thiS. realm. It is 'anti-positivist' in epistemology,
The nomothetic approach to social science lays emphasis on the volu~tanst With regard to human nature and it favours ideo-
importance of basing research upon systematic protocol and gra~~I~ methods as a foundation for social analysis. Sociological
technique. It is epitomised in the approach and methods employed pos~t.iVl.sm and German idealism thus define the objective and
in the natural sciences, which focus upon the process of testing subjective extremes of our model.
hypotheses in accordance with the canons of scientific rigour. It is Ma~y ~ociologists ~~d organisati~n theorists have been brought
preoccupied with the construction of scientific tests and the use of up wlthm the tradition of SOCiological positivism, without
8 Sodolo~kal Paradigms and Organisational Analysis Assumptions about the Nature of Social Science 9
exposure to the basic tenets of German idealisr~. Social scienc~ for 3. For a comprehensive review of 'realism', see Keat and Urry
them is seen as consonant with the configuration of assumptions (1975), pp. 27-45. They make much of the distinction
which characterise the objective e"treme of our model. ~owev~r, between 'positivism' and 'realism' but, as they admit, these
over the last seventy years or so there has been an mcreasl,ng terms are used in a somewhat unconventional way.
interaction between these two traditions, particularly at a SOCIO- 4. For a further discussiol1l of the positivism-anti-positivism
philosophical level. As a result intermediate points of viey-r have debate, see, for e"ample, Giddens (1974) and Walsh (1972).
emerged, each with its own distinctive configurafion of 5. Giddens (1974), p. l.
assumptions about the nature of social science. T~ey have 31.11 6. See, for e){ample, Popper (1963).
spawned theories, ideas and approaches cha~actenstlc of their 7. For a good illustration of 31111 anti-positivist view of science,
intermediate position. As we shall argue m later chapters, see Douglas (l970b), PI'. 3-44.
developments il1l phenomenology, ethnomethod.ology and the 8. The human nature debate in its widest sense involves many
action frame of reference are to be understood In these terms. other issues which we have l1Iot referred to here. The precise
These perspectives, whilst offering their ?wn special brand of model of man to be employed in any analytical scheme,
insight, have also often been used as launchlOg pa~s for attacks on however, is underwritten by assumptions which relflect the
sociological positivism and have generated a c~nslderable a~ou~t voluntarism-determinism issue in one way or another. We
of debate between rival schools of thought. fhe nature of thiS have isolated this element of the debate here as a way of
debate can only be fully understood by grasping and aprrecia~ing treating at its most basic level a necessary assumption of all
the different assumptions which underwrite the competing pomts social-scientific theories which purport to account for human
of view. activities. Detailed propositions with regard to the precise
It is our contention that the analytical scheme offered here e){planation of human activities elaborate in one way or
enables one to do precisely this. It is offered not as a ,m~re another this basic theme.
classificatory device, but as an important tool for negotiating 9. For an excellent discussion of the nature of the ideographic
social theory. It draws attention to key assumrtions. I~ alloy-rs ~ne approach to social science, see Blumer (1969), ch. I.
to focus on precise issues which differentiate soclo-sclentlfic 10. It is important to emphasise here that both nomothetic and
approaches. It draws attention to the degre~ of ,congrue~cy ideographic methodologies can be employed in a deductive
between the four sets of assumptions about SOCial sCience which and inductive sense. Whilst the inductivc>--deductive debate
characterise any given theorist's point of view. We offer it here as in science is a subject of considerable interest and
the first principal dimension of ~ur ,theoretical . sche~e for importance, we do not see it as being central to the fOUir
analysing theory in general and orgamsatlOnaltheory m pa~tlcular. dimensions suggested here as a means of distinguishing
For the sake of convenience we shall normally refer to It as the between the nature of social science theories. That notwith-
'subjectivc>--objective' dimension, two descriptive labels which standing, it remains an important methodological issue, of
perhaps capture the points of commonality between the four relevance to both sociology and organisational analysis,
analytical strands. within the conte". of the assumptions e){plored here.
to thdr frame of reference within the conte){t of their order- We introduce the term 'sodology of regulation' to refer to the
ornientated mode of thought. In order to illustrate this point, let us writings of theorists who are primarily cOll1cemedl to provide
return to the work of Cohen (1968) referred to earlier. e){plaraations of society in terms which emphasise its underlyil1lg
Hn advocating his viewpoint Cohen appears to be misinterpreting unity and cohesiveness. H is a sociology which is essentially Con-
the distinction between the two models. His interpretation of cerned with the need for regulation in human affairs; the basic
concepts telescopes the different variables into a form in which questions which it asks tend to focus upon the need to understand
they can be seen as consistent with each other. In effect his whole why society is maintained as an entity. H attempts to explain why
anlalysis reflects an attempt to incorporate the conflict model society tends to hold together rather than fall apart. It is interested
within the bounds of the contemporary theory of order. He thus ifl1ufI1derstal1lding the social forces which prevelf1lt the lHlobbesiautn
loses the radical essence of the conflict perspective and is able to vision of 'war of all against all' becoming a reality. 'fhe worl, of
conclude that the two models are not mutually exclusive and do Durldleim with its emphasis upon the nature of social cohesion and
not need to be reconciled. He argues that the two models are not solidarity, for e,mmple, provides a clear and comprehensive
gellluine alternatives and in effeca suggests that each is no more illustration of a concern for the sociology of regulation.
than the reciprocal of the other. He is therefore able to leave 'fhe 'sociology ofradical change' stands in stark contrast to the
Dahrendorfs analysis with the central concern of his book - the 'sociology of regulation', in that its basic concern is to find
fi1'roblem of order - largely intact. 'fhe incorporation of conflict e){planations for the radical change, deep-seated structural con-
illlto the bounds of the model of order de-emphasise its flict, modes of domination and structural contradiction which its
importance. S theorists see as characterising modern society. na is a sociology
Un line with the analysis which we presented earlier, we argue which is essentially concemed with man's emancipation from the
tUnat the attempt to reduce the two models to a common base ignores structures which limit and stunt his potential for development. 'fhe
the fundamental differences which e"ist between them. A. conflict basic questions which it asks focus upon the deprivation of maUl,
tlDeory based on deep-seated structural conflict and concerned both material and psychic. Hi is often visionary and Utopian, in tilat
with radical transformations of society is not consistent with a it looks towards potentiality as much as actuality; it is concerned
fUlOlctionalist perspective. 'fhe differences between them, with what is possible rather than with what is; with altematives
therefore, are important all1ld worthy of distinction in any auempt rather than with acceptance olfthestatus {luo. In these respects it is
to analyse social theory. With the benefit ofhindsigh,t, it is possible as widely separate and distant from the sociology of regulation as
to see that many of the misinterpretations which have arisen have the sociology of Man{ is separated and distant from the sociology
d]ouDe so becallDse the models Dun Dahrendorf's analysis were not of Durkheim.
sufficiently differentiated. We wish to propose, therefore, that 'fhe distinction between these two sociologies can perhaps be
certain modifacations be made illl order to articulate the differences best illustrated in schematic form; extreme points of view are
iUl a more eJ{piicit and radical form. Since much of the confusion counter-posed in order to highlight the essential differences
has arisen because of the ambiguity of the descriptions associated between them. 'fable 2.2 summarises the situation.
with the two models we wish to suggest the use of a somewhat We offer this regulation-radical change distinction as the
different terminology. second principal dimension of our scheme for analysing sociaft
theories. A.long with the subjective-objective dimension
developed in the previous chapter, we present it as a powerfuft
means for identifying and analysing the assumptions which I.mder-
lie social theories in general.
'fhe notions of 'regulation' and 'radical change' have thus far
Our analysis has shown that the ou'der-conflict distinction is in been presented in a very rough and e){treme form. 'fhe two models
mall1lY senses the most problematic. We suggest, therefore, that it illustrated in Table 2.2 should be regarded as ideal-typical
$hoold be replaced as a central theme by the notions of 'regulation' formulations. nne seven elements which we have identifBed lell1lrll
aIumd 'rndical cRnannge'. themselves to a much more rnigorous and systematic treatment in
us Sociological Paradigms tmd Organisational Analysis A.uumptimRS about tJue Nature of Society U9
which their overall form and nature is speh out in detail. We delay between the sub-elements of each modd need not be congruent,
this task until later chapters. Here, we wish to address ourselves to that is, an analysis may pay attention to elements of both.
the broad relationships which e"ist between the sociologies of The answer to both criticisms follows our defence of
regulation and radical change. We maintain that they present Dahrendorf's work. To conflate the two models and treat them as
fundamentally different views and interpretations of the nature of variations on a single theme is to ignore or at least to umierplay the
society. They reflect fundamentally different frames of reference. fundamental differences which exist between them. Whilst it may
They present themselves, therefore, as alternative models for the be possible to use each model in a diluted form and thus obtain two
analysis of social processes. analyses of the middle ground which apprmdmate each other, they
To present the models in this way is to invite criticism along the must remain essentially separate, since they are based upon oppos-
lines of that levelled at Dahrendorfs worl. For eUffiple, it could ing assumptions. Thus, as we have illustrated, to discuss the
be suggested that the two models are the reciprocals of each other 'functions' of social conflict is to commit oneself to the sociology
- no more than two sides of the same coin - and that relationships of regulation as opposed to that of radical change. lHIowever close
one's position might be to the middle ground, it would seem that
TlllllBe 2.2 one must always be committed to one side more than another. The
TUne ll"egunDmQnmll-ll'ad!ficaD cDnaJl1lge IlIbimemD@un fundamental distinctions between the sociologies ofregulation and
radical change will become clear from our analysis of their
TIlt' socio/OIlY of REGULATION 111e soci%!?y of RADICAL CHANGE
intellectual development and constituent schools of thought in
is cOflc('Y/Ied ",ith: is concerned lIIith: later chapters. We conceptualise these two broad sociological
perspectives in the form of a polarised dimension, recognising that
(a) The status quo (a) Radical change while variations within the context of each are possible, the
(b) Social order (b) Structural connict
(c) Consensus* (c) Modes of domination
perspectives are necessarily separate and distinct from each other.
