@
UNiversity 4-3200 ; or hes 5 [ritee ty Cmte iiip 5
sf 2 6 27e + 2d
BUREAU OF APPLIED SOCIAL RESEARCH ,.... Jo
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
427 West 117TH STREET New York 27, N. Y. vs
February 26, 1951
Dear Jane and Reinhard:
Sendix and Lipset ride again,.or virtue gets rewarded, To be it short
and. SNAPPY s sometime last evening,. it was unanimously agreed that . one
Reinhard “endix should be invited as a Visiting Professor to the “raduate
Department for. next year. The circle went Lipset to Lynd to Lazarsfeld to
Werton. That is, “Lynd talked Lazarsfeld into it, and he got Merton to
agrees The facts. behind the arrangement are that Lazarsfeld will be half-
time in the. Department, as he will be the head of the new planning pro-
gram for research training in the social sciences, and beaa will be away
on sabattical during the first semester, while Abel's part-time arrange <-
ment is ended. This meant that we have money for a one year appoint-
ment. We had been going around in circles as to who to ask, and you are
finally it.
It is understood, however, and you will be officially informed of
this that the offer is definitely only a one year offer, for two reasons.,
1) there is no guarantee that there will be money available to renew the
appointment, though ofcourse there is always a real possibility “hat
momey could be gotten from the administration, 2) Boh Merton is still
fer from convinced that you are the right man, and no one wants to
override his feelings, given the tacit assumption that each member of
the department has a veto over new appointments. Merton is, however,
muszk much more flexible than people who do not know him well give
him credit for being. As some one said of him, he is colld outside
but very warm inside.
As you can imagine Lynd, 4erb Hyman and I ere very happy about this.
It should be a very fruitful year.
There are, ofcourse a number of technical difficulties to be
cleared upbefore everything is official. First, is the matter of salary .
You will be a Visiting Associate, Given the budget situation, you probe
abaly will be offered $6,000, or perhaps a little more, This migure may
be raised as of October lst since the Trustees of the Univers ty voted
2 10% per cent increase as of that date, provided that student enroll-
ment does not drop sharply. Tuition fees for next year have been -raised
20%, and this increase will be used for salary increases if the .students
are not scared off by it. The increase is not announced and will not
be official until studert enrollment is known, In addition to the regular
salary, you can teach next summer at the salary of $1200. In other words
for the year, you probably will have at least $7200 with the possibility
of an additional $600 to $1000. I realize that the first figure will
probably mean a loss for you in money, but I would take it if I were you.
Secondly is the matter of courses. A normal teaching load here is
two two hour tecture courses, plus one two hoor seminar, The classes are
all two hour sessions so that one can get them oven with in two or
three daya. In addition, one is expected to hold two office hours of at
least an hour each, In terms of your intersts, some courses are already
Divisions: MAss COMMUNICATIONS AND POLITICAL BEHAVIOR ® URBAN AND Housinc RESEARCH ® PopuULATION RESEARCH
INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL RESEARCH @ MARKET RESEARCH @ RESEARCH TRAINING ® TABULATING AND STATISTICS
|
blocked off. I give a one year course in Social Stratification so that
would unfortunately be out. Marcuse has been invited to give one one year,
course which prbably will be Thepries of Social Change. Cy Goode who is
to be chiarman of General Studies will give a required one year grad
course in Social Bheory. Social Psych is not politic to give in terms of
relations with Psychology.I would suggsst that you offer your bureaucracy
course, your contemporary issues..dn sogial theary, pointed up as a course |
in the Socialogy of Knowledge. A course in Historical Sociology, if you jwtlr hioljeet
th ink that you can work one up. The latter Is recognized as the princi-
pal gap in present department course offerings. In addition, you may be
asked to give a Master's Seminar, That is,,a seminar in which epople will
work on and report on their M.A. projects.. One of the present department
difficulties i@ the fact that Hyman and I are supervising too many
M.A. theses, and a new man is expected to allievaite out load. If the
Master's Seminar works out, then you probably would only give two or psitaps
three ene term leacture courses, but that can be worked out. I am writing
all this now so you can be advised as to what courses. toduggest.
~ Regard ng work on your Managerial project, 1 am sure that Dan Bell
will be very cooperative in helping you get and use’ Fortune materialse
Yhere are some pepple in the business sohool and in engineering who
alsa should be worthwhile.
On the more mundane level of housing, Lynd:and J will do all that we
can, I am sure that there must be a number of Columbia: people who will be
out of town for a year, and whose: houses you can rent. The best thing ,ofcourse
would be if you could work out an: exchange.
Regarding telling people at Berkeley. 1 would hold off for a week
or so until everything can be cleared at this end and you get a more
official letter. I would also stress when yourdo tell them, the fact that
you are filling in for people on leave, I realize that after the experience
with me a number of people may be a bit dubious about the temporary
character of the job, but factually that is soe
One other amusing item. There is a good possibility that Eberhard
may be offered a one year's research job with the Bureau on the South
Asis project. If this works out, gad and zoundse
I shall write again on Saturdey re the reader and mobilitye Have
you checked with Rashen about my runse
- The whole family has been down with bad colds, but we are gradually
recovering. Hope all is well with you. Let me know pronto your reaction
to all this,
| y i AL
| ad
_ we ™'
© a
~
Ya
- ~~
™ “
\ ~ a
= *
St
Q
~"
@
© x
Y A
a
ae
J
~
. a
~
0
een AN® YY)
iS - _
:
: s os + 1201 oe
| CLASS OF SERVICE SYMBOLS
This is a full-rate ( 24) e DL=Day Letter
Telegram or Cable- ©
| ram unless its de- NL= Night Letter
erred character is in-
dicated by a suitable LT=Int’l Letter Telegram
symbol above or pre- -
ceding the address. VLT=Inr'l Victory Ltr.
N A «8 W. P. MARSHALL, PRESIDENT za
The filing time shown in the date line on telegrams and day letters is STANDARD TIMI at point of origin. ‘Time of receipt isSTANDARD TIME at point of destination
NAO54 PD=NEWYORK NY 5 615A=
REINHARD BENDIX=
DAR STCLARE HOTEL 162 EAST OHIO ST CHGO:
‘CANT MAKE CONVENT I!
“dieuni TION VERY SHORT IN TIlE AND MONEY LETTER
*MARTY=
THE COMPANY WILL APPRECIATE SUGGESTIONS FROM ITS PATRONS CONCERNING ITS SERVICE
(nee
) for a Reader on Urban Sociology wit
September 17, 1951
Dr. Seymour M. Lipset
Department of Sociology
Columbia University
New York, New York
Dear Martys
I have your letter of September 11. I think it is fair to say that our
recent correspondence has been characterized by a certain irritation on
my part and a certain amowmt of apologetics on yours. I would have much
preferred to have argued this out in person because as Heine once said,
"The written word is without shame". However, the time has come I think
to say it, orally or otherwise, and I have no choice,
Your failure to come to Chicago is in my judgement not properly explained
“tr the circunstances that you mentioned. I had made it a point to be in
Chicago for a whole week in the expectation that we would have the opportun-
ity to get some work done. If I were to take your explanation seriously
I would marvel at the promptness with which inescapable circumstances
manage to appear at the proper time to make up your mind for you. As I
may have written before, I do not believe in the so called cross-pressures
to this extent. I do not write this to express my personal annoyance.
