The Role of Philanthropic Foundations in The Reproduction of Hegemony - Fisher

THE ROLE OF PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATIONS IN THE REPRODUCTION AND
PRODUCTION OF HEGEMONY: ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATIONS AND THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

Author(s): Donald Fisher
Source: Sociology , May 1983, Vol. 17, No. 2 (May 1983), pp. 206-233
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42852563
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Sociology
This content downloaded from

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SOCIOLOGY Vol. 17 No. 2 May 1983.
THE ROLE OF PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATIONS

IN THE REPRODUCTION AND PRODUCTION OF
HEGEMONY: ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATIONS
AND THE SOCIAL SCIENCES1
Donald Fisher
Abstract The substantive focus is upon the relation between Rockefeller p

development of the social sciences during the period, 1910 to 1940. Two m
examined. First, that philanthropic foundations attempt to maintain the soc
alter it. Specifically, that during the period under study philanthropic f
institutions in both the reproduction and production of cultural hegemony. S
conflict" perspective has most value when one is attempting to understand the n
change in the systematic production of both knowledge and intellectuals.
upon the process by which Rockefeller policy for the social sciences em
described and analysed. The ideological viewpoint of Rockefeller philanthrop
policy-making process is located in the wider political economy. Confirmati
two propositions. Hegemony, ideology and social class are essential c
attempting to understand and explain the role of philanthropy in capitalist so
Introduction
THIS paper is part of a continuing study which focusses on the ro

foundations in Western industrialized societies. The focus is upon the
philanthropy on the history of ideas. Of particular interest is th
Rockefeller philanthropy and the social sciences prior to the Second W
period when foundations performed the function with respect to ter
research that was later to become the preserve of the State. Indeed, t
foundations provide us with a rare insight into the emergence of a n
hegemony that was based upon State corporate capitalism. The develop
sciences are critical because it is from these subjects more than any oth
ideas and the intellectuals that are responsible for both the reproductio
cultural hegemony.
Two interrelated propositions will be examined. First, that in th
between "political society" and "civil society"2 philanthropic founda
participants in both the reproduction and production of cultural hegem
cultural hegemony is those ideologies in the superstructure which disse
consciousness of the ruling class and organize the consensus of the m
social order. It is in this sense that one can talk about the "rule of
translated into structures and activities as well as values, attitudes, belief
support the established order and the class interests which dominate it
hegemony is internalized it becomes the "common sense" of a soci
emphasized that cultural hegemony is a dynamic process includin
"emergent" aspects as well as the dominant-culture.4

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
THE ROLE OF PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATIONS 207
Second, while the three major approaches in the sociology of

"Kuhnian" and "critical-conflict", all have something to contr
understand the nature and source of changes in the systematic pr
intellectuals, it is the last approach which must be the starting po
perspective6 focusses attention upon the decisive elements in
change. Causes are sought in processes extrinsic to the disciplin
changes in economy, class, ideology and hegemony. This paper w
examining these two propositions by explicating the relatio
Rockefeller philanthropy and their policy for the social science
1940.
Three interrelated objectives are of concern. First, to describe

process by which Rockefeller policy for the social sciences
interpretation will concentrate on the most significant factors
policy. They are, the authority structure of Rockefeller philanthr
the family, the trustees and foundations officers; the public i
social science community; and political and economic forces. Th
include a description of the social science policies develope
Rockefeller Memorial (LSRM) and the Rockefeller Foundatio
and locate in the wider political economy the ideological v
philanthropy as identified in the policy making process. Fin
propositions stated earlier in light of the foregoing analysis.7
THE CREATION OF POLICIES FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

The State of the Art
In formulating policies for the social sciences Rockefeller philanthropy was influenced by
and contributed to the general movement towards a scientific approach to all aspects o
knowledge. During the latter half of the nineteenth century social scientists and a wide array
of lay people interested in social affairs were debating the desirability of moving away from
the older "classical" approach towards empirical social science. The American Social
Science Association (ASSA) founded in 1865 was the forum for this debate. This group of
reformers (social philosophers, social workers, educators and social scientists) was
responding to the social changes that were dramatically altering the shape of America
society. The Association was committed to advocacy and political action as a means to solv
the social problems that emerged in a society that was searching for identity whi
experiencing the dislocation of industrialization. Yet by the early twentieth century the
ASSA had disintegrated and been replaced by specialist professional associations.8
The overriding force of professionalization had as a key assumption the committment t
scientific research which would in turn produce objective knowledge. Further, as wit
medicine, scientific progress for the social sciences was intimately tied to inclusion in the
academy. The "university" with the tradition of non-involvement and separation from
political affairs as well as the committment to the search for knowledge was the perfect
setting. It followed that philanthropy became actively involved in the incorporation o
people and disciplines into the academy. Part of the explanation of the emergence of
scientific studies and the demise of amateur, non-professional activities lies embedded in the
activities of philanthropists.9

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
208 DONALD FISHER
Rationalization and bureaucratizatio

economic production at the turn of t
through the concentration of enorm
dislocation. The potential for class c
predictable that members of the ru
better ways of maintaining hegemo
the ruling class needed a new bran
expert. These social scientists wou
objectivity. "Academic science" com
It was more likely that academic sc
It is not clear the extent to whic
foundations contributed to the prof
it was becoming increasingly difficu
social projects. The creation of foun
and was a means of both objectifying
capitalists. Foundations proceeded to
claiming as their major function t
public was more likely to accept the a
words of a Rockefeller.
Early Forays into the Field

When it came to the creation of for
Rockefeller created the Institute fo
(1903) and then in 1909 the Rockef
interest in the social sciences althou
"academic science" a central plank o
these years were attended to throug
Between 1912 and 1914 JDR Jr. pro
and in eugenics. The most ambitious v
and Economic Research. The idea of
economic arguments was gradually
project.11 Edwin F. Gay the archety
became the chair of a committee that
proposed Institute.12 The two repor
two conceptions of knowledge. On
committed to the search for objec
solutions
to societal problems. On t
would present their position and t
minority report was written by
recommended that the Institute s
educating the public about fundam
conducted on profit-sharing. 13 The d
the fear expressed by Frederick T. G
that such a project could open the f
Institute would have to wait. Inste
picked up on a proposal to study wa

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
King, a young Canadian industrial relations consultant.15 King

commissioned to undertake a far-reaching study on industrial relation
including a focus on profit-sharing.
This decision led to the celebrated McKenzie King affair in 19
severely criticized by the United States Commission on Industrial
funds to further their business interests.16 The investigation b
headline news for weeks and resulted in a tremendous amount of ba
family and the RF. This affair was a turning point for John D. Rocke
with regard to their approach toward the social sciences. Never aga
interest be so clearly visible. Instead these interests were subsume
which were the scientific organizations designed to "give" in an unb
The tension so clearly visible in the Institute committee was tran
negotiation within the foundations between trustees, foundat
academics. The RF avoided the social sciences from 1915 and th
concentrated on the safer areas of public health and medicine. The
concerns were consigned in October 1918 to a new organizatio
Rockefeller Memorial (LSRM).
Rockefeller philanthropy was extremely careful to both project and
image. There were two levels of policy. First, the explicit leve
foundation reports. Second, the implicit level which is contained in
The underlying assumptions and the "real" objectives were pruned f
to make it appear that these organizations were uninterested and o
their approach to the social sciences. The public statements were by
sensitive the policy the more it was shrouded in secrecy. Any h
interests were involved had to be avoided at all costs. Indeed, the fo
of providing any information that might lead people to infer that th
control any aspect of social life.
From the beginning the LSRM maintained a private, confident
forbade any general publicity of the Memorial's work, 17 a policy t
throughout the life of the organization. It was standard procedure t
should not make any announcements or provide any public recogn
activities. The annual reports provided minimum information an
directed by a young "unknown", Dr. Beardsley Ruml,18 rather
recognized man of affairs or even a social scientist. The appointmen
marked the move from an interest in social welfare to a focus on
public administration. The change reflected the general trend towar
well as the insight and leadership of key insiders like Raymond Fosd
Ruml.19
Social Science in the 1920s
The emergence of specialist professional organizations during the period 1884 to 190520
was in part the result of the actions of aspiring social scientists who saw the need to distance
themselves from the practical reformers. The emphasis was to be upon analysis rather than
reform. The accent was to be upon observation and experimentation. The goal was
objective scientific research rather than advocacy. Three interrelated structural trends,

