(eBook PDF) Social Theory: Roots and

Branches 5th Edition

Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-social-theory-roots-and-branches-5th-edit
ion/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

(eBook PDF) American Government Roots and Reform 2016

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-american-government-
roots-and-reform-2016/

(eBook PDF) Contemporary Social and Sociological

Theory: Visualizing Social Worlds 3rd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-contemporary-social-and-
sociological-theory-visualizing-social-worlds-3rd-edition-2/

(eBook PDF) Contemporary Social and Sociological

Theory: Visualizing Social Worlds 3rd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-contemporary-social-and-
sociological-theory-visualizing-social-worlds-3rd-edition/

(eBook PDF) American Government: Roots and Reform, 2018

Elections and Updates Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-american-government-
roots-and-reform-2018-elections-and-updates-edition/
Direct Social Work Practice: Theory and Skills 10th
Edition - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/direct-social-work-practice-
theory-and-skills-ebook-pdf/

(eBook PDF) Education and Social Change 5th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-education-and-social-
change-5th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Empowerment Series: Direct Social Work

Practice: Theory and Skills 10th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-empowerment-series-
direct-social-work-practice-theory-and-skills-10th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Social Psychology and Human Nature 5th

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-social-psychology-and-
human-nature-5th-edition/

(Original PDF) Theory of Machines and Mechanisms 5th

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/original-pdf-theory-of-machines-
and-mechanisms-5th-edition/
 Contents vii

IV Georg Simmel 104

16. Fashion 104
Simmel, the first keen sociological analyst of consumerism, discusses the
reasons that fashions come into and go out of style so quickly in modern
life.
17. *The Adventurer 110
The adventurer is the social type that seeks to exit from the routinized and
rationalized world of everyday life, not temporarily—as is the case with
most people—but by seeking to create a life that is in its totality an
adventure.
18. *The Metropolis and Mental Life 116
Modern industrial society is seen most starkly in urban settings, and in this
classic essay Simmel links the themes of interdependency and rationaliza-
tion specifically to metropolitan spaces.
19. The Stranger 125
“The Stranger” is one of Simmel’s classic essays on social types. He discusses a
type of person—the Jew in European society being his key example—who is
both connected to and marginalized by society.
20. The Philosophy of Money 129
Beginning with the claim that “money is the purest tool,” Simmel
observes that its instrumental, abstract, and impersonal character
makes it possible to expand considerably the range and types of social
interaction. He concludes by examining what he terms “the surplus
value of wealth.”

V Other Foundational Voices 136

21. *On Marriage 136
Harriet Martineau
Martineau surveys the institution of marriage cross-culturally, and notes that
everywhere women are treated unequally, seen most starkly in their limited
occupational opportunities.
22. *On Individualism 141
Alexis de Tocqueville
Making use of the recently coined term “individualism,” Tocqueville locates
this phenomenon in relation to democratic societies, depicting America as
the lead society in this regard.
23. The Conservation of Races 146
W. E. B. Du Bois
DuBois contends that there are significant spiritual and psychical differences
among the major races and, as a result, various races have contributed in
different ways to civilizational development.
viii CONTENTS

24. The Dependence of Women 151

Charlotte Perkins Gilman
In this early feminist critique of patriarchal society, Gilman assesses some of
the negative implications of consigning women to the realm of household
labor and child rearing.
25. *Conspicuous Consumption 155
Thorstein Veblen
Veblen’s skills as an acerbic social critic are on display in his discussion of
“conspicuous consumption,” which he depicts as a characteristic means by
which the leisure class makes status claims.
26. Utilization of Women in City Government 159
Jane Addams
Addams proposes that the emergence of the modern welfare state brings with
it opportunities for women to enter the public arena in order to perform
jobs for which they are uniquely qualified due to their nurturing and caring
roles in the home.
27. *Social and Individual Aspects of Mind 165
Charles Horton Cooley
Cooley takes issue with the Cartesian claim “I think, hence I am,” countering it
by advancing the idea that self and society are intricately intertwined.

VI Voices Outside the Discipline 170

28. The Madman 170
Friedrich Nietzsche
This aphorism from The Gay Science proclaims the death of God and our
responsibility for it, contending that we are only beginning to appreciate the
full implications of the end of theistic religion.
29. What Pragmatism Means 173
William James
James offers a straightforward definition of pragmatism and then suggests
how such an orientation shifts the thrust and focus of philosophy.
30. The Eclipse of the Public 179
John Dewey
A major theorist of democracy, Dewey argues that democratic practice
entails the opportunity to engage in public discourse. Here he expresses his
concern that the autonomy of public opinion is eroding.
31. Civilization and Its Discontents 183
Sigmund Freud
Freud’s tragic view of life is succinctly presented in this passage, wherein he
discusses both the value of civilization and the steep psychological price we
pay for it.
 Contents ix

32. The Fusion of the ’I’ and the ’Me’ in Social Activities 190
George Herbert Mead
According to Mead, the “I” and “me” are two aspects of the self that must work
together to make acting in social life possible.

PART TWO THE BRANCHES: CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL THEORY 195

VII Functionalism and Systems Theory 197

33. The Unanticipated Consequences of Social Action 197
Robert K. Merton
From a structural-functionalist perspective, Merton points to the sociological
significance of the unanticipated consequences of social action and offers
an analysis of some factors contributing to such actions.
34. The Subsystems of Society 205
Talcott Parsons
Parsons takes up the subject of societal subsystems, focusing on what he sees
as the “core,” which he defines as the “societal community,” the primary
function of which is to promote social integration through a process of
inclusion.
35. The Functions of Social Conflict 211
Lewis Coser
Revealing his debt to both Simmel and Parsons, Coser offers a functionalist
account of conflict wherein he emphasizes its ability to reinforce group
solidarity and to serve as a safety valve for the release of tensions.
36. Functional Differentiation 215
Niklas Luhmann
According to Luhmann, the inability to speak about the unity of the social
system means that our capacity to resolve social problems on the basis of
shared value commitments is severely limited.

VIII Conflict Theories 221

37. Culture and Politics 221
C. Wright Mills
Written during the height of the Cold War, this passage from Mills reveals his
sense of the destructive dangers of the modern age.
38. Conflict Groups and Group Conflicts 227
Ralf Dahrendorf
Dahrendorf offers insights designed to assess the potential negative impact of
conflict in any given society at any point in time, paying particular attention
to the role of various configurations of author in either containing or
unleashing violence.
x CONTENTS

39. The Basics of Conflict Theory 235

Randall Collins
In contrast to Coser, Collins seeks to unlink conflict sociology from func-
tionalism; here he offers an outline of a conflict theoretical understanding
of occupational stratification.
40. *War Making and State Making as Organized Crime 243
Charles Tilly
As the title suggests, Tilly draws a parallel between the way that nation states
and organized crime syndicates function, both creating protection rackets to
enhance their own positions.