(d) Social integration and (d) Contradiction
cohesion
(e) Solidarity (e) Emancipation
(0 Need satisfactiont (0 Deprivation
(g) Actuality (g) Potentiality
Notes and References
I\!@Qeg I. Among the numerous theorists primarily concerned with the
litBy 'consensus' we mean voluntary and 'spontaneous' agree- problem of order, Dawe cites Parsons (1949), Nisbet (1967),
ment of opinion. Bramson (1%1), Cohen (1968), and Aron (1968).
t The term 'need satisfaction' is used to refer to the focus upon 2. For a discussion of the Mar"ism versus social science
satisfaction of individual or system 'needs'. The sociology of debate, see Shaw (1975). The division between Mantist
regulation tends to presume that various social characteristics can theorists and orthodm( sociologists is now so deep that they
be explained in relation to these needs. It presumes that it is either ignore each othelf completely, or indulge in an
possible to identify and satisfy human needs within the conte"t of exchange of abuse and accusation regarding the politicall
e,dsting social systems, and that society reflects these needs. The conservatism or subversiveness commonly associated wiili
concept of 'deprivation', on the other hand, is rooted in the notion their respective points of view. Debate about the intellectual
that the social 'system' prevents human fulfilment; indeed that strengths and weaknesses of their opposing standpoints is
'deprivation' is created as the result of the status quo. The social conspicuous by its absence.
'system' is not seen as satisfying needs but as eroding the 3. lLater in this chapter we sllIlggest that the descriptions of
possibilities for human fulfilment. It is rooted in the notion that 'concern with the status quo' and 'concern for radical
society has resulted in deprivation rather than in gain. change' provide more accurate views of the issues involved
here.
:W Sociological Paradigms and Organisatimwl Analysis
4. Dahrendonf acknowledges Merton's distinction between
latent and manifest functions but does not pursue the con~
sequence of 'dysfunctions' for the concept of integration
(Dahrendorf, 1959, pp. 173-9).
30 Tvvo Dimensions:
5. Other 'order' theorists who have addressed themselves to
Dahrendorf's model tend to follow a similar path in the
Four Paradigms
attempt to embrace conflict theory within their perspective.
See, for e1\ample, vall1l den lBerghe (1%9).
~~~..,""",--JI-_----'-""='';''';''''i
realm of individual consciousness and subjectivity, within the
frame of reference of the participant as opposed to the observer of
action. >
f-
In its approach to social science it tends to be Iluminalist, anti- U
ill
-,
pO.l'itil'iJf, volulltarist and idl'ographic. It sees the social world as OJ
an emergent social process which is created by the individuals :::>
lfl
concerned. Social reality, insofar as it is recognised to have any
existence outside the consciousness of any single individual, is
regarded as being lillie more than a network of assumptions and
Two Dimensions: Four Paradigms 31
111111
JBlilblinogn.R/lpilll Y
Ill\lEAUV()HR. SIlMONIE DIE, (1963), The !Prime of Life. Lond!ollll: IBLUMEIl~, n-n. 0(62), 'Society as Symbolic RRltcractnofill', nil A.
DcuQsdR. lRose, lflumaPl Behaviour aPld SodalProcesses, (1). cit.
BIEILL, D. (962), The !End ~f Ueology. New York, Lond!on: ll3IUJMIEIft, H. 09(6), 'Sociological HmjplicatnoR1s oftl1c TilmBgM of
Collier M<Jld\!JlillalDn. George lHlerbert Me<l\d' ,American Journal olSociology, 7ll (5), rrjll).
BIELL, G.D., <ed. 09(7), Organisations and HwrwfllJeIJaviour. 535-48.
IElllIgl<ewood Giftlfs, N .JI.: H)rclfllaice-llhU. 181LUMIER, H. 09(9), Sym.bolic lmemclimlism: Perspective and
JlJlEN Nil S, W. 0%(;), Changing Organisations. New Yor!c: Method. El1Iglewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hat!!'
McGraw Hill. lPtOGGS, e. (976), Gramsci's Marxism. LondoII'!: Pluto.
BENTON, T. (977), Phiio.wfJPiical /Foundations of the 7f1,ree IBlOOKClHIffN, M. (974), 'lLislclI1l Marxist', il] Po.II-Scarcify
Sociologies. Londml: Routledge alllld Kegan Paul. Anarchism. LomJ1oRl: Wildwood HOllJlse, !pp. 171-220.
BERGER, H~.L, cd!. (974), The ffl/uman Shape of Work. Londollll BOOKCIHIIN, M. (974), Post-Scarcity Anarchism. lLOIR(!OUI:
alRld l\kw Ymk M<Jlcmnlhl\ll1l. Wildwood! House.
1l~IERGIER, P.L, BlERGlER, B. amll K.lE!LLNlER, H. (1974), The BOSlE, A. 09(7), A History of Anarchism. Cat!c1U\U2l.: The World
/fllomdess Mind. ll-llan1llOmJlswortll: Penguin. Press Private.
llmRGlER, P.lL. :JlRMJI UJCKMANN, T. (1966), The Social COil- BOSWEUL,JI. (1953),LifeofJohfiSofl. London: O){fordl Univen;ity
,~tructioPi of RelJlity. New Yorlc Doubleday. . . IP'n~ss.
IBIERGIER, j[}.L amIPULU3IlERG, S. (966), '!RcdicatlOn and the BOrfOMOIR IE , 11'. (975), Marxist Sociology. LOlfidlon: Macmnl..
Sociological Critique of Cmlsciousness', New Left Ueview, 35, PJP 14m.
56--711. BOlITOMOIRE, T. alfHJI RUBEL, M. (1963), Karl Mane: Selected
1l~IER1KIELIEY, G. (962), The Principles ofHumafi [(flowledge ?nd Writings ifI Sociology and Sodal Philosophy. lHlatrmomRsworth:
7f1tree Dialogues Befwlf!i[?n Hvlru and Philmums. London: Colilll1ls. IP'cl1IgunR1.
llmYNON, ll-ll. (973), Wodciflg for !Ford. Harmondsworth: Pen- IBlOWEY, A. (976), The Sociology of Organi.H1tioPis. ILl(]I[nd(Jl[~:
rr.~lil1l Allen !Lane. . . , . IHlodldler <l\mJl Stoughtoll.
mTfN m~, IE. (1965), 'The Concept of OrgaOisalBmu , m JR.. lPtIRAMSON, L. 0(61), The Political CoPiiePii of Sociology.
Turner IEtluwmetlwdology, op. cit. IP'rincetoRl, N..II.: lP'ril1lcc:tOl[ University Pres:\).
RmlTN'Elft, IE. (1967), 'The Police on Sidd Row - at Study of Peace lPtlRAVEIRMAN, IHI. (11974\), Labor (md Monopoly Capita!. New
IK,eeping', American Sociological ff?el'iew, 32 (5), PI' 699-715. Yor!. ami LORldloRl: Monthly Review Press.
[]lLACK, M., cd. (1961), The Sodal Theories of Talcot! Parsons. m:tOWN, B. (1973), Mane, /Freud and the CriKique O!f Ew:rydOlY
E1l1gkwood Cliffs, N.L Prell1ltice-Hall.. . . Life. New Yor!c Monthly !Review Press.
BlLACll([]UlftN, JR., 4.'.:d. (972), ffdeology Ifi SOCIal SClem:e. LOIfI\- BUCKLEY, W. (1%1), Sociology Oind Modern Systems Theory.
donI: lFmlt<JlIl:ll I com m;. . . lEfillglewood Cliffs, N ..Y.: Prentice-Halt
BLAKE, 1ft.1ft. aml1 MOUTON, .B.S. (19M), The Managerwl Grid. IBlUHUllAIRHN, N. (1965), Historical Materialism: A System of
IHlol.Bshm, Texas: Gulf llJublisIhillg Company. . Sociology. New York: !Russell am! Russell. (!First J[JIlJlblisRned ! 925.
R~lLAU, H P .l'v1[. (1955), 7f1U! Dynamics of Bureaucracy. Chicago: BURNS, T. aRld!BUIRNS, IE., eds. (976), The Sociology ofDmm(!J
Uiliversnty of Chicago Press. and Literature. Harmoll1ldsworth: PClIllgunll1l.
[]lLAU, P.M. (964), !Exchange af!d Power if! Social Life. New BURNS, T. amll STAILK.lElR, G.M. (961), TPie Maflagemem O!l
j{ or Ie .Dolm Wiky. . /[mlOl'ation. London: Tavistock PIBblicatioilis.
113lU\ U , JI).M. (1974), On the Nature of Organisations. New Ym'le CAlLUNnCOS, A. (1976), AltPuosser's Marxism. LomllOll: IP'!aHO
.Do~m Wiley. IP'ress .
[]lLAU, P"M. ~md SCJ!-JIOlENHIER!R, !R.A. (197 I), The Structure of CARlEY, A. (1967), 'The H-llawtllwmc Studies: A lRadikal Critic
Org(.mislltiom. New York Ifbsic Books. nsm', American Sociological Rel'iew, J2 0), JPp. 403- !6.
19lLUM, M.L ami NA YLO!R, J.e. (1968), Indu5!riaIPsydrology. CARTWRHGHn, D. amJl ZANDER, A. (1963), Group Dynamics:
f'lew Ym-lc Harper and !Row. Re.H!arch (Jnd Theory (3nJl edln). New Yodc HarptCr al1(J! Row.
406 IfJibfiogmllhy J8ibliography 407
CASTANEDA, C. (1970), 111e Teachings of Don luan: A Yacqui COO!PlER, W. W., LlEA vnrr, lHU. and SlHllELLlEY, M. W. (1964),
Way of Knowledge. Harmomlsworth: R}enguin. 'Administmtive Rationality, Social Seating, and Organisationall
CHAIDW[CK-JONES, J.K. (1976), Social ErrclllXilge Theory. lOleveiopment', irn Cooper ct ai, New Perspectives in Organisation
London: Academic Press. Researdi, oUJ. cit.
CHR LD, J. (1972), 'Organisational Slmcture, Environment and CORNfORTH, M. (1955), Science Versus Idealism. ILolldOlru:
n'erfOrlil3tIK(;: The Role of Strategic Clwi<:e', Sociology, 6 (I), IPIP Lawrelf1lce and Wishart.
1-22. COSlER, L.A. (956), The Functions of Social Conflict. LOIHJlon:
CHRLD, .u., ed, (197]), Man and Organisation. London: George Routledge and Kegalf1l Paul.
Allen ami U nwill1\. COSER, L.A. 09(5), Georg Simmef. IEnglewood Cliffs, N ..U.:
CHOMSKY, N. (1959), 'Review of Skinner's "Verbal !Prentice-Hall.
lBehaviour'" , Language, 35, (I), PIP. 26-53. COSIER, L.A. (967), Contilmities in the Study ofSocial Cor!fliCff.
CKOUIREL, A.V. (19M); Method amI Measun!Frlent in Glencoe, m.: free Press.
Sociology. Glencoe, [II.: !Free Press. COSER, LA. and! ROSENBERG, B., cds (969), Sociological
CRCOUREL, A.V. (1972), Cognitive Sociology: l~anguage and Theory (3nl cOIn). New Vork and London: Macmillan.
