George V. Zito

Misreading Weber: The Concept of `Macht'

Max Webers definition of power (Macht), as presented in English by several texts, is examined in the light of the German original. Differences and similarities are discussed and an attempt is made to convey the sense of Webers original and full definition. Examples of research based on operationalizations of earlier (incomplete) versions are then evaluated.

Attribution and Symbolic Interaction: An Impasse at the Generalized Other

Attribution theory and symbolic interactionism have developed independently of each another, although both are concerned with the processes employed by ordinary people to make sense of their everyday world. It was inevitable that developments in the one should at last collide with certain well-established tenets of the other. Recent developments in attribution theory respecting differential attributions by Ego of the causes of his own and Alters behaviors seem to collide with Meads notion of the Generalized Other. The authors seek to define the current impasse, which they see as further confounding the problem of intersubjectivity.

A note on the population of seventeenth century London.

A least-squares analysis of the various estimates of the population of London during the seventeenth century discloses the probable degree of error in the work of William Petty and other early demographers. A new “average” population is calculated and the regression equation given which best satisfies the contemporary estimates.

Durkheimian Suicides in Shakespeare

The sociological study of suicide is founded upon the critical observations of Emile Durkheim. Although Durkheims data sources and many of his conclusions regarding the etiology of suicide have come under increasing attack in recent years, social theorists concerned with the phenomenon have been unable to dispense with his insights. The present study applies Durkheimian theory to a “hypothetical population” drawn from the Shakespearean dramatic literature. A new methodology is applied in an attempt to determine the orientation to the suicide act held by each Shakespearean suicide. Conclusions are drawn which, while they do not invalidate Durkheimian assumptions regarding the “causes” of suicide, do tend to restrict his typology to two categories.