IX Symbolic Interaction, Phenomenology, and

Ethnomethodology 250
41. Society as Symbolic Interaction 250
Herbert Blumer
Blumer offers an outline of what he termed “symbolic interactionism,” which
seeks to contrast how his approach of beginning with the interpretive work
of actors in the process of constructing their social lives differs from
competing theories such as behaviorism and functionalism.
42. Performances 257
Erving Goffman
Goffman uses the metaphor of social life as theater to outline a dramaturgical
social theory. In this excerpt, he is concerned with the ways in which actors
both relate to their roles and convey a sense of authenticity to others,
focusing on the significance of “fronts” in achieving convincing
performances.
43. Indirect Social Relationships 263
Alfred Schutz
In this essay Schutz describes the characteristic features of social relationships
other than those that are direct or face-to-face.
44. Rules of Conversational Sequence 269
Harvey Sacks
In an analysis of telephone conversations, Sacks offers an ethnomethodological
account of the rules or “ethnomethods” people employ in the process of
achieving orderly and stable interactional exchanges.
45. Studies of the Routine Grounds of Everyday Activities 276
Harold Garfinkel
Garfinkel, who coined the term “ethnomethodology,” provides an outline of
a theoretical approach intended to bring into focus the ways that social
order is constructed in the most common routines of everyday life.
 Contents xi

X Exchange Theory and Rational Choice Theory 281

46. Social Behavior as Exchange 281
George C. Homans
One of the key figures associated with the development of exchange
theory, Homans outlines an exchange paradigm that in its most ele-
mentary form seeks to explain social behavior in terms of costs and
rewards.
47. Power-Dependence Relations 291
Richard M. Emerson
In this classic essay in the exchange theory tradition, Emerson seeks to
provide a link among the concepts of “power,” “authority,” “legitimacy,”
and “structure” by articulating a view of power that emphasizes its
relational character. Power is thus conceived in terms of “ties of mutual
dependence.”
48. Human Capital and Social Capital 303
James S. Coleman
Coleman was a major spokesperson for rational choice theory, an approach
wherein actors and resources constitute two central elementary concepts.
Here he discusses two important types of resources: human capital and
social capital.
49. *The Emergence of Cooperative Social Institutions 311
Michael Hechter
From a rational choice perspective, Hechter offers an account of how
cooperative social institutions arise, in the process addressing the steps they
can take to remedy the free rider problem.
50. Formulation of Exchange Theory 320
Peter Blau
Blau presents an exchange theoretical account that, in contrast to the earlier
version of Homans, attempts to focus on social structure and appreciates
the differences between the micro-level and the macro-level.

XI Feminist Theory 328

51. Doing Gender 328
Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman
Distinguishing between sex and gender, West and Zimmerman borrow
insights from both Goffman and Garfinkel to make the claim that gender is
the product of social interaction.
52. *Difference and Dominance: On Sex Discrimination 336
Catharine MacKinnon
MacKinnon takes issue with what she calls the sameness/difference
theory of sex inequality and then sketches out her alternative
dominance approach.
xii CONTENTS

53. Toward an Afrocentric Feminist Epistemology 350

Patricia Hill Collins
Collins endeavors to link an Afrocentric perspective to feminist theory, con-
tending that a black feminist epistemology begins with an appreciation of
the concrete experiences of daily life.
54. Sociology from Women’s Experience: A Reaffirmation 360
Dorothy E. Smith
Smith makes a case for a theoretical perspective that begins with women’s
concrete experiences. Here she discusses her understanding of the notion of
“standpoint.”
55. Femininity and Masculinity 371
Raewyn Connell
In developing the concept of “hegemonic masculinity,” Connell stresses the
structured character of gendered power relations, noting that the situation is
always further complicated by the fact that there are multiple types of both
masculinity and femininity.

XII Theories of Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism 380

56. The Theoretical Status of the Concept of Race 380
Michael Omi and Howard Winant
In critiquing positions that either treat race as mere ideology or that
essentialize race, Omi and Winant lay out the contours of a
critical theory of race that views it as an unstable, historically
contingent, and highly variable construct that comes to constitute
“racial projects.”
57. Between Camps: Race and Culture in Postmodernity 390
Paul Gilroy
Gilroy contends that nationalism and racial formations operate in terms of
“camps,” a word he chooses to “emphasize their hierarchal and regimented
qualities,” offering as an antidote a cosmopolitan humanism based on
interculturalism.
58. *The Rise and Fall of Multiculturalism? 401
Will Kymlicka
Responding to critics who have concluded that multiculturalism has failed
and is on the wane, Kymlicka offers a concise account of what multicul-
turalism actually is before indicating how the critics are off the mark.
59. Ethnicity without Groups 412
Rogers Brubaker
In this provocative essay, Brubaker takes aim at the essentializing and homo-
genizing tendency that treats ethnicity as a thing, countering with what he
sees as a corrective that stresses ethnicity’s “relational, processual, and
dynamic” character.
 Contents xiii

60. Nationalism and the Cultures of Democracy 424

Craig Calhoun
Calhoun is critical of postnationalists who argue that nationalism either is
being or should be overcome, contending that such a position fails to
appreciate the role nationalism plays in facilitating social integration and
solidarity, which are prerequisites for democratic practice.

XIII Critical Theory 434

61. Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction 434
Walter Benjamin
In a passage from one of Benjamin’s most widely read essays, the author seeks
to explain the impact on art of the shift from traditional to modern socie-
ties, stressing that in the latter art loses its “aura” and its link to ritual.
62. One-Dimensional Man 439
Herbert Marcuse
In a work that influenced the New Left during the 1960s, Marcuse argues that
freedom is eroding in the advanced industrial nations as a consequence of
the fact that technology and bureaucracy have produced an overly admi-
nistered society.
63. Traditional and Critical Theory 445
Max Horkheimer
According to Horkheimer, critical theory is different from traditional theory,
insofar as it is reflexive and concerned with comprehending the world in
historical rather than naturalistic terms.
64. Three Normative Models of Democracy 450
Jürgen Habermas
Identifying central problems in the two historically rooted models of
democracy—liberalism and republicanism—Habermas offers an alterna-
tive, which he refers to as deliberative politics.
65. Personal Identity and Disrespect 458
Axel Honneth
Honneth contends that recognition is connected to both power and respect,
and as such the intersubjective character of recognition/misrecognition
underpins the way that people understand the justness or unjustness of
particular social arrangements.

XIV Contemporary Theories of Modernity 464

66. Shame and Repugnance 464
Norbert Elias
According to Elias, the civilizing process has profoundly transformed people
psychologically and behaviorally; in this selection he suggests how the ideas
of shame and repugnance have been an integral part of this process.
xiv CONTENTS

67. Spectacular Time 470

Guy Debord
In developing his idea that the contemporary stage of capitalist development
can be defined as a “society of the spectacle,” in this selection Debord defines
spectacular time in terms of being both consumable and pseudo-cyclical.
68. The Reflexivity of Modernity 474
Anthony Giddens
Giddens has disagreed with postmodernists that we have entered a new stage
of development beyond the modern. On the contrary, he thinks we have
entered “late modernity.” In this selection from a work devoted to exploring
the “consequences of modernity,” Giddens distinguishes traditional and
modern societies insofar as reflexivity assumes a new and more significant
role in the latter.
69. Redistribution 478
Bruno Latour
Latour calls for a reconsideration of the relationship between humans and
nature and the question of God, and in so doing challenges not only the
claims of modernity, but also postmodernity, before suggesting a
“nonmodern constitution.”
70. *The Politicization of Life 489
Giorgio Agamben
Modern politics, Agamben contends, is increasingly defined in terms of bare
life, directed to bodies subject to various technologies of power in
contrast to political beings defined as citizens.

XV Structuralism, Poststructuralism,
and Postmodernity 494
71. The Correspondence between Goods Production and Taste
Production 494
Pierre Bourdieu
Bourdieu contends that taste is a decidedly social rather than individual
faculty, one that is in particular shaped by specific class locations. He goes
further by revealing that as taste shapes distinctive group lifestyles, it does so
in opposition to the tastes of others.
72. Advertising 502
Jean Baudrillard
As a radical proponent of postmodernism, Baudrillard offers a vision of a
world saturated by the media and entertainment industries. The result, he
contends, is a dissolving of the differences between the real and images,
signs, and simulations.
73. Panopticism 508
Michel Foucault
In this passage from Discipline and Punish, Foucault discusses the Panopticon
as a prime example of the uniting of knowledge and power into a new
system of surveillance and control.
 Contents xv

74. On Living in a Liquid Modern World 514

Zygmunt Bauman
Using the term “liquid” to describe contemporary social life, Bauman views
the present as characterized by rapid change that prevents the establishment
of patterns of thought and action, thus preventing people from relying on
solid frames of reference.
75. *The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge 522
Jean-François Lyotard
Lyotard’s classic statement on postmodernity links this cultural shift to
the economic shift resulting in postindustrial societies, going on to
argue that postmodern culture undermines totalizing accounts of social
change.

