PITIRIM ALEXANDROVICH SOROKIN:
(1889-1968)
Pitirim A. Sorokin was a major figure in social thought in the previous century. People have been intrigued, challenged and inspired by his ideas, and he has had a lasting influence on methods and theory in the social sciences. He began as a criminologist, and was heavily affected by a dramatic personal history and shattering historical events. His personal history is complex and his social / criminological theories would still be considered unorthodox. Academic conflicts affected his career and the acceptance of his ideas in ways that are still instructive to those interested in the political realties of academia. Though no longer seen as a major figure in criminology or sociology, his was a lasting contribution.
Historical Context
Sorokin was a product of his times (1889-1968), a self-made man who rose from a peasant’s family to world influence (Cuzzort and King, 1995: 155, Johnston, 1995: 3). These were violent and turbulent times, and it should not be surprising that they should produce a man known for his combativeness and fierceness in the academic arena. Both the Czar and the Communists in Russia jailed him before he finally immigrated to America, and there he enjoyed changing fortunes from praise to complete professional ostracism.
Sorokin came from an abusive background, the son of an icon maker and silver worker. His father had alcoholic dementias with violence following the death of his mother, scarring Sorokin psychologically and physically (Johnston, 1995: 5) He wound up being farmed out to an uncle with a mystical outlook, strongly tempered by the symbolism of Russian Orthodoxy, in which he received formal training (Johnston, 1995: 2-4). Many times, he found himself hungry in the midst of plenty, agitating for social change against the Tsarist system (Johnston, 1995: 2).
He became an activist in the anti-Tsarist movement, and was jailed by the Tsarist government on more than one occasion (Johnston, 1995: 6-12). He noted his treatment in the Tsarist prisons was not too bad. He was provided with good food, comfortable accommodation, and access to books to continue his studies (Johnston, 1995: 6-7, 12).
He studied criminal law, penology and sociology, taught for the Soviets from 1919 to 1922 after the revolution, and published his first book on crime and punishment. His attempts to work within the Soviet system failed, in spite of his work in teaching and research. He faced a choice of prison, execution or exile, after three of his professors had met violent ends in the paranoid post-Revolution environment (Johnston, 1995:13).
He found the prisons under the Communists less to his liking, with poor food, overcrowding, and the threat of beatings and executions constant factors. He saw several prisoners killed in front of him, after being accused and arrested in the plot to kill Lenin (Johnston, 1995: 13, 15-17). He attacked the incompetence of the Communists on his release, blaming them for the famines wracking post revolution Russia (Johnston, 1995:18-19). He immigrated to America after his release, finally accepting the fact that to stay in Russia would be his certain death (Johnston, 1995:19).
During his studies in Russia, he was influenced by Pavlov and ideas of operant conditioning (Johnston, 1995: 11). Teaching in America, he required his students to read the works of Durkheim, Spencer, and Comte (Johnston, 1995: 76).
In America, his views and methods were respected, and he became the founding Chairman of the Department of Sociology at Harvard (Johnston, 1995: 55). His professional interactions also brought him into conflict with such people as Talcott Parsons, who managed to have him removed from his position at Harvard in one of the great political in-fights of sociology (Johnston, 1995: 150-154). . In seven years, he went from immigrant and scholar to mover and shaker in sociology (Johnston, 1995: 52).
He set himself in direct opposition to both the Chicago School and the Social Darwinists, considering them too philosophical and too unconcerned with real-world issues (Johnston, 1995: 49-51). The war (there is no other word to describe it) between him and the group known as the Chicago School dominated American sociology for decades. Like C. Wright Mills, he was an opponent of many of the trends and techniques favored by Parsons and his followers (Mills, 2000). In fact, Mills used much of Sorokin’s critique of the state of the art in sociology as the basis for his book, The Sociological Imagination (Cuzzort and King, 1995: 166). Parson’s functionalist perspective and Sorokin’s ideational/sensate views were bound to clash, but the acrimony of the clashes between the theorists and their followers is still a matter of discussion among sociologists (Pfohl, 1994: 223-235).
