ZNANIECKI'S PHILOSOPHY OF CULTURE
EMCA Seminar (Summer, 2013)
"William I. Thomas as a Collaborator" (1948) Sociology and Social Research 32 (1948): 765-767. LINK at The Mead Project
"Comment by William I. Thomas on Blumer's Appraisal of The Polish Peasant in Europe and America" (1939) LINK at The Mead Project.
"The Analysis of Social Processes. "Publications of the American Sociological Society: Papers and Proceedings, Twenty-seventh Annual Meeting. XXVII (1932): 37-43. LINK at The Mead Project.
Reviews of The Polish Peasant in Europe and America
Garfinkel refers to Thomas in his formulation of "common culture". Harold Garfinkel 1956a "Some Sociological Concepts and Methods for Psychiatrists" (Dated as: Friday Afternoon, January 27, 1956) Psychiatric Research Reports, vol. 6: 181-195. Work cited: Mannheim 1952, Schütz 1955. Parsons 1951, Parsons 1953, Goffman 1952, Hiz 1954. W.I. Thomas is referred (without citation of source) in the page 185 (Emphasis(in bold fonts) is printed originally in italic).
Sociologically speaking, "common culture" refers to socially sanctioned grounds of inference and action that people use in everyday life, and which they assume that other members of the group use in the same way." †
Harold Garfinkel 1949 "Research Note on Inter- and Intra-Racial homicide." Social Forces, vol. 27:370-381. (in which HG used the court records.). His reading of the discourse is phenomenologically informed; He wrote (at 376),
From the point that murder is "recognized" until the case is finally disposed of, the offender is involved in a system of proceduresof definition and redefinition of social identities and circum- stances. These definitions represent the ways of attending, the "attitude" in Edmund Husserl's sense of this term,(note 7) with referenceto which offender and offense mean whatever they do mean as ob- jects of court treatment.
Bibliography from Robert Bierstedt Florian Znaniecki: On Humanistic Sociology-Selected Papers. The University of Chicago Press, 1969: pp.303-309.
In "experience and reflection", chapter 2 of Cultural Reality, Znaniecki wrote:
We emphasize the point to have an object given. DFor we are not investigating here consciousness, that is, the way in which the concrete individual sees "himself" esperiencing, but merely the form which the data of experience assume in the course of experience; our problem is not psychological, but phenomenological.
DATUM / EXPERIENCE
-- "By 'datum' I mean anything that anybody is aware of; by 'experience' anybody's awareness of anything." ("What Are Sociological Problems?"( Znaniecki 1954/1994) : 23..
COMMENTS & REVIEWS
2013.1.22 Richard grathoff "some phenomenological motives in florian Znanicki's Early Sociology" in what are sociological problems? 1994
Parsons on Thomas & Znaniecki
"It seems to have been the previous assumption, largely implicit, for instance, in the thinking of Weber, of W.I.Thomas, and in my own, that there was, as it were, one "action-equation." The actor was placed on one side-"oriented to" a situation or a world of objects which constituted the other side. The difficulty concerned the status of "values" in action not as the motivational act of "evaluation" of an object, but as the standard by which it was evaluated- in short, the concept of "value-attitudes" which some of you will remember from my Structure of Social Action. I, following Weber, had tended to put value-standards or modes of value-orientation into the actor. Thomas and Znaniecki in their basic distinction between attitudes and values had put them into the object-system.
Emphasis (underlining) was added by me. Source: "The Prospects of Sociological Theory,"(1950) in his Essays in Sociological Theory (Revised Edition, 1954 and 1949, The Free Press: p.357.)
Parsons 's The Structure of Social Action (1937, 2nd edition 1949)refers to Znaniecki (1934) as :(p.773)
"similar in a number of repects" in "Attempting Durkheim's substantive results in a systematic scheme of the structure of action."
Also at the page 30:
It is a great service of Professor Znaniecki to have poionted out that essentially the same facts about "man in society" may be stated in any one of four different schemata of this character, which he calls "social action," " social relationships," " social groups" and "social personality." As far as the present interest goes the terms are practically self-explanatory. It may be noted though thtat the schema of social personality relates not to "psychology" but to the concrete individual. as a memer of society, belonging to groups and in social relationships to others.