XVI World Systems and Globalization Theory 532

76. The Three Instances of Hegemony in the History of the
Capitalist World-Economy 532
Immanuel Wallerstein
Wallerstein’s world-systems theory approaches capitalism as a global
system from a perspective that emphasizes the longue durée and the
operation of long-term cycles of development. In this essay, he discusses
the concept of “hegemony” in terms of the link between the system’s
core exploiting nations and the nations on the periphery and
semi-periphery.
77. *The Cosmopolitan Condition: Why Methodological
Nationalism Fails 539
Ulrich Beck
Taking aim at methodological nationalism, Beck seeks to link a cosmopolitan
alternative to both modernity and globalization.
78. Disjunction and Difference in the Global
Cultural Economy 545
Arjun Appadurai
Appadurai’s chief concern is with the cultural aspects of globalization, which
is shaped profoundly by contemporary transportation networks and com-
munication technologies. In this selection he develops a framework for
understanding global cultural flows in terms of five distinct but interrelated
dimensions: ethoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, financescapes and
ideoscapes.
79. Theorizing Globalization 557
Douglas Kellner
Globalization is both multidimensional — encompassing economic, tech-
nological, political, and cultural realms — and contested. It is shaped by
powerful forces at the top, while it is also being challenged by various
mobilizations from below. Kellner seeks to articulate a theory of globali-
zation indebted to critical theory that accounts for this complexity and
recognizes that its impacts will be variable and changeable.
xvi CONTENTS

XVII Further New Directions in Contemporary Social

Theory 578
80. The Subject and Societal Movements 578
Alain Touraine
Building on his idea of action sociology, Touraine develops his understanding
of the subject conceived in collective terms. This idea of collective actors
shapes his understanding of what he refers to as the “distinctiveness of
social movements.” The linking of the subject and social movements, in
turn, serves as the basis for discussing the democratic prospect today.
81. *Real Civil Societies: Dilemmas of Institutionalization 588
Jeffrey C. Alexander
Alexander distinguishes three different versions of civil society theory, with
the third representing his own position. Central to his version, the civil
sphere is the social space wherein solidarity and justice are promoted.
82. Interaction Ritual Theory 602
Randall Collins
In an original and suggestive synthesis of Durkheim and Goffman, Collins
develops the basis for a general sociological theory based on the premise
that the starting point for sociological analysis is the situation and not the
individual. His objective in developing the idea of interaction ritual chains
is intended to take theory beyond the dichotomies of agency/structure and
microlevel/macrolevel.
83. *Queer-ing Sociology, Sociologizing Queer Theory 609
Steven Seidman
A key proponent of queer theory, Seidman makes use of Foucault’s work on
sexuality in his attempt to bring queer theory and sociology into mutually
rewarding contact.
8 4 . Materials for an Exploratory Theory of the Network Society 621
Manuel Castells
Castells sketches an outline of a theory of network society, arguing that it
constitutes the fundamental social structure of the information age, shaping
and transforming production, consumption, power relations, individual
experience and interpersonal relationships, and culture.
85. Mobile Sociology 632
John Urry
Responding to the claim made by Margaret Thatcher that “there is no such
thing as society,” Urry points to the fact that sociologists too often view the
notion of society as unproblematic. Criticizing that perspective, he argues
that sociology today must pay greater attention to the complex mobilities
that are characteristic of contemporary social life, which is increasingly
shaped by the varied processes of globalization
 PREFACE

NEW TO THE FIFTH EDITION

This edition of Social Theory: Roots and Branches contains 17 new selections, including 9
substitutions for entries by a particular author in the previous edition and 8 readings by
theorists who are new to this collection. These include the following:
(1) Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ passage from The German Ideology
(2) Émile Durkheim and Marcel Mauss’ “Note on the Notion of Civilization”
(3) Georg Simmel’s “The Adventurer”
(4) Georg Simmel’s “The Metropolis and Mental Life”
(5) Harriet Martineau’s “On Marriage”
(6) Alex de Tocqueville’s “On Individualism”
(7) Thorstein Veblen’s “Conspicuous Consumption”
(8) Charles Horton Cooley’s “Social and Individual Aspects of Mind”
(9) Charles Tilly’s “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime”
(10) Michael Hechter’s “The Emergence of Cooperative Social Institutions”
(11) Catharine MacKinnon’s “Difference and Dominance: On Sex Discrimination”
(12) Will Kymlicka’s “The Rise and Fall of Multiculturalism?”
(13) Giorgio Agamben’s “The Politicization of Life”
(14) Jean-François Lyotard’s “The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge”
(15) Ulrich Beck’s “The Cosmopolitan Condition: Why Methodological Nationalism
Fails”
(16) Jeffrey Alexander’s “Real Civil Societies: Dilemmas of Institutionalization”
(17) Steven Seidman’s “Queering Sociology, Sociologizing Queer Theory.”

xvii
xviii PREFACE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I have been teaching social theory for about a third of a century. First and foremost I would
like to thank all of the students who have passed through my classes during that time. In
particular, I would like to thank three exceptional students: Dan Pittman, Chad McPherson,
and Sonia Hanson. In addition, I would like to thank a number of former professors who in
rather different ways and with different results shaped my ability to think like a theorist. They
include from my undergraduate days Max Heirich and Stephen Berkowitz and from my
graduate school days David Apter, Norman Birnbaum, Niklas Luhmann, Stanford Lyman,
Benjamin Nelson, Arthur Vidich, and R. Stephen Warner.
Sherith Pankratz has been involved in several of my book projects for more than a decade,
and as I knew would be the case, it has been a real pleasure to have worked with her on this
new edition. Sherith is a pro who knows what works. Thus, I always value her judgment and
her generous advice. Caitlin Greene and I didn’t know each other prior to commencing work
on this project. She has proven to be masterful at keeping me on task while providing plenty
of assistance along the way. To the reviewers who provided detailed comments, I extend my
appreciation for their careful reading and insight provided:
Cynthia D. Anderson, Ohio University
Gretchen Arnold, St. Louis University
Barbara A. Arrigi, Northern Kentucky University
Emma Bailey, Western New Mexico University
David K. Brown, Illinois State Universtiy
Paula S. Brush, Radford University
Keith Doubt, Wittenberg University
Peter R. Grahame, Pennsylvania State University–Schuylkill
Gabe Ignatow, University of North Texas
Thomas J. Keil, Arizona State University
Hans-Herbert Koegler, University of North Florida
Matthew T. Loveland, Le Moyne College
Keumjae Park, William Paterson University
Chavella T. Pittman, Dominican University
Nancy Sonleitner, University of Tennessee–Martin
Adia Harvey Wingfield, Georgia State University
 ABOUT THE EDITOR

Peter Kivisto is the Richard A. Swanson Professor of Social Thought and Chair of Sociology at
Augustana College, and he is also Finland Distinguished Professor at the University of Turku.
He is the author or editor of 28 books, including Race and Ethnicity: The Basics; Beyond a Border;
Citizenship: Discourse, Theory, and Transnational Prospects; Key Ideas in Sociology; and Illuminating
Social Life.