Sorokin was extremely critical of much of modern social science in the Twentieth Century, using such terms as “testocracy” and “quantophrenia” to describe what he called “fads and foibles” in the social sciences of the first half of this century (Cuzzort and King, 1995: 166-168). Such attacks brought very strong responses.
“Criticism of Sorokin has ranged from the most extreme type of acidulous confutation (of which Sorokin is the master and model) to the opposite extreme of silent, passive and freezing disregard” (Foley, 1953: 211). Influenced in his early career by such early behaviorists as Pavlov, Sorokin later came to temper these views to a less rigid behaviorism (Foley, 1953: 209). By coming from a different background and training, and functioning in the highly interactive American system, this produced richness and variety of experiences that made him ill equipped to accept narrow or provincial interpretations of humanity or actions (Cuzzort and King, 1995: 156).
Social change, revolution and changes in basic institutions had unfolded around him, grinding the life out of many he knew. Two world wars and a cold war would influence his career. Book titles like Sociology of Revolution (Sorokin, 1967), The Crisis of Our Age, (Sorokin, 1992), Power and Morality (Sorokin and Lunden, 1959), and Hunger as a Factor in Human Affairs (Sorokin, 1975), show his wide-ranging interests and the influence of the historical events to which he was determined not to be a passive witness.
The early influence of the Russian Orthodox Church and mysticism affected his ideas (Johnston, 1995: 2-4). Supporting a revolution that turned out to put in a new regime that was worse than the previous must have also affected him, along with the terror and deprivation of real-world events that few survived. This may have given him a sense of mission or responsibility, to make sure that future social change is handled better than he saw it handled. To him, social issues were not armchair discussions; they were quite literally matters of life and death.
Theoretical Summary
After the famines and upheavals in Russia, Sorokin wrote on hunger and deprivation, and proposed that societies where hunger and plenty coexisted, higher criminality would occur as the relative deprivation causes friction and institutions of protection of possessions break down. (Sorokin, 1975: 226). He then widened his scope after immigrating to America.
Sorokin saw laws and societies as operating with two tensions, mirrored in the individuals. The ideational is drawn from sacred or higher law and the sensate deals with more earthy motivations. The norms of the ideational system are above such considerations as pleasure or utility, crime and sin being synonymous. Punishments range from supernatural (excommunication) to the physical and are rigid and inflexible. Authority comes from above and filters downward through the state (Sorokin, 1992: 121-127).
Sensate law is an instrument of subjugation, which is totally utilitarian and aimed at security of human life, property and possessions. This is a secular system, and non-utilitarian functions are avoided. A society can move back and forth between these poles, as can individuals in societies under stress. Punishments and rules are based on selfish interest and avoidance of pain (Sorokin, 1992: 121-127).
A person who sees life in a sensate manner will have no normative brakes to keep them from criminality. Desires and lusts rule them, and they know no other law save “might makes right”. Periods of social transition are especially prone to this kind of rootless-ness as ideational impediments are lessened. No longer bound by “higher” feelings, they then become morally relativistic and rationalize any outrage (Sorokin, 1992: 169, Sorokin, 1967: 158). Increases in suicides, insanity and criminality can be traced to the changes in society from ideational values to more sensate ones (Sorokin, 1992: 184-186).
Sorokin became interested in the crimes of governments and rulers, applying his ideational/sensate system to world leaders and affairs. He denounced the Machiavellian nature of most politics and recommended the use of saints and sages, to lead by their example of heroic morality (Sorokin and Lunden, 1959: 181). The immoral (sensate) urges seem to be stronger in most rulers, and he advocated countering by using morally good, altruistic examples to counteract the inherent criminality of the ruling classes (Sorokin and Lunden, 1959: 58).
The Criticisms
Sorokin's work expanded beyond present-day criminology and sociology into historical analysis and the nature of cultures. His statistical methodology has been attacked, as has his use of nonscientific and even mystical categories in his classifications of ideal and sensate cultures. He has also been attacked as being non-objective, showing preference for one model over the others and injecting personal philosophy into his works. These are harsh criticisms for the author of a book on the problems of research techniques by other researchers.
