“I Love LA”
The Sporting Culture of Los Angeles
Mark Dyreson
When Los Angeles sport franchises win games, the strains of “I Love LA” frequently fill stadiums and arenas. Since the iconoclastic songwriter Randy Newman released the tune in 1983, this unofficial anthem of Los Angeles has heralded victories by the Dodgers, Lakers, Clippers, Kings, and Galaxy.1 Though recently replaced at Kings and Galaxy games by the more raucous tune “This Is LA,” written by the Los Angeles–based Celtic punk band, The Briggs, “I Love LA” remains the traditional anthem of many Los Angeles sports fans.2 Indeed, when the Rams returned to Los Angeles from twenty-one years of exile in St. Louis in 2016, the chords of “I Love LA” coursed through the Los Angeles Coliseum as 90,000 people attended the first preseason game of the National Football League’s (NFL) restoration in the city.3
“I Love LA” has become a tribal custom at a multitude of sporting events in SoCal, the region that is coterminous with the greater Los Angeles megalopolis. In particular, it heralds wins by the Dodgers and Lakers.4 “From the South Bay to the Valley,” Newman’s distinctive voice blares over stadium loudspeakers. “From the West Side to the East Side,” Newman warbles. “Everybody’s very happy,” he cheers. Or, at least those who stayed until the end of the game are very happy, as Los Angeles fans are notorious for being fair-weather front-r unners who arrive late and exit early, to get to the beach or their favorite nightspot or just to beat the massive traffic jams that plague the city.5 “ ‘Cause the sun is shining all the time,” Newman trills, taking a shot at urban rivals in lesser climes, New York, Chicago, Boston, Detroit, and others. “Looks like another perfect day,” he gloats. “I love LA,” Newman’s canned voice chirrups. “We love it,” respond his canned backup singers.6
Los Angeles is like other American cities in some ways. Sporting contests and sports teams provide possibilities for building communal bonds and defining civic identity.7 In Los Angeles, however, molding commonweal presents special challenges. “Los Angeles is 72 suburbs in search of a city,” the early twentieth-century manufacturer of witticisms, Dorothy Parker, herself a lifelong New Yorker, once famously quipped.8 Los Angeles indeed lacks the centuries of urban history, prominent architectural anchors, and clear geographical determinants that many other American metropolises enjoy. Inhabited by indigenous peoples for millennia, a village of Los Angeles sprang into existence in this Pacific coastal basin when in the eighteenth century the imperial overlords of New Spain decided to plant several pueblos in the wilderness of Alta California to support the military presidios they had already built in the region. These new villages, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and San Jose, were settled by Spanish pioneers from Sonora in the 1770s and 1780s.9
The official founding date of Los Angeles was 1781, the same year that the army of the brand-new United States effectively ended at Yorktown, Virginia, the British campaign to quell its rebellious North American colonies, thus guaranteeing the survival of the fledgling American republic.10 During the Spanish period the population of Los Angeles counted only a few hundred inhabitants. After Mexico revolted from New Spain, the hamlet grew to a few thousand. In the 1840s the expanding republic of the United States, now a regional power with ambitions of stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, seized Los Angeles and millions of square miles of Mexican territory and incorporated the lands into its continental designs. By the 1870s, the US town of Los Angeles had 5,000 residents. By the 1890s Los Angeles had exploded into a city of more than 50,000. Over the next century it grew at even more astounding rates, appearing on the list of the top-ten American cities for the first time in 1920 with over 500,000 residents and climbing to the second-largest city in the nation with over 3.4 million inhabitants by 1990.11
In a nation with an urban history characterized by the sudden and rapid appearance of boomtowns, Los Angeles stands out as the newest and largest megalopolis—and from many vantages, the most rootless and transient. Los Angeles represents a dichotomy, a city at the same time both exceptional and ordinary, a one-of-a-kind urban structure and a commonplace urban space.12 Los Angeles has also developed a sporting culture that is both unique and exaggerated as well as conventional and mundane, as the essays in this collection on the sporting life of the “City of Angels” reveal. On the one hand, Los
Angeles has all the regular sporting traditions available in any US city, including a thriving intercollegiate sporting scene at the University of Southern California (USC), the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as at more than fifty other institutions that dot the city, large and small, public and private, secular and sectarian.13 Los Angeles also sports franchises in all the “big four” American national pastimes, baseball, basketball, hockey, football. Other customary sports, from golf, tennis, and track and field to horse racing, sailing, and swimming thrive in greater Los Angeles.14
In terms of distinctiveness, Los Angeles serves as the cradle for “action” or “lifestyle” sports. Beach volleyball, mountain biking, triathlon, snowboarding, skateboarding, surfing, windsurfing, BMX biking—each traces a lineage to the Los Angeles basin.15 Los Angeles also has a special connection to the Olympics, having produced more Olympians, hosted more Olympic Games, and developed more training infrastructure for Olympic sports than any other urban region in the United States. The city remains convinced that it plays a special role as the Olympic backup location, ready to step in and take over should any host city falter in its duties.16 In the interim, urban boosters dream of a third shot at formal hosting duties. As of this writing, that dream seems likely to come true in 2028.17
“I Love LA” has a connection to the city’s Olympian aspirations, serving originally in an “unofficial anthem” role for the 1984 Olympics. As Los Angeles in the early 1980s geared up to host its second Olympic Games, songwriter Randy Newman penned this catchy, sardonic tune about his native city. Newman later explained that the idea sprang from a conversation he had on an airplane flight with Don Henley, the leader of the iconic 1970s and 1980s rock group, The Eagles. Henley, a native Texan who had relocated to Southern California in order to make his career at the center of the American popular music industry, mentioned to Newman that everyone in the business seemed to be writing songs about urban angst and social collapse set in Newman’s native Southern California. The Eagles, Henley related, had contributed “Hotel California” (1977) to the genre. As an indigenous Angeleno, Henley contended, Newman was in a perfect place to contribute to the growing number of popular songs that painted Los Angeles as a false paradise.18
Taking but twisting Henley’s cue in his own inimitable style, Newman wrote “I Love LA” as the opening track of his Trouble in Paradise album, a compilation that debuted in 1983 to enduring critical acclaim and won a spot on Rolling Stone magazine’s “100 Greatest Albums of the 80s” list.19 Though