Rather I refer to the fact that you have involved yourself in such a
variety of projects that I personally question your ability to carry them
oute The details of this I shall comment on in a moment but the principle
of it needs to be stated bluntly. Kaplan told me that you had contracted
1Siddalibddebome 5 you have $12,000 for the
I.T.U. study, we were to work on three separate projects together, Labor
Mobility, The Stratification Reader, and Study of the Flites. I t to
emphasize that this has to do with our future collaboration th the
question of whether or not you are coming back to Berkeley. However,
there is this much parallel, that you have consistently avoided making a
decision at the same time that you have created a situation for yourself
which amounts to a decision in fact. I think youSMould realize that
patience is running out on the part of every_pody involved and that in-
cludes myself. Nisbet said this morning that he would expect to have a
decision by the middle of October since your previous indecision amounts
to a negative answer in effect. My om conclusion with regard to our
collaboration is simply that I will confine myself to the Stratification
Reader for the time being and that I would want to have convincing evid-
ence that you have the necessary time before I consider any other projects.
I shall comment briefly on the three projects:
Labor Mobility
T received a copy of Mrs. Hughes letter to you and I am pleased that this is
a
~—6« Toe
From:
Lipset
Bendix ale
; Ganadian
working out. The second article will be sent shortly to the Gazaedl Journal
at the suggestion of Lloyd. I take it that you are still working on geo-
graphic mobility also, 3
Let me add a word concerning the project as a whole. As you know my involve-
ment with it is peripheral. However I gather that there are three or four
additional articles scheduled and it is my judgement that you will not have
the time to work on them. You should khow also that Clark was taken aback
by the fact that he came up to New York to collaborate with you and it
turned out that you did not have the material available. In general it is
fair to say, I think, that it is poor strategy to take on new commitments
before having completed old ones. I think it would be best if you would
indicate to Clark in a formal way how you expect to complete this project.
— of Elites 3
a talk about this with Jerry at Chicago. His feeling was that it could
not be published as it stood and I tend to agree with him. I think that
what is called for is not simply additional patchwork but a reworking of
materials either in the direction of social mobility or in the direction of
power, but not in both. Jerry expressed an interest in having a piece on
social mobility and he was quite skeptical about the possibility of doing
something on power within a short period of time. His judgement on this
seems sound, except that I do not 8% ae jack eoule go ahead with either
of these projects until some of thes J completed. However it may
be possible that some of what we have can be reworked into an article on
Social Mobility in the United States for the Reader.
Social Stratification
This is obviously the project we should work on first of all. As far as I
can see there is nothing to keep you from working on section C and the
appendix. I expect, during the next month? to make a first draft of the
introductory essay and to make a selection for section D. Let me hear how
you will procede and I shall let you know as soon as possible what I plan
to do.
With reference to Hughes —— my impression is that the matter is settled. At
any rate we will need a very clear indication from him before anything more
can be done since the last stage of the discussion was that we could not
meet the Chicago salary. I gather that he is getting $10,000 next year in
the expectation of getting $12,000 within the next two years.
You may be interested to know that the position of the Full Professorship
has been restored to the budget for 1952-53. I think it is fair to say that
your own preferences concerning the candidates for this position will carry
weight in the discussions here when you have definitely decided to return.
Prior to that it will, I think, be generally assumed that you have decided
to stay at Columbia. I believe that this is all for today. Give my best
to Elsie and David, whose experience of the world is, I am sure da more.
definitive kind than that of their husband and father.
Cordially yours,
Reinhard Bendix
P.S. I had a letter from L'Horbe saying that he would send you the proofs
but that the book would not be published until the Fall of 1951 or the Spring
of 1952. I rather think he meant the Spring or Fall of '52.
RB/pre
Columbia Gniberstty
inthe City of Mew Pork
[NEW YORK 27, N. Y.]
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
September 17, 1951
Dear Reinhard:
tam sorry that I could not make the convention and see
you. I had been looking forward to it as I imagine you wer for
a mumber of reasons, but two obstacles came up. The first was the
money. I made the mistake of getting a new car during the summer
because the station wagon just collapes on mé, and the strain of
monthly payments has had us going in the red, Psychologically,
I got hit on it justvat the wrong time, as we found ourselves
on vacation with no money in the bank, At any rate going to
Chicago would have meant borrowing further, and paying off
more debts on our limited budget just seemed too difficult.
Secondly, and more important, however, was the fact that
f am starting on my interview study of the I.T.U., and I have
been having some trouble in getting time from the union officials,
Becasue of a change in administration plus current ontract
negotiations, they have been difficult to see. I came back a
week early from my vacation in order to see them before going
to Chicago, and found that they would only make an appoint-
ment for last Thursday, I felt that I had better take it for
one just could not know when the next appointment would come and
tempus fugit. I am sorry about having to miss you, but I hope
that we can cover what we have to do by mail tho personal contact
would be infinetly preferable,
To get down to cases:
1) On the Elite piece - I do not know what Jerry Had to say
about his publishing it. If he wants it, ow we decided to publish
it elsewhere, either with Lerner or with Cal. Press, I think it
can and should be expanded. The section on mobility can be broadened,
and a conclusion is necessary. I can do both. Let me know what
you think on this. I will as I wrote earlier proofread the French
piece,
2) On Sueiak Labor Mobility - The A.J.S. will publish it in
two sections, I am sure that they will not take the second piece,
It is too long for them, I have nojournal suggestion for it, and
I would suggest separate phamplet publication by the University
Series, It can probably then be put togather with the A.J.S. one
in one Institute phamplet.
I have been working on the leisure stuff which may get finished
soon if I ever get all thi tables I need. I mst try and get a
set of the leisure cards agmim for writing to Berkeley just takes
too long, and
ideas get lost in the shuffle. I think that the study will end
up with four articles unless, someone else at the Berkeley
end is willing to work with me on the analysis.
3) On the reader - I am ready to go on it anytime that
you say. I think our first job is to divide up the respective
sections, go thru andk make judgements on the material, then
write various introductions. I am axious to start this as soon
as possible. I have gohe thru most of the material andit is
now largely a job of selection.
For the larger question of future place of residence. I
have nothing new to contribute except the promise that I will
let everyone know by the end of this year. I have not realiy
given the matter too much thought, as I did not wan» to get into
the idiotic situation I was in last year. The only thing that
I would like to ask from you some time, is a realistic evaluation
of the present state of the University and the department. I have
heard nothing but gloomy reports in the last few months about the
state of morale and social relations among the faculty in general.
One last item on this, the Hughes spent an evening with
us in Vermont. I spkoe at some length to Helen about ~erkeley,
and she said that they both were still very interested in it.
She was born on the West Coast and would like to live in Calif.
Did Highes give Ha a definite "no," when he saw him.
