Page 252 - Communication and the Evolution of Society
P. 252

229                        Notes

         of  Socialization  Theory  and  Research  (Chicago,  1969),  and  “From  Is  to
         Ought,”  in  T.  Mischel,  ed.,  Cognitive  Development  and  Epistemology
         (New  York,  1971),  pp.  151-236.
           54.  Eder,  Die  Entstehung  staatlich  organisierter  Gesellschaften.
           55.  L.  Krader,  Formation  of  the  State  (New  York,  1968).
           56.  The  most  important  representatives  of  this  theory  are  F.  Ratzel,
         P.  W.  Schmidt,  F.  Oppenheimer,  and  A.  Ristow.
           57.  W.  E.  Miihlmann,  “Herrschaft  und  Staat,”  in  Rassen,  Ethnien,
         Kulturen  (Neuwied,  1964),  pp.  248-296.
           58.  This  view,  first  developed  by  Marx  and  Engels  in  The  German
         Ideology,  has  had  many  adherents;  V.  G.  Childe  is  a  good  representa-
         tive,  originally  in  Old  World  Prehistory  (London,  1938).
           59.  G.  E.  Lenski,  Power  and  Privilege  (New  York,  1966).  Earlier  I  too
         defended  this  view;  cf.  Toward  a  Rational  Society,  p.  94,  and  Theorie  der
         Gesellschaft,  pp.  153-175.
           6o.  R.  L.  Carneiro,  “A  Theory  of  the  Origin  of  the  State,”  Science
         169 (1970)  :733-738.
           61.  K.  A.  Wittfogel,  History  of  Chinese  Society  (Philadelphia,  1946),
         and  Oriental  Despotism:  A  Comparative  Study  of  Total  Power  (New
         Haven,  1957).
           62.  R.  Coulborn,  “Structure  and  Process  in  the  Rise  and  Fall  of  Civi-
                                                                        ;
         lized  Societies,”  Comparative  Studies  in  History  and  Society  8  (1965-66)
         Carneiro,  “A  Theory  of  the  Origin  of  the  State.”
           63.  I  am  drawing  on  a  sketch  presented  by  Klaus  Eder  at  the  16.  Deut-
         schen  Soziologentag  in  Kassel,  1974.
           64.  Ibid.,  p.  14.
           65.  Ibid.,  p.  15.
           66.  Ibid.
           67.  “The  deep-seated  contradiction  was  that  the  mastery  of  nature  and
         the  self-realization  of  man  sometimes  had  to  come  into  opposition,  since
         the  former  process  required  for  its  increasing  efficacy  servitude  as  a  means
         of  realizing  the  organization  and  mobility  (of  labor  power),  while  the
         latter  had  freedom  as  its  goal  and  basis.  Indeed  in  the  final  analysis
         the  mastery  of  nature  makes  sense  only  if  the  self-realization  of  man,  the
         humanizing  of  relations  among  men,  succeeds.”  Welskopf,  “Schau-
         platzwechsel,”  p.  131.
           68.  K.  Popper,  The  Poverty  of  Historicism  (London,  1966).
           69.  C.  H.  Waddington,  The  Ethical  Animal  (Chicago,  1960).
           70.  Cf.  W.  Leppenies,  H.  H.  Ritter,  eds.,  Orte  des  wilden  Denkens
         (Frankfurt,  1970).
           71.  Piaget  also  singles  this  out  as  the  moment  that  unites  the  different
         brands  of  structuralism;  cf.  J.  Piaget,  Strwcturalism  (New  York,  1970).
           72.  C.  Lévi-Strauss,  The  Savage  Mind  (Chicago,  1968);  M.  Godelier,
         ‘“Mythe  et  Histoire,”  Anwales,  Economies,  Sociétés,  Civilisations.
           73.  L.  Kohlberg,  “Stage  and  Sequence”  and  “From  Is  to  Ought.”
   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257