the song certainly skewered the image of Los Angeles as an unadorned nirvana, juxtaposing images of vagrants vomiting in the streets with depictions of perfect weather and perfect landscapes, “I Love LA” became something that Newman never intended—an anthem for his native city. The tune has been employed repeatedly in soundtracks to invoke the ambiance of Los Angeles, beginning when it was first released and placed in a time capsule to promote John Carpenter’s Southern California–based science fiction drama Starman (1984).20
Newman’s original music video, played endlessly on Music Television (MTV) and other cable-music channels in the 1980s and 1990s, featured the songwriter cruising the streets of greater Los Angeles in a red 1955 Buick Super Convertible with, as his lyrics chronicled, “a big nasty redhead” cuddled next to him.21 The music video evoked images of Southern California sprawl and car culture, motifs that Hollywood films borrowed in cruising scenes from Down and Out in Beverly Hills (1986) to Naked Gun (1988) to Chips ’99 (1998).22 The tongue-in-cheek quality of the song lent itself especially to the Los Angeles disaster movie genre, movies in which epic calamities destroy huge swaths of the city. “I Love LA” played while lava and fire covered the city in Volcano (1997), while the British comic Rowland Atkinson bumbled through several cataclysms in Bean: The Ultimate Disaster Movie (1997), and while earthquakes, floods, crime sprees, political catastrophes, and decadence turn the city into an apocalyptic island prison in the campy science fiction thriller Escape from LA (1996).23
Since Newman penned “I Love LA” in 1983, other, darker songs about Los Angeles have hit the airwaves and become symbolic canticles of the Los Angeles experience. Some of these songs grew from the emerging Southern California “hip-hop” culture and highlighted the deep racial and social divisions that plague the city, including NWA’s “Straight Outta Compton” (1988), Dr. Dre’s “Let Me Ride” (1992), and Tupac Shakur’s “To Live and Die in LA” (1996). Punk and metal bands from the same era produced their own dark (but white, in contrast to hip-hop) and dystopian homages of the city’s underbelly, including Guns N’ Roses’ “Welcome to the Jungle” (1987) and the Red Hot Chili Peppers’ “Under the Bridge” (1991). None of those memorable songs, however, became embedded in Southern California’s sports culture in the way that “I Love LA” has burrowed into the production of Los Angeles sporting events. “I Love LA” has been even more popular at Los Angeles sporting events than it has been in Hollywood schlock. The song blares when the Dodgers triumph
in a baseball game at Chavez Ravine and when the Lakers or Clippers won a basketball game at the old Great Western Forum—and now when they win in the new Staples Center. In the short-lived early twenty-first-century challenger to the NFL’s dominion, the XFL, the Los Angeles Xtreme cranked up “I Love LA” every time they scored a touchdown.24
While “I Love LA” has become a popular anthem for the city, the song remains controversial in Southern California. While some see it as a catchy pop tune that showcases the glamour, pleasures, and sparkle of Los Angeles, others understand it as an acidic commentary on a community that is vapid, shallow, and illusory. Like other trinkets that adorn Los Angeles, including the nickname “tinseltown,” Newman’s lyrics cut both ways, celebrating and condemning his hometown in the same breath. “Everybody’s very happy,” Newman cackles about his fellow Angelenos. “Looks like another perfect day,” he croons. But are they happy, amid the palm trees and beaches, and is endless sunshine a recipe for perfect days? Those questions rest at the heart of the Los Angeles conundrum. Is the city an American paradise, or does the glitter mask harsh, dream-killing currents that lure the foolish to certain disappointment?
In the world of sports, Los Angeles has always been a bit of both. The City of Angels is the only American metropolis to host two Olympic Games, and frankly the only Olympic site that the American public remembers and celebrates. Olympic venues, such as the Los Angeles Coliseum, remain tourist attractions because of their Olympic heritage. Few recall that only two decades ago Atlanta hosted an Olympics. Tourists rarely pilgrimage to Atlanta to relive Olympic memories. Even more forgotten is St. Louis, the city that hosted the first Olympics on American soil in 1904, and in which visitors would have to search diligently for any remnants of past Olympian glories. Everyone remembers, however, that Los Angeles is an Olympic city.25
Not only did Los Angeles host two Olympics but both Games transformed the world’s most popular sporting contests in enduring ways. The 1932 Olympics cemented the nascent link of sport, politics, and mass entertainment as Hollywood’s dream factories turned the Games into a spectacle of beautiful and youthful athletic bodies battling for national glory in thrilling competitions. After 1932, no questions remained about whether or not the Olympics was a significant global event.26 The 1984 Olympics transformed the spectacle again. In an era in which the Olympic movement seemed bound for extinction as taxpayer-funded boondoggles and political controversies threatened to drive even the most confident or delusional cities out of the hosting business, Los
Angeles stepped in when not a single other municipality in the world was willing to provide a home for the Games. The 1984 Olympics created a blueprint for successfully funding and promoting the Olympics that restored the luster of the Olympic brand. Olympic host cities have been duplicating the Los Angeles model ever since.27
In many ways Los Angeles became a paradise for the Olympics, and the Olympics showcased the fleeting dreamland that Los Angeles could become during global mega-events, as the essays in this volume by Sean Dinces on the 1932 Games and Matthew Llewellyn, John Gleaves, and Toby Rider on the 1984 Games illuminate.28 Those two Olympics remain in civic memories moments in which the diverse neighborhoods that make up the city became, if only momentarily, a united community rather than a mostly geographic collection of sprawling parts. The two Olympic spectacles also showcase the city’s enduring sporting architecture that contributed a great deal to the unique financial success of both of those events.29 Los Angeles has done a far better job, as the essay in this collection by Greg Andranovich and Matthew J. Burbank demonstrates, of building and maintaining and refashioning and repurposing stadiums and arenas that by modern standards have exceptional life cycles.30 No other host of multiple Olympics (London—1908, 1948, 2012; Paris—1900, 1924; Tokyo—1964, 2020) has ever used the same main venue, as Los Angeles has with the Coliseum in 1932 and 1984—and plans to do once again should it win the 2024 Games.31 In many other host cities even recent Olympic venues have become empty “white elephants.” Los Angeles, however, seems to be the repurposing king of athletic facilities, as the histories of the Coliseum and its sister site, the Rose Bowl, for everything from football, soccer, and Olympic events to rock concerts, religious revivals, and action sports contests reveals.32