The family is quité well. David is now over 22 pounds and
30 inches long. He is busy teething and examining the world.
Elsie is getting ready to return to the world now that things
are a little settled.
Give my best to Jane, and everyone.
Regards,
é. ® oh
ag th "
a & f i
’. A, ff ra,
eo Ee
ti
Columbia Cinthersitp
inthe City of Hew Pork
[NEW YORK 27, N. Y.]
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
September 18, 1951
Dear Reinhard:
_f am sorry that you take the attitude that you do. I do
not intend to go in for any more apologetics as you call them,
For the record, I did not realize that your Chicago plans
involved any special planning because I would be in Chicago. I
had léoked forward to going, bo see you and clear up in person
our plans on the reader. AS I wrote before, I decided at the last
moment against it, because ca tain appointments came up which
were crucial to my Typo study, andm my justification to the
family budget for going was low, (It is simply a fact that we
had gotten deeply in the red #his summer, which was stupid planning
or lack of it on our part, but it occured.)
Now on mur committments:
1) I do not have the committment to do the Urban Book, I
dropped it when the Typo study becme a redity.
2) On the Elite study, I had frankly not given it mamh
thought in terms of considerable rewriting or expanding. I told
Jerry about the essay, and he saidthat he wanted to see it as
a pessibility for a short book, but a the time I did not think
it warranted such a book. I agree that expansion of the baak
essay into a book would proabably best be done in terms of
social mobility. That, however, would require considerably more
work than we have done, and I would like to see Goldhammer's
work before I definite ly decided on it. At any rate in view of
poth our committments, I would put it off until nex summer at
least.
3) On the Reader,,I will go aead with my sections. I would
suggest that we keep records of all materials that we go thru,
and then exchanage opinions on each section, which we can cross-
check.
4) On Mobility, I shall do as you suggest and write Clark,
Now re the department, I have simply not given it any
thought as I wrote before. If you ad Nisbet want a decision from
me within a few weeks , you can prombably get it. I frankly
do not want to make it until December , at least, as mmkhingx
the term , here, has not even started. However, I am in no
position to make or set conditions.
Elsie and Vavid are both doing wel, though having to
pick up a 25 pounder sort of wears her out. Teething also
bothers David at night, and then he bothers us. But the joys
of parenthood make up for all of it.
Elsie sends her best. I hope Karen, Eric, and “ane are
doing well, 7
Besty
Unt
September 24, 1951
Dear Marty: 4
I have never been actually to a boxing mtch, but when I read your letter of the
18th I thought of nothing so much as the phrese ",...and go in there and start
swinking." Of course, I understand that the art of boxing consists not only in
swinging but also in hitting, but I shall pass the metaphorical allusions by,
fax You may be sorry about the attitude I take, but I am far sorrier. However,
I get the impression that your receiving set xt is a little out of order, and I
shall therefore heave to tell you. It is abouta year now since you left here. Since
that time I have timkimeg taken the position, as your local advocate you might Say,
that (a9 you would certainly fulfil your obligations to the institute, even if it
took a little long and (b) you were genuinely undecided about Columbia vs. Berkeley
so thet we should give you as much time as you maiz needed to mike up your mind,
When you wrote me some months ago thet you wonted to see me in Chicago, I was very
_ pleased and was naturally looking forward to talking ovor various pending matters,
our various projects 9s well as the question of your retum,. I was well aware that a
you would probably not tre mode up your ming, but at any rate I expected to get
some impressionof the odds, Wie I casually mentioned that I expected to see you ©
in Chicago, the impression around tris probably much the same, Now that you did not
show up at all, the impression is generally, and my impression is also, that you
may just be stringing us along. My particular reason for suspecting that you ere no
_ longer free to decide on returning to Berkeley, even if you porhaps wanted to at a
later time in the year, is your commitment on the ITU study, since it my be difficult
to complete the study within one year. And of course, it will be difficult to know
until the end of the year whether the study can be completed at that time, hence
you will not really be in a position to tell us sttxt anything officially before June
of next year, let alone in December or "in the next few weeks." Now, you can correct
these impressions, if you care to; at any rite, these are the impressions which your
failure to come to Chicago created. They arse from the situation, to be sure, and I am
far from discounting e#ll cross-pressures altho my xz earlier strictures still stand;
but since they arise from the situation they ere rather difficult to dispel. Hence I
felt that you should realize, that your voice in depertmentel affairs would probably
not carry much weight, as long as you have not declered yourself. I also felt that
I could not very well continue my role as advocetus Lipseti, which I had played the
previous year. And I firally felt tret I had been left way out on a limb, and the ohly
thing I can do now is draw inmy horns and not say much of anything. Consequently, we
not only lost your voice in departmental affairs, but in effect mine also, at any rate
in so far as the two of usm has certain interests in common in terms of the departmental
development.
On the question of the various projects, which is of course separate from the above,
_ I am quite satisfied with your answers. I have two rescarch assistants this year, and ~
one of then will start by preparing a bibliography of "nglish articles on socisel stratifi
cation in countries other than the US. I would like to have your suggestion concernin
possible topics to be covered in this section D, esp. whether we should try to model
it somewhat after the section onthe US. Some of this depends of course on what is avai-
lable. I am also soing to read up on the articles on theoryin connection with my seminar
this semester
4
?
be
ea) rm 4. % P fo 5 Vcr fh, - e, eo ‘ Shm ur . Tos 4
That seems to be all for now. The family is quite well, Eric
old today?
Ss already 4 months
With best regardsto all,
Columbia Cuihersity
inthe City of Meu Pork
[NEW YORK 27, N. Y.]
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
November 1, 1951
Dear Reinhard:
I suppose by now that you have seen the letter that I wrote to Ed,
Basically as far as my decision goes, there is little more to say. I have
probably said or written far too much about it over the past year. I
suppose the self-flattery of being at the place that I consider the best
one in Sociology is too much for me to turn down, There are, however,
all the ties of family and home which are not small for Elsie and me.
I am sure that you will disagree with this, and as you know I am far from
certain what the right decision is, but I had to get off the pot, and these
decision making periods are absolutely hellish for me.
I realize that my decision really affects you more than anyone. All that
I can say is that I hope that the damage is not irremediable, in terms of
what happens to the department. Phil will certainly be a source of intellectual
and teaching strenght, and given the drastic tightening of the academic labor
market, and the Regents new decision (which I do not completely understand)
it should not be impoxs difficult to get good people.
With regard to you and Columbia. I ofcourse do not know what your
reaction would be to an offer from here, and there is no edrtainty that one
will eventuate. However, at present, half the department, Lynd, Herb Hyman
and I want you, Lazarsfeld is indifferent to who gets the theory, historical
sociology appointment, and Davis and Mertonwould prefer a Parsonian. As yet,
the department has not discussed the problem openly. I imagine, however, that
Some decision will have to be reached by the end of this semester. I will try
my darndest to get it through, as in spite of this decision on Berkeley, I
consider it important that we can continue to work together,
Re some of our jobse 1) On the Social Mobility article for the AJS, I
have gone over it again after Helen Hughes made editorial changes and have
sent it off to her. It is somewhat shorter now than before, but nothing has
basically been changed in it.