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
210 DONALD FISHER
namely specialization, professionaliz

scientists who were establishing t
emergent definition of themselves
the United States like Gay, W. C.
(political scientists) and W. I. Thom
well established empiricists.22 Yet it w
was the exception rather than the r
In 1923 Ruml commissioned Lawren
social sciences States. in the United
defined as economics, sociology an
discussion of psychology, anthrop
universities which granted a Ph.D.
which had been organized to stud
content analysis of Ph.D. dissertatio
scientific research involving actual
hardly any provision for training in
to ". . . the dominant tradition of
support investigations and experim
academy Frank found, that in con
surveying this work, he concluded
which the development of social sci
Social Science Policy in the 1920s

The early 1920s seemed to
promise
the last such conflict. After a rec
expanding and business corporations
this background and taking into acc
was predictable that the LSRM shou
capitalist world. The overriding inte
into "academic social science". The o
research could in turn lead to great
The organizational charts of bot
provided for complete control over
officer or officers were responsible
the trustees for approval. Yet th
organizations as well as differences
The LSRM was for the most part R
broad parameters within which the
formulate his "grand strategy". On
he was a strong, individualistic le
making process. Ruml was one of th
entrepreneurial tradition.
The LSRM was a small organization
officers and it was not until 192
responsible for the social sciences
division of labour. While Ruml did a

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
he still maintained the independence of his organization, an in

family and the rest of Rockefeller philanthropy if one accepts
regarded as dangerous territory. The influence that was ex
unobtrusively from the key trustees JDR Jr., 27 Raymond Fosd
Ruml brought to the job the progressive era's faith in the poten
solve society's problems. For Ruml, the route for advancing hu
scientific social research. In October 1922 he presented a long m
which outlined his strategy.28 Ruml had a mandate to spend $20
decade. Rather than play safe by distributing money across a w
decided that the LSRM should focus on a basic need. For Rum
welfare organizations, business, industry and government req
forces" if they were to combat the complex social problems of the
was made more urgent because of the lag between the increasin
through advances in the natural sciences as against the lack of
field. In his view, the universities did not organize programme
social research so that production from these institutions wa
speculative, . . ." and was based on ". . . second hand observati
and anecdotal material".29 The Memorial's mission was to change
not for academic reasons but because of its "practical" interest in
Ruml used the rest of the memorandum to outline his prop
development of the social sciences. The programme had four ph
and isolation of a class of related problems within the social fi
possibilities for advancing "practical" and "scientific" re
permanence and traditional status it was felt that existing un
auspices for such research. Further Ruml wished to encour
between the social sciences. Third, to increase the number of h
the social sciences by improving research facilities and thr
scholarships. The fourth phase of the programme focused on
knowledge and ways to increase practical utilization.
This memorandum and the Frank Report provided the ba
developing policy. What emerged during 1924 and 1925 was a gr
was designed to dispel the old scholastic tradition and replace
study" of society. Two key trustees, Arthur Woods and Raym
the importance of developing better means of social control
complexity of modern life. To achieve this objective Ruml conce
social scientists who were already moving away from the tradi
Specifically, Ruml pointed to the work of the economist W
business cycle" and its influence on inflation and unemploym
"practical social control" that could emerge from scientific res
making the social sciences more scientific in the natural science
contribute to society's control of social forces and thereby to h
The definition of the "social sciences" was refined. These scien
Economics, sociology and political science were at the level
psychology, anthropology and history were described as related
sub-fields within these disciplines received particular attention,
research and eugenics, Ruml was far more concerned with a

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
212 DONALD FISHER
Indeed, it became Memorial policy t

that the process of trying to solve
necessarily
require a holistic approa
From the start, it was accepted t
development of scientific work. By
strengthen particular universities as
to build upon the existing strengths
closer cooperation. The policy beca
the development of social science requ
twenty, well-rounded and effective
By 1927, the support of these "cen
The LSRM focused on the United
divided into regions: North-East,
West. In each region, the most prom
being that each centre would "radi
research. The most prominent exa
University of North Carolina, Unive
the University of Texas. In Europe,
the London School of Economics, t
für Politick in Berlin. Ruml aimed at
by their common approach to social
One way of ensuring this process
advanced students. The commitmen
1922 Memorandum and the Frank R
Memorial ran the programme in Eur
advisor in each country.34 To cove
asked the newly formed Social Scien
those used by the Rockefeller Found
1925 the SSRC began selecting and s
It was envisioned that fellows from
the chosen institutional centers wher
be allowed the freedom to conduct
The consolidation of "academic soci
congruent with the professionalizing
Ruml and some of the leading socia
cause of social science research would
subjects were broken down. Bringin
progressive era
an es these men saw
collaborative approach to social re
continuing movement toward incre
radical outcomes. The solution to
collaborative research would have
discount. The tension at both the
decade proceeded.
The principle of breaking down t
Social Science Research Council (SS

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
Ruml. It certainly was no accident that C. E. Merriam became C

that the first appointees to the key committee on Problems and
most prominent representatives of the "scientific" trend.37 The Co
central agency for promoting cooperation while at the university
create a "University Research Council" involving representativ
disciplines. It was these "Councils" that negotiated for and then di
grants. To facilitate the coordination of activities and improvem
meetings were arranged in 1929, 1934, 1935 and 1936 that brought
of all the university councils. These meetings were organized
behest.
For Ruml, the label "practical" as applied to social research had a specific meaning. He
was not concerned with immediate utility. Rather Ruml believed that research ought to
provide a better knowledge of those "social forces" which have a "concrete" impact on
human welfare.38 In this sense the programme was consistently "concrete and practical".
The aim was "... improved social control in the interests of all".39 Yet for some in the
Rockefeller hierarchy this policy was not sufficiently practical.
That part of Memorial policy that was concerned with carrying ideas into practice
through demonstration took on a new significance during 1927 and 1928. Under the
heading "Social Science and Social Technology" the 1927 Report set out the LSRM's
practical purpose. Technology was defined as " . . the ways and means of making the
results of social science research useful in ordinary practical affairs".40 The new label
"technology" was a response to the growing unease that some Trustees and other
Rockefeller Foundation officers felt about the Memorial's approach to the social sciences.
The charge that Ruml was not sufficiently concerned with practical utility was given formal
standing in a Trustees Review Committee Report in 192 8. 41
Reorganization and a New Rationalism

As early as 1926 it was envisaged by John D. Rockefeller Jr. and other RF officers that
Rockefeller philanthropy ought to consolidate its separate pieces into a larger whole.42 To
prepare for the incorporation of the LSRM into the RF it was considered desirable to
appoint a committee to review the record and make recommendations for the future. At the
Trustee meeting of 22 November 1927, a committee of three trustees, Fosdick, Woods and
Ernest M. Hopkins were appointed to the task.43 The Committee endorsed the
international nature of the programme, the focus on institutional centers and the
development of able personnel.44 The promotion of scientific social research remained the
central underpinning of their recommendations. Yet there was a shift. The report
recommended that the programme should extend to include applied branches of science
such as business, public administration, law and social work. The general purposes were
described in the following way:
(a) increase the body of knowledge which in the hands of competent technicians may be expected in
time to result in substantial social control; (b) enlarge the general stock of ideas which should be in
the common possession of all intelligent members of civilized society; and (c) spread the
appreciation of the appropriateness and value of scientific methods in the simplification and solution
of modern social problems.45

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
214 DONALD FISHER
The general tone reflected the belie

with "knowledge" or the "developm
knowledge that could be utilized dire
Ruml feared that incorporation of t
and perhaps the abandonment of soci
first with the appointment of Day
Memorial and who shared Ruml's vi
while the Report of the Trustee Co
approach it also provided solid sup
misgivings were well founded. From
battle to maintain the commitment t
a battle against "concentration", "sp
utility".
Rockefeller philanthropy faced a major conflict. The signs that world capitalism was
entering a terrible crisis were already evident. Industrial unrest, high inflation and
international dissension were the forerunners of the Stock Market crash in 1929 and the
Depression. Against this background of a collapsing social order and the force toward
increasing rationalization it was predictable that the Rockefeller hierarchy should want to
take control of the LSRM to both protect the family name and in order to focus attention on
the immediate problem of preserving the social order. The conflict was resolved primarily
with the creation of the Spelman Fund (SF). Ruml was made Director and essentially
bought off. It was this least public of any of the foundations that took on some of the most
sensitive tasks. As one officer put it in 1936: "The Foundation program as a whole is so
broad, its stakes so huge and its name so vulnerable to attack that it would be difficult for it
to assume many of the most important tasks which, in its comparative anonymity, the
Spelman Fund can perform in its stride".46 The LSRM became the Division of Social Science
in the RF. While this division was allowed to temporarily continue with the Memorial's
general policy it was the case that a bureaucratic clamp had now been placed upon
Rockefeller activities in the social sciences. Control was vested in the trustees and the
foundation managers.
The RF was a "formal organization" in both theory and practice. Indeed, Ruml's fight to
keep the LSRM out of the RF was based in part on his dislike for this formal structure.47 The
new Division of Social Sciences (DSS), like its three counterparts in medicine, natural
science and the humanities, was in effect a sub-section of a much larger institution. Day did
not control budget. Policy was formulated and approved at three different levels. First, Day
instituted group consultation among the permanent officers of the DSS. Second, the policy
then went to the senior officers of the RF before finally reaching the board of trustees. In
line with bureaucratic procedures officers had job titles and specific role responsibilities.48
Through the 1930s the Rockefeller hierarchy gradually tightened its grip on Rockefeller
involvement in the social sciences.
The Challenge of the 1930s