The architecture of sports has left its marks on Los Angeles, and not only through monumental buildings that hosted athletic events. The iconic palm trees that line Wilshire Boulevard and other major streets were planted to prettify Los Angeles for the 1932 Olympics and revitalized again for the 1984 Games.33 The Olympic structures occupy a special place in the city’s civic culture. The 1992 riots following the Rodney King trial verdict witnessed the destruction of a great deal of property in parts of the city, yet spared not only the area around the Coliseum but the LA84 Foundation headquarters built to memorialize the heritage of the Olympics in the south-central neighborhoods that stood at the epicenter of the racial unrest.34
In American culture, sport has long been used as an emblem to promote visions of racial and ethnic harmony and integration. Sport supposedly highlighted the virtues of meritocracy, a unique space in American society where talent and not heritage or background triumphed. Of course, not only in Los Angeles but everywhere else in the nation, sport also revealed racial and ethnic discrimination and division. Sometimes urban boosters in Los Angeles used sporting events or iconic athletes to promote images that Los Angeles was a paradise of racial harmony. Certainly the organizers of both Olympic pageants sought to portray the city as a racially progressive oasis where whites, blacks, Latinas/Latinos, and Asians lived amicably. Commentators frequently offered the city’s embrace of the Mexican-born Dodger pitcher Fernando Valenzuela in the 1980s, the much ballyhooed “Fernandomania,” as a counterpoint to the long history of discrimination and hostility toward the large Latina/Latino community in the city.35 In his essay for this volume, Luis Alvarez dissects the roles sport played in the community-building endeavors of Mexicans and Mexican Americans in the frequently hostile environs of the city, revealing moments of connection that appeared amid enduring patterns of segregation.36
This volume also offers an examination of the African American experience in Los Angeles from the vantage of one of the most well-known figures in the struggle for civil rights on playing fields and in the broader realms of American life, as well as from a key figure who lived largely in the shadow of the more famous athlete. Jack “Jackie” Roosevelt Robinson stands as one of the central figures in the dismantling of legalized segregation in the twentiethcentury United States. Many historians regard his pioneering challenge of the color line in the undisputed national pastime of his era, baseball, a crucial first assault on segregation that paved the way over the ensuing decades to integrate almost every realm in the American public square. As the well-known folktale reveals, the story has an important Los Angeles connection. An infant Robinson escaped the rigid apartheid of the Deep South—Cairo, Georgia—and grew up in the allegedly vastly more racially progressive environs of greater Los Angeles. In the suburban neighborhoods of Pasadena, he attended schools and played on teams with whites, matriculating to more integrated success first at Pasadena City College and then UCLA. In Southern California he seemed to have escaped the scourges of racism, rising to stardom not only in baseball but in football, track and field, and a host of other endeavors. Indeed, some chroniclers of Robinson’s story imply that only after he signed his first major league contract and he and his wife took their first trip from Los Angeles to
the spring training grounds of the then Brooklyn Dodgers to Daytona Beach, Florida, a town in the deepest recesses of the Jim Crow South, did Robinson for the first time experience the unvarnished venom of racial hostility.37
However, as Gregory Kaliss reminds the readers of this collection in his contribution, in spite of his multitude of opportunities to compete on the playing fields of Los Angeles, Robinson routinely felt the sting of racism in the supposedly more enlightened climate of Southern California, as did his older brother, Matthew “Mack” Robinson. Kaliss rescues from obscurity the important narrative of the lesser-known Robinson brother, a world-class athlete himself who earned a 200-meter silver medal in the 1936 Berlin Olympics behind Jesse Owens, and pairs Mack Robinson’s narrative of perseverance in the face of decades of persistent racism in Southern California with the more celebrated tale of Jackie’s triumphal rending of the color line in baseball that helped to spark the modern civil rights movement. 38 Los Angeles emerges in Kaliss’s and Alvarez’s accounts as less than the racial paradise that it often posed as, and more the conflicted and divided city that Newman captured in “I Love LA.”
In spite of those ethnic and racial divisions and the myriad other social conflicts that rent Los Angeles and, indeed, sometimes because of them, the city has produced two iconic chroniclers of the Southern California sports scene who have sometimes united the local masses across ethnic, class, and even generational gaps and at other times illuminated the fractures that divided the metropolis. Jim Murray, the legendary columnist and correspondent for Los Angeles dailies and national magazines, arrived in the city from the East Coast in the midst of the boom times of the Second World War and spent the next five decades exploring the transformation of the city into a “sports mecca,” as Ted Geltner in his essay for the collection aptly labels both the place and the era.39 Murray, like Randy Newman, always sensed trouble lurking in paradise. He challenged local and national racial and sporting sensibilities, championed civil rights causes and decried pugilism as an unconscionable vice that brutalized the participants in the ring to sate the bloodlust of the masses.40 Like Murray, Vin Scully, the legendary radio and television voice for the Dodgers, migrated from the East Coast to Los Angeles. Indeed, Scully began his career with the Dodgers in 1950, when they still resided in Brooklyn. He migrated with the team to their new home in 1958, and altogether in Brooklyn and then Los Angles spent sixty-seven years broadcasting Dodger baseball. Unlike Murray, Scully tended to soothe social fissures rather than shining a light into the dark underbelly of
the Southern California wonderland. Still, he provided a remarkable symbol of continuity to a notoriously transitory and ephemeral city, linking together generations of Angelenos, newcomers and old-timers alike, as Elliott Gorn and Allison Lauterbach Dale reveal in their treatise on Scully in this volume.41
Other elements of the sport history of Los Angeles reveal more trouble in paradise and illuminate the fragility of communal bonds in the city. While Los Angeles is the only American city to host two Olympics, it is also the only American city to lose two of its franchises in what for the past half century has been the dominant national pastime in the United States, professional football. In 1995, the Los Angeles Rams and the Los Angeles Raiders both fled the city, in large part due to their failure to get public funding for refurbishing their homes in the old Olympic venue, the Los Angeles Coliseum, or securing guarantees for public financing on new stadium sites. The Rams had been in Los Angeles since 1946 when city boosters purloined the team from its original home in Cleveland, while the Raiders had relocated from Oakland to Los Angeles in 1982. In the hardball world of professional sports economics, Los Angeles has hardly been a paradise for local fans or entrepreneurs seeking riches in the booming goldfields of professional football. Professional football teams, as Raymond Schmidt divulges in his contribution to this collection, have come and gone more frequently in Los Angeles than most fans remember.42