xix
This page intentionally left blank
 SOCIAL THEORY: CLASSICAL FOUNDATIONS AND
CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENTS
PETER KIVISTO
N ear the end of the past century, a century that had
witnessed the institutionalization and dramatic
growth of sociology in the academy, Alan Sica, the
director of the Graduate Program in Social Thought at
Pennsylvania State University and a well-known
scholar of classical social theory, convened a panel of
prominent scholars to probe the question, “What is
social theory?” The result of the gathering was a book
whose title posed that very question (Sica 1998). A little
more than a decade later, two other prominent social
theorists, Hans Joas and Wolfgang Knöbl, would begin
Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures (2009) with a
chapter titled “What Is Theory?” Thus it is that a ques-
tion inevitably raised by undergraduate sociology
majors entering a required course in social theory is
also a question that scholars who have made theory
their vocation continue to ask.
Those who have asked this question repeatedly
over the course of their careers are well aware of the
fact that one of the reasons it remains germane is that
sociologists are far from arriving at a consensus in
articulating a reply. At a very general level, most
would concur with various depictions of social theory.
Thus, few would object to those who characterize the-
ories, variously, as tools of analysis, or lenses into
aspects of social reality. All would concur that theories
offer something more than description or broad gener-
alizations based on composites of cases.
But it is here that theorists of various persuasions
begin to part company. Some advance theories that are
interpretive, while others construct theories to explain.
Some theorists prefer to focus on structure, while others
concentrate on the agency of social actors. Indeed,
some theorists begin with the individual while others
think it quite all right to dispense altogether with indi-
viduals. Some theorists think the proper object of inves-
tigation ought to be social structures, while others are
equally convinced that culture should be the main
xxi
focus. In another theoretical divide, one side is intent
on keeping social theory closely linked to social philo-
sophy, while the other side urges the construction of
formal mathematical models patterned after the nat-
ural sciences. Finally, for some theorists the purpose of
theory extends no further than to understand some
patch of reality, a view that was articulated by Erving
Goffman (1982) in his presidential address to the
American Sociological Association, where he con-
tended that the reason one studies the social world is
simply “because it is there.” Others—indeed, if
Goffman is right, a majority of the profession—think
that theories ought to have some practical or applied
import or, to use Marxist terminology, theory ought to
be related to praxis (or, in other words, concrete social
practices). It is thus not surprising that Donald Levine
would speak in the plural of Visions of the Sociological
Tradition (1995) rather than of a singular, shared vision.
Given such widely divergent assessments of the
nature and functions of theory, it´s reasonable to ask
what counts as theory and what doesn´t. It is also reason-
able to ask whether the fragmented and contested dis-
cipline of sociology will ever move beyond being what
George Ritzer (1975) has called a “multiple paradigm
science.” There are those who dream of the time that
sociology will “mature” sufficiently to develop a com-
monly shared paradigm that serves to shape inquiry. To
lay my cards on the table, I am not convinced that we are
moving or someday will move toward consensus nor
do I think it is necessary to do so. Indeed, part of the
vitality of the discipline derives from the fact that it is
engaged in attempting to make sense of what is invari-
ably “contested knowledge” (Seidman 2013, Callinicos
2007). Sociology is a big-tent discipline. It relies on a
wide range of research methodologies as well as a broad
spectrum of theoretical approaches.
This fact, of course, poses challenges to anybody
seeking to introduce students to social theory, for being
xxii SOCIAL THEORY: CLASSICAL FOUNDATIONS AND CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENTS
as comprehensive as possible can make it difficult for
students to be able to see the forest for the trees.
Moreover, the need to be selective means that some
theorists are being privileged over others. It is this
issue that I want to address by explaining the structure
and rationale for this particular collection of articles.
Social theory encompasses a body of writing dating
from the early nineteenth century that has informed
and continues to inform the discipline of sociology.
This anthology has a simple objective, which is to
assist students in social theory classes to acquire an
appreciation of its range and scope. A casual perusal
of the 85 entries in this collection will reveal the
remarkable variety of work that falls under the rubric
“social theory.” Looking a bit further, readers will find
ample indications that social theory is indeed a con-
tested terrain abounding in intellectual debates and
controversies.
For the first three editions of this book, I used
Peter Xiao´s painting titled “Intellectual Pursuits” for
the cover (see page ii) because I think it manages to
humorously convey the sense of urgency and impor-
tance that thinkers attach to ideas. While it is not often
that intellectual disputes lead scholars to throw books
at one another, it is true that social theorists are cap-
able of being quite feisty! They take ideas seriously,
and as such do not enter lightly into debates with
those who have a different sense of the nature and
purpose of theory.
Although the selection process necessarily excluded
many significant theorists, I have tried to identify and
include representatives of those theoretical approaches
that have had the greatest impact on sociology. The
history of sociology has been an ongoing process of
defining disciplinary boundaries while remaining open
to interdisciplinary dialogues. The readings I have
selected reflect an attempt to show how sociology has
developed as a distinctive enterprise while also
revealing the ways in which voices from outside the
discipline have continued to enrich it. While in the
end I am responsible for the choices appearing within
these two covers, this is far from a solo venture. On the
contrary, anthologies that attempt to provide readers
with a broad, ecumenical overview of a field are not
possible without a sustained conversation with
numerous other people, including prominent scholars,
professors who teach relevant courses, reviewers
employed by the publisher, editors, and students. I
have relied on dozens of such individuals and have
benefited in many ways from the sage advice I have
received for each previous edition as well as for this
one. While many of these people are mentioned by
name in the acknowledgments, the point here is
simply that creating a theory reader is very much a
cooperative enterprise.
CLASSICAL ROOTS AND THE
EMERGENCE OF A CANON
This reader is divided into two sections, which I have
termed “roots” and “branches.” The former comprises
the period from roughly 1840 to 1920, a time when
sociology emerged as a distinctive enterprise, distin-
guishing itself from philosophy and the other social
sciences. During this time, the first explicit advocates
of this new field of inquiry appeared on the scene and
created what might be seen as the infrastructure needed
to sustain it, particularly the carving out of a legitimate
place in the university system, with all that implies. This
time frame represents sociology´s classical period. The
individuals associated with this era were responsible,
even when they were not trying to do so, for giving
sociology its initial identity.
In this regard, it is important to note that left out of
this collection are those philosophers who preceded
the rise of sociology and social theory. These include
classics in the history of philosophy, beginning with
Plato and Aristotle, but in particular those that are
associated with the rise of modern philosophical
inquiry into the nature of social order, such as
Niccolo Machiavelli; Charles Louis Montesquieu; the
social contract theorists Thomas Hobbes, John Locke,
and Jean-Jacques Rousseau; Claude Henri de Rouvroy
Saint-Simon; the Scottish moralists such as Adam
Smith and Adam Ferguson; Immanuel Kant; and
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. These and others con-
stitute the central figures of the prehistory of sociology
(Hawthorne 1976). According to Johan Heilbron in
The Rise of Social Theory (1995), it was in the predisci-
plinary era from approximately 1600 to 1850 that such
thinkers developed analytical tools that would become
central to the sociological enterprise, including such
 Social Theory: Classical Foundations and Contemporary Developments
basic concepts as society, economy and state. He sees
the rise of social theory being made possible by the
emergence of an intellectual space distinct from both
church and state. In a related argument, Brian Singer
(2004) contends that the birth of the social was made
possible insofar as social theory began to be viewed
as an enterprise distinct from political theory. These
thinkers not only had a profound impact on the classic
figures we take up in this collection, but continue to
inform theorists (see, for example, contemporary the-
orists of civil society, who frequently begin by turning
to the likes of Ferguson, or see in this collection the role
of Hegel´s concept of recognition in the critical theory
of Axel Honneth).
In a provocative article, R. W. Connell (1997) asked
“Why Is Classical Theory Classical?” He claimed that,
contrary to the standard view that sociology arose in
order to make sense of the emergence of modern indus-
trial societies, in fact the early figures associated with
the formative years of the discipline were keenly inter-
ested in the worlds of the colonial Other and as such
they engaged in the “imperial gaze” and granted legiti-
macy to the colonialism of the era. Sociology’s linkage
to issues concerning imperialism was reflected in its
practitioners’ preoccupation with the idea of progress,
which was assessed by comparisons of “primitive” and
“advanced” societies. In his pointed rejoinder to the
article, Randall Collins (1997) insisted, quite accurately
in my opinion, that early sociologists were far more
preoccupied with changes occurring within their own
societies than with what was happening elsewhere and
thus the common narrative of the rise of sociology is an
accurate depiction of that history. More to the point of
this discussion, he observes that Connell “has no real
explanation of canonicity, just a denunciation of it”
(Collins 1997: 1558). He, in short, failed to answer
the question posed in his article’s title.
Before suggesting an answer to what makes some-
thing classical or canonical, we first turn to question of
process: How does one become a classic, and, related to
this question, how does a text become part of the
canon? There is no simple answer to either of these
questions. The reputations of early sociologists have
often waxed and waned over time. Likewise, the
canon, being a social construct, is subject to challenges
and to change. There is no central sociological authority
xxiii
that lays claim to being the final arbiter regarding who
counts as a classic figure and who doesn´t and, simi-
larly, which texts are canonical and which are not.
Nevertheless, it is clear that influential and well-posi-
tioned sociological elites play a key role in making
these determinations, acting as brokers.
This situation is no different than in other fields.
Thus, in literature, the literary establishment—
English professors at elite universities and critics
writing for national newspapers and the most influ-
ential literary journals—once excoriated James Joyce,
and his masterpiece, Ulysses, was prevented from
entering the United States because it was considered
pornographic. Today Joyce is comfortably located in
the pantheon of the twentieth century´s greatest
authors of fiction. Contemporary novelists such as
Philip Roth and John Updike are highly regarded
today, but exactly how they will be viewed in the
long run is still to be determined—their precise
place in the canon can only be surmised. On the
other hand, today´s literary gatekeepers disparage
Danielle Steel´s oeuvre, viewing it as nothing more
than drivel for the masses. Given that this assessment
is not likely to be overturned by subsequent critics,
Steel will no doubt remain forever outside the canon,
her only consolation being the fortune she has
amassed as a result of her pandering.
While the financial stakes and prestige have never
been quite so high in sociology, a similar process has
been and continues to be at play. The gatekeepers are
not all that different from those in the literary world.
Professors at elite universities, journal editors, and the
editorial decision makers at publishing houses have
had a say in deciding which works enter the canon
and which are excluded. This is at best an imperfect
process, as honest considerations of the particular
merits and weaknesses of any work inevitably mingle
with the intellectual predilections and cultural preju-
dices of the critics in question. Nowhere are the latter
more evident than in matters related to the gender and
racial backgrounds of specific authors.
One way of determining whether someone ought
to be considered a contender for the sociological
pantheon is whether his or her work continues to be
read today and in some fashion still informs the varied
ways in which sociologists frame their patterns of
xxiv SOCIAL THEORY: CLASSICAL FOUNDATIONS AND CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENTS
inquiry. Early in the twenty-first century, there is fairly
widespread consensus that four scholars have played
especially significant roles in shaping what has come to
be contemporary sociology: (1) Karl Marx (1818–
1883), who never claimed to be a sociologist or sug-
gested he wanted to advance sociology´s cause (he did,
however, criticize the earliest proponent of sociology,
Auguste Comte); (2) Émile Durkheim (1858–1917),
who was single-minded in his determination to pro-
mote sociology as a science clearly distinct from com-
peting social sciences; (3) Max Weber (1864–1920),
who became a sociologist later in life but never gave
up also considering himself to be a historian and econ-
omist; and (4) Georg Simmel (1858–1918), who until
fairly recently was not considered in the league of the
preceding trio but whose reputation in recent years has
finally landed him in the pantheon of founding figures.
What exactly does it mean to say that this quartet is
viewed as foundational to the discipline? Suffice it to
say that all of them are widely read today, with all of
their major works still in print in many languages.
Moreover, in all cases there are virtual cottage industries
devoted to exegeses, analyses, and assessments of their
works. Parenthetically, the fact that we maintain such
interest in individuals who were dead by 1920 and that
we continue to read them indicates that sociologists
disagree with Alfred North Whitehead´s (1938) claim
that a science cannot progress unless it forgets its foun-
ders. We read them because whatever their shortcom-
ings and however different our world is from theirs,
they provide insights that continue to inform the
discipline.
In examining how the work of certain social theor-
ists came to be viewed as classical, one can get an
implicit sense of what it means to be a classic.
Whereas Connell skirted the question in his earlier
noted article, Jeffrey C. Alexander (1987) has convin-
cingly addressed it head on in perhaps as clear and
concise an account as is possible:
Classics are earlier works of human exploration
which are given privileged status vis-à-vis
contemporary explorations in the same field. The
concept of privileged status means that
contemporary practitioners of the discipline in
question believe that they can learn as much
about their field through understanding this
earlier work as they can from the work of their
own contemporaries. To be accorded such a
privileged status, moreover, implies that, in the
day-to-day work of the average practitioner, this
deference is accorded without prior demonstra-
tion; it is accepted as a matter of course that, as
a classic, such a work establishes fundamental
criteria in the particular field. It is because of
this privileged position that exegesis and reinter-
pretation of the classics—within or without a
historical context—become conspicuous currents
in various disciplines, for what is perceived to be
the “true meaning” of a classical work has broad
repercussions. (pp. 11–12)
In other words, we examine these theorists because
they get us thinking in intellectually productive ways.
Their works are not construed as ends in themselves. If
sociologists were to treat any or all of these scholars as
providing something akin to revealed truth, they would
be approaching works such as Capital, The Division of
Labor in Society, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism, and The Philosophy of Money in a manner
analogous to the way Christian fundamentalists view
the Bible—as inerrant and complete. Fortunately, few
sociologists operate with such a perspective—and those
who do tend to be adherents of an orthodox Marxism
that is fast fading from the scene.
The appropriate reason for reading these canonical
figures is that sociological theory does not arise out of
nowhere, without context or history. Rather, it is always
the product of responding to a tradition of thought,
and in this regard theorists are no different from other
writers who both look forward to what they want to
produce and backward to whence they came. Much
theoretical work is intended to be revisionist, by
which I mean that it seeks to simultaneously build
upon and correct those who came before. It sometimes
wants to amend, while at other times to challenge, to
embrace and refine, or to dismiss. Whatever the parti-
cular nature of the relationship with past theorists, all
are motivated in part by what literary scholar Harold
Bloom (1997) has called the “anxiety of influence.”
When did Marx, Durkheim, Weber, and Simmel
become classics? Certainly after their deaths, since
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 CHAPTER XI
CAST IRON (Continued)