Meaning in Sociallnt('mctiofl. Harmondsworth: Penguin. CJROZllEIR, M. 09M), The Bureaucratic /Phenomenon. London:
CLEGG, S. (1975), Power, Rule and Domination. London: Tavistod, lP'llnblncaaions.
Routledge and Keg.m lP'aut CUTLER, ]., IHlHNDIESS, lB., HIRST, !P. and HUSSAnN, A.
CLEGG, S. and DUNKERLEY, D. (1977), Critical Issues iIi (977), Marx's Capital and Capitalism Today, Vol. n. London:
Orgrwi.HJtiofis. London: ntollliedge amI! Kegan Paul. 1R000.litledge and Kegan !PaUlI.
CUNAIRD, M.IB. (19M). Anomie and Deviant Behaviour. CVlERT, R.M. and! MARCH, ].0. (1963), A l8ePlOlvioK4ral Ureor)!
Glencoe, nil.: !Free Press. (~f the Firm. IElflglewood Cliffs, N.'v.: IP'rcntice-lH1<ll11.
COWEN, n'.s. (19M!), Modem Social Theory. London: DAHL, R. (957), 'Tlhie ConcelPt of Powl{;)r', J8ePwviouml Science,
Heinemann. 2, IPn). 20n - n5.
COB lEN, S.lF. (1974), l8uklw.rifl ami the KJolshevi/< Revolution. DAHlRlENDORlF, R. (959), Class and Class CorifFict in lfl'ldusirilJR
London: Wildwood House. Society. Lomlloll1l: Routledge and Reegan !PauL
COLFAX, .II.D. lmd ROACH, .II.L., cds. (971), Radical IOlALTON, M. (959),Mel'l Who Mmuxge. NewYoll'k: .Holm Wiley.
Sociology. New York: Basic lBlool\s. DAVliS, f. 09(7), 'Tlhe Cab-Driver llmd His IF2L1re: RdllltionslhiiJP',
COLUErinrn, L. (1972), From ROId.ueau to Lenin. London: New ilm O,D. Bell, Organisations and lHfuuvum lBeP!avioMr, op. da.
L<eft lBlool\s. IOlAVnS, K:(j959), 'Tlhe Myth of functional Analysis as a Special
COLLIETH, lL. (1974), '1\ Politkal andiPinilosolPhical Interview', MlJ::altllOdl in Sociology and AnRIhIfOJPology', American Sociological
New Left Review, 86, I)P. J-2f.L Review, 24 (6), IPp. 757-73.
COILILIl~Tn, L. (1975), 'Manism and! the Dialectic', New !Left IOlAVllS, LlE. dIl1l1l4:ll CHERNS, A.R, eds. (975), The Quality ~r
Uevil.'w, 93, 1)1,.3-29. Working Life, Vols I amJl n. New YorKe fn::1J:: !Press.
COMTE, AUGUSTE (1853), The Positivi.it INiilosoPPiY, Vol. n DAVIS, LlE. .mlfl{i] Tmylor, .D.C., cds (972), Desi!??! ~fJobs. lI-ll.iIlr
(fI'ecly lnms. by nn. Martineau). London: Chapman. mondsworth: Penguinl.
CONN ElltTON , ll)., cd. (1976), Critical Sociology. lHalfmonds- lOlAWIE, A. (970), 'Tille Two Sociologies', /fftrWsh Joumwl ~l
wonh: ll'ellguill. Sociology, 21, JPUJ. 207 -18.
CONQUEST. JR. (1972), !Lorin. \Londoun: lFontamll/Coillins. DECHIERT, C.R. 09(5), 'The Develo)jJmcll1It of CyblP.:H'ndJics', The'
COCWHt,'lR. (1976), 'The Open !Field' ,llffWFUHI RelMioru, 29(1 I), Americanl8ehaviourai ScientisK, 8, )jJJPi. n5-:W.
IPII}. 999- W17. . DIEMlERATH, N']' 09(6), 'SynecdodH~and SRmctumll FlUlm:ltimu,
CmWElll:., W.W., LIEAVHlI', nLL and SHIELLEY, M.W., cds. Wlftsm', Sodal Forces, 44 (3), /PiP. 39@-401l.
(19M), New PerSlu'ctives in Orgafli.5atioPH Reuardi. New Voll'lt: OlENZIN, N.RC. (970), 'Symbolic 1IIl1llcmcaioll1lism .mnd ERRu-
.uollm Wiley. IrnomlCltRuolJJology', illil ].0. DOlllgla1>, UundersKlmding !vuydrf1]y L~{tf!,
@fiJl. dR.
.liOg IlJihliogwl'hy llJibliograplBy 4109
DJfCKSON, D. (1974), ,1ltenwtive 'Technology lAnd the Politics of JEM IEIRY , !F.E. aUld TlRlfST, IE.L (972), 'Towards a Socia!
'fee/miml Change. LomRmn: !FOll1t'UlI<ll. !Ecology, lHarmondisworth: Penguin.
DRILL, W.lR. 0(58), 'JElI1viroml1ell1lt as all Rnilluence on Managerial IESlLAND, G., SAJLAMAN, G. and SIP'IEAKMAN, M.A., cdls.
Autonomy', in Admiflistrotive Science Quarterly, 2, PIP 409-43. (1975), People and Work. IEdliu!burgh: Holmes MCDougall (in
DJILTHIEY, W. 0(76), Selected Writings (ed. lHLP. lRid{mall1l). association with the Open University IP'ress).
London: Cambridge University Press. ETZIONII, A. (1961), A Comparative Analysis ofComplex Organ-
IDOUGLAS, .LD. (1967), The Social Meanings ofSuicide. Prince isations. Glencoe, 1111.: !Free Press.
hm, 1\1.1.: Princeton University Press. IEVANS-IP'KTClHAIRD, IE.E. 0(54), Social Anthropology.
DOUGLAS, J.D., ed. 0970a), /Freedom and Tyr!1FlfiY in a 'Tech- London: Oxford University Press.
p/olorical Socictv. New Yorlc Alfred Knopf. !FAIRIIS, IR.IE.L, red!. (964), Handbook of Modem Sociology.
o
D01UGLAS, .D.D., cd. 970b), Understanding !Everyday Life. Chicago: lRand McNally.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing; lLomlon: lRoutledge and KeganlP'aui. !FAIRIIS, IR.E.L 09(7), Chicago Sociology. Chicago: University
Dllt Errz JEll, KU)., cd. (1970), ReceFl! Sociology, No.2. New of OUDc;JlgO Prcss.
York: Macmillav]. IFAYOL, IHI. (1949), General and industrial Marwgement (tmllls.
DUBliN, II~. 0(56), 'Industrial Workers' Wol'lds: A Study ofCeHlI- C. Storr). Lomlon: l)itmalf1l.
lraJ Life Interests of Industrial Workers', Sodal Problems, 3, PIP !FIEYIEIRAIBIEND, Jr. (1972), Against Method. London: New Lch
01-41. 1B00!,s.
DlIl>ILOr, j .T. (958), industrial Relations Sysums. New York: lFHCHTE,.D.!F. (1970), Science ofKnowledge (with tirst and second
KHolt, Rinellart and Winston. ilf1ltll'OdUlctions; eds. IP'. Heath alf1ld J. lLachs). New York: Century
DUN]\IIETTIE, M.D. (976), Iflhmdboof< of IfpldtHtrialafld Organ- Philosophy Sourceboo!o.
izational Psychology. Chicago: lRalf1ld McNally. !FIlJEDL1E1R, !F.IE. 09(7), A Theory of Leadership !Effectiveness.
DUIRKH ElM, IE. (1933), The Rules ofSociological Method. GieU!- lLondion all1ld New York: McGraw Hm.
core, III.: !Free Press. !FIIJLMJEIR, P., IP'JHIIILUPSON, M., SRLVJERMAN, D. and
DURKHIEKM, E. (947), 'The Division ofLabo14rin Society (trans. WAlLSIHI, D. 0(72), New Directions in Sociological Theory.
G. Simpson). Glculco~:, XlI.: lFrcc IP'ress. . JLorndoHll amll New YOH"lc Collier Macmillan.
DURKHIEIM, lEo 0(51), Suicide (trams..'11.. Spaldmg and G. lFHNClH, IHI.A. (1949), Max Weber on the Methodology of Social
Simpsol1ll). G~eU1lcoc, m.: !Free Press. Sciences. Glelillcoe, m.: !Free IP'ress.
EASTON, D. (953), 71181' Political Sy.~tem. New Yoric Allfred !FOX, A.. (966), ')[mllUlstrial Sociology and IIndiUlstriaI1Rdatiom;',
Knolplf. Research Paper J, Royal Commission on Trade Unions {ilnd
IHJ)JRIlDGlE, .JE.T. (1971), Sociology {ilnd Industrial L(fe. !Employers' ,1s.sociatiofls, lLoll1ldollll: )[-llMSO.
London: I\ldsoull. !FOX, A. (973), ')[ndiUlstrimllReI<Jltiorns: A SOcRa\1 CritiqOJlI1.: of P~uuml
lELDRIlDGlE, j.1E.T. and CROMBRlE, A.D. (1974),,1 Sociology of ist lIdIeology', ilf1l J. Child, Man and Organisation, 011'. cit.
Orgafli.wtiml$. lLOUldolf1l: Geolfge Allen and UIf1IWRn. !FOX, A.. (1974<ll), /Beyond COmr{ilct: Work. Power and 'fnAsl Rela-
JE1LLUIL .J. (1'9164), The Tedwological Society. New YorK,: tions. JLOHlidloH1l: !Fabcr mlf1ldl !Faber.
Vintage HooK,s. fOX, A. (1974\), Man Mismamxgt1?Wlenl. lLomllon: )[-][uUcihIilflsmn.
IEMm~SON, .U. (1970), 'lBehavioUlr ilf1l PH"ivate Places', in H.lP'. !FRASIEIR, JR., cd. (1968), Work, Vols II andlfK. lHarrmoHHjlswort~~:
Drdtzd, Ream Sm:iology, No. ;(" OIP. <Cit. Penguin.
IEMJEIRSON, H.M. (I (})(62), 'U)owcr-Dejpemknce Rdatiom;', fRIENCHll, j.R.IP'. lllHlldlIRAVIEN, IS!. (1968), 'TUne lBases off Soda~
AmaunXfl Sociological Review, 27 (I), PIP. 31-40. Power', ilf1l D. CJlrtwright <JlrJl(JI A. Zander, Group Dynamics, 0IP. cia.