2) On the strat reader, Wayne Hield is working for me as my Department
Assistant and his sole assignment is the reader. We are now setting up our |
article and section suggestions. I think that we can finish our suggestions within
three or four weeks.xixshaiixsandixyox What I shall do is to send you the
suggestions for good articles under each heading, and you can go over them,
while 1 go over your part. We can then choose those articles which we both
think are best. After making theses selections, we can write the introductory
sections, Let me know whether this procedure is satisfactory, and whether a
December 1 deadline for recommendations is convenient for youe
I guess that this is all for the business aspects now. I shall write
more latter, Plegqse give our regards to Jane and every one arounde
tats
AM,
, a ae
é Ket £ rn?
-
>
>
~~.
*
»
*
Be,
al
re
>
Columbia Gnithersitp
inthe City of HewmPark
[NEW YORK 27, N. Y.]
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
February 29, 1952
Professor Reinhard Bendix
Department of Sociology and Social Institutions
University of California
Berkeley, California
Dear Reinhard:
The enclosed official letter to you signed by Merton was in a
large part written by me as the second member of the Committee on
Personnel. I am enclosing this note just to let you know that
the official sounding tone of the letter does not indicate any
lack of warmth on Merton or anyone else's part in inviting you for
the year. I felt that on this basis, knowing the possible pressures
on you at Berkeley in terms of securing a year's leave, that the
more definite the letter is,that the offer on our part is for one
year only the better would be your position in getting the leave,
I would just like to add again a brief note that everyone here
sincerely feels that you would be a very good choice to meet our
needs for the coming year. If you need any other type of official
letter from the Department here, please let us know. TI hope very
much that you will want to come here. Elsie and I are looking
forward to really getting to know the Bendix children, and we
wouldn't mind seeing their parents again. Give Jane our regards
and tell her that she would enjoy the lights of the big city.
Best wishes,
Day
Se Me Lipset
SMLsbg
UNiversity 4-3200
BUREAU OF APPLIED SOCIAL RESEARCH
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
427 West 117TH STREET P New York 27, N. Y.
March 11, 1952
Dear Reinhard?
I received your two special delivery letters today unfortunately. I was
down with the flu and , therefore, was not in school yesterday. It does not
make too much difference since the department was unable to meet on your
appointment, because Lazarsfeld had to go out of towne We will now meet on
it tomorrow (Wednesday). It is hard to predict the outcome of the money prob=
lem, largely because money is in the hands of the Committee of Instruction,
and I would guess that a deinite summx will not be known for a week or moree
I shall do my best to speed things up, however. One thing which is not clear.
from your letter, however, is the salary question. You mention that you get
$7200. I presume that this includes summer session. Am I right or wrong about
this? Axx You are, therefore, presumably asking for $7200 plus expenses.
Tiis is out of the question as far as Columbia is concerned. I spoke to Herb
Hyman and Lynd about it the other day, and we a ed to fight for a regular
salary of $6500. Puakxiex To this one can add ¥1200 for the summer session
if you want it. In addition, we shall look into the possibility of getting
you a General Studies class here, which whould pay almost as much as Brooklyn
but would be on the Columbia campus. There may, however, be an asministrative
regulation against it. The #6500 can not be considered definite. This will
denend on the departnent 's other committmemts plus the attitude of the
Committee on Instructione I hope that matters can be worked out satisfactori
and you can be assured that we will fight for every cent we can get, but at
present do not count on more than $7200 from Columbia including summere
Re the one year appointment stress. I agree with you that the
comment was not without deeper meaning. Your past relations with Merton are
ofcourse meaningful, except for one minor facte You may have heard of a fight
within this department with one of its members who is a good friend of Merton.
One of the griewences of this guy was the fact that he lived close to Merton
and only saw him socially twice in two years. The fact about Bob is that he
finds social contact difficult. He often is warm inside but seems stoney
outside. I do not mean this as an apologia for him , but it is 4 fact. Yau
wamkt His personal relatio#s with a person are often nile I know he likes
Herb Hyman terrifically, yet Herh hae a real sense of insecurity for months
because Merton never spoke to him, except for a minute or twoe
Now re the reader. I am quite agreeable to pressing for an end of Apr
deadline. I think ther reader will not be as good as it can be by then, but
then it never will be. I have to reexamine your introduction closer to
see if I agree with your suggested changes and will write in a day or twoe
Tanks for writing to Jerry in defense of me, but I do not feel that I have
been terribly remiss on the whole thing. Both of us, if I may recall, have
taken on too many obligations than we can conveniently handle. I would
doubt thet I am working on fewer projects or articles than you are. Your
advice mm, which is good, applies to both of uSe
This, however, is a dilemma that Jerry faces as inherent in his readers.
Every person that he has had working on one, has also been working on a larg
number of other projects, Merton, Berelson, lazarsfeld, Hatt, ete. None of
them gave the reader his uppermost priority. We are actually much closer to
schedule than any of the others. The others, for the most part, show this
lack of time put in by the editors.
I think thet this is all for now. Wiil write again in a day or twoe
Seer
UNiversity 4-3200
BUREAU OF APPLIED SOCIAL RESEARCH
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
427 West 117TH STREET New York 27, N. Y.
Merch 13, 19528
Dear “einhard:
This is just a brief note to let you know the latest on the salary questip
As Goode may have already written you, he checked to see whether you could
also give a course in General Studies. It turns out thet you can provided
thet it is amckwkrminy an undergraduate course. He would like to you to give
a course innIndustrial Sociology. This is probably a good idea since it is one
of the courses that you suggested to Merton for a grad course. You probably
will not be able to give it as a grad course since Arensberg, in spite of
the fact that he will be in Antro, will continue to give Industrial Socio=
logye
A year course in General Studies will pay #800. It means a two hour
lecture course meeting once a weeke The depat. salary is not yet settled but
it will undoubtedly be $6000 and maybe mere. Summer as I wrote is $1200.
This means that you can be almost assured of $8000 if you want to tbeach
summers, with the possibility that it may be more if we get more money for
you or if a general increase actually comes through October lst. Ofcourse,
it also means a lot of teeaching, two grad lecture courses, one undergrad
lecture course and a grad seminar for a total of 8 hours in the week. These
can be scheduled pretty much at your own convenience.
I hope that this news meets your financial worries. Remember that we
will all do our best to raise it. I would guess that you will know finally
about the total amount within two weeks.
I guess this is all for now. I have reserved this Saturday to go over
all the strat material, and will write you further on the question thene z
have Pat West's paper in hand, and expect Hyman's in a week or 06+
Hope all goes well with you guys, and that your kidney troubles are
Mea?)