Unlike the modern Bessemer, open-hearth, and other steel

products which are reworked, i.e., rolled, forged, etc., cast iron is a
comparatively old alloy dating back over several centuries. It cannot
be rolled, forged, or otherwise reshaped, so its final form must be
given to it at once by pouring or “casting” the molten metal into a
mold. Its castings serve exceedingly well in the hundreds of places
for which they are adapted. They are comparatively cheap, can be
readily duplicated in small or large quantities, and those from the
softer grades of cast iron may be machined easily.
These cast iron alloys have only from one-third to one-half the
strength of steel or wrought iron and are, comparatively speaking,
very brittle. Where resistance to severe shock must be withstood they
should not be used. Also, some varieties have a “habit” of growing
larger upon repeated heating and cooling. This “permanent growth”
is particularly noticeable when the alternate heating and cooling is at
red heat or over. Pieces of cast iron have been made to gain 15 per
cent in linear dimensions, and it is quite common knowledge among
machinists that a piece of cast iron which is slightly too small can be
permanently expanded by heat.
Nevertheless, the cast irons have large and legitimate fields in
which they are very serviceable. From most of their important
present uses they are not likely soon to be displaced.
Because of Their Large Size Molds for Very Large Castings Have to Be Made
on the Floor of the Foundry, or Partly in Pits