EMIERY, F.E. amd TRIST, JE.L (1965), 'The C<nILnsal TC'ltame off !FIRIlJEDHUClHlS, IR.W. (1970), A Sociology oj'Sociology. i"kw
Oi"g;mi~mtiomnl Euwimm1ll11CH]ts', JH[umlJi8 Rd?!atiomr, 18 0), IPjp Yor!c free IP'ness.
2K-32. fIRHSJBlY, D. 00/12), 'The ll~oll'lPclr-Adon1lo OcmtirOversy: TUne
MeuUlI\Jldlologicllll DRspl,1te ill1l Germlllilil Sociology' ,Philosophy afThe
Social Sciences, 2, IPfP. 105 - n9.
4&0 8ibHography 8ibliograjyhy 4118
JFIIUSIBY, D. (1974), 'The IFralll1i,lfurt School: Orntic:Jl1 Theory amJl GOLDMANN, lL. (8969), The Human Sciences and Philosophy.
lI)ositivism', ill JI. HeR, ed., Approaches to Sociology, 0IP. cit. lLondon: Care.
GADAMlEll1, IIII.G. (1965), Wahrheit tmd Method, Tubingcn: GOJLDTHOJRlP'lE, .LlHI., lLOCKWOOlO, D., IBlECHHOlFmt, IF.
,11.CIEll. Mohr, (lEnglisln cOlPyriglna: SIH~ed and Ward, lLondon, and PlLATT, .J. (1963), Tire Affluen! Worker: lFlduJirial Attitude$
~9"5). and Behaviour. LondoKn: Cambridge University Press.
GAMBLlE, A. and WAlLTON, IP'. (976), Capitalism iF! Crisi.f. GOlLlOTHORlP'lE, .JJ.lHI. (1974), 'Industria! JRelations in Gn.';at
London: M'lCmiilan. Britain: A Critique of Reformism', Politics and Society, 4 (3), PIP'.
GAIRFIINKlEL, R (967), Studies in Ethrwmetlwdology. 419-52.
IEnglewood Cliffs, N.J.: IP'rclI1ticc-lHIail. GOlLlOTlHIOJR~lE. UrJI. (1914), 'Sociaillnequality and Socia! AKHe-
GAlRlFIINKlElL, JH. 0%3), 'The Origins of the Term JEth- gmtnon ill Modem BritaiKn', in D. Wedderlnun. cd., Poverty.
nomeallOdo!ogy', Proceedings of the Purdue SymposiwfI orB Eth- Ifnequality and Class Structure, or. cit.
ilOfru!thodology, hn5titute mmlOgmpln No. Jl, Institute for the GOUlLlONlER, A.W. (l954a),Pau<I!ms of Industrial Bureaucracy.
Study of Social Change, lP'unJlue University; reproduced in R. Glencoe. HI.: IFree IP'ress.
Tumew, ed., Et'momet'wdology, olP. cit. GOl/LDNlEJR, A.W. (I 954b) , Wildcat Strike. New York: Antioch
GAUS, .rr-M. (1936), The /Frontiers of Public AdministratiorB. Press.
Chicago: UKnnv\Crsity of Chicago IP'wess. GOUlLlONlER, A.W. (1959), 'Reciprocity and Autonomy inlFiLmc-
GAl/S, .rr-M. 0(36), 'A Theory of Organisation nBn lP'ulblic tiona! Theory', in A.W. Gouldncr,/For SocioloEiY, or. cit.
Adminisl.mtimn', The /Fromii/?rs of Public AdmirBistration, OIP. cit. GOl/lLDNlElR, A. W. (1969), 'The Unemployed Self, in R.lFmser,
GlEITnnII,IIII.lH. llIKMj! Mil lLlLS , C WRBGlHIT, cds. (l9-48),/From Max ed., Work, or. cit.
Weber. lLomllon: Routledge and KegaJril Paul. GOUJLlONlElR, A.W. (970), The Coming Crisis of 'Westem
GHIDDIENS, A. 097 n, Capitalism am! Modem Sodal Theory. Sociology. lLomJlolfI: lHIeinemamlfll.
London: Cambridge l/niversity IP'ress. GOUlLDNJElR, A. W. (1973), /Forr Sociology. JHannoll1dswori.ln:
GHIDDlENS, A. 0972a), 'lElittes ill1l The ]British Class Stmchllrc', Allen lLane.
Sociological ff?eview, 20 (3), 1fli1P. 3415-72. GOUlLlONER, A.W. (1973), 'Anti-Minotaur: TIne Myth olfa Vallie
GIiDDIENS, A. (97210), Politics ami Sociology in the 'lI1wug!Bt of Frete Sociology', nll1l A.W. Gouidncr,/For Sociology, op. cit.
Mox Weber. JLomJloll1l: M<1lcmillalfll. GOl/lLDNEJR, A. W. (1976), The Dialectic of Ideology (}md Tech-
GlIDlOlENS, A. 0(74), Positivism mid Sociology. Lomlloll1l: fwlogy. lLoll1dolfll and New York: Macmill<m.
Hdll1l<CKmnmn. GlRAMScn, A. (1971), SelectioFBS /From the Prison Noteboolu of
GnDlOlENS, A. (Jl976), New 1f?641es of Sociological Method. Loun- Antonio GramscO (cds. Quinto1fll Hoare llmd Geoffrey Nowdl-
don: 1I'liutchimimu. Smith). lLOllIdolfll: lLawrence and Wishart.
GLUCII\;.SMANN, M. 0Yt741), StrMc61J4raiist Analysis ifB Contem- GROSS, N.M., WARlO, S. and! MclEAClHIlERN, W.A. (953),
ff'(}f(Ary Sodal 7fPwMgh6. lLondlouu: ROllJltledge and KegaBn lP'allJlft. Explorations in Role AnalysiS: Studies of the Schoo! Super-
GOlOEUIEJR, M. 0(72), 'StmctRnte and Contradictioun in Capital,' imendent Role. New York: .JJolhlllil Wiley.
illl JR. IIU'M.:ld'IIJrKlI, <ed., /(deology in Social SciI/!PU:e, op. eRa. HABlERMAS, .JJ. (197031), 'Om Systematic2\lIy Dislorh~d Com-
GOFFMAN, IE. (959), 'lI1Be lP'rre:umta6i(m 0.( Se(lin /Everyday Life. mumncatimns', /(nquiry, 13, pp. 205-18.
N~~w York lOol]lbleday. JHABlElRMAS, .JJ. (l970b), 'Towards a Theory of Communicative
GOIFIFMAN, lEo (961), Asyltwu. Ncw Yorl~; DOIBlbledmy. Com!>cte1fllcC',lfmJiDdiry, 13, PIP. )60-75.
GOIFJFMAN, lE. (Jl9M) ,llJePu~lJiow' ifI /Public PI(]lciI!:lJ. Gkll1lcoc, 11II.: ll-llABlElRMAS,.n. (l97Aa), Towardj,' a Rational Society. lLOIIl\dmn:
IF K'\C<e H~rtes s. lI-Keim'imamn.
(GOIFIFMAN, lEo (967), 1fv8tl/?ractimn IN.i8twl. New Yorllc DOlBlble- lHIABlElRMAS,.JJ. (897Ib), 'Tedmology and SciCIfICC ffiS hJlcology',
~ij.my. iBn .JJ. JHalbcrmas, Towards a Rational Society, olfli. cit.
<GOlLlll, HLL (964), 'hn allu<e Bll\3llJfIlll;)na - TIne AlflilAtramma ]BuildnKRJ!.g H-llABlElRMAS, .JJ. (972), Knowledge and HWfI(},fH lfmerest.L
.D;mia\\JlIf' ,nun j[P.L lBlelr~~:;K', <1':/1., TlBeI? lftroUFWJQR SPurrllHN! of WOU'Pi, Olfli. cia. LomJl{llIl1l: lHIdi1lcmallilR1l.
~~J. nibHography /lJibli.ograpPny 4!31
IIn.lH~BUl/llAS, .Y. (974), Theory muff Pmctice. Loirldmn: H-llOlROWnTZ, D., ed. (ll97I), Radical Sociology: An ImrodMciimH.
IflldKlem.Hm. New Yor/.(: lI-brpcr ami Row.
nHjHH~H~MAS, J. (19176), l.egitimation Crisis. LOIflldolffi: HOJRTON, J. (1964), 'The Dehumal1isatioil of Anomie and Aiiellil~1"
IHldnl1::m21.mn. ilJion', /fJriti.~h Journal of Sociology, 15 (4), PIP. 283-300.
HAGlE,.L mnul1 AHKlEN, Ml. (1967), 'Rdatioll1sRnip olfCcrntralisatnmn II-JlUGH-JlES, E. (958), Men and Their Wode Glelfllcoe, llil.: fR'G~c
to Otlle!" StmctUlmJ PWlPenics' ,Administrative Science QuoJ/l'terly, PJress.
H2, H}lli. 72--92. HUGHIES, H. STU ART (11958), Comciousfless and Society. New
IHIALL, RH., (1972), Organi.H1tiof/s: Structure and Process. Yorlc Alfred Knwpf.
EKiglewood Cliffs, N.JJ.: Prentice-Hait HUSSIERIL, IE. (1929), IEntJry on 'lP'hcnomcnoiogy', inn /Eflcy~
n-IIAIRVlEY, D. 0(73), Social IN.uice (md the City. Lmlld()Iffi: dopoedia /fJ"i!tlUlflica, 14th edllll.
Edward Arnoldi. HYMAN, lHUll. amJ! SANGER, IE. (1963), ReadiPig.~ in ReferenU!
HEGlElL, G. (l93 I), 1he Phenomenology of Mind. London: GroUIfJ Theory and Research. New York: !Free Press.
George Alien and! Unwin. H-JlYMAN, JR. (l975),llndl4strial Relations: Ii.. Marxist!fntrodl4ctiOPr.
HERZBEJRG, f., MAUSNlElR, 1l3I. 2lmll SNYDIEJRMAN, 1l3I. (1959), lLondon: Macmillan.
The Motivation to Work. New Yorlc JJolm Wiley. . HYMlAN, JR. mll1d Il3IJROUGH, L 0(75), Social V'lll4es awl
mCKSON, D . .., IP'UGII-ll, D.S. am~ IP'II-RlEYSlEY, D.C. 09(9), llndl4strial Relations. Oxford: Jmad,weil.
'Op(:mtions Technology and Org21KnisatiOlrIl Structullre: Aiffi IEmpilli- HYMAN, R. 3lnd fRYIER, R. (975), 'Tmdc U1I1ions: Sociology
c.n~ ReaIPPH"aRS<lli', Administrative Science Quarterly, ll4, fPlJPl. lind Political Eco1l1omy', in J. McKinlay, cd., Processing People:
373--97. Cases in OrganisationallBdwv;ol4r, op. cit.