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
April 7, 1952
INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
BERKELEY 4, CALIFORNIA
i. Lipset
of Sociology
ia University
York 27, New York
Enclosed is a copy of my letter to Paul Lazarsfeld, I hope that nobody
there will misinterpret my decision, though I am probably wrealistic
in this respect. The fact is, as I mentioned in my letter to Merton,
tha would lose money, even if I was offered $2,000 more. Incidentally,
Wenyoo@y has any question on this point, I do not expect such an offer,
do I Jean to imply that the offer as it stands is not reasonable. It
d be #11 right if I lived in Brooklyn, for example, but it just will
no®& do someone living 3000 miles away. I just thought I would say
ough it should go without saying.
It is really too bad that it will not work out, especially because it
would have given us another chance to work together. If there was an~
ot hance like this a year later, it would be feasible for me probably,
be have a sabbatical coming in 1953-54. But that is a long way
of the meantime it has some usefulness for me to stay here during
the g year, since the changes in the Department as well as Clark's
fi year as Chancellor would make it desirable to be on hand,
Well, that is all for now. There are a number of letters you have not
pani iaty especially one concerning what deadline we should propose to
Jerry. (He has written me a conciliatory letter in the meantime, and
we should give him a definite date.)
Cordially,
Reinhard Bendix
RB/pre
Enclosure
UNiversity 4-3200
BUREAU OF APPLIED SOCIAL RESEARCH
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
427 West 117TH STREET New York 27, N. Y.
April 13, 1952
Dear Reinhard:
_ Excuse the red ink, but it is all that I have now. I have been writing
you a long letter dealing with a lot of our accumulated problems, whichnris not
yet finished, and some of which may be out of date by now. Lynd, however,
showed me the copy of the letter that you sent Lazarsfeld, and I am , there-
fore, writing specifically on it.
1) I assume that it was not written for bargaining purposes, If it was
written with any such hope, the chances are slight. We simply do not have the
money, and I doubt if it. could bs obtained. When you first made your financial
needs clear, Cezarsfeld and others hoped that either with extension, or summer
school, they could be met. This is ofcourse still true , but you are the judge
as to whether it would be worthwhile in that casez,.
2) On the question of your teaching load. There is one way in which it
could be lightened if you were interested. Originally, the dept. had an idea of
getting some one to run a Master's Seminar. That is a seminar in which 10 or
so M.A. candidates who were working in related areas could meet and present their
problens. This was not suggested to you since it was felt you would r&her have
the opportunity to teach. However, if you were interested, I think it could be
arranged so that you give one lecture course of 2 hours, one M.A. seminar of 2
hours, and a seminar for Ph.D students. On the latter, since Lynd will be off
in the Fall, you could join in mine in Political Sociology. In addition these
courses plus your office hours could be concentrated in 2 days. Any additional
arrangements withax Goode, or any one else would ofcourse be in addition to
this :
3) I imagine, however, that all the above does not change the situa-
tion much, There is one other fact, which again is not too important, but I
learned last week at the Eastern meetings that Lazarsféd had been telling people
at Harvard that you were coming to fill our slot for a historical and theoretic-
al sociologist; for a yera, and that you would be invited to stay on of all
went well, This conversatioj of PFL was presented in the context of his explain-
why you madea better candidate than a number of others, Again this does not mea n
anything, but it is interesting to to know.
1.) I guess thats all specifically on your decision, except to say that
from a personal and selfish standpoint I regret it very much, tho I can not
honestly say that I think it wrong. I could argue you wo ld have ,little to
lose, and maybe som&#hing to gain by coming, but qui sait? Herb Hyman and Bob
Lynd, I know also regret your decision. I have not spoken to anyone else anbout
it yext, and it may be that some specialz efforts will yet be made,
om
One other point before closing the letter, re your report on Clark!
converstion with Merton and Lazarsfeld. I wrote about 3 pages on it last
wesk , tore it up, and went to see the two of them seperately . As you
rassumed, I, had nof been doing any immediate thinking anout the possibility
‘of returning to Berkeley, and I was somewhat disturbed over your report,
therefore. Merton denied catego isally that he had ever mentioned a word
about me to Slark. Paul said that he had mentioned me while taking to Clark
in a group of people, all of whom were ‘kidding Clark about his new appoint= _
ment, Paul said, that the various people in the group were saying to Clark that
now that he ‘was Chancellor, they would expect good offers from berkeley. Paul
said that he had remarked.that he~did not want anything from “erkeley, but that
he-was &fraid that Clark would offer. me a good job and that I might accept.
“Claims. this was yay eer in the context of joking, and that his remarks could
not be interpreted as meaning that I would be unhappy if I did-not get a
Berkeley offer, or that I was hoping to goes I do not know what to make of
these conflicting reports . If you ever get any further light on it, I
would appreciate hearing about it.
I have not told Elsie yet, but I am sure she will be sorry about
the decision. I guess this is all for now.
April 16, 1952
Dear Marty:
I received your special delivery letter this morning and I want to sit down and
send you a brief answer.
As to myself vis a vis Columbia. Of course, I am not bargamining. Already in my letter
to Merton I stated that I did not expect to earn anything extra through a year's transfer
to Columbia. And believe gm me: if I say that it would cost an extra $ 2000 to move the
family to New York I am deliberately understating the case. Since I had expressed an
interest in a year's stay at New York, I did not want to make the whole thing impossible
by an unreasonable demand. (That is why I simply disregarded that Jane earns between —
$ 500 ~ $1000 a year through her drafting work.)
Naturally, I appreciated your call and the interest which Lynd, Neumann, Herb, Charltes
and you take in the matter, But you understand of course that I must judge the matter
"somewhat coldly." It may well be that it would be important for my career, au but then
the entire risk of the situation is on me, as mtters stand at present. That I hear from
you privately that PL speaks favorably of me at Harvard is interesting, but what is
relevant is that RM writes me in unmistakable terms tmt this is a one-year appointment
to help them out with their teaching load. And if this is the need at present, whatever
their private speculations might be, then it is in my judgment unreasonable for a big
University to ask a man to help them out on conditions, which impose the entire financial
burden on that individual. Frankly, I would be extremely reluctant to accept san offer
under such conditions, even if I could afford it financkially, because it would put me
in a4n awkward position from the very start. As you know, money expresses faculty-relations
quite well, end the fact is that the Department at Columbia is inviting me ani should
pay for what it costs. If I simply absorbed the costs of taking the family to NY for a
year, I would declare in effect that I am much more anxious to go there than they are
to get me, This would misrepresent the facts « of the case as I see them, and it is also
important for my career that my actions in this respect make this unmistakably clear,
Fortunately, of course I am saved the embarsssment of being tempted in this respect, since
I simply cannot afford to accert the offer as it now stands. <= On the other hand, I
did not simply mke an idle suggestion when I wrote earlier that I would be interested
in @ year at @ Columbia; I meant it.