Cast irons in considerable variety of compositions and physical

properties are available, as was indicated by alloys Nos. 14 to 19
which were given in the table on page 83, part of which is here
reproduced. In alloys 3 to 13 the carbon exerts the great influence on
the physical properties, and this is true also of the cast irons. But all
of the latter have a total carbon content of more than 2½ per cent,
and, under certain conditions, some of the carbon assumes a
different form from that which we encountered in the steels. This
modified form is “graphite,” well known to us as a flaky, black,
greasy-feeling material, which is soft and very fragile. Graphite in the
iron alloy naturally weakens it and, as it is itself such a good
lubricant, it makes cast iron machine easily if sufficient amount is
present.
 A Few of the Cast Irons
Silicon, Graphite, Combined Total
Per Per Cent Carbon, Carbon,
Cent Per Cent Per
Cent
No. 14. White Cast .70 .10 2.65 2.75 Very Hard
Iron
No. 15. Annealed .70 2.70 .05 2.75 Machinable
Malleable Iron
No. 16. Cast Iron 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 Very Hard
for Chilled
Castings
No. 17. Semi-steel 1.75 2.80 .40 3.20 Machinable
No. 18. Gray Cast 2.00 3.10 .30 3.40 Machinable
Iron
No. 19. Soft Gray 2.50 3.30 .15 3.45 Machinable
Cast Iron
Now, the above must be understood as being typical compositions
only. There are, of course, irons of all intermediate compositions,
also, and while the total, graphitic and combined carbons, typically,
are about as indicated, there may be wide variation.
To illustrate what a variety of chemical and physical properties
may be produced, let us assume that the total carbon in a certain cast
iron is 3.25 per cent. If this carbon is all in the chemically combined
form (i. e., combined with the iron to form the very hard compound
which is known to the metallographist as “cementite”) the fracture
will be white and the alloy extremely hard. If none of this carbon is
combined, but all is in the form of graphite flakes throughout the
alloy, the fracture will be “gray” and the alloy soft and machinable. It
is possible to produce either of these two conditions or practically
any intermediate stage; i.e., we can almost at will split up the 3.25
per cent of carbon into varying percentages of graphitic and
combined carbon—the total always equaling 3.25 per cent.
The “precipitation” of graphite which is necessary for softness is
brought about mainly through the influence of silicon, which we
before termed the “softener.” Other conditions being equal, the
higher the silicon (if not above 4 per cent), the higher will be the
graphite and the lower the combined carbon; and vice versa, the
lower the silicon the lower will be the graphite and the higher the
combined carbon. It is mainly due to the “combined carbon” which is
 left after
precipita
tion of
the
graphite
that the
alloy has
greater
strength,
hardness
No. 31. , and No. 30. Very Soft Cast
Medium closer Iron. Note Large
Hard Cast grain. Graphite Flakes
Iron So, just
as the
steels are stronger and harder as the
The “combined carbon” is carbon increases (in steel all the
in the roundish, dark parts. carbon is combined), so, other
It is the “combined carbon” conditions being equal, the strengths
that increases the strength and hardnesses of the cast irons,
of cast iron and steel. within usual limits, increase as the
combined carbon increases.
Just
here it is
interesti
ng to
rememb
er that
from the
standpoi
nt of
metallog
No. 33e. Mottled Cast raphy No. 92d. Semi-Steel. A
Iron cast Closer Grained and Yet
irons are Stronger Cast Iron
So-called because it is a simply
mixture of white and gray steels in
iron. which there is what we might call an
impurity or an adulterant, graphite
 crystals. It will be seen at once that
could these graphite crystals be removed from the cast irons shown
in photomicrographs No. 74, No. 92d, No. 30 and No. 31, we would
have alloys quite similar in appearance to the steels shown in
photomicrographs No. 3b and No. 22c which appeared on pages 77
and 78.[7]
7. Magnification 70 diameters.
So the softer cast irons which are
used for valves and fittings, machine
parts, radiators, hollowware, etc., have
high silicon. Parts that do not have to
be machined can be of “harder” iron; i.
e., made of iron having lower silicon
content.
Manipulation of the silicon content
is not the only method by which the
hardness of cast iron can be
influenced. Graphite can “precipitate” No. 7. White Cast Iron
(i.e., separate throughout the casting)
only if sufficient time is given it to do
so. That is, the cooling of the casting after pouring must be
sufficiently slow. In a sand mold the iron remains molten for a time,
and after solidification it cools slowly enough that the greater portion
of the carbon separates as graphite. Therefore, castings of proper
composition made in sand molds are soft and machinable.
If the iron is poured into a mold the surfaces of which are made of
iron, the molten metal upon entering becomes solid almost as soon
as it takes the form of the mold, and it cools with great rapidity.
Under such conditions the carbon of the alloy is denied the time
necessary to change into the graphitic form and the casting has a
white fracture and is so hard that it cannot be machined.
There are many purposes for which the alloy should have extreme
hardness and the great resistance to wear which accompanies such
hardness. The wearing faces of gears, brake shoes, rolls, and car
wheels, for instance, must be hard. For such products, white cast
iron, the extremely hard condition of the alloy, just referred to, is
utilized. Such castings are usually produced with a white cast iron
face, but with a gray iron interior, gray iron being less brittle and less
 likely to break under shock or strain. A
car wheel, for instance, has
approximately an inch in depth of
white iron on the surface which lies
next to the rail on which it runs.
Such
are
known
as
“chilled Chilled
castings. Cast Iron
” Molds
for them
are The white edge resulted
usually from the more rapid
made of cooling against an iron
sand, chill, as did the white rim
with of the wheel shown above.
Section of Chilled Car pieces of
Wheel iron
(called “chills”) imbedded where white
Showing white iron rim. iron is to be produced. The molten iron
next to the sand surfaces cools in the
usual way and is gray and soft, while
that which lies next to the “chill” is white and extremely hard. The
“depth” of the chilled layer can be increased or diminished according
to the thickness of the iron “chill” used, its temperature, and by the
composition and temperature of the molten cast iron with which the
mold is poured.
The sulphur and total carbon of the molten cast iron also have
considerable influence on the depth of “chill.”
There is a cast iron alloy which is
familiarly known as “semi-steel.” It is
simply a high grade and stronger
“gray” iron and must be classed as a
cast iron, as our table on page 180
shows. While it could undoubtedly be
made from materials which are
 Two-Part Molding commonly used for cast iron, it is
Flasks practically always produced by
charging with these a certain amount
of steel scrap to bring about the lower
silicon, phosphorus and total carbon desired.
Because steel has a higher tensile
strength than has cast iron, many have
inferred that it was the steel addition
which made semi-steel stronger than
the ordinary soft cast iron alloy. The
rather unfortunate name, “semi-steel,”
apparently was given because of the A Hollow Cylinder
steel used and the intermediate
strength which the resulting product The casting which we are
possessed. about to make.
However, during the melting down
of the charge the steel scrap becomes
molten and its constituents merge with those of the other iron
materials charged. We get out of the cupola, then, a mixture which,
disregarding the losses and gains due to the air of the blast, the fuel,
etc., is an average of the materials charged. We, therefore, no longer
have any steel, but a cast iron which has a somewhat lower silicon,
phosphorus and carbon than the softer cast irons. The greater
strength of the alloy is due to its composition and only indirectly to
the fact that steel was used in its production. The physical properties
of the steel charged have been entirely obliterated in the melting
process.
This view that semi-steel only
indirectly gets its increase in strength
from the steel charged is confirmed by
its structural appearance under the
microscope, as was shown in numbers
Split Pattern of Wood, 74 and 92d which were given on page
Surface-Coated with 79, and the photomicrographs given
Shellac Varnish here, and by its extreme brittleness
under hammer blows. Under such
shock it is but little more resistant than
cast iron.
 This weakness under “shock” was
shown by tests from which the table
which follows was compiled. Bars one
inch square and thirteen inches long
laid on supports exactly twelve inches Core That Makes Hole in
apart, were struck at the center by a Casting
twenty-five pound weight. It took
seven blows to break the cast iron bar,
the semi-steel bar required eleven, while cast steel withstood ninety-
two blows. Even this does not adequately express the great resistance
of the cast steel (another alloy not yet discussed), for the height of
the “drop” was being increased one inch with every blow, and the
cast steel bar, on account of its bending, had to be regularly turned.
The total foot-pounds exerted by the blows are given in the table
which follows:

Drag, or Bottom Half of Mold, after Pattern Is Withdrawn

Drag with Core in Place and Cope, or Top Half of Mold Ready to Close
Transparent Mold, Showing Relative Positions of Core, Casting, Sprue, Etc.

Alloy Tensile Number of Total Foot

Strength Blows Pounds
Cast Iron 23,400 7 102
Semi-Steel 35,050 11 206
Malleable Cast 37,140 22 1,580
Iron[8]
Cast Steel[8] 72,120 92 10,112
8. On account of bending, the malleable iron and the steel bars had to be
turned several times.
Semi-steel is a very close-grained alloy of ten or twelve thousand
pounds per square inch greater strength than cast iron. It is a most
satisfactory material for medium and larger sized castings for which
cast iron formerly was used.
Did we say that cast iron was very
brittle? So it is, comparatively
speaking. But just as the chemist will
tell you that there are no substances
which are absolutely insoluble, just so
does cast iron appear to be extremely
Cast Iron Tee, Cock brittle only when compared with the
Plugs, and Return iron alloys of considerably less
brittleness.
 Bends, with Sprues and The three pictures of the hooped and
Gates Attached twisted casting illustrate how unwise it
might be to speak with absoluteness. A
few years ago the casting illustrated on
pages 190 and 192 was brought to this country by a visitor to Europe,
with an expression of regret that cast iron produced in this country
did not have such qualities of elasticity as had cast iron made abroad.
Whereupon, without any change whatever in his iron mixture or
cupola practice, the superintendent of a well-known foundry made
castings which were exact duplicates of that submitted. The three
photographs shown further on (Figs. A, B, C) were of one of these
castings. The ability to bend without breaking is, of course, largely
due to the shape.
As a
matter of
fact,
such
castings
were not
at all
new in
this Plugs and Wheels as
country, They Come from the
having Mold
been
furnishe Occasionally as many as
Type of Molding Machine d by 200 castings can be made
America in one mold.
n
foundries for electrical work for many
years. Cast iron springs, piston rings, and many other articles of cast
iron are regularly made, which show such elastic quality.

We have said considerable about “castings.” In general we know

what castings are, but in the minds of some there may be a little
uncertainty as to the manner in which they are produced.
There are few lines of human endeavor which require greater
judgment and skill than does the making of molds for castings.
Sound judgment based on long
experience, knowledge of conditions
under which the work immediately in
hand must be done, observation, and
accurate, deductive reasoning as to the
causes of failure are absolutely
necessary for success.
In
general,
molding Another of the Many
may be Kinds of Molding
Machines
Casting, Which Because said to
of Its Length and Small be done
Cross Sections, Requires in “pit”
Very Fluid Cast Iron. or on the “floor” for large work, on the
(Fig. A) “bench” for smaller work, or by
“machine.” Pit, floor, and bench
molding are applicable for production
of castings of all sizes and descriptions and this general type which
we might term “hand molding,” is the form that has been practiced
longest. Molding machines are more or less recent inventions which
have enabled certain standard shapes and sizes of castings which are
in sufficient demand to be produced in great numbers by unskilled
workmen and therefore at less cost than is possible by the older hand
method.
Each design for casting may be said to demand individual
treatment, and the molder must select that method out of the many
which alone, perhaps, can be successful. The subject is such a broad
one that little will be here attempted further than to give by
description and illustration the predominant points of the making of
molds and castings. A simple, typical case of bench molding will be
taken, that the relation of pattern, mold, core and casting may be
clear.
The molding sands used are usually natural sands which contain
greater or lesser amounts of clay, which, when moist, acts as a
“binder” of the grains of sand. When used without drying, the mold
is said to be a “green sand” mold; if dried, a “dry” or “baked” mold, as
the case may be. The majority are “green sand” molds.
 For the usual casting of which only a few or several duplicates are
wanted, the “split” pattern is generally the most convenient.
The two halves of the mold, the “cope” (top) and the “drag”
(bottom), are separately made in the two parts of the “flask” or
molding box by “ramming” properly selected and “tempered”
(moistened, mixed, and sieved) sand over the halves of the pattern.
Of these, the drag is made first over the lower half of the separable
pattern placed flat side down upon a bottom board. After “ramming,”
i.e., packing the sand, just hard enough but not too hard, this half
mold is reversed and the top half of the pattern placed upon the
lower half, now at the upper face of the drag and flat side up. A little
“parting powder” or fine, dry sand is sprinkled over the fresh surface
of the half mold so that the upper half, next to be made, will not stick
to the lower half, but can be lifted off at the proper time.
The cope half of the two-part “flask”
is now put on, filled and rammed with
sand as was the drag. Any extra sand is
scraped off with a straight edge and at
the proper place a hole is cut with the
“sprue cutter” straight down through
the cope to the “parting.” More
commonly, perhaps, this “sprue” hole
is made by withdrawing a “sprue” stick It May Be Bent Double
(of wood) about which sand had been Readily Without
packed during the making of the cope. Breaking. (Fig. B)
It is through this hole that the molten
metal will be poured into the mold.
Lifting the cope or top half, it is
turned upside down, and, after cutting
in the drag the “runner” or “gate”
connecting the “sprue” hole with the
casting, the halves of the pattern are
carefully drawn that the sand may not
Because of Its Ability to be disturbed. Now in the cavity left in
Withstand Bending and the drag, to make the hole in the
180–Degree Twists It Is casting, is hung the baked “core” of
Often Jocularly sand, held together by flour or rosin or
a “drying” oil. The cope is carefully
 Referred to as the replaced upon the drag, thus “closing”
“Rubber Casting.” (Fig. C) the mold.
As will be noted from the drawings,
there is left between the core and the
mold a space all around, which will be filled by the metal of the
casting when poured. Therefore the surface of the core shapes the
inside, and the mold itself the outside and ends of the casting.
The molten metal, entering through the vertical “sprue” hole, flows
along the “runner” and into the mold through the more or less
constricted entrance called the “gate.” The gases formed during
pouring and the air with which the mold was filled are driven out
through the porous bodies of sand of the mold and core. Had the
mold been rammed too hard the gases could not escape through the
sand and an imperfect casting would result.
The poured mold is allowed to stand until the metal has solidified
and cooled sufficiently, when the casting is “shaken out.” The sand is
returned to the molder to be used again. The sprue and runner are
broken from the casting, which, after cleaning by “tumbling” with
others in a revolving mill, or otherwise, goes to the machining and
assembling shops.
Some form of the above general method is everywhere used for the
production of all kinds of castings, except for those which can be
made by machine at a lower cost for molds.
This kind of molding, which we have termed “hand work,” requires
expert molders and is too slow and expensive for the hundreds of
standard shapes and sizes of castings which are in great and constant
demand. The latter are made on cleverly devised molding machines
working with compressed air or by hand power applied through a
lever. The pattern is attached to the machine, set and very accurately
adjusted by a skilled mechanic. Thereafter the sand is rammed, the
runner formed and the pattern drawn by the machine itself, all of
these very critical movements being therefore rapidly and unerringly
duplicatable any desired number of times by unskilled labor, which
has but to put on the parts of the “flasks,” feed in the sand, set the
cores, close and remove the mold, and begin the next.
Sometimes there is but one, but for the smaller sizes there are
often ten or twenty, and, occasionally, as many as two hundred
pieces or castings in a single mold.
 CHAPTER XII
MALLEABLE CAST IRON