In 1929, Edmund E. Day the noted economist and ex-Treasurer of the SSRC49 took over
from Ruml as Director of the LSRM in preparation for the incorporation of the Memorial
into the RF.50 Inevitably the Report of the Review Committee guided Day in his new role.
Like Ruml, Day believed in the potential of the social sciences to contribute to human

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
welfare. Furthermore, Day along with other RF officers and trustees was ac
the crash of the Stock Market in 1929 and the resulting chaos might we
knell of capitalist democracy. In this context the need for scientific researc
to social control was even more pressing than before.
With the appointment of Day as Director of the DSS one could have
toward externally inspired, discipline orientated objectives. And indeed,
few years of his tenure there was a struggle between the practical conce
problems as voiced by the Rockefeller hierarchy and his commitment
economist to the long term goals of the social science disciplines. For the ne
battled with the trustees and the senior officers of the RF. Day set out
development of the social sciences in a series of meetings during 1930. W
that the scientific attitude had spread during the 1920s, he still felt that th
experimental stage. He wanted the Division of Social Sciences (DSS) t
directions. First, the attempt "... to apply scientific methods in the
phenomena; and second, an experiment in utilizing the results obtaine
analysis to effect substantial and significant methods of social control".5
expected that the tradition of subjective research would be undermined.
enquiry would eliminate controversy and therefore be valuable as a me
control. Such enquiries would be scientific in the sense that they become
as the results are utilized.
The justification for this policy repeated the concern expressed earlier wit
modern science had created between material development on the one han
social control on the other. The crisis in society injected urgency in the n
gap. Without substantial social control Day felt that "... the prospec
assumes a different color, and there cannot but be grave doubts about th
overcoming some of the difficulties which are developing increasin
relations".52 Similarly, Fosdick in a "Memorandum on International Relat
the natural sciences had revolutionized methods of living. He was conv
other field was there such an urgent need as the development of a scien
social problems. Fosdick posed the question of how the RF could
intelligence" to the tasks that faced the international order.53
In 1930 the RF withdrew from its "grand strategy" which involve
development of all the sciences (natural, medical and social) through
instead concentrated their efforts on specific research areas. The intent was
"advancement" rather than the "diffusion of knowledge".54 The new pol
views of the Review Committee as well as a lessening of the RF's incom
Depression.55 Yet with the support of Ruml and to some extent Fosdick,
convince the RF that the social sciences were still in a pioneering stage an
to be excluded from the new policy.56 The DSS continued with the same ove
LSRM during the first four years after consolidation. The DSS actual
programme of institutional development into Canada at McGill and d
extend the list within the United States.57
Inevitably, the movement within the RF toward concentrating resource
have an effect upon the DSS. In October 1930, the trustees and officers o
Princeton to formulate policy. There was formal agreement that "con
"specialization" were desirable for all the divisions of the RF. Even thoug

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
216 DONALD FISHER
part released from this decision it

significance. In line with the desire no
the Directors should choose special p
between the divisions.58 Day suggest
"interracial relations", "industrial re
of social technology as "public adm
planning". Public administration
Rockefeller foundation, the Spelma
policy objectives concerning the stim
to methods of social control.
In September, 1931 , Day proposed "
Day provided an extensive justificati
statements made by Colonel Arthu
Emergency Committee on Employme
the most pressing social problem of
could be solved or measurably red
jeopardy".60 In 1933 the DSS phased
specific fields, "economic stabiliza
organization and planning" (the latte
to the programme. These programme
for the social sciences in 1933. 61
Before continuing it is important
justified the policy changes betwe
intelligence" and "social planning".
and mastering of problems.62 It w
intelligence" be positively and vigoro
was of a different order than previo
midst of unexampled plenty, individu
proportions".63 Overproduction, h
recessions all pointed to the conclus
society appear to be essentially or
convincing demonstration that "... m
will no longer serve". Further Day
dangerous because of the alternate m
5-year plan.64
The external and internal challenges t
planning that utilized social intellig
objective, realistic and far sighted stu
control in a free society would be
knowledge was translated into clear
Effective social planning and control mu
not as an immediately attainable, objective
not revolution.66
It was against this background and

Fosdick, Ruml and Woods67 that D
interest.

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
While Day and his staff had moved significantly toward specializ
this was not enough. Essentially, Day and the DSS were not mov
undermining of Day's control over policy and programme, p
administration, was given dramatic form in April 1933 when the Bo
secret emergency fund of $1.5 million to combat some of th
Depression. A special Trustee committee consisting of JDR Jr.
Stewart was appointed to administer the Fund. Woods and Ruml
participants. Projects were submitted to the executive commit
approval. Part of the reason for creating this mechanism was the p
Trustees. The programme was cancelled at the end of 1934 becaus
had been brought into line and reformulated to allow for the
activities. Approximately $1,115,000 was appropriated in sup
programmes at the Federal, State and local levels.68
The reformulation occurred as a result of the recommendatio
Committee of Appraisal and Plan in 1934 and marked a turning p
relations. The committee was nominated in December 1933 an
(chairman), Walker W. Stewart and James R. Angeli.69 The Co
between 1929 and 1933 some $18 million had been appropriated of
cent had in the committee's judgement been used to apply knowle
Yet they were now convinced that the "scientific" attitude was es
therefore recommended "... a frank shift of emphasis from the prom
objective to concrete fields of research".70 The DSS was to assist in
to solving the contemporary problems of social, political and ind
programme was to be liquidated as soon as possible. Despite exten
opposition from Day on the liquidation proposals,71 the Board
Williamsburg in December 1934. With the exception of the Brooki
University centers was terminated with the provision of tapering
new programme to the Board outlining three fields of concentra
approved unconditionally. These were international relations
public administration.73 International relations had as its overall o
of relations between nations and was a continuing effort.74 On t
programme in "economic security" went beyond the earlier
stabilization. The accurate description of business cycles was
adequate. It was felt that the social situation demanded a progr
explain economic change, and further went on to suggest m
individual against any negative effects of these changes.75 Th
emphasis on practical application emerged from Day's own pre
planning" and the pressure from the trustees "to do" rather than
By the middle of 1935 the RF had elevated "public administratio
the new programme. Day and the trustees believed that "... so
dependent upon the efficiency of performance of the function
achieve social progress the two organizations, the RF and the Spelm
of major collaborative efforts. The objectives of the new
administration were ". . . (1) a program or research and service pr
important questions of contemporary government policy, (2) the t
the public service".77 The research projects had to be "realistic". To

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
218 DONALD FISHER
decided that the RF should enlist th

by the Spelman Fund "... in definin
those responsible for shaping and ad
One final element in the new progr
the SSRC. The SSRC continued to be
interest in the social sciences.79
significance and an underlying bear
that substantial support should con
the RF commissioned the Council
government, namely "social securi
extension of the programme of emer
that the Council had begun in 1933
The social science programme of
exclusively in the three main fields
opposition to the new policy. Critic
not satisfied with the development
the move as retrogressive because
development.82 But the most damag
The RF was charged with attemptin
specific channels. Academics ch
unproductive in that the RF was both
expertise to make the choices. In ad
public areas which left them open to
As early as January 1936, the RF
Particular concern was expressed
protected. For Trevor Arnett, the F
Our present highly concentrated pro
wishing to direct research into certain
more research is shaped to come within
By the end of the year this height

