Alvin Ward Gouldner (July 29, 1920 – December 15, 1980) was an American sociologist, lecturer and radical activist.^[2]

Gouldner was born in New York City. He earned a B.B.A. degree from the Baruch College of the City University of New York and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from Columbia University.

Gouldner taught sociology at the University at Buffalo, Antioch College, and the University of Illinois at Urbana in the 1940s and 1950s. In 1957, he joined the joint Anthropology and Sociology department of Washington University in St. Louis. In 1968, he became the Max Weber Research Professor of Social Theory there and chair of the department.^[2] He was the president of the Society for the Study of Social Problems (1962) and professor of sociology at the University of Amsterdam (1972–1976).^{[citation needed]}

His early works such as Patterns in Industrial Bureaucracy can be seen as important^[promotion?] as they worked within the existing fields of sociology but adopted the principles of a critical intellectual. This can be seen more clearly in his 1964 work Anti-Minotaur: The Myth of Value Free Sociology,^[3] where he claimed that sociology could not be objective and that Max Weber had never intended to make such a claim.

He is probably most remembered in the academy for his 1970 work The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. This work argued that sociology must turn away from producing objective truths and understand the subjective nature of sociology and knowledge in general and how it is bound up with the context of the times. This book was used by many schools of sociology as analysis of their own theory and methods. However, Gouldner was not the first sociologist to be critical of objective knowledge of society, see for example Theodor W. Adorno's Negative Dialectics.

Subsequently, much of Gouldner's work was concerned with critiquing modern sociology and the nature of the intellectual. He argued that ideology often produced false premises and was used as a tool by a ruling elite and that therefore critical subjective thought is much more important than objective thought.

Gouldner achieved public prominence when he was accused of beating and kicking Laud Humphreys, then a graduate student at Washington University, who Gouldner suspected of hanging a satirical cartoon poster criticizing Gouldner on the sociology department bulletin board.^[4] He died of a heart attack at age 60 in 1981.^[2]

• 1950: Studies in Leadership
• 1954: Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy
• 1954: Wildcat Strike: A Study in Worker-Management Relationships
• 1959: Organizational Analysis
• 1959: Reciprocity and Autonomy in Functional Theory
• 1960: The Norm of Reciprocity : a Preliminary Statement
• 1964: Anti-Minotaur: The Myth of Value-Free Sociology
• 1966: Enter Plato
• 1970: The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology
• 1973: For Sociology: Renewal and Critique in Sociology Today
• 1976: The Dialectic of Ideology and Technology: The Origins, Grammar and Future of Ideology.
• 1979: The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class: A Frame of Reference, Theses, Conjectures, Arguments, and an Historical Perspective on the Role of Intellectuals and Intelligentsia in the International Class Contest of the Modern Era
• 1980: The Two Marxisms: Contradictions and Anomalies in the Development of Theory [1]
• 1985: Against Fragmentation: The Origins of Marxism and the Sociology of Intellectuals

Gouldner led an ethnographic study in a mine and identified there various patterns of bureaucracy and bureaucratization. He analyzed how after the appointment of a new manager the bureaucratization process emerged.^[5] Gouldner identified three types of bureaucracy in his studies with very specific patterns:

• Mock bureaucracy: this type comes from outside agency and is implemented officially, but not in daily behaviors. Both management and workers agree in this case to act the same way. The rules are not enforced in this case, neither by management, nor by the workers. No conflict seem to emerge in this case. "Smoking" is in this case seen as inevitable. The no-smoking rule is an example of mock-bureaucracy.
• Representative bureaucracy: both management and workers enforced this rule and it generated very few tensions. In this context, the focus was on the education of workers as management considered them as ignorant and careless regarding security rules. The safety program is an example of representative. Meetings happened regularly to implement this program and it was as well the occasion to voice some concerns for workers. For the management, this program was a way to tighten the control over workers.
• Punishment-centered bureaucracy: this type of program was initiated by management and generated many tensions. Management viewed workers as deliberately willing to be absent. Therefore, punishment was installed in order to force the workers not to be absent. For example, the "no-absenteeism" rule is an example of the punishment-centered bureaucracy.