When it comes to fútbol, the version of football Americans call soccer and the rest of the world adores, Los Angeles has been a much more beneficent climate. While other cities, St. Louis and Philadelphia in particular, claim a longer soccer lineage, Los Angeles has been since the mid-twentieth century the most fertile American soil for the growing importance of fútbol in US culture. In 1994, the Rose Bowl staged the final in which Brazil beat Italy on penalty kicks in the only World Cup held in the United States. In 1999, the Rose Bowl housed another iconic soccer moment that ended with Brandi Chastain stripping off her jersey to warm the hearts of sports bra manufacturers everywhere following her winning goal in the penalty kick shoot-out in front of the largest crowd in American history to witness a women’s sporting event as the United States beat China in the women’s World Cup final.43
Fútbol has flourished in Los Angeles in part because Latin American immigration has made the city a haven for Latinos and Latinas. Since the mid-t wentieth century Latinas/Latinos have become the largest ethnic group in greater Los Angeles. Migrants from Mexico, Central America, and South America have brought their Latin American soccer cultures with them, fusing
their passion for fútbol with a strong native interest in the game to make the city into a soccer hotbed. When the US national team meets “El Tri,” the Mexican national side, in “friendlies” or in the more hostile conditions of World Cup qualifiers, stadiums in Los Angeles fill to overflowing and Mexican partisans sometimes outnumber US partisans. So deep is the Mexican fan base in Los Angeles that for a decade from 2005 to 2014, Chivas, a powerful Mexican soccer club from Guadalajara, opened a Los Angeles branch in the US-based MSL.44
Soccer in Los Angeles, however, has evolved from more than just Latin American roots. White fans flock to games to see global stars such as David Beckham, the premier English player of the early twenty-first century who spent his twilight years playing for the Los Angeles Galaxy and cultivating his celebrity as well as facilitating his wife’s brand, the British pop-star Victoria Beckham (“Posh Spice” of the Spice Girls), in the entertainment capital of the world. European clubs regularly tour and train in Los Angeles. The city has a huge contingent of white players and a long history of cultivating the sport among the Anglo middle classes. The American Youth Soccer Organization, a leader in the mid-twentieth-century mainstreaming of the game, was founded in 1964 in Los Angeles.45 The city’s ethnic, class, and social frictions frequently emerge in the collisions between soccer and fútbol, as Jennifer Doyle demonstrates in her keenly observed reminiscences of pick-up and recreation-league games for this collection.46
Newman’s “I Love LA” video did not capture any images of local soccer but it did pay homage to the ubiquity of cars and beaches in the sporting life of Los Angeles. Newman’s song and video highlight the significance of the automobile in the history and culture of Los Angeles. “Rollin’ down the Imperial Highway,” Newman croons, “With a big nasty redhead at my side.” He feels the “Santa Ana winds blowin’ hot from the north,” and declares, “we was born to ride.” Cruising in his car becomes the ultimate symbol of freedom in Newman’s LA anthem. In his contribution of this volume, Jeremy Kinney recovers the surprisingly lost history of auto racing in the region. Though Indianapolis or Daytona Beach come more quickly to mind when fans ponder the power of race cars in American life, no city has had a more profound impact on the history of the automobile than Los Angeles.47 Angelenos were born to ride—and to race, as Kinney reveals in his essay for this anthology.48
Newman’s evocation of the unique climate and geography of Los Angeles inspire other sporting motifs in his video montage of the song. New York City and Chicago are routinely frosty and frigid, not exactly places for year-round
cruising in a convertible or regular trips to the beach. The paradisical landscapes of the Pacific strand have long been iconographic sites for selling the Los Angeles dream to the rest of the world, as well as important sporting habitats that give Los Angeles its own unique niche in the American landscape. The seashores of greater Southern California have given the world beach volleyball and triathlon. Those famous coastlines also serve as the epicenter of the American surfing scene—a recreation that Los Angeles cannot claim to have invented but which the region can argue that it transformed into a global industry that has had a tremendous influence on everything from fashion to linguistics. Tolga Ozyurtcu’s essay for this collection provides insights into the history of surfing in Los Angeles, a sporting culture that has perhaps most deeply indulged in the mythology of the city as a paradise.49
Newman’s “I Love LA” video bursts with depictions of beautiful young surfers playing on the beaches, and also with the corps of bodybuilders who have made the Pacific shores into their alfresco theaters. American weightlifting and muscle shaping might have first emerged in less edenic climes, such as York, Pennsylvania,50 but as Jan Todd’s meditation for this volume chronicles, multitudes of Americans for whom the cultivation of the body was the highest priority soon deserted harsher climates for the sun-kissed sands of “Muscle Beach.” At the Santa Monica location that served as the original “Muscle Beach” and at a myriad of locations around greater Los Angeles, including indoor palaces such as Gold’s Gym, they sculpted their bodies and made the city into the capital of producing beautiful exteriors.51
Of course, Los Angeles is home to huge enterprises that require beautiful human exteriors—the motion picture and television industries. Weightlifters and bodybuilders who trained in the city not only dominated international competition circuits but crossed over into the entertainment markets. The original Muscle Beach and its countless offspring in Los Angeles trained and tuned bodies to appear in front of the cameras. A few devotees even made the leap from bodybuilding to Hollywood stardom, most famously Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was born in Austria but had his major breakthroughs when he relocated to Los Angeles.52
While beaches and buff bodies immediately summon visions of Los Angeles, figure skating rarely conjures up images of Southern California. Indeed, skating would seem better suited to the cities Randy Newman disparages in “I Love LA,” “cold” and “damp” New York or the Chicago he suggests be left to the “Eskimos.” Surprisingly, in spite of its balmy climate, Los Angeles has become
a major center for ice skating, as Susan Brownell documents in her essay in this volume.53 As she notes, the entertainment industry has played a major role drawing ice skaters to Los Angeles, serving as a staging ground for at least a century of ice shows and as early as the 1930s drawing skating ingénues such as Sonja Henie with the prospect of Hollywood stardom. Ice skaters have, like Henie, relocated to Los Angeles in the quest to garner world-class coaches and training opportunities as well as to chase stardom.54 The city has also produced homegrown champions including Olympic silver medalists Michelle Kwan and Linda Fratianne.55