Spelman Fund take over public admi
the programme in "economic se
justification was the protection of t
The label "social security" first app
presented to a special trustee meet
programme had in general attempte
"... with more emphasis than forma
to current problems".87 The repo
descriptions of the three areas of
underlying assumption of the "soci
. . . economic and social changes are to
that, pending adequate understanding
protected in the interest of political and
The report makes it very clear

"ameliorative" part of the program

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
The next two years, 1937 and 1938, mark a time of intense ques
vis-à-vis the social sciences. In September 1937 at a joint meeting
and the General Education Board, it was agreed that a committee o
appointed to sit with the President and officers of the DSS to
justification provided at this meeting was the chaotic conditio
judgement that the RF's work in the social sciences was unsatisfact
pressures and the continuing instability of economic and politi
America and Europe combined to produce the Review Committe
In March 1938, Fosdick appointed Harold W. Dodds, Walter W
Dulles to the Trustee Committee of Review.90 Dr. Robert Crane,
the SSRC, and Dr. Edwin G. Nourse, the Chairman of the SSRC'
Committee attended the final meeting in order to discuss the rela
the SSRC. The joint committee presented their report to the B
December 1938. The Committee stated that Dr. Joseph H. Willits
University of Pennsylvania, had recently been appointed to the D
Sciences. The Committee therefore felt that to provide a detail
programme would be prematiire. Instead, it was decided that
continue to function as an informal advisory body while Willits f
The only substantive conclusion included in the report concer
programme. The committee was convinced that the present pro
narrowly stated and too rigidly interpreted." While selection
committee wanted greater flexibility so that selection "... should n
inclusion or exclusion in the process of choosing specific underta
critical of the way the programme had been presented to the p
content.
Joseph H. Willits officially became Director of the DSS on 1 February 1939.

and predictable choice. He had intimate knowledge of the programme an
friend of Ruml and Day. In 1927 he had been appointed an LSRM Travelling
had since the late 1920s been receiving substantial support for his work
research at Wharton, University of Pennsylvania. On taking over he decid
words to "play with deuces wild". In line with what the Trustees had recomm
was convinced that the RF should not announce fields of preference but shou
certain areas "... for primary and preferred (but not exclusive) attention".
next three years he embarked on a massive process of consultation with the
community.
ROCKEFELLER POLICY IN RETROSPECT
While there were many changes in the policy adopted by Rockefeller philanth
during the interwar years five objectives remained constant. First, policy was directed a
whole world or at least the capitalist world. Second, the desire to make the social sc
more scientific in the "natural science mode". Third, the focus on "realistic research
"practical application". Fourth, that research should be conducted either withi
academy or by people with academic associations. Finally, the commitment to mainta
increase the number of competent social scientists. Changes that occurred during
period should therefore be set against this background and were to a great extent o
degree rather than basic form. From the middle 1920s there was a continuing shift tow

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
220 DONALD FISHER
more practical orientation. The ex

those disciplines, through basic rese
of problem oriented "realistic" re
between the various disciplines was th
which focused on institutional cente
and individuals. In conjunction wi
movement toward increased "concen
In order to test the two proposit
policy-making process and furthe
While it is difficult to demonstrate c
for the proposition that it was the tr
over social science policy. The soc
independent critic and at no time d
challenge the direction of policy in
the SF. Those leading social scientist
and became part of the enterprise
which further increased the influence
From the earliest time when inte
practice of Rockefeller philanthropy
science community as advisors or o
that looked into the feasibility of a
continued as an insider throughout
Acting Director of the DSS, while
Marshall, Day and Ford on tempora
of Mitchell, Willits, Howard Odum,
Institute and Chairman of the NRC
The RF continued the practice of br
included Simon Kuznets, Rober
Furthermore, because Rockefeller
centers of research (Chicago, Colu
they had "advice on demand" from
While developments in the social sci
and between disciplines it seems cle
external influences, namely the Roc
Nowhere was this more clear than
and the SSRC. Specifically, the LS
Problems and Policy Committee in
report this committee was ". . . des
future Council history".95 This Com
Council. Significantly, two of these
(1935-39). In this way, the Memori
first SSRC Hanover Conference in 1
this Committee's proposals.96 Th
interdisciplinary interchange and ac
behavioural studies. The early conf
Rockefeller philanthropy. Even w

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
United States and therefore providing the base for federal policy it w
charge rather than the social science community. "The Presidential Re
Social Trends" received its funding from the RF and had as its memb
Shelby B. Harrison (Russell Sage Foundation), Ogburn, Odum and
Walker was attached to the Committee as a consultant and Day was co
on for advice. The Committee published two volumes entitled Recent
United States in 1933. 97
Inside the foundations it is clear that a small group of key trustees
direct and substantial control over the policy-making process. The
committees that sat in 1928, 1934 and 1938 provide ample evidence f
While elements of Ruml's "grand strategy" were at odds with the view o
trustees, the overall plan did not run counter to their long term aim
with other major social science officers were made aware of who h
There were numerous cases when Ruml was "encouraged" to include in
into the Memorial's programme. For example, the funding of the
Economic Research was a direct, outgrowth of JDR Jr.'s pre-war a
independent Institute of Social and Economic Research. Fosdick acted
and sent a note to Ruml saying that the Bureau should be on his li
Bureau was the ideal conduit for influencing both the developm
economics and national economic policy. Similarly, in 1923 when Ru
provide Dean Marshall at Chicago with funds to help prepare instr
secondary school commercial courses, Arthur Woods intervened. A
not dangerous to have a Fund like the Memorial be too largely intere
educational and social project of this character". 100 In 1930 it was Day's
was appropriate for public consumption. Max Mason wrote to inform
change the wording of the draft of the 1930 Annual Report. Mason fe
let their ". . . actions speak for themselves . . ." and that Day shou
statements which could then be quoted against the RF. As Mason not
state the beliefs or hopes of President Hoover in relation to the Rese
Social Trends. Certainly in this respect we can accomplish our ends m
explicit statement".101 Finally, Joseph H. Willits in 1941, during the
Post War Planning Conferences made it very clear how well he had i
policy stance with regard to the RF's public image. Following an inte
Prince, Vice-President of General Electric Company, and Guy Emerso
Bankers Trust, Willits wrote that from the RF's point of view "It is i
anything which, in appearance or in fact, could be construed as a pro
promote the private enterprise system per se ". 102
Among the trustees/officers Raymond Fosdick and Arthur Wood
important. They were Rockefeller insiders who consistently represented
family. Throughout the in ter- war period they held key positions in
the SF. Fosdick chaired all the review committees. These two men w
operations and provided the link between family and foundation. The
obvious and direct beginning in 1928. Fosdick did in effect follow th
long time foundation officer, Frank B. Stubbs in 1927. After commen
to have social scientists as temporary members of staff or as advisors, h
the Board of Trustees must be in control. As Stubbs put it:

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
222 DONALD FISHER
It is essential that the control of su

conservative individuals, but it is als
create within itself a strong active-mi
This strong active-minded min

economist, Stewart. Stewart brou
experience to the Board. In add
1930s.104
The emergent policies and the outcomes did to a certain extent serve everybody's
interests. The social science community was served because the influx of money and
resources and the policies themselves speeded up the professionalization trend. In this
sense, and particularly for the social scientists who were direct recipients, the interests of
career, discipline, academic association and institution clearly coincided with the interests
of Rockefeller philanthropy. While it is the case that academics and institutions did at times
say one thing to please the foundations and then do something else it is still the case that
these developments tended to stay within the parameters set by Rockefeller philanthropy.
The Foundations served a "gatekeeper" function.105
At the same time the interests of the family and therefore the ruling class were served. The
special position of Rockefeller philanthropy in United States society meant that Rockefeller
insiders (officers, trustees and social scientists) could act as conduits between the ruling class
and the government. Arthur Woods became the Chairman of President Hoover's
Conference on Unemployment in 1927. This Conference appointed Gay and Mitchell
through the National Bureau of Economic Research to undertake a study of recent
economic changes with a view to helping maintain the present prosperity. This work was
funded by the LSRM and the Carnegie Corporation and was defined as an extension of the
very significant studies of business cycles in 1922-23. The "Social Trends" reports provided
the basis for Roosevelt's National Planning Board while the RF and the SF were actively
involved in making the New Deal work.
In 1933 the RF became more directly involved in the crisis with its "Emergency
Programme". Yet this effort was too small. As J. Van Sickle noted at the end of 1934,
"Existing insecurity and catastrophic decline in standards with mass unemployment
constitutes a serious threat to the existing system". 106 The rise of Fascism and the continuing
threat of Communism made it clear that people were willing to abandon the system of
liberal democratic capitalism. Again in early 1935 Van Sickle echoed the fears of the ruling
class in American society. As he put it:
there can be no question that the very existence of the social order is at stake. Unless a satisfactory
solution can be found soon, discouraged men and women will demand a change. Capitalism and
democracy are both on trial. 197
The emergent policy was aimed at producing concrete, remedial measures. The
programme concentrated on "realistic research" and "practical demonstration". Scientific
research increasing "social control" and contributing to the maintenance of "social order"
was the guiding theme.
On occasion, it is possible to have a direct glimpse at the way in which the "ruling class'
were served at the expense of others. The conspiracy behind the planned Economic
Institute was never consummated. Yet a policy and a programme in industrial research did
emerge from this effort. With JDR Jr. 's encouragement Ruml and the LSRM became Elton
Mayo's active sponsor in the early 1920s. 108 By 1925, the Willits Research Department at the