Now, let me say a word about the other matter. You are too emotional about these mat-
ters. When Clark reported this to me, he did not indicate thet PL had been jukemn joking,
but after all this might easily have been the gama case, and no further questioning
will clarify the mtter, It may have been a misunderstanding on Clark's part, or again
PL mighgt not have been too clder in making a joke of it. In any case, absolutely nothing
is gained by pursuing the matter further. Going to either of them and confronting them
with this cause celebre is obviously ummfiwh usdess, If they had really meant it, they would
not admit it, and if they had not they would only have a negative reaction in being
asked about it. You sound es unhappy about this, as you reported tm Herb Hyman to be
earlier in re. Merton's inability to express his persoml feelines. I am sorry that I
wrote you anything about this, but I could not judge what in hell it meant, and of course
I would dom what I could, if the report had been xx literally true. So, my advice to
you is to forget the whole business, Of course, as you said over the phone, this mise
understanding ixk itself does show something about the atmosphere there, which is certainly
unpleasant, Incidentally, what about the reported rifth between these two ulcer cases?
That is all for the moment. With best regards to all,
Me ee a eck eee
INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
BERKELEY 4, CALIFORNIA April 19, 1952
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Dear Martys
I received your telegram this morning, and Iw:nted to answer it right away. How~
ever ving trouble gettigg through to Western Union, so I'11 just send you
this Mote, airmail special delivery.
telegram I was going to send was the followings
“Not interested in a larger base salary than I earn here for a one-year
appointment
I want my expenses paid $ 7000 does not do that
Do not want you to press for anything beyonmd what the chairman is willing
to do anyway."
s together with my last letter to you should make my position clear,
already, it would be fatal if the conditions under which I accepted
gut me squarely between the two factions which obviously exist at
MbaMIf, as you indicate in the telegram and mka otherwise, Columbia was
interested in me in terms other than those contained in the Merton letter, i.e.
for the purpose of looking me over for a permanent position rather than a one~
year appointment, then I should be so informed. If this was the case, but PL
and M do not want to say so, that is allright with me too; but for obtaining my
services for a year, they would have to meet the expenses that a transfer
ly would involve. I am quite aware of the fact that there is not more
e budget; but I have been around Universities long enough to know ala,
Bre are emergency funds and other avenues through which money can be obtained,
is really desired. When you look at sm it in the larger sense, it is simply
not reasonable for a lagrge University to impose expenses on me, which it should
bear. (If a University invites a man to consider him for a position, they pay travel
expenses, etce) |
1l for now. My feeling is that the best thing would be to forget about
ants to go to bat on it, that is his business.
regards to Bob Lynd.
Cordially,
$i J
‘3
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
BERKELEY * DAVIS * IRVINE * LOS ANGELES * RIVERSIDE * SAN DIEGO * SAN FRANCISCO
SANTA BARBARA. * SANTA CRUZ
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94720
October 1, 1977
Professor Seymour M. Lipset
Hoover Institution
Stanford, Calif. 93405
Dear Varty:
Your “missive" with the tables of content of varsious stratification
readers has arrived and I looked through them. (This is food timing —
Since we just returned from Europe.) I was obviously reminded of
our last conversation concerning the Reader. —
In the course of the summer I have had some second thoughts about
my participation in this third edition. There are some facts I have
to take into account all of which mean that I feel I must economize
the use of my time. I am 62 next February and I am just launching
on a new book which is likely to be my last one, and is of special
importance to me (I think I sent you a prospectus earlier). I want
to do this while I still have the energy. Next year I need to undergo
an operation which will set me back some. I an currently negotiating
with Texas and Berkeley in order to find an arrengement whereby I
can spend the next three Spring quarters in Berlin in order to work
on this project.
All of this adds up to the feeling that my mind will be on other
things. My enthusiasm for stratification research has WHNERER waned
With the years and I dont see why a third edition should be burdened
by my delays and reluctances and probably grudging concessions of
time.
So, my suggestion is that you go ehead with Basu in any way you see
fit. I suppose I should state that I formally relinquish any claims
that mx might legally acrrue to me from having been a co-editor
of the first two editions. Possibly, this will make the whole nHeter
enterprise of greater interest to Basu as well.
I regret personally having come to this conclusion since it creates
another hiatus between us, but I trust it will not affect our old
friendship.
With best personal regards, also for Elsie,
- Cordially,
a . fe
AA ar (Cew
Reinhagd Pendix
25800 HILLARY STREET, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA 94542
CALIFORNIA STATE COLLEGE, HAYWARD
October 5/77
TO: Reinhard 3endix
FROM: Asoke Basu Cyu—y
Back copies of the correspondences to
Marty Lipset are enclosed. Kindly send
me your office hour(and the telephone
number) for the Fall Quarter.
TELEPHONE 415/538-8000
“August 22, 1977
Professor S. M. Lipset
Hoover Institute
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94365
Dear Marty:
Perusal of olagets ine Abstracts have now been completed. The
citations are ench oThe efoliee|ng sources have been reviewed (we
have tried our bes:
Abstracts
silitegiet et cae (1966-1976)
Pternational Bibliography of the Social
' = Sciences (1969-1975)
dnternational Political Sclence Abstracts” (1969-1976)
“Amertcan Economic Review (1969-1976)
Amertcan Historical Review (1969-1976)
- Pmertcan Journal of Sociology (1969-July, 1977)
American Political Sclence Review pti a
American Soclological Revie 369-1977)
British Journal of Sociol 69-1976) —
Canadian Review of Socl Anthropology (1369-1878)
Current Soclology (1969-' ‘Cal Stattem
receiving any longer)
i am now at work In developing a selected bibl lo raphy of “"Stratifi-
cation Readers’. We got back to town this Wednesday and the family is
falring well. By the way, have you had a chance to examine the ai
Tables on the academics. Do you wish for me to review any othe
or abstracts for the Reader? | wil! appreciate mailing me $100
of graduate assistance. . see
Trust Elste and you are well.
gy :
\Z bee: Professor Bendix . As ever,
Asoke Basu
Soclology
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ON STRATIFICATION ‘READERS!
Blumberg, Paul (Editor)
1972 The Impact of Social Class - Selected Readings, New Yorks Thomas
Y. Cromwell Company.
Crossick, Geoffrey (Editor)
1977 The Lower Middle Class in Britain 1870-1914. New York: St.
Martin's Press.
Feldman, Saul D. and Gerald W. Thielbar (Editors)
1972 Life Styles: Diversity in American Society. Boston: Little,
Brown and Company.
Glenn, Norval D., Jon P. Alston and David Weiner
1970 Social Stratification: A Research Bibliography. Berkeley:
Glendessary Press.
Gross, Ronald and Paul Osterman (Editors)
1972 The New Professionals. New York: Simon and Schuster,
Heller, Celia S. (Editor)
1969 Structured Social Inequality. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Jackson, J, A. (Editor)
1968 Social Stratification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kahl, Joseph A. (Editor)
1968 Comparative Perspectives on Stratification - Mexico, Great Britain,
Japan. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Laumann, Edward 0. (Editor)
1970 Social Stratification: Research and Theory for the 1970's. New
York: Bobbs-Merill.
Laumann, Edward 0., Paul M, Siegel and Robert W. Hodge (Editors)
1970 The Logic of Social Hierarchies. Chicago: Markham Publishing
Company.
Leeds, Anthony (Editor)
1967 Social Structure, Stratification, and Mobility. Washington, D. C.
Monograph Number 20, Pan American Union.