It almost goes without saying that the capacity to withstand

distortion without breaking was the meaning of and the reason for
the use of the term “malleable.” But wrought iron is malleable as also
is mild steel, and, in Europe fifty years ago (though in general not
now) by the term “malleable iron” was meant and understood what
we know as wrought iron. You will remember that Bessemer’s paper
announcing his great process was entitled “The Manufacture of
Malleable Iron and Steel without Fuel.” The first reference was to
wrought iron. Bessemer did not succeed in making this by his
process but his success in the manufacture of steel was immense.
Therefore, while in ordinary conversation such definiteness is not
necessary, perhaps, and not usual here, to be safe one should say
“malleable cast iron,” and not simply “malleable iron,” for by the
latter, many Europeans still understand wrought iron.
Like “Topsy” of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” fame, the various members of
the iron family “just growed.” Therefore a strictly logical
classification and nomenclature is hardly to be expected.
It was mentioned in a former article that a process for making
malleable the brittle white cast iron was discovered, or at least
described, by Reaumur, a Frenchman, about 1722. It is likely that his
discovery or acquaintance with it came about through his extended
experiments with cementation steel.
The publicity which Reaumur voluntarily gave to his researches
forms a notable exception to the customs of those days when it was
the usual thing for manufacturers jealously to guard all trade secrets.
These were handed down from father to son or to others of close
interest in the business. So aside from Reaumur’s announcements
concerning malleable iron, few details of its manufacture came to
 light
during
the
eighteen
th
century.
Even
Malleable Iron Castings during
the
hundred
years which have just passed there Malleable Cast Iron
have been few lines in which greater Bars
secrecy has been maintained both in
Europe and America. During the last thirty years, only, has real
scientific work been done to make known the reactions which occur
during annealing and the real causes of the malleability.
The father of malleable iron in this country was Seth Boyden, of
Newark, New Jersey, a very ingenious man who well deserves the
monument erected in his honor by the citizens of the city, which is
pardonably proud of him.
Boyden apparently had no
knowledge of the existence in Europe
of the malleableizing process, but after
noticing that a piece of formerly brittle
cast iron had become rather malleable,
apparently through the action of heat,
he set about making experiments to Test Sprues, Showing
produce a malleable material which White, Slightly
could be produced more cheaply than Mottled, Medium
wrought iron. By melting in a forge Mottled, and Gray
pieces of pig iron and then annealing Fractures
in a small furnace in his kitchen
fireplace the bars which he cast from
the melt, he had worked out by 1826 a process that produced cast
iron which was malleable. In 1831 he started a foundry and made a
thousand or more different articles for which there was demand,
and, from this beginning, an immense industry developed in this
country.
 We must not forget that the
malleable cast iron as produced in this
country is an entirely separate and
distinct thing from the European
malleable iron, as will be shown later.
Test Bars So our immense industry is our own
with One and not a copied one.
Edge Cast It is only certain members of the cast
against a iron family that can be made malleable
“Chill” by proper heat treatment. Alloys No.
14 and No. 15 represent one of these
alloys before and after the annealing
The composition of the process. While No. 14 was given as a
mixture is regulated typical analysis for white cast iron for
according to the depth of malleableizing it must be understood
the chill as well as by that compositions can vary
appearance of test sprues. considerably without detriment from
that given.
There is one thing, however, which
is absolutely necessary and that is that all or practically all of the
carbon of the alloy must be in the combined form previous to the
annealing process. This means that the alloy shall be white cast iron
and have no free graphite, for any graphite flakes will remain
through and after the annealing process and weaken the alloy just as
it weakens gray cast iron.
For producing this white cast iron
two processes are in general use—the
“cupola” and the “air furnace.” The
latter predominates.
Operation of the cupola for
malleable iron requires great skill and
very close attention to detail, for, to
malleableize easily and with the best
results, the composition of the alloy Sketch of a Coal-Fired
must be regulated within narrow Air Furnace
limits, very much narrower than for
gray cast iron. However, this is entirely possible and cupolas are
operated continuously for malleable cast iron for ten or more hours
with very slight fluctuation.
In general, operation is very similar to that described for cast iron
except that the composition of the charge is necessarily different,
much lower silicon being required, and more coke has to be used for
the melting.
Most malleable iron castings are made in sand molds, and, as
stated, the iron poured must be of such composition and
temperature that the castings so made will be white of fracture. It is
possible to get a quick indication of the condition of the iron for
pouring by making test pieces, every one in the same way, which,
after cooling and breaking, will show by fracture the approximate
composition of the metal. According to these test pieces, called
“sprues,” which, at times, may be cast as often as every five or ten
minutes, the mixture is regulated to produce a uniform product.
To illustrate: The fracture of a round
sprue, or test piece, always ⅞ inch in
diameter, when poured in the sand,
cooled there to low red heat, quenched
in water and then broken, should be
white with only a few flecks of dark
constituent. A gray iron fracture
indicates too high silicon content and
Firing an Air Furnace such iron is usually termed “low” iron.
Castings of medium or heavy section,
which, therefore, cool slowly in the
sand, if poured of too high silicon, i.e., “low” iron, might precipitate a
little graphite during cooling, even though thinner-sectioned castings
which cool so much more rapidly would come white from the same
iron.
While iron giving nearly white sprues is necessary for particularly
large castings, to make sure that the usual run of malleable castings
will come white in the sand requires very slightly mottled test sprues.
Test blocks also, with one side cast against an iron “chill” are
poured to determine the depth of chilling, and test bars of various
shapes are regularly made, to test after annealing, for tensile
strength, torsion and other physical properties.
 “Air furnaces” are much like longer puddling furnaces. They vary
in capacity from ten to forty-five tons while occasionally small ones
of as little as three or five tons capacity are met with.
The usual fuel is soft coal. The long
flame passes from the grate at one end
over the bridge wall and is deflected by
the roof down upon the bath beneath.
A chimney at the outgoing end
furnishes draft. The furnace bed is
usually of brick upon which is fritted
(slightly fused) a mixture of sand with
a little lime. In order to facilitate
charging of the materials to be melted Taking Off the Slag
the roof is usually removable in parts,
called “bungs.” These have frame work
of iron which hold in place the fire bricks that come in contact with
the flame. During charging these bungs are lifted off one at a time,
and the iron materials are dumped through the openings. Small
doors in the sides just above the bath allow “rabbling” or mixing of
the charge and skimming of the slag which forms, and one or more
spouts lined with fire bricks and clay provide for tapping out the
metal when it is ready to pour.
Unlike puddling furnace and open-
hearth no burning out of the silicon,
manganese and carbon is desired,
though, of course, some occurs and has
to be allowed for in calculating the
mixture. The intention is simply to
melt together with the least possible
loss a mixture of such materials as will
give the average final composition
which long experience has shown to
give the proper qualities to the finished
product.
Tapping
Charges usually are of certain
percentages of pig iron with not too
much phosphorus, sprues from previous melts, more or less good
malleable iron scrap and small amounts of steel scrap. These are