Increases in rates of suicides, insanity and criminality are caused by the changes in society from ideational values to more sensate ones, according to Sorokin (1992: 184-186). Merton and Barber raised serious methodological questions about his techniques, challenging Sorokin's use of statistics in his work. They point out the author of a critical work on the problems of quantitative research should have a higher level of statistical expertise in his other works (Johnston, 1995: 242-243). Sorokin has also been accused of being unscientific in his approaches and "stacking the deck" to produce results needed to achieve his analysis of ideational and sensate trends by others (Cuzzort and King, 1995: 158).
He saw sensate culture as being morally bankrupt and relativistic, having abandoned ideational aspirations and controls. Broken homes and unstable families led to self-destructive tendencies and crime for the sake of feeding sensate desires (Sorokin, 1992: 130-131, 185). These positions led to accusations of bias toward a given direction in his analysis, favoring the ideational over the sensate (Foley, 1953: 212). Usher reviewed Sorokin's volume on ethics and law, and found Sorokin's reliance on ideal types to be poorly conceived and prone to reification. This undermined the value of his sorting of criminal and other tendencies in cultures (Johnston 1995: 122).
Science, philosophy, law and music all give indications of the leanings of a culture between the two poles of sensate and ideational, and anything could be categorized for analysis (Bierstedt, 1974: 28-30). Usher found Sorokin's analysis arbitrary and dogmatic, with issues of bias and credibility in implementation (Johnston 1995: 122). Munford also accused Sorokin of being guilty of reification in his categories, and noted his lack of objectivity (Johnston, 1995: 117). Sorokin's constant injection of his personal philosophy and his open preference for ideational culture were seen as indicating less than total objectivity. This allowed critics to avoid the scientific parts of his theories and attack him as biased and subjective (Foley, 1953: 212).
Sorokin has been criticized for including religious concepts operationally in his work in a field that prides itself on scientific objectivity. The ideational is drawn from sacred or higher law and the norms of the ideational system are above such considerations as pleasure or utility. Coming from holy writ, it cannot be questioned or mitigated (Sorokin, 1992: 121-127). . Sorokin was also criticized for including such concepts as godheads and souls in his analysis (Foley 1953: 211). Sidney Hook attacked Sorokin's work as metaphysical and unscientific, saying the principles Sorokin uses have no explanatory power and are tautological in nature. Sorokin's judgments were made from visceral reactions to the material, not on an analysis of objective traits (Johnston, 1995:115).
Robert Bierstedt was a former student of Sorokin's, and his criticisms sum up most of the criticisms of Sorokin in one arena (Bierstedt, 1975: 12-27). . He accused Sorokin of setting up "straw men" and ignoring contrary issues in analyzing sensate and ideational trends (Bierstedt, 1975:15-16). He attacked Sorokin's use of terms like '"feelings" and "senses" as operationally poorly defined and inappropriate for classifications of traits, essentially a mystical method and not a scientific one. Sorokin's arguments conclude as tautologies, in a "stale and meaningless hypothesis" reinforced by circular arguments (Bierstedt, 1975:19). He also accused Sorokin of seeking answers in mysticism rather than science to discover and classify trends (Bierstedt, 1975: 19).
Bierstedt allowed Sorokin a refutation, which sizzles with animosity and denigration. Sorokin countered that if Bierstedt had the proper mentality, knowledge of the facts, and better logic, he would have actually understood the theories (Bierstedt, 1975: 27-30). Regrettably, this is a representative example of the storms that surrounded Sorokin.
Foley noted that much of the criticism of Sorokin was clouded by emotional reactions to Sorokin's attacks against his contemporary social scientists (Foley, 1953: 212). Sorokin's sarcasm and combative attitude affected people's reactions to his theories, and he must share part of the blame for the lack of enthusiasm and usage of his ideas in criminology and sociology.
It is difficult to analyze or construct a strategy for dealing with criminality under such circumstances. The usage of apparently non-scientific techniques combined with real questions of objectivity, makes the application of Sorokin's concepts to criminal behavior difficult. There may be valuable uses for his analysis and statistics, but an objective quantitative framework will have to be constructed for general acceptance in the criminological community.