The unexpected history of ice skating in Los Angeles reveals a crucial reality about the city’s sporting scene. More than any other metropolis in the United States, sport, celebrity, and the entertainment industries comingle and combine in Los Angeles. Figure skaters leap from Olympic ranks onto silver screens and bodybuilders with thick European accents can become Hollywood action heroes. One of the greatest American football players of all-time, Jim Brown, abandoned his athletic career while still in his prime for a series of mediocre film roles.56 A mediocre football player named Marion Morrison, who was born in Iowa and grew up in Southern California, lost his spot on the mighty USC Trojans roster after he broke his collarbone at a Los Angeles beach in a body-surfing accident, then quickly abandoned football, changed his name to John Wayne, and became one of the biggest superstars in the history of American cinema.57
Celluloid storytelling and sporting lore mix regularly in Los Angeles. In his contribution to this anthology Scott Brooks chronicles the rise and cultural cachet of the “Showtime” Los Angeles Lakers that developed in the late 1970s and dominated the National Basketball Association with their star-studded teams and their collection of starlets and stars who had to sit courtside at their games. From “A” list movie stars such as Jack Nicholson to “B” list staples such as Arsenio Hall, the Hollywood glitterati turned out to watch players who themselves were stars of such a magnitude that the public know them by a single moniker, from the era of “Magic” and “Kareem” to the epoch of “Shaq” and “Kobe.”58
Hollywood’s moviemakers have long been fascinated with sport. The sports film genre dates all the way back to the late nineteenth century when British and American filmmakers first turned to the world of sport for subject matter and directed their cameras to record prizefights and cricket matches, baseball games and football contests.59 In the early twentieth century as American
filmmakers began to congregate in the Los Angeles area, Hollywood began to make sport films. Among the first was The Champion, a pugilistic comedy starring Charlie Chaplin that hit American theaters in 1915, shortly after the studio that produced the film moved from Chicago to Southern California.60 Since then, as Dan Nathan chronicles in his essay on Hollywood and sport, Los Angeles studios have made hundreds of sport movies.61 Some of these movies have been great, like Eight Men Out (1988). Others have been good, like Tin Cup (1996). Some have been bad, like The Mighty Ducks (not only the 1992 original but also all of the sequels). Some have been just plain ugly, like Kingpin (1996).62 Some have even fantastically transformed the Rams—in their Los Angeles not their St. Louis incarnation—into Super Bowl champions, like Heaven Can Wait (1978), a cinematic trick that has yet to be performed in mere real life.63
“I love Los Angeles,” the comedian Billy Connolly once remarked. “It reinvents itself every two days.”64 Reinvention might in fact be what Los Angeles is best at and what sport most contributes to the cultural fabric of the city. The Rams appear and disappear—and then reappear again. The Olympics come and create an ephemeral sense of community and then depart, a magical zephyr that lasts for only a fortnight every half century. Skaters thrive in a city where the temperature rarely falls below the mark necessary to turn liquid water into solid ice. Most celebrities come and go, but a few seem to endure forever, like Vin Scully. Hollywood and Burbank’s dream factories produce multitudes of trends and fads and occasional cultural touchstones. “I love LA,” Randy Newman warbles. “We love LA,” his fellow Angelenos warble back—at least in the music videos that promoted the song.65
The unofficial anthem of the city and its sporting culture represent this defining penchant for reinvention. Newman initially intended it to skewer the vacuous smugness that cloaked his city like a pesky smog. While some musicologists have incorrectly inferred that Los Angeles organizers asked Newman to write a theme song for the 1984 Olympics, his quirky canticle did serve as the unofficial soundtrack for the Olympian spectacle when a blossoming American corporation with global ambitions used the tune in its scheme for pirating Olympic glory away from the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) official corporate sponsors.66 Nike, the global shoe giant, repurposed “I Love LA” as the centerpiece for its 1984 Olympic marketing campaign. Nike had lost the competition to become the “official” cobbler of LA84—the shorthand nickname of the second Los Angeles Games, when it balked at the $4
million price that rival Converse paid to the IOC for that privilege. A cabal of clever Nike marketers then huddled with the advertising geniuses at Chiat/ Day, the Los Angeles firm that a few months before the 1984 Olympics made Apple’s iconic “1984” commercial for the Super Bowl, an advertisement that the industry’s experts unanimously concur revolutionized the medium. For roughly $100,000 Chiat/Day’s virtuosos produced what advertising experts consider the first “ambush” commercial in history, an innovation still celebrated in case studies at American business schools. Nike hijacked the Olympics away from official sponsor Converse and put LA84 into the service of its own “Swoosh”-marked products.67
The Nike spot, played incessantly throughout the Olympics, begins with Randy Newman at the wheel of his big red Buick Super Convertible, the “nasty redhead” back at his side, tooling through the same classic Southern California scenes his song and video had originally evoked. Surfers stroll into epic waves; palm-fringed boulevards roll by; neon signs flash from the same familiar buildings that inhabit thousands of movies and television shows; roller skaters preen along the trails at Venice beach; high-end sports cars flash by. The ad celebrates the city’s racial and ethnic diversity without a hint of the divisions beneath the veneer of paradise. Low riders prance; African Americans dance; white biker gangs pose; and the LAPD pulls over not some scary gangbanger but Gary Shandling, a white, Jewish comedian who made a career lampooning mainstream, middle-class, middle-aged angst.68
Sporting celebrities appear prominently in Nike’s “I Love LA” spot. A Dodger resplendent in blue and white, smiles before adoring crowds; a clutch of Raiders (then in Los Angeles) posture in the back of a convertible; a cabal of body sculptors wave to the cameras at one of Muscle Beach’s many progeny; Moses Malone plays basketball with joyous children at an outdoor playground; beautiful California girls jog along pristine beaches. To aid in the campaign Nike erected massive billboards that rose for many stories on the sides of Los Angeles buildings that featured Nike’s talented pool of sponsored athletes. Newman and his red-headed friend drive by a giant billboard of Bo Jackson, the Raiders football star as well as a major league baseball phenom whom Nike featured in multiple campaigns during the 1980s. Nike had also wisely signed several American Olympic favorites. Carl Lewis, who would match Jesse Owens legendary feats from the 1936 Olympics in Berlin and win four gold medals in the 100 meters, 200 meters, 4x100 meters relay, and long jump at Los Angeles, practices for the long jump among a bevy of bikini-clad distractions on one of
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
travail social. 395–396. l.).