In The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, Gouldner primarily argued that there would be a new class of sociologists emerging consisting of radical students, who rebel against what they see as the conservatism of their previous professors.^[6] The book consists of multiple parts: an attack on “objective,” “value-free” social science, a sociology of the history of sociology and a critique of Talcott Parsons, culminating in his own proposal for a new sociology.^[6]

Gouldner devotes the largest portion of his book to Talcott Parsons and to the Parsonian brand of functionalism, which in his eyes dominated American sociological thinking in the 1930’s, 40’s, and 50’s. However, many, including the late sociologist Bennett Berger, find faults in Gouldner’s argument.^[7] Berger believed that Parsonianism never dominated American sociology and that sociologists of that era followed their own preset tracks.^[7] Additionally, Berger points out how the most popular books during the 1950’s were non-Parsonian.^[7] Berger sees Gouldner’s criticism of Parsons as superficial, with Berger pointing out how Gouldner implies that Parsons is a fraud and that his reputation rests on his Harvard association. ^[7]Furthermore, Berger claims Gouldner makes claims with no evidence, like that Parsons initially opposed government intervention for social reform.^[7] Gouldner’s criticism isn't without a nuanced approach however, as he trained under one of Parsons' students, Robert Merton.^[7] Berger points out how Gouldner uses this to not only a critique of Parsons' most basic ideas, but as a basis for a sociological analysis of the biographical sources of those ideas and their relevance to issues associated with laissez-faire capitalism in the 1930's and the problems of Welfare State capitalism in the 1950's and 1960's.^[7]  

Another criticism Gouldner beams at Parsons’s discussion of change is Parsons’s alleged failure to give technology the place it deserves. John Rhoads, a late sociology professor from Northern Illinois University, highlights Gouldner’s view that Parsons lists cultural legitimation, money, and democratic associations but omits science and technology as revolutionary universals.^[8] Gouldner held the view that Parsons had an objective of proving the superiority of America over the Soviet block of nations.^[8] In his view, the US institutionalized some evolutionary universals such as money and markets, legal codes, and democratic associations, which were not fully developed within totalitarian systems.^[8] However, totalitarian societies did possess science and technology and compared favorably with the United States.^[8] Yet, Rhoads believes that Gouldner’s opinion that Parsons is attempting to demonstrate American superiority is wrong. ^[8]He highlights how Parsons does include technology as a universal: “These four features of even the simplest system - “religion,” communication with language, social organization through kinship, and technology - may be regarded as an integrated set of evolutionary universals at even the earliest human level. No known human society has existed without all four in relatively definite relations to each other.”^[8]

Wildcat strike is at once a research report and a theoretical statement of group processes.^[9] It refers to a spontaneous, unplanned work stoppage initiated by workers without the approval of the official union leadership. These strikes often occur in response to immediate grievances, such as working conditions, management decisions, or the enforcement of unpopular rules.^[10] Wildcat strikes are characterized by their grassroots, rebellious nature and usually challenge both the employer’s authority and the official structures of the labor movement.^[9] Grievances defined as pertaining to the labor contract are considered as "legitimate," but complaints defined as outside of the contract such as election and placement of supervisors and schedule of operations might be "talked over," but plant officials were cautioned against taking official cognizance of them.^[9] Gouldner writes, "as a consequence, some of the very issues which precipitated the strike, the changing speed of the machine, the demotion of the old supervisors and their replacement with new ones, were defined by management as non-legitimate. As a result, the attempt to alleviate the underlying tensions by resorting to a new formal definition of role relations did not eliminate the tensions but only caged them in and initiated a vicious circle."^[9] Wildcat Strike is a research report interpreted by role analysis within a structure function framework.^[9] Theory and research are blended so successfully that industrial sociology becomes here, as it should, a contribution to general sociology.^[9]

In the context of Gouldner’s work, wildcat strikes represent a form of worker resistance against bureaucratic authority and control. He viewed them as examples of the tension between formal structures of power (such as management and unions) and the informal, everyday experiences of workers who feel marginalized or oppressed by those structures. When a pattern of work conditions not specified in the contract, but which the workers had every reason to count on, was destroyed, the resultant dissatisfaction and insecurity generated a wildcat strike and its "illegitimate" demands.^[11] Some of these principles seem obvious truisms clothed pretentiously, but all ring true, and many provide genuine insight toward the author's goal of erecting a bridge between pure and applied sociology.^[10] In his study of the gypsum plant, Gouldner identified that when management imposed stricter bureaucratic rules and tried to enforce greater control, workers reacted with forms of informal resistance, including wildcat strikes.

The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class (1979) is Alvin Gouldner’s class-analysis based answer to the question: “Why are there intellectuals and what are they good for?”^[12] In addition to Karl Marx's two previously defined classes in the capitalist society, there is a New Class that provides technical services and expertise that facilitate capitalist production.^[12] Gouldner argues that this group is crucial to the functioning and efficiency of capitalism.

