29
certain sociological theories. Haskell and Furner, as well as Bledstein, were deeply
influenced by Wiebe's work which in turn drew heavily upon certain models of social
evolution and upon earlier historical research.
Furner's account certainly had something of a tragic plot about it. The story was
one in which the movement from amateur to professional social science was not the
great development often celebrated by the disciplines and their Whigish attitudes.
Instead, it was one in which a basic commitment to social reform on the part of early
social scientists was transformed into a commitment to science which alienated it from
its original purpose. In order to gain authority for their demands, social advocates
found it necessary to define themselves as scientists and, in turn, to depoliticize
themselves in order to gain legitimate professional university status. The demands of
the academy, as well as the search for professional security, were, however, ultimately
incompatible with effective, or at least radical, political advocacy. This tale of the fate of
reform-oriented social scientists remains compelling as a general image of a certain
dimension of this era, but it gave little attention to either the actual arguments of the
individuals discussed or to the structure and internal development of the discursive
practices in which they were engaged.
Haskell's work was a good deal more complicated, but the same virtues and
problems were manifest. He set out to explain the "emergence" of professional social
science in terms of the important transition represented in the demise of the American
Social Science Association and its particular goals and outlook. This story had been
Convention