36) Abból, hogy a bűn normális szociológiai jelenség, nem következik, hogy az ember ne irtózzék tőle. A fájdalom éppen ilyen kevéssé kívánatos; az egyes ember éppúgy gyűlöli a bűnt, mint a társadalom, mégis a normális pszichológiából ered. Nemcsak szükségképen az élőlény alkatában gyökerezik, hanem fontos szerepe is van az életben, s ebben nem gátolható. Gondolatunk félremagyarázása volna azt úgy venni, mint a bűnnek védelmét Nem is gondolnánk arra, hogy az ilyen magyarázat ellen tiltakozzunk, ha nem tudnánk, hogy milyen különös vádaknak, félreértéseknek teszi ki magát az ember, ha az erkölcsi tények tárgyilagos vizsgálatára vállalkozik és ha erről nem a mindennapi nyelven beszél
37) L. Garofalo, Criminologia, 229. l.
38) Ebben a fejezetben kifejtett elméletből néha azt lehetne következtetni, hogy a kriminalítás emelkedése a XIX. sz. folyamán szerintünk normális jelenség. Semmi sincs távolabb ettől a gondolattól. Több tény, melyeket már az öngyilkosság tárgyalásakor (L. Suicide 420 és köv. l.) is felhoztunk, arra a felfogásra tesz hajlandókká bennünket, hogy ez a növekedés kóros tünet Mindenkor lehetséges, hogy a kriminalitás bizonyos formáinak bizonyos növekedése normális, mert a civilizáció minden állapotának megvan a maga kriminalitása De erre nézve csak hipotézisek állíthatók fel
39) Így nevezem, mert így fordul elő gyakran a történetíróknál, s nem azt akarom ezzel mondani, hogy mindegyiknél megtalálható
40) Cours de philos pos., IV, 263.
41) Sociologie, II, 135.
42) «Nem tudjuk mindig pontosan megmondani, mi alkotja az egyszerű társadalmat» (u o 135, 136 )
43) Sociologie, 136
44) Division du travail social, 189. l.
45) Mindenesetre valószínű, hogy a társadalmak alkotó részei között nem lehet igen nagy a különbség; különben semmi erkölcsi közösség nem lehetne közöttük.
46) Ez a római császárság esete, melyre nincs analog eset a történelemben.
47) Mikor e munka első kiadásának ez a fejezete íródott, semmit sem említettünk arról a módszerről, mely a társadalmakat művelődésük állapota szerint osztályozza. Akkor valóban nem is volt még hivatásos szociológustól származó ilyenféle osztályozás, hacsak tán a már kétségkívül elavult Comte-félét nem tekintjük. Azóta már megjelent több ilyen irányú értekezés, nevezetesen
Vierkandt-é (Die Kulturtypen der Menschheit, Archiv f Anthropologie, 1898), Sutherland-é (The Origin and Growth of the Moral Instinct) és Steinmetz-é (Classification des types sociaux, Année sociologique, III 43–147 l ) Mindazonáltal nem akarjuk megvitatásukkal tölteni az időt, mert nem egyeztethetők össze az ebben a fejezetben kifejtett problémával Ők nem a társadalmi fajokat osztályozzák, hanem – ami meglehetős különbség – a történelmi alakulatokat. Franciaország kezdete óta a civilizációnak legkülönbözőbb formáin ment át. Kezdődött mint agrárország, majd átment a kisiparba és kiskereskedelembe, azután a kézműiparba, végre a nagyiparba. Lehetetlenség elfogadni, hogy ugyanaz a kollektiv egyéniség saját faját háromszor vagy négyszer változtatni tudja. A fajt a legállandóbb jellemvonásoknak kell meghatározniok. A gazdaság és technika állapota sokkal kevésbbé állandó és sokkal inkább összetett jelenségek, semhogy az osztályozás alapjául szolgálhatnának. Sőt nagyon lehetséges, hogy ugyanaz az ipari, tudományos és művészeti civilizáció azokban a társadalmakban fordul elő, melyeknek összetétele nagyon különböző Japán átveheti a mi művészetünket, iparunkat, sőt politikai szervezetünket is, de azért más társadalmi fajhoz tartozik, mint Franciaország és Németország Hozzátesszük még, hogy ezek a kísérletek ámbár hivatásos szociológusoktól származnak, csak bizonytalan, vitás és hasznavehetetlen eredményeket nyujtanak
48) Cours de philos pos , IV, 262
49) Sociologie, III, 336.
50) Division du travail, II. könyv. III. és IV. f.
51) Nem szándékunk itt általános filozófiai kérdéseket fejtegetni, melyeknek itt nincs helyük Mégis megjegyezzük, hogy, ha alaposabban utána nézünk, az oknak és okozatnak ez a reciprocitása módot nyujthatna a tudományos mechanizmusnak a
finalizmussal való összeegyeztetésére, amely a létet, de főleg az élet fenntartását foglalja magában.
52) Division du travail social, II. k. II. f., főleg a 105. és köv. l.
53) Division du travail social, 52, 53
54) Division du travail social, 301 és köv
55) Cours de philos. pos., IV, 333.
56) U. o., 345.
57) U o , 346
58) Cours de philos. pos., 346.
59) Principles of Sociology I, 14, 15.
60) U. o., I, 583.
61) U o , 582
62) A társadalom a tagok hasznáért van, de a tagok nem a társadalom hasznáért vannak… A politikai szervezet jogai semmik magukban véve. Azért létesültek, hogy az azt alkotó egyének jogait képviseljék (U o , II, 20 )
63) Most már látjuk, hogy milyen értelemben lehet és kell az egyéni öntudattól különböző kollektiv öntudatról beszélni. E különbség igazolására nem szükséges feltételezni az elsőt. Ez külön dolog és külön szóval kell jelölni, mert azok a körülmények, melyek alkotják, specifikusan eltérnek azoktól, melyek az egyes öntudatot alkotják Specifikus karakterük onnan származik, hogy nem ugyanazokból az elemekből jöttek létre Az egyik rész a külön vett organicopsychikus tény természetéből ered, a másik ebbe a nembe tartozó több lénynek egyesüléséből Az eredőknél nem maradhat el a különbség, mert az összetevők különböznek ezen a ponton. A társadalmi tényről szóló meghatározásunk különben csak más módon jelölte meg ezt a határvonalat.
64) Annál inkább, mert a társadalmi élet előtt is megvan L Espinas, Sociétés animales, 474
65) Division du travail social, II. k., I. f.