In The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class (1979), Alvin Gouldner describes the rise of a new class of technical intelligentsia and humanistic intellectuals that have altered previous traditional systems and structures of power.^[13] Gouldner states that this class originated during significant historical societal shifts, such as the loss of the church’s control over knowledge and the shift away from Latin to common languages.^[13] These changes allowed intellectuals to integrate more into everyday life. Additionally, Feudalism’s decline and the market economy’s growing prominence gave this New Class more separation and independence from the traditional elite, and the rise of public education systems further pushed them to shape society beyond the rule of local authority.^[13]

Throughout the piece, Gouldner mentions various “distinguishable conceptions” of the New Class.^[14] In many, such as New Class as Benign Technocrats, the class is described as more trustworthy and selfless, differing from Gouldner’s view that the class acts often in their self-interest.^[14] Another common thread throughout the different theses of the New Class is their association and alliance with the traditional elite class. In some viewpoints, such as New Class as Old Class Ally, and New Class as Servants of Power, the class is seen as a group that uplifts and serves the old moneyed elite class.^[14] These ideas go on to say that the New Class will eventually become combined with the aforementioned traditional elites, creating a refined high society superior to its predecessors.^[14] Gouldner rejects this statement as well, for similar reasons to his opposition to New Class as Benign Technocrats as he believed that both groups would act in their own interests and would be willing to “exploit the other”.^[14] Finally, Gouldner reveals his own viewpoint, New Class as Flawed Universal Class, identifying the New Class as “elitist and self-seeking”, using their unique set of skills and knowledge to increase their control and influence.^[14] Moreover, he details the tensions within the class itself, noting the internal divisions between technical intelligentsia and humanistic intellectuals.^[14]

The most prominent criticisms of The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class are based on two primary arguments. Bill Martin (sociologist) and Iván Szelényi point out that a common criticism of Gouldner's work was its timing. Gouldner’s thesis was released too late, and by the time the book was published the middle-class radicalism he mentions was already fading, being replaced by a “new conservatism” that many educated youth adopted.^[15] Additionally, Martin and Szelenyi note that critics also argue if the New Class should even be described as a class due to its lack of economic foundation that defines the traditional Marxist definition of a class.^[15]

Against Fragmentation: The Origins of Marxism and the Sociology of Intellectuals (1985), published posthumously by Janet Gouldner and Cornelis Disco, was Gouldner’s final book. The final work was mostly complete upon his death, but editing and logical composition content of his original passages were finalized by Karen Lucas, Mary Grove (Gouldner’s secretary), Janet Gouldner, and Cornelis Disco. Against Fragmentation combines what was originally supposed to be three volumes of distinct Marxism critique into a single volume that views Marxism in its totality – how the contextual origins of Marxism led to the acceptance of the theory and its interpretable meaning.^[16]

The text is split into three sections: Marxism and the Intellectuals, The Ecology of Marxism, and Against Fragmentation; the first of which recapitulates Gouldner’s “New Class” and refers to the intelligentsia’s dialectical stratification; the second of which details the historical, political, and theoretical contexts of Marxism as well as contemporary focalized theories; the last of which accounts for the rationality of Marxism and asks why the theory was widely accepted at the time.^[17]

The work was met critically by others at the time. Historian Martin Jay contended that the work thwarted itself into dichotomies and fragments while attempting to unifying a single social theory because of Gouldner’s deep confliction with Marxist contradictions and gaps.^[18] Historian Walter L. Adamson questions Gouldner’s motivations behind his ideas, particularly of his deeming the intelligentsia as the potential last class; he also questions whether Gouldner’s framing of Marxist theory could be structured differently and if that framing is more plausible in society.^[19] Sociologist James J. Chriss summarizes Against Fragmentation as a work where Gouldner’s ideas are picked apart for understanding at one level but are found to hold contradictions at another, the limitations being the inability to show complexity wholly and still being able to see what may be forgotten.^[20]

Reciprocity and Autonomy in Functional Theory (1959), is an analytical essay in which Gouldner centers his focus on structural functionalism (or functionalist theory), a sociological theory developed by Talcott Parsons surrounding the structure of a society. Functionalist theory is the idea that society is a system that is composed of various bodies and social institutions, each providing a good or service necessary for the society to function.^[21] What keeps these institutions functioning is the role of individuals, each having an important role to play.^[21] In essence, the interaction between individuals performing their roles creates what is known as a social system.^[21]

One of the main limitations that Gouldner highlights within the functionalist theory is the idea behind reciprocity, and its role in the social system established by Parsons. Since reciprocity is the mutual exchange of obligations and benefits between individuals, it becomes essential to the social stability experienced within the society.^[22] However, Gouldner proposes that reciprocity can bring social stability, yet by itself is not enough to ensure this.^[22] Combining autonomy with reciprocity is the key component to which Gouldner suggests stability within a social system, creating a balance between mutual exchange and a sense of personal independence while trying to avoid power imbalances among individuals and institutions.^[22]

• Why Mills and Not Gouldner? by Charles Lemert
• Stalinism: A Study of Internal Colonialism (Full Text) Telos 34 (Winter 1978). New York: Telos Press.
• Alvin Gouldner on Intellectuals and the Social Totality
• http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=clsoc_crim_facpub
• E.P. Hollander & R.G. Hunt : Perspectives in Social Psychology. New York, Oxford University Press. 1963