The next mention of Marx is in the same section, Sociometry, Sociology and Scientific Socialism. I’ll quote the paragraph where we see Marxian pop up at the end (pp. 20–21). I’ll then quote some lines from the paragraph and comment in detail.
The historic significance of sociometry rests with the medial position which it has between sociology and scientific socialism. If one would like to play with the Hegelian formula of dialectic development one could say that sociology presented the thesis, socialistic doctrine the antithesis and sociometry the synthesis; every step, however, being somewhat more than the previous step . Sociology is historically defined by the two or three great systems it has developed. Scientific socialism is defined by the two or three great proletarian revolutions it has incited. Sociometry is defined by its operations, it is immaterial whether they are called sociometric or by any other name . Sociometry is recognized by what it does, stirring to action and keeping action open but using scientific precision and experimental methods to keep action in bounds. Sociology, for instance, becomes a science in proportion to becoming sociometric, but the same is true about revolutionary socialism; it, too, becomes a science in proportion to becoming sociometric. It is bound to happen sooner or later that sociology, with its dependent social sciences, and revolutionary socialism will converge and meet on a new level of social insight-the sociometric. The methodical development of sociometry is the dynamic link which should bring sociology and scientific socialism to increased convergence and, finally, to unity . Universally accepted standards of social measurement will also aid to resolve the international tension between the communistic and democratic societies. There are two principles pregnant in sociometry which it shares with sociology, but not with revolutionary socialism and vice versa. It shares with classic sociology the tendency towards elaborated social systems, a tendency towards elaborated social systems, a tendency which is not shared by scientific socialism in equal measure. Sociometry shares with revolutionary socialism the idea of planned social action, with the fundamental modification, however, that it must be experimentally devised and controlled, that it must be applied to small groups first and applied to larger groups as the knowledge derived from small systems increases. It is thus the sociometric action experiment which links sociometry with scientific socialism and separates them both from sociology. It is in the sense of the dialectic theory of sociometry that the analysis made here will become increasingly “less” true the more scientific socialism will permit its Marxistic hypotheses to be tested within sociometric settings (this may sound Utopian, but ideas have a way of boring from within) and the more sociology will include into its operations actual experiments. Indeed, this analysis is less portent and correct today than thirty years ago when sociology was entirely engrossed in general systems which, however ingenious in prospect and vision, never actually stepped from the libraries and classrooms into social reality of the “Ding an sich” and never became a “sociology of the people, by the people and for the people.”*
The Relationship Between Revolutionary Socialism and Sociometry
The paragraph opens with Moreno playing with dialectics, figuring out the relationship between sociology, scientific socialism and sociometr …
The historic significance of sociometry rests with the medial position which it has between sociology and scientific socialism. If one would like to play with the Hegelian formula of dialectic development one could say that sociology presented the thesis, socialistic doctrine the antithesis and sociometry the synthesis…
I’m focused on the relationship between the scientific, revolutionary socialism and sociometry (I’m not concerned with sociology and have left it out of the discussion here.) I’m reading dialectic as referring to the movement and interconnection between the disciplines. A little further on Moreno continues:
… revolutionary socialism; it, too, becomes a science in proportion to becoming sociometric. It is bound to happen sooner or later that … revolutionary socialism will converge and meet on a new level of social insight—the sociometric.
No to convergence! I’m becoming clear there are distinct domains, sociometry and revolutionary socialism, They have action and experimentation in common. Each discipline needs to be true to its core purpose; Sociometry to enhancing the life of small groups, revolutionary socialism to being effective in the class struggle.
Moreno continues…
Sociometry shares with revolutionary socialism the idea of planned social action, with the fundamental modification, however, that it must be experimentally devised and controlled
Just how planned is revolutionary socialism? It is so in the moment! And so unprescriptive, even as its purpose drives its direction. Yes there are principles, for example “Smash the state.” but when, how and to what degree? Perhaps Moreno means they both involve some intentionality?
Sociometry is similarly in the moment. Forget plans when herding cats (or people).
And then the proviso; “it must be experimentally devised and controlled”. That also applies to both methods.
Moreno continues…
… that it must be applied to small groups first and applied to larger groups as the knowledge derived from small systems increases.
Ah! Here we are at my point of difference with Moreno again. I’ll reframe the question, “Can Moreno’s small group methods be scaled?’ Again I say no the convergence, larger sociometric groups are not necessarily part of revolutionary socialism’s forces. Sociometry involves person to person connection, so the patterns in the group can be explored to determine the experiments. The socialist revolutionary is concerned with the battles in the world. Fo example imagine a small group, who put out a call, March against the war, Saturday, 1.00pm, Town Hall. We might see 60,000 people on the march or 5 people. either would be fine. It depends on the conditions. Its an experiment. The principle, Application to small groups first, is just not right. Yet such a revolutionary group might well benefit from Moreanian intervention.
I’ll sum up the difference between the modalities, as I see it so far, but not as Moreno describes it:
|
Sociometry and revolutionary socialism Both involve
Where they differ Sociometry applies to small groups and works with criteria that emerge in the group. The purpose is the enhancement of group life. Revolutionary socialism involves assessment of social movements as a basis for action. The criteria, while “from the people”, have solidified through history e.g., Oppose imperial wars. Revolutionaries study history and theory. The purpose is effective class struggle. |
Sociodrama
Moreno continues…
It is thus the sociometric action experiment which links sociometry with scientific socialism and separates them both from sociology.
Yes, and the next two sentences are also about the poverty of sociology. They have a point here about Marx as well. In italics no less…
It is in the sense of the dialectic theory of sociometry that the analysis made here will become increasingly “less” true the more scientific socialism will permit its Marxistic hypotheses to be tested within sociometric settings
As is clear by now, this dialectic of convergence is not needed or possible and if it were it would be counterproductive. However I see an opening here for dialogue and collaboration. I’m thinking about Marxistic hypotheses … tested within sociometric settings. Could that be a form of sociodrama?
Note these few words I slipped in:
“A revolutionary group might well benefit from Moreanian intervention.”
Moreno is not proposing this here yet, but such a group, could study and prepare for action using sociometry, psychodrama and sociodrama. A process framework could be designed to guide democracy, appoint delegates and agree on actions.
I’ve highlighted this idea and it may well pop up in future sections.