His Legacy
The Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS) archives list no papers or presentations concerning Sorokin or his major concepts of sensate and ideational culture. The American Society of Criminology (ASC) listings also show no papers or articles. Similar searches in related criminological databases also show no listings actually dealing with criminological applications of his theories. His influence is found earlier in the Twentieth Century.
Sorokin is still included in texts on sociological theory (Cuzzort and King, 1995: 155-176), however his influence in sociology is also decreasing. A search of the Social Sciences Citation Index yielded 347 citations, which use Sorokin or his theories. Citations for the decade of the 1990's list only 27, almost all in Russian journals. A recent book gave a centennial assessment of Sorokin's work in 1997 (Bested, 1997: 390-391), and an article comparing Tarde's and Sorokin's theories on diffusion appeared in 1999 (Katz, 1999: 144-156). An article compared him with Solzhenitsyn, concerning critiques of American culture, somewhat unfavorably (Christensen 1996: 383-392). His statistics are still being used, most recently in an article on historical warfare versus nuclear war (Roland, 1998: 67-69).
His most lasting contribution to criminology has been made through the work of others. In Fads and Foibles in Modern Sociology (Sorokin, 1965), Sorokin attacked the quantitative focus of the social sciences (including criminology) in a way prescient of the modern post-modernist and critical movements. C. Wright Mills used the critiques made by Sorokin as a basis for his monumental work, The Sociological Imagination (Mills, 2000). Mills wrote him about his contribution, and Sorokin noted ironically that his work is not cited in Mills's book (Cuzzort and King, 1995: 166). Mills' book is still used and taught in criminology, and held in high esteem.
Robert K. Merton was a graduate student under Sorokin (Johnston, 1995: 75), and credits Sorokin with igniting his interest in sociology and the social sciences (Johnston, 1995: 75, 231-232). Like C. Wright Mills, Robert K. Merton still is studied in criminology and the social sciences.
Comments about Sorokin and his theories range from "severe and sarcastic" to "unexcelled powers of penetration" (Cuzzort and King, 1995: 155). P. A. Sorokin "was driven to the margins of a discipline hungry for acceptance as a science and eventually into exile from it" (Sorokin, 1998: 2). People have been intrigued, challenged and inspired by his ideas, but a new modification for criminological use has not yet emerged.
References:
Bierstedt, R. (1975). Power and progress. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Bierstedt, R. (1997). Sorokin and civilization: a centennial assessment (book review). Contemporary Sociology, 26, (3), 390-391.
Christiensen, B. (1996). Pitirim S. Sorokin: a forerunner to Solzhenitsyn. Modern Age, 38, 383-392.
Cuzzort, R. P. and King, E. W. (1995). Twentieth-Century social thought (5th ed.). New York, NY: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Foley, A. S. (1953). Pitirim Alexandrovitch Sorokin. In Mihanovich, C. (ed). Social theorists. (pp. 201-215). Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company.
Katz, E. (1999). Theorizing diffusion: Tarde and Sorokin revisited. (The social diffusion of ideas and things). The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566, 144-156.
Mills, C. W. (2000). The sociological imagination. New York, NY: The Oxford University Press.
Pfhol, S. (1994). Images of deviance and social control. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Roland, A. (1995). Keep the bomb. Technology Review, 98, (Aug/Sept), 67-69.
Sorokin, P. A. (1959). Social and cultural mobility. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Sorokin, P. A. (1967). The sociology of revolution. New York, NY: Howard Fertig, Inc.
Sorokin, P. A. (1975). Hunger as a factor in human affairs. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
Sorokin, P. A. (1992). The crisis of our age. Chatam, NY: Oneworld Publications, Ltd.
Sorokin, P. A. (1998). On the practice of sociology. Barry V. Johnson, editor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sorokin, P. A. and Lunden, W. A. (1959). Power and morality: who shall guard the guardians? Boston, MA: Porter Sargent Publishers.