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, had a contract

Manufacturers Association of Philadelphia" to make a study of t
personnel policies and practices in the 55 member plants.109 Mayo's w
then later at Harvard, after Ruml had arranged the move, was the
Mackenzie King's early efforts. The Metal Manufacturers Association
most active propagandist agencies fighting unions.
Rockefeller Philanthropy and Cultural Hegemony

The trustees of American foundations in the 1920s were, accor
Lindeman, characterized by ". . . social prestige, financial success
respectability". 1 10 The trustees of the three Rockefeller foundations di
certainly fit this description. Under the leadership of JDR Jr. the truste
represented a selection of the most successful administrators and cap
society. Further the most influential trustees were also personally tie
family. These men had vested interest in the preservation of the contem
To a great extent the social science officers shared the trustees' world
that occurred were "related"111 to the tension in the society between
class and the increasingly important professional middle class. On the o
officers brought with them commitments to science, knowledge and p
direct outgrowth of the progressive era. These commitments trans
religious faith in the capacity of sound knowledge to solve the social an
that faced the world. It followed that these officers were in favour of ba
on social problems. The work was to be done by collaborative teams. W
that the results of this work would lead to adequate solutions it was al
integrated studies might well lead to proposals for the restructuring o
residual of progressivism and indeed the associated political advocacy that
the 19th century social science tradition that was an anathema t
representing the interests of the capitalist ruling class they pressed for
They pushed for attention upon the immediate pressing social problem
specialization. The resolution of this tension was a position that
"sophisticated conservatism".
These men were not against change. On the contrary, changes that co
efficient, industrial productive system and to the preservation or spread
political systems were encouraged. The key watchwords of this bra
conservatism" were "efficiency", "control", and "planning". The un
goal of Rockefeller policy throughout the interwar period was the
maintenance of the social order. As Fosdick put it in 1928 when
memorandum by C. E. Merriam on government research, "The parade
least heading, toward the common goal of efficient democracy".112
publicly substantiated in the early 1950s when the RF came under C
Under the heading "Public Responsibility and Free Enterprise in
President of the RF, Dean Rusk defined the Foundation in the followi
It is private in that it is not governmental; it is public in that its funds are held
rather than private purposes. As a social institution, it reflects the application t
principles of private initiative and free enterprise, under public policies whic
the benefits of such activity to a free society. 113

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
224 DONALD FISHER
Later in that same report, Rusk co

grows in strength and in moral and i
research and scholarship". 1 14 Throu
involved in both the production and
Conclusion
There is substantial evidence in su

foundations have become a "third"
"private" sectors. During the inte
mediators between government an
represented the interests of the rulin
process of ideological production aim
These men believed that they wou
everyone by maintaining and stre
scientists were critical components
economic problems that threatened
During the in ter- war period Roc
funds for the social sciences in Nor
and coordinated policy. While the fu
there is clear evidence that the impac
the social science policies were essen
hegemony. The commitment to "
professionalization process plac
intellectuals" could then become
objective solutions to social proble
economics in the 1920s toward an acc
1930s was both reflected in and jus
Rockefeller philanthropy was active
parts of the dominant ideology that
the academy. On the other hand, R
hegemony by encouraging those em
"efficiency", "planning" and "prac
cultural hegemony were thus inc
philanthropy played a key role in o
ideas. Ideas that were the substruc
radical effort to maintain the existin
that philanthropy may well have pla
the State in post- 1945 capitalist soc
Finally, all the evidence points to
perspective when trying to underst
production of knowledge and inte
within the whole community as rep
Rockefeller policies. These policies w
part extrinsic to the social science c
these policies emerged as a result of

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
it seems clear that there is a direct link between these policies an

class it is also the case that the process reflected class ten
hegemony are the key to our understanding of cultural reprod
Notes
1 . The research for this paper was made possible by grants from the University of British Columbia
Humanities and Social Sciences Grants Committee and the Rockefeller Archive Center.
2. Refer to the section "State and Civil Society" in A. Gramsci, (trans. Q. Hoare and G. Nowell
Smith) Selections from the Prison Notebooks , New York: International Publishers, 1971 .
3 . For a detailed discussion of this concept refer to Raymond Williams, "Base and Superstructure in
Marxist Cultural Theory", New Left Review, 83. 1973, 3-16.
4. See Williams, op. cit. and Raymond Williams, Marxism and Literature , Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1977. 121-127.
5. Lengermann provides a Table description of the three major approaches in the sociology of
science taken toward our understanding of the nature and source of change. These approaches are
labelled "Developmental", "Kuhnian" and "Critical-Conflict". See Patricia M. Lengermann,
"The Founding of the American Sociological Review: The Anatomy of a Rebellion", American
Sociological Review , 44. 1979, 185-198. There are obvious difficulties in any attempt to use
explanatory models from the sociology of science in an attempt to explain the development of the
social sciences. Therefore, this writer will examine the "Critical-Conflict" perspectives as it
relates to the nature and source of change in the systematic production of social science
knowledge and social scientists.
6. See, George Lukacs, History and Class Consciousness , Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1971 ;
and, Alvin W. Gouldner, The Coming Crisis in Western Sociology New York: Avon Books,
1971.
7. It is not the intent of this paper to describe the impact of Rockefeller philanthropy on the social
sciences. The focus will be upon the policy-making process.
8. For accounts of the ASSA and the shaping of the social sciences during the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries refer to Mary O. Furner, Advocacy and Objectivity: A Crisis in the
Professionalization of American Social Science , 1865-1905 Lexington: University Press of
Kentucky, 1975; Thomas L. Haskell, The Emergence of Professional Social Science: The
American Social Science Association and the Nineteenth -Century Crisis of Authority , Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1977; L. L. Bernard and Jessie Bernard, Origins of American
Sociology: The Social Science Movement in the United States, New York: Russell and Russell,
1965; Louis Wirth, "The Social Sciences", in Merle E. Curti (ed.), American Scholarship in the
Twentieth Century, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953; and Sheila Slaughter and
Edward T. Silva, "Looking Backwards: How Foundations Formulated Ideology in the
Progressive Period", in Robert F. Amove, Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism, Boston; G.
K. Hall & Co., 1980.
9. For an account of the changing nature of philanthropy during the early twentieth century, see
Barbara Howe, "The Emergence of Scientific Philanthropy, 1900-1920: Origins, Issues and
Outcomes", in Amove, op. cit.
10. The original idea was discussed by JDR Jr., Senator Aldrich (Junior's father-in-law), Henry P.
Davidson (Banker, J. P. Morgan and Co.) and Theodore M. Vail (President, American
Telegraph and Telephone Co.) in Morgan's office. Vail and Davidson each pledged $250,000 per
year for five years towards a total sum of $1,000,000 per year. Mr. W. K. Vanderbilt and Mr.
Walters (President of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad) each guaranteed $50,000 a year. The
group hoped to persuade the Rockefellers to pledge a further $250,000 per year toward the
balance. See Letter, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. to Frederick T. Gates, 27/7/12. File 95, National

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
226 DONALD FISHER
Bureau of Economic Research, Box 1 8,