66) A lelki jelenségeknek csak akkor lehetnek társadalmi következményeik, amikor a társadalmi jelenségekkel bensőleg
egyesültek annyira, hogy egyiknek a hatása a másikéval szükségképen összeolvad. Ez bizonyos socio-psychikus tény esete Így a hivatalnok szociális szerv, de egyúttal egyén is Ebből következik, hogy ő a társadalmi hatalmat, mellyel rendelkezik, abban az értelemben használja, amelyet az ő egyéni természete határoz meg, s ily módon befolyást gyakorolhat a társadalom szervezetére Így van ez az államférfiaknál és még nagyobb általánosságban a kiváló embereknél Ezek még ha nem töltenek is be társadalmi funkciót, a kollektiv érzelmekből, melyeknek ők tárgyai, tekintélyt merítenek, amely szintén társadalmi erő és ezt bizonyos mértékben saját eszméik szolgálatára fordíthatják. De, mint látjuk, ezek nyilvánvalóan csak egyéni esetlegességek és nem érinthetik a társadalom konstitutiv vonásait, melyek egyedüli tárgyai a tudománynak. A fentebb említett elv megszorítása tehát nem nagyjelentőségű a szociológusra nézve.
67) Nem volt igazunk, mikor a munka megosztásáról szóló munkánkban az anyagi sűrűséget, mint a dynamikai sűrűség biztos kifejezőjét tüntettük fel. Az előbbinek a másodikkal való helyettesítése mindenesetre teljesen jogosult mindarra nézve, ami ennek gazdasági hatását foglalja magában, pl. a munkamegosztás mint pusztán gazdasági tény.
68) Comtenak e kérdésben való álláspontja elég kétértelmű eklekticizmus.
69) Ez az oka, miért nem normális minden kényszer Mert ez a megjelölés csak arra vonatkozik, ami a társadalmi felsőbbségnek megfelel, más szóval értelmi és erkölcsi De egyik egyén gyakorolja a másikra azért, mert erősebb, mert gazdagabb, főleg ha ez a gazdagság nem foglalja magában társadalmi értéket, akkor rendellenes és csak erőszakkal tartható fenn.
70) Elméletünk még nagyobb ellentétben van Hobbes-éval, mint a természetjogi elmélettel Mert az utóbbi tan hívei szerint a kollektiv élet csak annyiban természetes, amennyiben az egyéni természetből levezethető. Szigorúan a társadalmi szervezetnek csak legáltalánosabb formáit lehet ebből az eredetből származtatni. Ami a részleteket illeti, ezek olyannyira távol vannak a lélektani tulajdonságok szélső általánosságától, hogy nem lehet kapcsolatot találni. Ez tehát ez előtt az iskola előtt ép olyan mesterségesnek látszik, mint ellenfelei előtt. Szerintünk ellenben minden természetes, még a legsajátságosabb berendezkedések is, mert a társadalom természetén alapulnak.
71) Cours de philos. pos. IV. 328.
72) A logika rendszere, II, 478.
73) Division du travail social 87 l
74) A különbségi módszer esetében az ok hiánya kizárja az okozat lehetőségét
75) Tehát nagyon helytelenül nyilvánították a mi módszerünket materialisztikusnak.
TARTALOM.
A fordító előszava 5
Bevezetés. A társadalomtudományok módszertanának kezdetleges állapota. A munka tárgya 15
I. Fejezet. Mi a társadalmi tény? 18
A társadalmi tényt nem lehet annak alapján meghatározni, hogy valamely társadalomban általános. A társadalmi tény megkülönböztető jellemvonásai: 1. Külső karaktere az egyéni tudattal szemben. 2. Kényszerítő ereje, amelyet az egyéni tudatra gyakorol vagy gyakorolni képes. – Ennek a meghatározásnak alkalmazása az erkölcsi normákra és a társadalmi áramlatokra. A meghatározás igazolása. Egy másik forma, amely a társadalmi tényt jellemzi: egyéni megnyilvánulásaitól való függetlensége. – E jellemvonás alkalmazása az erkölcsre és a társadalmi áramlatokra. –
A társadalmi tény általánossá lesz azért, mert társadalmi, de nem társadalmi azért, mert általános. Mennyiben függ össze ez a második meghatározás az elsővel. A társadalmi morfológia tényei minő kapcsolatban vannak ugyanezzel a meghatározással. – A társadalmi tény általános formája.
II. Fejezet. A társadalmi tények megfigyelésére vonatkozó szabályok 34
Alapelv: a társadalmi tényeket mint dolgokat kell tárgyalnunk.
I. Az ideologiai alakulat, amelyen az összes tudományok átmennek, miközben köznapi és gyakorlati életbe vágó fogalmakat dolgoznak ki, ahelyett, hogy a dolgokat leírnák és megmagyaráznák.
–
Miért kellett ennek az állapotnak a szociológiában tovább tartani, mint egyéb tudományokban. Comte, Spencer szociológiájából és a mai nemzetgazdaságtanból vett tények és bizonyítékok arra nézve, hogy ez a stádium még nem mult el.
Az okok, hogy ezt elkerüljük: 1 A társadalmi tényeket dolgoknak kell tekintenünk, mert ezek a tudománynak közvetlen adottságai, míg az eszmék, minthogy azok ezeknek fejlődéséül tekintetnek, nincsenek közvetlenül adva. 2. A dolgoknak összes tulajdonságai megvannak bennük.
Ennek a reformnak analóg esetei azzal a reformmal, amelyen legújabban a lélektan keresztülment. – Okok, melyeknek alapján a jövőben a szociológia gyors föllendülését remélhetjük.
II. Az előbbi szabályok közvetlen következményei:
1. A tudományból mindennemű hamis fogalmat ki kell küszöbölni. A misztikus szempont, amely a szabály alkalmazását megakadályozza.
2. Mód, hogy a kutatás pozitiv tárgyát megállapítsuk: A tények csoportosítása közös külső tulajdonságaik alapján. – Az így alkotott fogalom viszonya a közönséges fogalomhoz. – Példák arra nézve, hogy milyen tévedéseknek vagyunk kitéve, ha ezt a szabályt elhanyagoljuk vagy hamisan alkalmazzuk: Spencer és az ő elmélete a házasságról; Garofalo és definiciója a bűntényről. Általános tévedés, hogy az alsórendű társadalmak erkölcsnélküliek. – A kezdő definicióba fölvett tulajdonságok külső volta nem akadálya a tudományos magyarázatnak.