IHIRCKSON, [U., II-llllNHNGS, C.lR., LIEIE, C.A., SCHNIECK, llILUCn-n, If. (1973), Tools for Conviviality. Londoll1l: ]Foll1tamJ\/Co~~
HUE. alld 1P'1E1\INIINGS, J.M. (197ft). 'A Strategic Contingencies li1llls.
'nH~OJrY of hntm-OrgmnismtioKD4lli Power', Administrative Sdem:e JAQUIES, IE. (9511), The Changing Culi84re of a Factory.
(lKwrterly, Hi, PJPl. 216-29. lLondon:T3lvi5iod~.
HIINDIESS, 1l3I. 097.5), The Use ofOflidal Statistics ifr Sociology: JAQUIES, IE. (1962), Measurement of Responsibility. lLomllmu:
A Crifiquc (?f Positivism am! IEtPmomethoaology. LOHDdolOl: Tavnstodl IP'llRblkations.
I'\ibcmi!i.;m. .IJAMES, W. (890), Principles of Psydwlogy, lLolflldmJ\:
HODGIES, RA. 09.52), The Philosophy of Wilhelm Di/they. Macmillalffi.
Lmndmn: lRolltledgc and Keg21n P<JI.U111. .llAIRVHIE, LIE. (19M), The Revolution in Anthropology. lLom.imn:
H-J10MANS, G.C. (950), ne /filuman Group. New YOJrn~: ROlntledge and J1(cgalfl PallRl.
I-llmrcol.irt, Il3Ira\:c and WOll'id. .lJA Y, M. (973), The Dialectical llmagirwlioPi. ILmldml:
llITOMANS, G.c. (958), 'II-human 1l3ldllaviouu 21S 1E1lcl1nange'. JHeim::mamn.
Amerinm '!!oumal of Sociology, 63 (6), PJPl. 597 -606. KAllIN, R.IL. andll:llOUILJDnNG, IE., eds. 09(4), Power arBOr COfO
HOMANS, G.c. 09(1), Sodal/fJehavi0l4r: Its IEleme;ntary !Forms. fl,ir.i h! Organisations. London: Tavnstod, ll\.lblicatio1llls.
New York: IIl1;ucomt ll:lInllce and World. KAST, f.lE. and ROSENWIEIIG, .LE. (1973), COflfingency Views
IfllOMANS, G.c. (19Ma), 'ContemlPolr<l\ry TlneoJrY in Sociology', ilffi of Organisation and MarwgemeFi6. Chicago: Science !Rcsean-dn
R.IE.L. Fallis, ed., Handbook of Modern Sociology, oJPl. cia. Associates.
HOMANS, G.c. (19Mb), 'Il3Iringing Men ll:lIllIdl hll', America;r R(ATZ, D. <lund! KAHN, R.IL. 0(66), The Social Psychology ~r
Sociological Review, 29 (5), PIP. )09-lllJ. O"gani.~ations. New Yorlc .lJoll1lll Wiley.
IH10MANS, G.c. lund CURTHS, c.P. (1934), An Krltroao4ctiofH to KAUfMANN, W. (1966), Hegd. lLondon: Weidlcnfddl .mdl
Parew, Hi.~ Sociology. New Yor"c Alfred KnoJPlIF. Nicolson.
n-HOII)IP'OCK, JR. (193.5), Job Satisfacticm. New Yor!c Harper. KIEAT, lR. all1ld UlRlRY, .L (197.5), Sodal Theory ()JS Sdem.:e.
]f-HOIRn01fIEHMER, MI. (972), Critical TPneory: Selected !Euays. LomJloull: ROlUliiedg~ and Keg'HI H).ll1Uli.
New yo!"r,\.: Henkr.
41 fi4! IfJiMiognJJPay Imibliogmphy I:l i 5
KlEILILIEY, HUH. (l96!J), 'Two !Functions of lReiferellllce Groups', BJOl LOlRSCH. J. W. and MORSE, LL (11974), Organisations and Their
Run. RRynl:w aftld IE. Singer, A~eadi"g:dn !Re!erem:e GmD4/p TPseory, Members: A Contingem:y Approach. New Yorlc Harper and Row.
on'. cHa. LUKAcs, G. (11971), History and Class Consciousness. London:
KJEIIUt. C, DUNILOlP', .LT., HARlBRSON, IF.H. sand MYIERS, Merlin. (!First )published 1923).
CA. (l9M).!m!ustriali.HPwmllndMstrial Mari (2nd edU1). ILA:mdOln: LUKES, S. (1973), Emile Durkheim: His L{fe and Work.
Oxford University lP'ress. lHfarmondswortl1: Allen Lane.
KOLAK.OWSKU, IL. (972), /Positivist /Philoso/pPiY. HSlrmomJls~ JLUKlES, S. (l974),/Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.
worth: lP'enguin. LUPTON. T. (1963), On the Shop Floor. Oxford: lP'ergamonlP'ress.
IKURRN, T.S. (i970). 1'1ie Stmctw'e of Schmtific !Revolll4lion (2nd JLUPTON, T. (1970. Management and the Social Sciences (2nd
<cdn). Chicago: University of Chicago lP'ress. edn). Harmondsworth: Pcnguin.
U.,AUNG. R.D. (1967), nil? ll~oliKics of EX/per'ience. New orc McCUJLJLOUGIHl, A. and! SHANNON. M. (1977), 'Organisation
lBallamtine. alld IP'rotectiml', nn S. Clegg and! D. Dunkerley, eds., Critiw!
ILANDSlBIERGlElR, H.A. 0(58), HmvllwrFle !Revisited. H..illaca, ffssues in Organisations, op. de
N.Y.: CorndlUniversity lP'ress. McGHEGOR, D. (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise. New
LANDY, IF.oD. ;J\ild TRUMBO. D.A. (976), /P'ysdwlogy of Wodc York: McGraw Hill.
ffJdWl'iour. New York: Dorsey lP'ress. McHUGH, IP'. (1963), Defining the Sifl4ation. IIndianapolis:
LA WRENCIE, H).JR. :md JLOHSCH, .U.W. 09(7), Organization ami lBobbs- Merrili.
EnviroFHflwnt. Cambridge, Mlltss.: H31lfVlltrd Giraduate Schoon of MadNTYRE, A. (1970), Marcuu. London: lFontam~/ColliH1s.
Business Administmtion. Mc!KHNLAY, JI.lB., cd., (1975), Pmcessing People: Cases in
UEIE, IE. ami MANDEUBAUM, M., eds. (l971),Phcfwmerwlogy Organisational Imehaviour. JLomJloH1l anQ.New YOIfk: Holt, lRinelluul.
mill Exi.Herrtil1lism. New York: Jlohn Hop~cins. and Winston.
LEVU, A. W. (1967), 'IEKistclfltialism amJl the Alienation oIfMalf1l', Birn McLJELLAN, D., ed. (1973), Marx's Gnmdrisse. Sa. Albans:
lE. Lec and M. Mandelbaum, cds. ,Phenomenology and /Existeu8- lP'aladin.
thfili:rfFI, op. eRe McUElLJLAN. D. (1975), Marx. London: !Fontana/Collins.
lLIEWKN, K., UPlP'nll', JR. and WHHlE, R.ne (1939), 'PllIUems of McLELLAN. D. (1976), Karl Marx: IHlis !Life and Thought. Se
Aggressive Behaviour in lEJqperimentally Orelllted Socimn CRn- Albans: lP'al31dliil. ,
mates', JOlJrrlal of Social Psychology, RO, pp. 271-99. McNALL, S.G. and JOHNSON. J.CM. (1975), 'The New Con-
UCHTHlERM, G. 09(7), Marxism: An Historical and Critical servatives: lEllmomcthodologists, Phenomenologists, and
Study. London: JRolltledge amI Kegan P:mt Symbolic [nlemctiOlf~ists', 'lhe I1fisl4rgem Sociologist, 5 (4), n~frj>
lUCnrrn-IIEIIM, G. (11970), !Lu/uks. JLoJr1ldollll: fOll1lhma/CoUins. 49-65.
JLJJ!(lERT, ilL (1%1), New /Pattems qf Management. New YorBe MAKKlRJEJEJL, R.A. (1975), DiltPiey - Philosopher of the l-Jldmmu
McGraw mit . Studies. IP'rincelOlfn, N.J.: lP'rinceton University Press.
IUKJERT, R. (1967), nil/? HumaPi Organisation. New YOIr,: MANN, M. (l97ll), Class Consciousness and Action Among the
lVikGmw HilK. WesterYll Working Class. Londoan: MacmnJIan.
LOCKIE, IE.A. (11975), 'J?clrsmmel Attitudes amJl Moaivatimn'. MANnS, JI .G. and MIEJLTZER, lB.N. (1967),Symbo/icfffiieractiofU.
AFlfIIUX{ Ul'I'iew of Psychology, pp. 457 -79. lBosaon: Allyn and lBacollll.
LOClKWOOD, D. (1956), 'Some lRemllllrlks OIf1l "Tllne SOcBmR MARCH-H, J.G. (1965), Handbook of Organiwtiom;. Clluic:lIi&o:
Syst4~m''', Imriti:rh Journal of Sociology, 7, 11'11'. B4-43. lRaml! McNally.
LOCH<. WOOD, If). (19M), 'Social Hl!1Itegnlltiolfl and System hutegra~ MARCH, .La. and SnMON, JHLA. (1953), Organisation.... New
liolll', in G.IK. Zollsdmn and W. Hirsch, cds., /Exploration... BPi Yorle: John Wnlley.
,";0('8(11 Change. oJPl efta. MAlRCUSJE, H. (1954), !Reason oma !Revolutiofi (rev. edn 19M).
ILOlRSCH, ]. W. and LA WlRlENCJE, P.lR. (R970),StudBes BPi Of'g<BPi- New Yor/'.; Hnnmaanitic5 lP'ress.
DUMiof! De...ign. Homewood, m.: Hrwiin.
It! ~6 /fJibliogmphy IfJibliogmp/uy 4n
MARCUSIE, 1Hf. (19M), One-Dimensional Man. !London: MEAD, GJ-H. (1956), The Social Psychology of George Herbert
Routledge ami Jl(cgan lP'auL Mead (ed. Anselm M. Strauss). Clhicago: UllIiversity of Chicago
MAHCUSE, H. (1966), IE1"OS and Civilisation. \Boston: lBeacon. IP'ress (l?hoenix Books).
MARCUSE, H. (1968), Negations: Essays iff C,"itical Iheory. MEAKIN, D. (976), Man and Work: Literature and Culture in
London: Heinemann. Industrial Society. !London: Methuen.