Archive (RFA).
It is important to note that while the le
This document provides substantial
occasion conspired to protect their int
Frederick T. Gates was the key person
RF.
The RFA is located in the Rockefeller Center, New York.
11. To discuss the idea JDR, Jr. arranged a conference of businessmen and academics in the summer
of 1912. The participants at this conference were John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Jerome D. Greene
(Secretary, RF); Edwin F. Gay (Dean, Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration).
H. P. Judson (President, University of Chicago); Henry P. Davidson and Theodore N. Vail,
"Social Sciences - Program and Policy, Institute for Social and Economic Research (proposed)
Memorandum re January 21, 1914 DR 22" Folder 10, 910 Program and Policy -Reports Pro 1-4,
1914, 1927. Rockefeller Foundation, Record Group 3, Series 910, Box 2, Rockefeller Archive
Centre. The RF labelled all important documents as Documents of Record (DR) and gave each a
chronological number.
The papers of both the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial and the Rockefeller Foundation are
stored at the Rockefeller Archive Center (henceforth referred to as RAC), Hillcrest, Pocantico
Hills, North Tarrytown, New York, 10591 .
All citations will include numerals to indicate the institution, Record Group, Series, and Box.
For example, the above citation would include the name of the folder then RF, 3,910,2, RAC.
12. Gay was the Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration. The other
members of the committee were James L. Laughlin (Professor and Head of Department of
Political Economy, University of Chicago), T. W. Page (Professor of Economics, University of
Virginia), Harry A. Wheeler (Banker and Industrialist, Chicago), and Victor Morawetz
(Corporate Lawyer, New York). For an account of Gay's contribution to the social sciences refer
to Herbert Heaton, A Scholar in Action: Edwin F. Gay Cambridge , Mass: Harvard University
Press, 1952.
13. "Social Sciences - Program and Policy, Institute for Social and Economic Research (proposed).
Majority and Minority Report of Committee on August 4, 1914 DR 33' Folder 163, 900 Program
and Policy- Reports -PRO-1, PRO-la, PRO-16, PRO-2, PRO-3, 1913-1916. RF, 3, 900, 21,
RAC. Also Letter, Victor Morawetz to Edwin F. Gay, 29/4/14. Folder 293, 200 Institute for
Economic Research Proposed, April-October, 1914. RF, 1.1, 200, 26, RAC.
14. Letter, Gates to JDR, Jr., (1912 date unclear). File 95, National Bureau of Economic Research,
Box 18, JDR, Jr. Economic Reform Interests, RFA.
15. Letter W. L. McKenzie King to Jerome D. Greene, 21/10/14. Folder 107, 910 Program and
Policy- Wages, 1914, 1940-1941. RF, 3, 910, 11, RAC.
16. The Rockefeller family and the RF were accused of conflict of interest. The uproar and
subsequent investigation by the Commission on Industrial Relations (U.S. Congress, Final
Reporty United States Commission on Industrial Relations , Washington, D.C.: 1915) arose
because the country had just experienced perhaps the most savage strike in the history of
American industrial relations. This strike of Colorado mineworkers was against a number of
firms, but included as one of the largest the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, in which the
Rockefeller family held shares. The strike ended with the tragedy of the "Ludlow Massacre"
where many strikers were either killed or injured. The RF in its evidence before the commission
noted that John D. Rockefeller, Jr., as President was so impressed by the Colorado disturbances
that it ". . . caused him to urge a far-reaching study of industrial relations as the most important
inquiry to which the Foundation could direct attention". (Rockefeller Foundation, Information
Furnished by the Rockefeller Foundation in response to questionnaires submitted by United States

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
Commission on Industrial Relations , New York: The Rockefeller Foundati

detailed account of the McKenzie King affair refer to Sheila S. McVey and
Amove, op. cit.
17. Letter, Star J. Murphy (assistant to JRD Sr.) to W. S. Richardson (Secret
File 33, Publicity. LSRM, II, 3, RAC. In the LSRM papers there are no sepa
18. Ruml was twenty-seven years old. He received his Ph.D. in psychology fr
Chicago. During the war he became the co-director of the Division of T
became assistant to the President of the Carnegie Corporation, James
appointed at the substantial salary of $7,500. For an account of Ruml's entry
fold refer to Barry D. Karl, Charles E. Merriam and the Study of Politics
University of Chicago Press, 1974, p. 132.
19. While it is difficult to evaluate the effect of an individual personality at thi
clear to this writer that Ruml was extremely forceful. He was physically
aggressive style. This impression comes from an examination of correspo
files as well as a personal description from Robert J. Havighurst. During
worked for another Rockefeller foundation, the General Education Boar
with Robert J. Havighurst, Vancouver, 19/7/79.
Raymond Fosdick, a New York lawyer, became a trustee of the LSRM in 19
of the RF and in 1936 became the President. Fosdick was JDR, Jr.'s lawye
advisor. Throughout the inter-war years he acted as a link between
philanthropy. For Fosdick's own account of his relationship with JDR, Jr
Fosdick, Chronical of a Generation: An Autobiography, New York: Harper
Colonel Arthur Woods was an ex Police Commissioner of New York. He ha
business ties with the family. He was the Vice-President of Colorado Fuel
and a Director of Bankers Trust Company. Woods was a trustee of the LSR
Education Board (another Rockefeller foundation) and the RF. He became
of the LSRM in 1928 and later the Chairman and a trustee of the Spelman
20. American Historical Association (1884), American Economic Associa
Psychological Association (1892), American Anthropological Association
Political Science Association (1903), and, the American Sociological Society
21. See Hamilton Cravens, "American Science Comes of Age: An Insti
1850-1930", American Studies 17, 2, 1976. 49-70; George H. Danie
Professionalization in American Science: The Emergent Period, 1820-1
151-166; Al Gedicks, "American Social Scientists and the Emerging C
1885-1915", Insurgent Sociologist , 5, 1975. 25-47; and David Michael Gr
and Public Service 1885-1925: A Chapter in the Professionalization of
Ph.D. Diss Washington University, 1973.
22. For accounts of the history of the social science and these three discipline
Jessie Bernard, op. cit.; D. Ross, "The Development of the Social Scienc
J. Voss, (eds.), The Organization of Knowledge in Modern America , 18
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979; Robert L. Church, "Economists as
an Academic Profession in the United States", in Lawrence Stone (ed.)
Society , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974; Albert Somit and Jo
Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behaviourism
Bacon, 1967. D. Waldo, "Political Science: Tradition, Discipline, P
Enterprise", in F. I. Greenstein and N. Polsby, (eds.), The Handbook of Pol
Reading, Mass.: Addison- Wesley, 1975; Bernard Crick, The American S
Origins and Conditions, Berkeley, California: University of California
Coser, "American Trends", in Tom Bottomere and Robert Nisbet (
Sociological Analysis London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1979; and

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
228 DONALD FISHER
"Department and Disciplines: The De

1892-1920", Minerva , 13, 1975. 514-
23. Frank later became an officer in th
as well as a leading figure in the Child
24. Lawrence K. Frank, "The Status of t
679, Social Science - Pamphlet and R
25. Ibid., pp. 16-17. Frank did specific
university connection. The implication
legitimacy to these external agencies.
26. Before joining the LSRM, Edmund
Business Administration, University o
creation until 1928. Day first took a
1927/28, to join the LSRM. He was mad
and spent part of the year travelling w
country visiting social science departm
October 1928 at the enormous salary o
27. JDR Jr. was the President and Ch
trustee of the RF, 1913-1940 and Chair
28. "General Memorandum, October 1
29. Ibid., p. 3.
30. "Meeting 26 February 1924" p. 14. File 6, Dockets, Jan.-Feb., 1924. LSRM, 1,1, RAC.
31 . "Social Sciences - Program and Policy - Recent Trends in Social Sciences - Speech delivered at
the dedication of social science building of the University of Chicago on 17 December 1929 by
Beardsley Ruml" p. 5. Folder 12, Program and Policy -Reports. PRO 6- 12a, 1929-1933. RF, 3,
910, 2, RAC.
32. "Memorandum: The executive Committee and Director to the Board of Trustees, The Laura
Spelman Rockefeller Memorial for the year 1 October 1923 to 30 September 1924, 13 November
1924". p. 15. File 10, Dockets Nov.-Dec. 1924. LSRM, 1,1, RAC.
33. "Staff Meeting of the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, 24-27 August 1927, Hanover, New
Hampshire" p. 47. LSRM, 2, 3, RAC.
34. National advisors supervised the selection of candidates as well as acting as host to fellowship
holders who selected their country for study. Advisors were appointed in England, France,
Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Australia.
William E. Lingelbach, Professor of Modern European History of the University of
Pennsylvania surveyed the situation in Italy, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands in
1925.
35. For a detailed account of Merriam's career, see Karl, op. cit.
36. "Meeting 26 February 1924" p. 18. File 6, Dockets Jan.-Feb. 1924. LSRM, 1,1, RAC.
37. Those men were G. S. Ford, J. J. Coss, Gay, A. B. Hall, Howard Odum, Edward L. Thorndyke
and Ogburn. Early in 1924 Dr. John J. Coss of Columbia University accompanied President
Frank Aydelotto of Swarthmore College on a visit to Western Europe on behalf of the LSRM to
study the feasibility of a fellowship programme. Dr. Guy Stanton Ford, the Dean of the
Graduate School of the University of Minnesota accompanied Coss on his visits to France,
Germany, Czechoslovakia and Austria. Ford subsequently took leave for the year 1926-27 to
work for the LSRM.
38. "Meeting 14 November 1923" Memorandum of the Executive Committee and Director, p. 8.
File 5. Dockets Nov.-Dec. 1923. LSRM, 1,1, RAC.
39. "Memorandum: The Executive Committee and Director to the Board of Trustees, The Laura
Spelman Rockefeller Memorial for the year 1 October 1924 through 30 September 1925,
5 November 1925, p. 7. File 16, Dockets Nov. 1925. LSRM, 1, 2, RAC.