Lopreato, Joseph and Lionel S. Lewis (Editors)
1974 Social Stratification: A Reader. Harper and Row,
Mérner, Magnus (Editor)
1970 Race and Class in Latin America. New York: Columbia University
Press.
(4)
Parkin, Frank (Editor)
1974 The Social Analysis of Class Structure. Londons Tavistock Pub-
lications Limited,
Plotnicov, Leonard and Arthur Tuden (Editors)
1970 Essays in Comparative Social Stratification. Pittsburgh: Univer-
sity of Pittsburgh Press.
de Reuck, Anthony and Julie Knight (Editors)
1967 Caste and Race: Comparative Approaches. Londons J. and A,
Churchill Ltd.
Salaman, G. (Editor)
1972 Stratification and Social Class. Londons Open University.
Singer, Milton (Editor)
1973 Entrepreneurship and Modernization of Occupational Cultures in
South Asia. Monograph Number 12, Program in Comparative Studies
on Southern Asia, Duke University.
Singer, Milton and Bernard 5. Cohn (Editors)
1968 Structure and Change in Indian Society. Chicago: Aldine Publish-
ing Company.
Smelser, Neil J. and S, M. Lipset (Editors)
1966 Social Structure and Mobility in Economic Development. Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Company.
Thielbar, Gerald W, and Saul D. Feldman (Editors)
1972 Issues in Social Inequality. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Tumin, Melvin M, (Editor)
1970 Readings on Social Stratification. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-
Hall.
October 6, 1977
Professor Ashoke Basu
Department of Sociology
California State University
Hayward, California 94541
Dear Dr. Basu:
Thank you for your note of October 5. If you want. to reach me the best
time if to call me at 841-6621 in the morning,and we can then make any
arrangements for discussion or meeting as seems appropriate. My office
hours tend to get rather crowded, so I think it would be best if we
met separately.
However, I'm not sure there will be much occasion for this because I have
just sent a letter to Marty Lipset in which I reported on my deliberations
during the summer. He has not responded to that letter, and it may be a
little awkward to anticipate his acceptance of my proposal. However, I
should make you aware of the fact that I have indicated in my letter to
him my decision to withdraw from preparing a third edition of our joint
reader. In view of my long-standing friendship with Lipset, I have been
reluctant to reach this conclusion. But I will be 62 early next year, I
am just beginning a new project and the completion of such a project takes
me a minimum of three to five years, just in time for me to retire, so
to speak. In addition, I have had to come to terms with the fact that my
interest in social stratification has diminished in recent years and that
neither Marty nor you would benefit from a reluctant and possibly tardy
collaborator. My hope is that you will see this decision in a positive
light as an additional incentive for your participation. While I personally
regret having come to this decision, I think it is a realistic one, and I
wish you and Marty well in completing work on the third edition. I have
indicated in my letter to him that I was formally dropping any claims or
rights that might accrue to me from the fact that I was co-editor of the
first two editions,
With best personal regards.
Sincerely,
Reinhard Bendix
cc: S. M. Lipset
Hoover Institution
HOOVER INSTITUTION
ON WAR, REVOLUTION AND PEACE
Stanford, California 94305
December 29, 1980
Professor Reinhard Bendix
Department of Political Science
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720
Dear Reinhard:
For some unaccountable reason, your letter of March 26, with the enclosure
of pages 312-331 of your manuscript, apparently arrived at my home while I
was away and was somehow placed with a pile of third-class mail that included
various things. I only found it over the past weekend as I took advantage of
the break to clean my desk.
I have, of course, turned promptly to your materials which I read with much
interest. Your report of the loyalty controversy is accurate, as far as my
memory goes. I assume that you have checked out the basic facts with the
books and articles written on the controversy.
I would add only one factual item, circa page 324. As you may recall, the
initial proposal for an oath arose out of the Regents' reaction to an effort
in the Legislature to pass a non-Communist oath for all state employees.
Since the University is constitutionally autonomous, the only way to legis-
late an oath requirement for University employees would be through a consti-
tutional amendment. Such an amendment was introduced in the Legislature, and
many assumed that both the Act requiring an oath for state employees and the
Constitutional Amendment would pass. The suggestion that the Regents impose
their own oath was made in the context of trying to protect the autonomy of
the University, to avoid a change in its Constitutional status, a change
which would have required a referendum, and would have precipitated a public
debate and vote about its autonomous status.
Ironically, of course, the Legislature ultimately turned down both proposals,
so that the University was the only public institution which required an oath.
Hence, the effort to protect it had the precise opposite effect of what its
advocates intended. It is also ironic that John Neylan, the Regent who
ultimately became identified as the leader of the anti-faculty forces on the
Board, voted against the oath requirement when it first came up, on the
ground that such a measure should be discussed with the faculty and secure
their assent. He subsequently shifted his position, because he saw the issue
as one of Regents" prerogatives, that the faculty should not campaign against
a Regential action, once it was taken.
As far as your section generally goes, I feel that it lacks some of the
descriptive analytical detail that an event like this deserves. It may be,
Professor Reinhard Bendix page 2 December 29, 1980
of course, that you were outside of the organized caucus type activity, so
you can not report on it from first-hand experience. As I recall the
period, there were many meetings of non-signers and opponents of the oath
in the 1949-50 period, as well as hectic Senate Sessions.
The affair pointed up the lack of representativeness of the Academic Senate
Committee system. A number of negotiating committees were appointed by the
Committee on Committees to deal with the Regents. Each one, composed of the
faculty "leaders," the committeemen who ran the Senate, would meet with the
Regents, work out some new presumably more acceptable language for an oath,
and then get repudiated by the Senate. Kerr came to the top in the contro-
versy because as the chairman of the Nth committee to negotiate, he was the
first to really present the faculty view that a special oath was unacceptable,
no matter what the language. Neylan, as I recall, said that if only this
view had been presented from the start, the whole affair would not have
taken place.
As a result of these events, the Regents dropped the oath, and replaced it
by a statement in which faculty by signing acknowledged that they were aware
of the non-Communist employment policy, i.e., implicitly stating that they
were not Communists. The final small group of 31 non-signers refused to
sign this statement, not an oath. The Levering Act, of course, was passed
after all this.
The structural problem that occasioned the divisions was that the Senate
leadership was not representative or distinguished. They were committee
people, "locals" who generally accommodated themselves to the administration.
During "normal" periods they carried on the business of the Senate, but in
controversial times as in 1949-50 and from 1964 on, they could not lead or
represent the faculty, and were repudiated for their accommodationist poli-
cies.
The composition of the non-signers who met in large meetings in the Faculty
Club was interesting. The most left-wing members of the faculty including
the pro-Communists, did not lead, nor were they active in the fight.
The C.P. was not interested in defending the right not to be a Communist. At
the time, their tactic was to deny party membership. The left would say
that faculty as a group are politically unreliable, that they will capitu-
late under pressure, therefore a fight based on them should not be organized.