MARCUSIE, H. (1968), 'Industrialisation and Capitalism in the MELTZER, lB. and PETRAS,.JJ. (1973), 'Theoretical and Hdcoiog..
Work of Mal( Weber', Negations: E:rsays in Critical l7leory, op. kal Variations in Contemporary Hilitcractionism', Catalyst. 7, D'/P'.
enL R-fL
MARJe, K. and ENGELS, F. (1968), Selected Wor/<s, !London: MEJLTZIER, B.M., IP'ETRAS, J. and REYNOLDS, JL. (1975),
lLawrence and Wishart Lid. Symbolic lnteractionism: Genesis, 'Varieties aFld Criticism.
MARX, K. and ENGELS, IF. (1965), The German Ideology. !Lon- JLondon: Routledge and Kegan Paul. .
don: lawrence and Wishart. (First published 1846.) MENNElLJL, S. (974), Sociological Theory: Uses and Unitics.
MARX, DC (1973), Gmndrisse: /Foundations of the Critique of London: Ne~son.
Political Economy (tnms. M. Nico~(J\Ils). Harmondswortln: lP'elfl- MERTON, R.K. O~M8), 'Manifest am! Latent IFunctiorls', in IR.IK..
guin. (First published Moscow, 1939-4 L) Merton, Social 11reory and Social Stmctl4re, op. cit.
MADOC K. (1975), Eorly Writings (trans. R. Livingstone and G. MERTON, R. K. (968), Social Theory and Social Structu.re. New
Benton). Harmondsworlh: Penguin. (This contains IEcofiomic ami York: free IP'ress (enlarged edn).
Philosophical Mafwscripts, 1844.) MESzAROS, n. 097(31), 'Lukacs' Concept of Diakctic', inn
MARX, K. (976), Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vols G.B.R. lP'allrkilflson, ed., George Luf((Jcs: The Man, His Work and
~ -lIK1l, (imils. n. Fowkes). lHfarmondlsworth: lP'enguilll. (Vol. 1I first l-Ki.s Ideas, OIP. cit.
Dmblishcd 1867, Vol. H, 1885, Vol. un, IlN4.) MIESZAROS, 1I. (J970b), Mane's Theory of Alienation, !LondiOlln:
MARTINS, H. (1974), 'Time am! Theory in Sociology', ird. Reil, Merlilll.
cd., Approaches to Sociology, op .. ciL MESzAROS, II. (1971), Aspects of History and Class COflJcious-
MASlLOW, A. (1943), '/\ Theory of JHIuman Motivation', Pless. Londo1fl: Routledge and Kcgan Paul.
P.~ychologicall?eil'ew,50, pp. 370-96. MlICJHIElLS, R. (J (49) , Political Parties. Glencoe, HI.: Free lP'rcss.
MASSIE, j.L. (1965), 'Management Theory', in .LG. March, cd., MIUBAND, R. (973), The State jn Capitalist Society. JLondOln:
Hm/(lbook of Organizations, op. cit. Quartet.
MAUSS, M. (1954), The G(ft. Glencoe, m.: free Press. MlIJLlLIER, D.L. (973), George Herbert Mead: Self, Language
MAYO, E. (1933), 11U! Human Problems ofan Industrial Cil'ili,SlR- and the World. H-l[ouston, TCKas: University of TeRas Press.
tion. New York: Macmillan. MlILLEIR, E ..L alITJd RlICE, A.H(. (I967),Sy.Hems ofOrganisatiofi.
MA YO, IE. (1949), Ihc Social Problems of an Industrial Civilisa- LOlfldon: Tavistodc I?ub~iCations.
tiofl. London: Routledge iAl1Id Kegan lI'aul. Mll JLJLS , C. WRlIGHT (959), 7[fu Sociological IlmaginatiOPII.
MAYS, W. (1975), 'P~nenomenologyand Marxism', inE.lP'ivcecic, London: ORford University IP'ress.
ed . Phe'lOrrll'rlOlogical and Philosophical Under.standing, ojp. cit. MINER, .LIB. and DACJHIILEIR, H.P. (1973), 'lP'en'sOIfmel Attihndes
MEAD, G.B. (I 932a) , Movements of l1lOught in the Ninctcenth llll1ld Motivatiolll', AnFlulllReview ofPsychology, 24, PIP'. 379-402.
('('wury (cd. M. N. Moore)" Chicago: University of Chicago IP'rcss. MOUZEUS, N. (1975), Organisation and !Bureaucracy (2nd edlill).
MEAD, G.H. (19320), The Philosophy of the Preserlt (cd. A.E. JLondon: Routledge and Kegarn Pa!.!i.
Murph y). Chicago: Open Court Publishing. MURDOCH, 1I. (1967), Sartre. JLondon: Fontana.
MEAD, G. H. (1934), Mind, :-;elfand Society (ed. Charles Morns). MYERS, C.S. (1924), Industrial Psychology in Great !Britain.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. London: CalP'c.
MEAD, G.H. (1938), l1le Philosophy of tire Act (cd!. Charles NATANSON, M. (1966), Essays jn JPhefiOm.e~ology. Tile Hague:
Morris). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. MlllrailllllUls NijhoiOf.
4Rg 3iblioffr~rhy Bibliography ~1I9
NATANoSON, M. (K97J;Jl) , AI Critique of Jean-lP'aul Sartne's PARSONS, T. ;nnd SIHU.s, IE.A., eds. (9511), Towards a Genem
OFitology. The H-llatguc: M;Jlrtinms Nijhoff. (first published 195 ft.) Theory of Alction. Cambridge, Mass.: lHIarvanJllJniversity JP'H'.:SS.
NATANSON, M. (1973b), Edmund Husser/: IP'hilosoplBer of Ifnfi- PARSONS, T. (951), The Social System. LondOlfll: T:wistoclt;
nile 7rasks. lEv;mstOIl11: NorthwcstclfII11 University lP'rcss. Glencoe, KII.: free lP'ress.
NATANSON, M. (l973c), The Social Dynamics of George H. PARSONS, T. (1959), Economy and Society. London: Routledge
Mead. The H-H;nglJl<e: MartimJls Nijhoillf. (first published 1956.) and Kegan Paul.
NEILL, IE. (1972), 'lEcOIfllOmics: The Revival of Political PARSONS, T. (1963), 'On the COlf]cept of lP'oliticallP'ower', Pro-
Economy', in JR. lBIaddmJrll1l, ed., Ideology in Social Science, oJ!}. ceedings ofthe Almerican Philosophical Society, 107, pp. 232-62.
de IP'ASSMORE, J.A. (1966), AI Hundred Years of Philosophy (2nd
NEWCOMD], T.M. (1950) ,Social IP'sydwlogy. New YorBc: Drydell1l edn). !London: Duckworth. ,
Il'ress. lP'IERIROW, C. (1967). 'A framework for the Comparative Analysis
J:'\IIEWCOMHl, T.M. (1953), ' An Approach to the Study of Com- of Organisations', Almerican Sociological Review, 32 (2), !PRJ
nmmkative Acts', Psychological Review, 60, pp. 393-404. R94-208.
NllSBlET, nt.A. 09(7), The Sociological TraditiOFI. Lomlloll1l: PIERROW, C. (1972), Complex Organisatimu: AI Critical Essay.
ll-Ueinemann. New Yode Scott, lForesman and Co.
NIiSIBET, JR.A. (1969), Social Change and History. Londoll1l: PIETIUGREW, A.M. (1973), The Politics ofOrganisatioFwl Deci-
Oxford University Press. sion Making. London: Tavistock lP'ublications.
NIiSOIET.R. (1976), 7lhe Social Philosophers, Sa. Albans: Paiadhn. lP'HRSRG, R.M. (1976), Zen and the Alrt of Motorcycle Main
OLLMAI\l, Ill. 097 I), Allierwtion: Marx's Critique of Man iiU ((?Ylance. London: Corgi.
Capitalist Society. London: Cambridge University Press. lP'HvtIECHC, IE., ed. (1975), Phenomenological and PhilosopMcal
OLSI::N, M., ed. (1970), Power in Society. London: Macmillan. Understanding. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
O'NEILL, .L, ed. (977), On Critical Theory. London: PHZZORNO, A., cd. (197 !), lPolitical Sociology. H-Uarmondsworth:
Hdncmalflil. lP'enguilf].
OSBORN, IR.N. (1974), 'IEnvironment and OrganisationallEffec- lP'LIEKHANOV, G. (1974), Selected Philosophical Wod(s: Vol. ll.
live!1lcss', Aldmini.rtative Science Quarterly, 19, pp,. 231-46. Moscow: Progress.
PAHU~, R.IE. and WHNKLIER, JJ. (1974), 'The Coming Corporat- rOPlP'ER, K. (1963), Conjectures and RefutatioFlS: 7fhe Growth of
ism', New Society, 30 (627), pp. 72-6. Scientific Knowledge. LomJlon: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Il]AILMIER, R.IE. 0(9), Hermeneutics. IEvarnstol1l: Northwestem POULANTZAS, N. (1969), 'The lP'roblem oftlhie Ca!>italust 5t;nte',
University lP'ress. New Left Review. 53. !pp. 67 -78.
Il'Afr~IETO, V. (1934), AlYi IfntroductioYl to Pareto, His Sociology PUGH, D.S. (1966), 'Modem Orgalflisation Tlhieory: A lP'sydwlogi-
(cds. G.c. Homans and c.r. Curtis). New Yodc Alfred Knopf. c;nl amJl Sociological Study', Psychological Bulletin, 66 (21), rIP'
fr'AJRIETO, V. (935), The Mind and Society, (trans. Andrew 235-51-
1l]00ngiomo .md Arthur !Livingstone), 4 vols. New York: Barcomlt, lP'UGH. D.S. and mCKSON. D ..lf. (976), Organi.H1timud
IHnl\c~;, Jovanovich. Soructure in Its Context. fambolrOugh: Salwill Hm.lse and
H'AIRIK, R.IE., and Il]URGESS, IE.W. (1921), Ifntrod14ction to the Leldngtolfl lBooks.
Science of Sociology. Chicago: University of Chic;ngo lP'ress. PUGH, D.S. alf1ld mNHNGS, C.R., cds. (1976), Organi.wti!mal
I[JAIRIION, IF. (973), Class, llneqlwlity and Political Order. St. Structure. ExteFuions and ReplicatioFu: The Alston IProgmmme /llf.