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
40. "Report of the Executive Committee and Director 1926-1927, 22 N

Dockets Nov. 1927. LSRM, 1, 4, RAC.
41. "Principle's Governing the Memorial's Program in the Soci
Memorial's Trustee Committee of Review, 1928". File 678 - So
Report. LSRM, 3, 63, RAC.
42. Refer to Letters, John D. Rockefeller Jr. to John D. Rockefeller,
4/5/26. File 36, Rockefeller, John D. Jr., 1919-1928. LSRM, 2, 3, R
43 . Hopkins, the President of Dartmouth College later became a trust
General Education Board (1930-1942).
44 . The committee amended two sections of current policy. They reco
to include more non-university institutions. Second, under- gradua
This ommission confirmed an earlier decision documented in an ea
transfer this responsibility to the General Education Board. "T
Committee of Review" 16/5/28 p6. File 531, Committee in Review-
1928. LSRM, 3, 50, RAC.
45. Ibid., pp. 1-2.
46. Memorandum, May to Fosdick, 7/11/36. "Program in Public Admi
910 Program and Policy - Public Administration Reports. PRO -
910, 10, RAC.
47. In a letter to George E. Vincent (President, RF) Jerome D. G
Secretary, RF) notes that important officers of the LSRM were ". . . a
the RF as they have considered the RF as a rather hidebound organi
strength of the LSRM resided largely in elasticity". Letter, Greene
910 Program and Policy, 1928. RF, 910, 1, RAC.
48. Letter, John Van Sickle. (Associate Director for the Social Science
European representative), 15/8/34. Folder 3, 910 Program and Po
RAC. Van Sickle outlines the distribution of responsibilities: ec
Sickle); university centers and international relations (Walker); p
May).
49. It was C. E. Merriam who after Day's election as SSRC Treasurer brought him to Ruml's
attention by describing Day as ". . . an excellent man." Letter, C. E. Merriam to Ruml, 19/5/24.
File 682, Social Science Research Council, 1923-24. LSRM, III, 64, RAC.
50. In 1929, Rockefeller philanthropy consolidated most of its separate interests under the one
organization, the Rockefeller Foundation. The LSRM became the Division of the Social
Sciences.
51. "Staff Meeting 14/1/30". p.l Folder 2. Program and Policy 1929-1932. RF, 910, 1, RAC.
52. Ibid.
53 . "Memorandum on the Connection of the Foundation with the League of Nations" Raymond B .
Fosdick to Syndor M. Walker (officer in the LSRM and the DSS), 20/3/30. P. 2. Folder 60,
Program and Policy-International Relatiorts 1929-1941. RF, 910, 7, RAC.
Fosdick published a book on this general theme, see Raymond B. Fosdick, The Old Savage in the
New Civilization , Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Doran and Company, 1928. The
perceived gap between the natural and social sciences built upon the concept "cultural-lag"
initially proposed by the sociologist Ogburn in 1922. For an analysis of this concept during the
interwar period refer to Bernard Barber, Science and the Social Order , New York: Collier
Books, 1962.
54. "Rockefeller Foundation Activities - Statement Prepared for JDR 3rd" 6/30 Folder 166, 900
Program and Policy - Reports, PRO - 15, PRO -22, 1926-1930. RF, 900, 22, RAC.

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
230 DONALD FISHER
55. Letter, Max Mason (President o

Anthropology, U.C. Berkeley) 1/4/35.
1, RAC.
56. Letter Mason to Kroeber, 1/4/35. F
RAC. Also E. E. Day Presentation: "Ver
Officers, October 29, 1930" Folder 16
RF, 900, 22, RAC.
57. "Staff Conference and Circular, 29/
910, 1 RAC.
58. "A Brief Summary of Conferences
Folder 166, 900 Program and Policy -
RAC.
59. Ibid. pp. 15-16. Beardsley Ruml was the Director of the Spelman Fund. It should be noted that
cultural anthropology continued as a minor field of interest. The other two key officials were
Woods and C. E. Merriam.
60. "Proposed Foundation Program in Economic Stabilization" by Edmund E. Day 14 September
1931. Folder 12, 910 Program and Policy - Reports - PRO - 6 - 12a, 1929-1933. RF, 910, 1,
RAC. The statements that Day quotes come from an address that Woods gave before the
American Society for Engineers, 1/12/30. For an account of Woods involvement in Rockefeller's
business and philanthropy, refer to footnote 19.
61 . "Interim Report of Activities of the Rockefeller Foundation During 1933" 13/12/33. pp. 23-25:
Folder 168, 900 Program and Policy - Reports PRO -23, PRO -24, 1933. RF, 900, 22, RAC.
62. "Social Intelligence" Commencement Address delivered by Edmund E. Day, University of
Vermont, 15 June 1931. p. 5. Folder 21, 910 Program and Policy - Reports PRO 45, 1931. RF,
910, 3, RAC. Similarly, "Proposed Foundation Program in Economic Stabilization" by
Edmund E . Day 1 4 September 1 93 1 . p . 4 . Folder 12,910 Program and Policy - Reports PRO - 6 -
12a, 1929-1933. RF, 910, 2, RAC.
63. "Social Intelligence" Day, 15/6/31 . P. 2 Folder 21, 910 Program and Policy - Reports PRO - 45
1931. RF, 910, 3, RAC.
64. "Proposed Foundation Program in Economic Stabilization" Day, 14/9/31. pp. 2-A. Folder 12,
910. Program and Policy - Reports PRO-6-12a, 1929-1933. RF, 910, 1,RAC.
65. "Social Intelligence" Day, 15/6/31 . P. 9 Folder 21,910 Program and Policy - Reports PRO - 45
1931. RF, 910, 3, RAC.
66. "Proposed Foundation Program in Economic Stabilization" Day, 14/9/31. pp.2- 4. Folder 12,
910. Program and Policy - Reports PRO-6- 12a, 1929-1933. RF, 910, 1, RAC.
67. Previous references make it clear that Fosdick and Woods agreed with Day's analysis. Beardsley
Ruml contributed to the debate and supported Day. Ruml, "Memorandum to Whom it May
Concern. Re: Things that might be Done (in the Social Sciences)" 21/9/31 . Folder 2, 910 Program
and Policy, 1929-1932. RF, 910, 1 RAC. And Ruml "Memorandum" 12/33. Folder 13, 910
Program and Policy - Reports PRO 13-18, 1933-1935, 910, 2, RAC.
68. "Development of the Social Science Program, Summary Statement" prepared by Janet M. Paine
for Joseph FI. Willits (became Director of DSS in 1939) 30/1/39, p. 11. Folder 16, 910 Program
and Policy -Reports PRO 25-30, 1938-1941. RF, 910, 3, RAC.
69. Professor James R. Angeli, a psychologist was the President of Yale University (1921-1939). In
addition to being an RF Trustee he had been the Acting President of the University of Chicago
and President of the Carnegie Corporation. Walter W. Stewart was recognized as a leading
economist in both the academy and government. Between 1930 and 1937 Stewart was the
President of Case and Pomeroy Investment Company. Stewart was a trustee of the RF
(1931-1950) and the GEB (1933-1950). He became Chairman of both these boards from 1940 to
1950 and 1942 to 1950 respectively.