I recall Bob Brady at one of these sessions announcing that he would only
continue to refuse to sign if all the people in the room would sign a state-
ment that they would never sign, no matter what happened. He then proceeded
to pass out a blank sheet of paper for people to sign. He would type in the
appropriate statement over their names afterward. When no one signed his
blank sheet, he stood up and announced that since they were all cowards, he
would not stand alone, that he intended to sign the oath, and left.
The activists among the non-signers tended to be principled civil liber-
tarians like Tolman and Hodgen, or young people, mainly in the social
sciences and mathematical fields.
Professor Reinhard Bendix page 3 December 29, 1980
There was also a great deal of bitterness directed against those who
favored giving in. Bob Nisbet, as you will recall, lost his influence
because he cooperated with the old Senate leadership, a group which had
been pushing him for a major committee and administrative role.
As I recall also, the fight had the effect of bringing the Sociology and
Social InstitutionyDepartment together. Hodgen and Bock became friendly
with the strong non-signers among the Sociologists. Nisbet was now the
villain, not the others.
I suppose you do not want to raise personal issues, so that it may be
difficult to discuss much of this in your book. But these are some of
the thoughtswhich your discussion of the controversy raise in me.
I trust all goes well. It was good seeing you and Jame at the wedding.
David and Kathy are still in San Diego. They expect to leave for New Guinea
in February. I just finished a long addition for a new edition of Political
Man, .which deals with some controversies about its contents and updates it.
All goes well here otherwise. Best wishes for the New Year. I hope we
see you soon.
As ever,
Ma
Seymour Martin Lipset
Professor of Political Science
and Sociology
Z#-16-86
Department of Political Science
University of Cincirmati
Cincirnati, Ohio 45221-a375
Prof. Seymour M. Lipset
fils Hoover Memorial Bidn.
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94385
Dear Prof. Linset:
Thank you for your letter concerning cur manuscript, "Who Did Vote
for Hitler."
The primary challenge you raise deals with our stress on the
Significance of the election of 193. We doa indeed emphasize
that election, but we did net came te that pesition
independently. It was your impressive work and that of others
which led us there.
As you will recall, Gur primary focus was on the intellectual
dispute between you and Professor Bendix. This dispute centered
an whether the middle class followed the new voters into the Nazi
fold oar whether the new veters followed the middie class.
O*’Lessker also interpreted the disanpreemernt in this fashion as of
course did Shiviey in the APSR piece which you were kind enough
ta call te oqur attention.
On p.148 af beth the Anchor (1963) and Johns Hopkins (1981)
editions you deal explicitly with this issue in Summarizing you
theoretical departure from Bendix'’s observation that the previous
noanvaters were the major source of the "first oreat gain in Nazi
strength." Indeed, the carrelational analysis which figures soa
heavily in Bendix’s mistaken retraction of his position is based
on the 1932 election as the dependent variable.
We could cite numerous examples of why 193@ is critical to your
theoretical analysis but if the following is not convincing ,
nething will bes "The political interests of the apathetic,
however, can be awakened only by a mass(emphasis your) movement
which presents a simple (emphasis yours) extremist view of
politics. The Nazis did net fit this category from 1928-193a;
they, did, however, after 1932" (5.151, Political Man). This
quote net only demanstrates the importance of 1938 to your
dispute with Bendix, but simple reflection readily illustrates
that this idea is critical to your werk on authoritarianism and
apathy in the preceeding chapter of Political Man.
We could elaborate, but it seems somewhat inappropriate to remind
someane of the very streng and obvious campoenents of their own
thearizing.
With regard to the analysis of nom-voters referred to ain your
letters you seem ta indicate that this is something which stands
apart from the discussion of the defection of the middle class.
How can this be? Are not these behaviors part of the same
electoral universe, each cantributing to the final outceame of the
election?
We appreciate your calling the Kater work to cur attention, but as
you mast appropriately note, it deals with the secial background
oF party members and moat with voters. Party members are not cut
from the same cloth as party voters and a plethora of research
has cautioned us as to the liabilities of assuming they are.
We have read the 1981 edition and find nothing in it that changes
your pesition or directly bears on the issue. We Suggest you see
Dee Richard Wernette ,"Quantitative Methods in Studying Political
Meabilization in Late Weimar Germany, " Historical Methods
Hone eee Hines Steet Sneee CORED Satan SameY Renee eeten AaAee Sane Feeds Sante memen Faewe Genes
Newsletter, v.1@,3, Summer 1977,97-i181. Wernette notes a number
of reasoms( as did we) why the issue of whe voted for Hitler can
not be resclved by the methods you used. (We doa, however, part
company with his own attempts at resolution. )
As for the Shivley article, we fail to see this aS a Serious
piece of research. Reducing his effective N to 2, Shively
created a Situation where all his coefficients would be either
+1,@, or -i. His research not only suffers from all the flaws of
aogregaticon Sut then same. Moreover, his statement that
O’Llessker’s analysis supperted yours is patently absurd.
To use that cliche fashionable in the business school, the bottom
line is that there is neo way your theoretical argument can
account for the surge of new voters in 1932. If they didn’t ge
to the NSDAF, where did they go? Are you prepared to argue that
the middle class defected in such large numbers ta the NSDAP that
the new voters served as replacements for these defectors? There
is no theory that would attempt to argue that the middle class is
capable of arousing the periphery in time of crisis. If that is
the case, at least a quarter of a century of electoral research
and a half century of mass movements research needs to be
rewritten. Bendix'’s explanation not only fits the data better--—
toa the extent that it is pessible toa fit the data-- but it is
mare congruent with what we know to be theoretically correct.
Inappropriate methods, na matter how seemingly sophisticated da
rat Serve as arn appropriate substitute for the apparent
consonance hetween theory and data. Bendix may have come to his
conclusions through intuition, histery, culture or a simple concrete
knowledge of Weimar Germany. Whatever, they seem to make far
greater sense in explaining the surge of new voters and their
electoral preference in the crucial election of 193@ than does
Hee
the misapplication of sephisticated statistical techniques tea
aggregate data.
We thank you again for your letter. It is through such exchanges
and the objective, peer-review process that cur knowledge grows.
We aisoa look forward to seeing Consensus and Conflict and trust
TS ORS aes nates EE epee cent name Sete, ae eens eee 120m nets nnOe Sean Genet tee Gtaee ones
it will be as provocative as Political Man, and that a quarter
of a century later, it too will cause scholars to engage in
serious reflection and debate over the issues it raises.
Sincerely,
Abraham H. Miller
James Robbins
Be. S. Or a somewhat personal note, I (Miller) first read
Political Man in Joe Gusfield’s course in social stratification
nearly twenty-five years ago at the University of Illineis. Wher
I started teaching in 1966, I adepted the book and have used it
ever since. The citations are to that Anchor 1963 edition
because it is the cepy I erginally purchased. It is marked in
five colors of ink and pencil, dog earred and held together by an
assortment of celaphane tape. It is an old friend, and one of the
most interesting and stimulating pieces of social science ever
written--despite our current dispute over the issue in question.
I hope that if aur intellectual debate ever sees the Light of the
printed page it will only further enhance the value of the
foundations you have laid.