Allnl\Hls: U)aladirn. lFamlboro\\JJgh: Salwill JH[oUlse.
j[]AIIUONSON, G.lf-U~., ed. (1970), Georg L14lu1cs: The Man, His QUINN, R.IE. (977), 'Coping with Cupid: The formatiolf], llmpact
WVor!(, His /ldeas. !London: Weidcnfeld and Nicolsoll1l. and Managemeult of Romalf]tic Rdatiolf1lslhiulP' ilf1l Organisations',
I!]AlIlSONS, T. 0<1]\49), The Structure of Social Alction. Glencoe, Aldministrative Science Quarterly, 22, PIP. 30-45.
m.: 1!7ree Pn:ss. RADCUffE-IBROWN, A. (1952), Structure' and FUfictioru iF!
Primitive Society. London: COiH~1Ill and West.
420 //f,iMiogU'ap#ay llffiIbIOO!nJJp#uy 4128
n~AVJETZ, .U~. (1972), Sdemific Knowledge and ffd.w Sodal SAILAMAN, G. :md TlI-HOMlP'SON, K., eds. (973), lP'eople O1Pwf
Problems. nnamnmnd~wolfa~n: lP'<en~lUInlf1l. OrgaP8isatiool$. ILmndoll1l: LOll1lgman-n.
rru;:ncH, CA. (1972); The Greening olAmerica. 1l-H<lllfmoll1ldlswon-alhl: SARTRJE, J.-IP'. (948), lExisKePltia!ima am! lHI14momism (ir<lInn1i>. Ii.
1P'<r:li&;U1ilfl. Mmfllfd). lLomlloin: Met8mell1l.
/N.epmt ofthe lfoyal CommissiOfl Ofl Trade Unions aPuJl Employers' SARTIRIE, .II.-lP'. (1966), Being mnd Nothingness. New Yor1t,:
A....wciatimu. lLondon: HIViISO, Cmnd. 3623. WashilJ1lgtoll1l SqlU1l11re lP'IfCSS.
IRIEYNOUDS, LT. and! MJEILTZlElR, lB. (1973), 'Origilills off SARTRJE, .II .-P. (974), Between lExi$temialima mad Mr.mrasm.
]Divcrgeint M<ethodo~ogical Saam:es in Symbolic Rll1ltemctimn', lLoindmn: PaniheoBll.
Sociological Quarterly, 14 Spn-RIlll/!:, pp. 189-99. SAlRTlRlE, .D.-lP'. (1976), CritiqMe of Dialectical ReasouR, wo~. II.
llllEX, .J. 0%1), Key Problems in Sociological Theory. lLomilmn: lLoll1ldoll1l: New lLen lBloob.
n~olJIt!cdg~e and ll(egain 1P'1lllU1t . SAYILES, LIR. (958), Behaviour of Ifad84strial WOP'k GWMp"':
IFtIEX,.D. (l974) , Approaches KoSociology. lLomJlmn: ROOJltkdgeamR lPrediction and Coultrol. New'\{orllc Jonm Wnley.
Kcgan lP'aui. SClI-HIEGILOFf, JE.A. :llIl1ld SACKS, IHI. (973), 'OIP<eiinhng UIP CliQJs~
UtRC IE , A. lle (195ft), IPhnlnu:Kivity ami Social Of'gani:mtioll: "lIae ill1lgs', Semio/ica, 8 (4), JPlJPl. 289-327.
APRmcdcbad lxperinu.'flt. ILmndoin: TSlvistod( lP'OJIblications. SCHlEHN, IE. (1970), Orgllfli$ati01nal IP'sydwlogy (2mll edll1l).
UUCE, A.U(' (19,3), nlc /ntaff}ri.H~aPld it$ EmliromnefHK. lLoll1ldoin: IEll1lglewood Cliffs, N.J.: lP'lfcintice-lHlan.
T;wistod. n~aH!lJ~ncatioll1s. SCHROYIER, TlRIENT. (1971), 'A Re-Coll1lceJPlt\lJlZllismtimn oil' CriiD"
mC!i(MAN, II-R.u. (1976), Dilthey: Selected Writing.'>. lLoindmn: Cll\~ TlneolfY', inn J.IO>. CollfaJi <l\ll1Idl .LL. lRooc!n, ed1ll., Radic<fllU
Ohll1flblridge U nnvci'sity lP'rcss. Sociology, OfP. cit.
)[~lllEIFF, P. (1959), Freud: TPRe Mfind Of tPId! Mfomlist. lLondoll1l: SCHlIUTZ, A. (1967), Collected Paper$ If: "[Pad! IP'mbiem ~t' SOcR(II!
Go~~;ml;;L Reality. (:lind edtn). The Hague: MmrrtntnlUls Ni.i~wlfif.
IROIBIEll~TSON, R. (1974), 'Towards the HdIentifficatimlOfthe Majorr SCHUTZ, A. 09(4), Collected lP'oJpef"s Iflf: StMdies iva Sod'!.I!
Alles of Sociologica~ Anm!ysns', nnn .H. Rcx, ed., Approaches to "[Paeory. Tine Hague: Mant!ii1llUls Nij!wll1f.
Sociology, op. cit. SCHUTZ, A. 09(6), Collected lPap<l!U's 1fIf1f: Stlodies livn
lROCIHlIEIR, G. (974), Talco!! ParsOFu and American Sociology lPheunomeunologica! lPliilo$ophy. Tine JH[alglIle: M21rtim.Rs Nijnwlftf.
(in:ms. ILl.lllmil S. Mcmndl). lLomJlmn: Nelsmn. SCHUTZ, A. (1967), "[Pae lPheun01iJU!H8o!ogy of Khe Sodal World
lftOlETn-nUSIBIEIRGlER, IF.J. amll mC)f(SON, W.J. (1939), Mfom~ (tmns. G. Walsh aindlF. lLe8mert). JEV:JlIl1lStOIlll: Nortnnwestem UlfIli-
~Jgtmu!F8t mId the Work.er. Clmil1Jridg~~, MSlss.: lH!2lrv21rd Uiniv<ersity verrsity lP'ress.
P['t!,:ss. SCHUTZ, A. and ILUCKMANN, T. (974), The SUrMcture$ olthe
IROSIE, A. (IW,z), f{-IftUfUm BePaavimoY' and Social Processes. L~fe World, Londoll1l: HeiiH~m21ll1lllll.
Lomlmn: IT~ouakd1r.<e amll ll(<egann lP'SllU1t SCOrf, .II.F. (1963), 'The Clhlangnng lFomndationns iQJlftlne JP'SI["sOll1ln211rn
HOSIE, MI. (1975), Ifndustrial Bdwvio14r: Theoretical Devdopme18d Actnon Sc8neme', American Sociological Review, 28 (5), JPlll~.
Sim.:e l(Jylof. JInarmondsworah: A~kan lL:lI.Il1l<e. 116-35.
n~OSZAK, T. (1969), The Mfa/dUNg of (]I C086f!ter CoolKure. New SIEILZNRCHC, Jf". (19413), 'Ann AfPproadn to 2J Theon! (\j)1f
Yod,c Doubleday mlf1ld Co. IrulU1rcal.llcracy' , American Sociological Review, 8 (I), JPlIT). 417 - 54.
Il~01{, ID. 09(0), 'lruamm21 Tnm<e: Job S<lltisffacinon and hlllforma8 SJEILZNllCK, IP'. (1948), 'IFOIlJlll1ldatiolllls oil' the Theory oil' On-g,mlism
UlI1la4~r<l\<ctnoIflS', Homum Orgmli.mKimH, 83 (2), PJPl. 856-16~. tjOinS', American Sociological Review, D31 (I), PIP. 25-35.
lfUJr..lCnMIAN, W.G. (1972),A Critique ofMfax WeiJa',f/Naill,sopPBY SJEILZNnCK, P. 0949, n9(6), T. V.A. a"d"lPae Gms.'> Roots. n94'9)
Q{ SOdiX! Sciem:e. lLomllmn: Cambridge Uinivcrsity n~ress .. edi1l, lBerkeley, Ca~nlf.: UniversiiY of C<lllnfomn21 lP'rress; ~966 I\':~hn,
nUJSSlE'fT, CIE. (1966), nIl/? Concept of Equilibrium iuaAmedc01Pa New York: HalflPer alJ1ld Row.
Sodo!ogical"lPwooght. Ncw Haven: Ylll~<e Uil\nve~'sity lP'lfess. SIEILZNRCK, lP': (1957), /Lcader$hip ion AdmiUlOstiJ(]lti01n. New '\{~)lrllr.:
SAIHIlUNS, \\A!. 0(74), Stooae Age Economic.'>. Lmlldmn: TavDstocllc ItllZllflPlf:n' lllrrnd Row.
Jf~ulrl)!k:niimns.
421. A'lIiMiogmplny lEJilbUiogmpPay <ilIl:~
SIlA W, MI. (974), 'The Theory olfthc State amJllP'oiitics: A Ccntmi ST~YK,lER, S. (957). 'Roie-.lllcHll11J!f, ACCllllnJICY mmJl Ad.DllllS~R1lil(ellllf,
n~~nnlldOJt off' Malfllisllrll', Economy and Society, 3 (4), PIP 429-50. SocIOmetry, 20, rPp. 286-96.
SR-lIA W, M. (975), ManciHfI ami Social ScienCil'. London: IP'h.lllo. SlfOUIFIFlEJR,.S.A. (949), The Americ(JIP'J Sold/ier. JP'riillce~l\llIn, N.JI.:
SIlLVIERMAN, D. (970), The Theory of Organisations. Londoll1l: lP'rmcetoRll U mversity lP'Iress.
llnciIM~mll\mn.
STRASSlElR, !HI. (976), The Normative SmllctUf'rE of Sodology,
SIlILVERMAN, D. (1975<1\), 'Accounts ofOrganisllItiolr1ls - Organ- London: ROlllltled!ge allfMJI Kegllm lP'alUli.
iSllItioml\ll SltnJlclUires amJl tine Aq;oll.lilting IP'rocess', in J.lB. ST~AUSS, ;A.L.. 09M), G.B. Mead: On Soci(}JK IP'sydwlogy,
Mcll(ilfl!31Y, Processing People: Cases /fn Organisational OnHclllgo: Umversnty of CRniclllgo lP'Iress.
flle/wl/iour, Ojp. cRlt. SUDNOW, D. ~19(5), '~orma~ Crimes: SQcnollognca~ lFC21mrle" oit
SRILVEn~MAN, D. (!975b), Reading Castaneda. London: tRue IP'cilllllB Code m a IP'IUlbiRc DejfemJler Offic@' Social IP'mlb'em'" 1I'j)
0), jpp. 255-76. , a ''', ,,,
IRolIJltJedge ~AIflld Keg311l lP'aul.
:5iIlILVIEIRMAN, D. lllnd JONES,.J. (973), 'GeHing nil: The Man- SUDNOW, D. (972), Studies hn Sociallntemctiora. New YorBc
IFree JP'ress.