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
70. "Report of the Committee on Appraisal and Plan - Trustees Meet

p.lll. Folder 170, 900 Program and Policy - Reports PRO - 27, PRO
RAC.
71. Letter Day to Tracy B. Kitteridge (officer DSS), 17/1/35. Folder 3, 910 Program and Policy 1933
-1936. RF, 910, 1, RAC.
72. The Centers were divided into two groups. Five institutions had been treated as major centers:
Columbia, Harvard, Brookings, Chicago and LSE. Fifteen institutions were labelled as regional
centers and received less support. These centers were: Stanford, University of California,
University of North Carolina, University of Virginia, University of Texas, McGill University,
American University of Beirut, University of Stockholm, Institute of Economics and History
(Copenhagen), Economic Institute of the Royal University of Oslo, Rumanian Institute of Social
Sciences, Oxford University, University of Paris, and two Chinese Universities, Yenching and
Nankai. All these institutions were provided with some support through to 1940.
73. "Directors' Report on Program" 11 December 1935, p. 45. Folder 171, 900 Program and Policy -
Reports, PRO - 28, PRO - 30, 1935-1936. RF, 900, 23, RAC. To prepare for this meeting the
DSS organized a conference to discuss Economic Security and Social Insurance. In addition, Day
was able to utilize a survey report on research into housing problems. The RF had commissioned
Ernest M. Fisher (University of Michigan) to prepare this report in November 1931 . Fisher had
since become the Director of Research for the Federal Administration.
74. Fosdick worked for the League of Nation's for a short time. He maintained an active public
interest in international relations throughout the interwar years.
75. Ibid., p. 49.
76. "New Program in the Social Sciences, Trustees Meeting, April 10, 1935". DR 492, p. 25, Folder
13, 910 Program and Policy -Reports, PRO - 13- 18, 1933-1935. RF, 910, 2, RAC.
77. "Directors' Report on Program" 1 1 December 1935, p. 54. Folder 171 , 900 Program and Policy-
Reports, PRO -28, PRO -30, 1935-1936. RF, 900, 23, RAC.
78. Ibid.
79. In an unpublished paper, this author traces the developing relation between American
Philanthropy and the SSRC. The paper is entitled "American Philanthropy, and the United
States Social Science Research Council". The control exercised by Rockefeller philanthropy over
the SSRC is documented in a report that Louis Wirth was commissioned to write in 1937. See
"Report on the History, Activities and Policies of the Social Science Research Council", by
Louis Wirth, August 1937. Folder 4747, 2005 Social Science Research Council, Report 1937. RF
1.1, 200, 401, RAC.
80. "Directors Report on Program" 1 1 December 1935, p. 54. Folder 171, 900 Program and Policy -
Reports, PRO -28, PRO-30,, 1935-1936. RF, 900, 23, RAC.
81. Wirth, op. cit., p. 28.
82. Letters from A. L. Kroeber to Max Mason, and Mason to Kroeber, 1/4/35 and 6/5/35.
83. Memorandum "Future Support of the Social Sciences in Universities" S. H. Walker to J. H.
Willits, 24/7/39, pp.1 and 2. Attached to Letter, Willits to Fosdick, 25/8/39, Folder 4, 910
Program and Policy, 1937-1939. RF, 910, 1, RAC.
84 . Memorandum : T revor B . Arnett to Day, 1 4/2/36 (circulated to the rest of the DSS). Folder 3,910
Program and Policy 1933-1936. RF, 910, 1, RAC. Arnett was an administrator at the University
of Chicago who became both a trustee of various Rockefeller foundations and an officer.
85. "Memorandum: Program in Public Administration" May to Fosdick, 7/1 1/36, pp. 13-14. Folder
94, 910 Program and Policy - Public administration - Report, PRO-PUB-1^, 1928-1936. RF,
910, 10, RAC.
86. "The Rockefeller Foundation Statement of Program" December 1936. pp. 12-13. Folder 17, 900
Program and Policy - Reports PRO - 28, PRO - 30, 1935-1936. RF, 900, 23, RAC.
87. Ibid., p. 11.

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
232 DONALD FISHER
88. Ibid., p. 12.

89. "Joint Meeting of the Trustees, R
Executive Session, November 30, 1937
1, RAC.
90. Harold W. Dodds, a long time trus
Dulles, a lawyer was a Trustee of the G
footnote 85.
91. "Report of the Trustee Committe
7 December 1938. Folder 106, 910 Pr
Reports -PRO-TCR-1-5 1938. RF, 9
92. Memorandum: Willits to Fosdick,
1940-1948, p. 1 . RF, 910, 4, RAC.
93. There are obvious difficulties in u
discipline's that are included under th
and between discipline groups. Yet the
group definition at least for the econo
94. Wirth infers that this was the case. S
this report Wirth makes the position
his piece in order to remove those
Rockefeller philanthropy and the SSR
Department of Special Collections, Th
95. See Report, Wirth, 1937, op. cit., p.
96. See File 569, Hanover Conference-J
97. Report of the President's Research
United States , 2 vols.; New York: M
98. The writer has included the 1928 LS
for the DSS after incorporation.
99. Fosdick to Rumi (note attached
Economic Research, 20/10/22" Rum
LSRM, III, 51, RAC.
100. Letter, Woods to Ruml, 11/5/2
1923-1928. LSRM, III, 71 RAC.
101 . Letter, Mason to Day, 30/6/30. Fo
102. Interviews: Roger F. Evans, Anne B
C. Prince and Guy Emerson. Fold
Conference, 1941. RF, 910, 10, RAC
103. Letter: Frank B. Stubbs (Comptr
LSRM, II 3, RAC.
104. Other trustees that were particul
John Foster Dulles and Ernest M. Ho
105. See Donald Fisher, "American Phil
Reproduction of a Conservative Ide
discussion of this concept see Lewis A
Chapter 25 "Foundations as Gatekeepe
106. Van Sickle, "Notes on Possible Fo
Economy Security" 17/23/34, p.l. F
1931-1938. RF, 910, 5, RAC.
107. Van Sickle "Recommendations for
Policy - Economic Security, 1931-19

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC
108. Letter, Woods to JDR Jr., 17/1/23. File 790, University of Penns
75, RAC. JDR Jr. provided money for Mayo's work prior to the Mem
109. Letter, Willits to Ruml, 17/7/25. File 791, University of Pennsylv
75, RAC.
110. Edward C. Lindeman, Wealth and Culture: A Study of 100 Foundat
and Their Operations During the Decade 1921-1930 , New Yor
Company, 1936. p. 161.
111. The concept "relation" refers to both the internal and external
clarification see Bentell Oilman, Alienation: Marx's Conception of M
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. pp. 15-16.
1 12. Letter, Fosdick to Ruml, 18/9/28. Attached to Memorandum, Shelb
Fosdick, subject: "Comment on Merriam's Memorandum on Governme
File 602, Merriam, Charles 1928. LSRM, III, 56, RAC.
113. RF, Annual Report, 1953, pp. 7-8.
114. Ibid., p. 17.
115. See Fisher, op. cit., 1980. Also Donald Fisher, "Rockefeller Philanthro
British Social Anthropology: Functionalism and British Colonia
Unpublished paper.
Biographical Note: DONALD Fisher studied at the University of B

Sociology, 1972), and at the University of California, Berkeley (Ph.D. i
1977). Since 1976 he has been an Assistant Professor teaching Sociology in
the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
The Training of Probation Office

Nigel Fielding, Lecturer in Sociology,
Sociology Department, University of Surre
Copies of the paper are available from Dr.

Sociology Department, University of Surrey, G
5XH. The cost of the paper is £1.00 inclusive o
packing. Cheques should be made payable to "
Surrey".
Abstract: This is the second in a series of Occasional Papers to
be published by the Department. The paper examines the fit
between the everyday work of probation officers and the
mode and content of probation training on CQSW courses. It
reports the results of research on the assessment of training
by newly-qualified and experienced officers. Probation
officers complain that trainees not only have an inadequate
knowledge of legal codes and administrative regulations but
that they fail to grasp the significance of the officers' role as an
agent of social control. The implications of the findings are
discussed in relation to theoretical and practical issues.

193.60.238.225 on Sun, 28 Aug 2022 03:10:40 UTC

The Role of Philanthropic Foundations in The Reproduction of Hegemony - Fisher

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Philanthropic Foundations in The Reproduction of Hegemony - Fisher

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE ROLE OF PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATIONS IN THE REPRODUCTION AND

PRODUCTION OF HEGEMONY: ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATIONS AND THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42852563

This content downloaded from