EDITH KURZWEIL
595
devoted to examining whether it is preferable to talk in "macro" or "micro"
language, whether to generalize and move from small interactions to global
ones or vice versa, whether "to bring man back in" at the end of the post–
and anti-post-Parsonian era (of systems theory) and how to empirically con–
ceptualize the relationship between time and space. To what extent are we
able to formulate a theory that can link social innovation and change that
will
incorporate both personal and societal factors and do so for the most
"advanced" and the most "backward"?
It
is the central problem for sociolo–
gists, one that is bound to
be
troublesome.
Else 0yen, Vice-president of the Research Council, wrote an excellent
introduction to the book,
Comparative Methodology,
which she edited and
which was distributed to all Congress participants. She pointed out that there
are "eternal and unsolved problems inherent in sociological research," and
that comparative studies will have to take into consideration both "the
uniqueness of enclaves" as well as the "growing homogeneity and unifor–
mity" of our world. She found that sociologists use four basic approaches to
comparative research: some don't consider cross-national differences and fo–
cus on theoretical and methodological factors alone; others pursue their ideas
and data across national boundaries without considering that their interpreta–
tions may be inapplicable; yet others consider all these problems but
purposefully ignore them and make compromises in order to gain new in–
sights; and many acknowledge the other points of view but argue that we
must raise questions about comparative studies themselves. And she pointed
out that comparative researchers use terms such as cross-country, cross-na–
tional, cross-societal, cross-cultural, cross-systemic, cross-institutional, among
others, imprecisely, and that they confuse national boundaries with ethnic,
cultural and social ones. But how do we translate a concept from one cultural
context into another one without distorting it - and also account for the on–
going change ofa concept within its culture?
Inevitably, these questions were not and could not be answered.
In
my
own sessions with the research committee on the history of sociology we
grappled with "lesser" issues, such as "The Nietzschean Roots in German
Sociology," "Sociology, Ethics and the Present," and "The Sociology of
Ar–
gument and Intercultural Negotiation." And in these smaller groups intellec–
tual questions were discussed openly, although underlying political assump–
tions were dealt with only allusively. Most of the second world participants
on the program did not show up, so that our discussions were among
Americans, Germans, Italians, Spaniards, Scandinavians, two Russians, and a
sprinkling of Poles and Indians. However, the overall intellectual content of
many sessions was on a fairly low level. "Quality control" was lacking, and
many of the participants presented papers they already had discussed else–
where.
Given the revolutions of 1989, I had been looking forward to a meet-