,lIg~ed Accomplishments of "Correct" Selection Outcomes', in .J.
Child, ed., Mllt! and Organisation, 0lP cit. TANNIENl8lAUM, A.S. 09(8), Control ifH Org(llflbations. N<e'V)f
SIlILVEJRMAN, D. and .lONIES, J. (1976), Organisational Work: YorBc McGraw Hm.
7Ihe /fAwNlwge ofGrading /1'he Grmling ofLaFlguaNe. London and TAYLOR, IF.W. (947), Scient(fic Mmaagemeult. LOill,g~m ;llm,n
New York: Collier/Macrnillllln. New Y or~c lIlarper.
SIIMMIEL, G. (!919), NachNela.rsenes TaRe/mch , Logos VIII. TlE~REl8llERRY, S. 09(8), 'Tllne lEvoluaiolIll off Org2misllltiolf1!ifJlll
SIIMMIEL, G. (1936), 11111' Metropolis and Mental Life. Chicago: ~9~v~r:lIIll3~<ell1ts" Administrative Scieflce Quartedy, HZ (4), n~p.
University of Chicago.
SIIMMIEL, G. (1950), 'Tine Sociology of Georg Simmer, in K.lIl. TIHlEVlENAZ, lP'. 09(2), What is Phenomenology? New 'l{orlk;
WoUlf, 7fhe Sociology (~r Georg Simmel, olP cit. Quadrangle.
SIlMMEL, G. (1955), Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations TIl-llOM, JR .. (Il~5), Stmctll4m! Stability (}md Morphogenesis. N~~w
(Imns. K.IHI. Wolflf and JR. lBemli)(). Glencoe, III.: Free Press. Yorllc: lBelfll,Dlllmm.
SIMON, H. A. (1957), Administrative lfJelwviour: A Study ofDeci- THOMAS, W.Il. (1197ll), 'TRne DefnlIlliaiolfll olfTllne SiItumaiolfll' , Rill lL.A..
.~hm Making Processes in Administrative Organisation (2nd cdn). Coser and lB. Rosenberg, Sociological Theory, op. ciL
New Yodc: ColIRer/MllIcmillan. TIHOMlP'S~N, J.D. (967), Organisations in ActiOfI. New Yoric
SilMON, lH. (19M), 'On tine Concept of Organisational Goal', McGraw HilI.
A(JmiFlistmtive Sciem:e Quarterly, 9 (I), jpp. 11-22. THOlRNS, D. (~976), New DirecKiOfls ifI Sociology. TOI'OHiltO:
SII(IINNEJR, lB.n:'. (953), Science and Hurmm lfJelwviour. New lRowmamll and! ILl ttlefneld.
Yor!{ and Londlorn: Macmillan. ~~~~. W. 09(3), Analytical Solipsism. The lllaguc: MartimJls
SIIUNj\,IIER, IIl.IF. (1957), Verbal lfJehaviour. New 'York:
AlPpleton-Century-ClfOfts. TRIIST, lE.. lL. ami l8lAMIFORTH, new. (951), 'Some Socimllllm!l
SKIINNER, ftl.IF. (1972), Beyond /Freedom and Dignity. New Ps YC.lllOl,ogi cal Consequences of Ithe L0ll1gwllIlI1 Method olf CO;)li-
y OI"~C: Alfred Knopf. GeUmg ,Human Relations, <4 (I), JPJP. 3-38.
SNOW, c.lP'. (1959), The Two CulWres and the Sciemijic Revolu- TRUST, IE.L, n-nBGGBN, G.W., MURRAY, H. alflld lP'OLLOCK
tion. lLomlolf1: Cambridge University IP'ress. ~.lB. (963), Organi.fational Choice. L01flldon: T!lIvistodc lP'lnblliclll~
SIPENCIEIl~, H. (1373), 71he Study (if Sociology. London: Kegan tiOillS.
1l~<~1I.I1 ;md Tench. TUJRNlER, A.N. and! LA WRlENClE, IP'.R. (965), lndu.ftrial Jobs
SII~IIIEGlElLlBERG, Il-ll. (1965), The JPhenomen%ginxl Movemeflt, and the Worker. Clllmbridge, Mass.: Harvlllrd University lP'res51.
volls. II alf1lJ1 ilL The Hague: MalflillLlS Nijholflf. TURNER, ~.A. (197ll), /Exploring the /fndustria! Subcu41!Il4f"re. Lorrn.,
STIIHNIER, M. (1907), 7/1111' Ego and His Own. New 'YOlk lib- d01f1l: M2\cmnlHllulil.
ertarian Book Club.
424 Bibliography J&iMoogrOJjylay 4JZ::i
TURNlEllt, R., ed. 097.<iJ), Ethnomethodology. Harmondsworth: WIEBER, M. (1949), The Methodology of the Social Sd,!PHCl/!'s.
PenglniiL . . . . . Glell1lcoe, HI.: lFree lP'ress.
TUTfUE, H.N. 09(9), Wilheim Dilthey's Pllllosop"y oj HlStoY"6~ WEDDERBURN, D. cd. ~n974J), Poverty, Jlnequality lUul C/(!]sJ>
cal Under.Handing. Leiden: IE..J. Brill. Structure. London: Cambndge University Press.
UID1r, S. (R959), Orgafli.mtiofl of Work: AI Comparative AlMlysis of WlEKR, M., cd. (976), .lob Satisfactiofl. LomJlolm: !FOlmtlllmn.
Production Almong Non-industrial Peoples. New Havellll: WHIEELER, S" cd. (1970), On Record. New orlc Russell Sage.
HUt.A.IF. Press. Wlf1lrJrIEHEAD,. A.N. (925), Science and the Modem World.
umnr, .J. lmd WAKlElFORD, JI., cds. (1973), Power IFI Britain. Londolll: Macmillallll.
llAmdlml: lUeincmaml. . Wlf1lrJrIEH~AD,. T.N. (1938), The Jlndu.f!rial Worker. L<t:mdoll11:
VAN DlEN BlElRGHlE, ]l'.L. 0%9), 'Dialectic ami lFlmctiollahsm: O](ford Umverslty Press.
Tow21nJls mTheoretic Synthesis', in W.L. Wallace, ed., Sociologi- WHYTE, W.lF. (1948), Human RelclKions in the Restmmmt Jlm)Ms"
cal I1reory, On). cia. try. New York: McGraw Hili.
VRCKEIRS, G. (1966), 'flre Alrt qfJudgement. London: Chapmilll!l WHYTIE, W.lF. (1955), Money and Motivation. New Vorllc
muR HaRI. Harper and Row.
VON BJEHTALANFlFY, L. (1950), 'The Theory ofOjpel1l Systems WH1(T~, W.lF. (1969), Organisational Behaviour: Theory mid
iii Physics and lBiology', Science, 3. , AlpplicatlOn. Homewood, m.:Hrwin-Dorsey.
VON IlllERTALANFFY, L. (1956), 'Generml System Theory, Wll~LIENEIR, ~. (.1971), The AlctionImage of Society. LOJrlldoJl]:
Gefleml System.T, R, IPn>. 1-10. Tavlstod( PublicatlOlllls.
VIROOM, V.H. (964), Work and Motivation. New Yorlc .foRm WHLLHAMS, R. (976), 'Symbolic Interaction: Tile !Fu5iOKl of
Wiley. The?ry and lRes.earch', illll D. TilOrns~ ed!., New Direc!iofH.~ iUR
VHOOM, V.Jlll. amJl DIECII, E.L. (1970), MaFwgemeflt aml Motiva- SocIOlogy, ojp. cu.
tion. Harmondswortlu: Pcnglui1l1\. WHNCH, P. (1958), The idea of a Social Science. 1L00ndoiR: lRo~JI~"
VlltOOMl, V.R (1976), 'Leadership', ilm M.D. DUlmette, e~., ledge and Kega1l1\ Paul.
Ham/boo!( (~f /fPldustrial am/ Orgonil.ational Psychology, 011) CRt. WINKL~lR, J.T. (l~75),,,~aw, State and Economy: The HmJhlJlsary
WALKIEIR,.M. mmJl GUIEST, lfUl-H. (1952), The Man 011 the Alssem- Act 1975 an Context, Bf'lllslr Journal of Law am! Society Vol. )flf,
bly Ulle. Cambridg<e, Mass.: HaJrvanJl Unnversity Press. pp. 103 - 23.
WALLACE, W.L. (969), Sociological Theory. London: Wllr;rKLER, J.T. (1976), 'Corporatism', European Jouma! of
Hcillcmaim. SOCiology, Vol. 17, No. I, pp. 100-36.
WALTON, P. 'HH.II GAMBLE, A. (U972) ,From Allienation to Surp- WISDOM, J .0. (1956), 'The Hypothesis ofCybemetncs', General
lus Value. London: Shecd and Want Systems, i, pp. Ill-n.
WALSH, D. (1972), 'Varieties oflP'ositivnsm', in lFilmeret al., New WHTTGENSTIEHN, L. (1963), Philosophical Investigations.
Directions in Sociological Theory, on>. cit. Oxford: Blackwell.
WARNER, MI., cd. (973), 11Ke Sociology of the Work Place. WOLFlF, K. H. (1950), The Sociology ofGeorg Simmel. Glencoe
JL.olfldml: George Aikin and UnwnnR. HII.: lFree Press. . ,
WARNER, W.L and LOW, .1.0. (947), Tire Social System oftIle WOOD: S. (1976), 'The Radicalisatiolm of Industrial lRdatiolllls
llvffodem /Factory. New Il-H,wcn: Yale University Press. Theory, Personnel Review, 5 (3), PI'. 52-7.
WARNOCIK, MI. (1965), The Philo.mphy of Sartre. London: ~O??: s..an~ IE~L~?T, R. (1977), 'A Critical IEvaluatiOK~ {j)1f
Hutdlil1smn. Fmc s lRad.cahsatlOl1 of Illdustrial Relations Theory' S . I..
WAn;Ut, P.IB., ed. (971), Psychology at Work. Harmondsworth: ogy, II (I), /p/p. 105-25. ' , oew
n'clRguHIfi\. W~OD: S. and KELLY, J. 'Towards a Critical Managementt
WIE1BIEIR, MI. (947), The Theory of Sodal and Economic Organ- SCience, Journal of Managemefli Studies (forthcoming).
i.wtimr (amils. A. Helldlcrsml and T. Parsolllls). Glencoe, m.: lFree WOODCOCK, G. (l975),Alnarclrism. lHarmolldsworth: PelI1gBJIiiL
lP'ness.
111216 Imblo(}gY"~R/lJPuy