3. E külső jellemvonásoknak a lehető legtárgyilagosabbaknak kell lenniök. Hogy ezt elérhessük: A társadalmi tényeket azokon az oldalukon kell megragadnunk, ahol egyéni nyilvánulásaiktól elkülönítve jelentkeznek.
III. Fejezet. A normális és pathológikus megkülönböztetésre vonatkozó szabályok 74
E megkülönböztetés elméleti és gyakorlati haszna.
Ennek tudományosan lehetségesnek kell lennie, azért, hogy a tudománynak magatartásában irányítóul szolgáljon.
I. A közönségesen alkalmazott kritériumok vizsgálata: A fájdalom nem elhatározó jellemvonása a betegségnek, mert az egészséges állapotnak is alkatrésze; az életbenmaradásra való kilátást nem csökkenti, mert gyakran normális dolgok (öregség, szülés) hozzák létre, s nem következik közvetlenül a betegségből; ez a kritérium igen gyakran nem alkalmazható, különösen a társadalomtudományban.
A betegséget úgy különböztetjük meg az egészségtől, mint a normálist az abnormálistól. – A specifikus vagy átlagtípus. – Számot kell vetnünk a korral, annak megállapítására, hogy a tény normális-e vagy nem.
A kórosnak ez a meghatározása mennyiben vág össze a betegségnek közkeletű fogalmával. – Az abnormális esetleges; hogyan van, hogy az abnormális az élőlényt általában alsóbbrendűvé teszi.
II. Annak haszna, ha e módszer eredményeit igazoljuk, olyformán, hogy valamely tény normális vagyis általános voltának okait fölfedjük. – Ez az igazolás szükséges, ha oly tényekről van szó, amelyek olyan társadalmakban fordulnak elő, amelyeknek történelme nem fejeződött be. – Hogyan van, hogy ez a bizonyíték csak kiegészítésül alkalmazható és csak másodsorban. –Szabályok.
III. E szabályok alkalmazása egyes esetekre, különösen a bűntény kérdésére. – Egy bizonyos kriminálitás létezése miért normális jelenség. – Példák a tévedésekre, melyekbe akkor esünk, ha e szabályokat nem követjük. – Sőt így maga a tudomány is lehetetlenné válik.
IV. Fejezet. A társadalmi típusok megalkotására vonatkozó szabályai 109
A normális és abnormális megkülönböztetése magában foglalja a társadalmi fajok felállítását. – E fajfogalom haszna; közvetítő a genus homo és a külön társadalmak fogalma között.
I. A monográfiai eljárás nem eszköz ennek a megalkotására. –Ezen a módon lehetetlen célt érni. – Az ily módon készült osztályozás haszontalan. – Az alkalmazandó módszer alapelve: a társadalmakat összetételük foka szerint megkülönböztetni.
II. Az egyszerű társadalom meghatározása: horda. – Példák a társadalomnak hasonlóval történő egynehány összekapcsolódásai formájára és az összetett társadalmakéra egymással. – Az így alkotott fajokban megkülönböztethetünk változatokat, aszerint, hogy az alkotó szegmentumok összeolvadtak-e vagy nem. – Szabályok.
III. Az elmondottak mennyiben bizonyítják a társadalomfajok létét. – A faj természetének különbségei az élettanban és a társadalomtudományban.
V. Fejezet. A társadalmi tények megmagyarázására vonatkozó szabályok 125
I. A közhasználatban levő magyarázatok teleológikus jellege. Valamely tény haszna létének még nem magyarázata. – E két kérdés kettősségét bizonyítják az életbenmaradás tényei, a szerv és a funkció függetlensége és ama szolgálatok különfélesége, melyeket egy és ugyanazon intézmény egymásután teljesíteni képes. – A causæ efficientes kutatásának szükségessége a társadalmi tényekben. – Ezeknek az okoknak túlságos nagy jelentősége van a szociológiában, amit bizonyít a legaprólékosabb társadalmi szokásokban is nyilvánuló általánosság.
A causa efficienst a funkciótól függetlenül kell meghatározni. –Miért kell az első kutatásnak ezt a másodikat megelőzni. – Ez utóbbinak haszna.
II. Az általában használatos kifejtési eljárás pszichológiai jellege. – Ez az eljárás félreismeri a társadalmi tény természetét, a melyet
tisztán pszichikai tényre a definició által nem lehet visszavezetni. – A társadalmi tények csak társadalmi tények által magyarázhatók.
Mi módon lehetséges ez, jóllehet a társadalomnak csak az egyéni öntudat az anyaga. – Az asszociáció tényének jelentősége, amely új reálitásokat teremt. – A szociológia és a pszichológia elkülönítése analog a biológiáéval és a fizika-kémiai tudományokéval.
Vajjon ez a tétel alkalmazható-e a társadalmi formáció tényére.
Pozitiv viszony a pszichikai és társadalmi tények között. Az előbbiek a maghatározatlan anyag, melyet a társadalmi faktor általakít; példák. Ha a szociológusok közvetlen szerepet tulajdonítottak neki a társadalmi élet keletkezésében, ez csak azért érthető, mert az öntudatállapotokat, amelyek csak átalakult társadalmi tények, tisztán pszichikai ténynek vették.
Egyéb bizonyítékok e tételnek támogatására: 1. A társadalmi tényeknek az ethnikai tényezőtől való függetlensége, mely az organikus-pszichikus rendbe tartozik. 2. A társadalmi fejlődést nem lehet csupán pszichikai tényekből magyarázni.
Szabályok ehhez a kérdéshez. Minthogy e szabályokat nem méltatták figyelemre, a szociológiai magyarázatoknak túlságosan általános karaktere van, s ez őket diszkreditálja. Szükségünk van egy tulajdonképpeni szociológiai képzettségre.
III. A társadalmi morfológia tényeinek primarius jelentősége van a szociológiai magyarázatokban: a belső miliő az eredete minden jelentékeny társadalmi folyamatnak. Különösen fontos szerepe van ebben a miliőben emberi elemének. A társadalmi probléma mindenekelőtt ama környezet tulajdonságainak feltalálásában áll, amely a társadalmi jelenségekre hatást gyakorol. A jellemvonásoknak két fajtája felel meg különösen e feltételnek: A társadalom térfogata és dinamikus sűrűsége, a szegmentumok összeolvadásának fokával mérve.
A belső környezet másodlagos tulajdonságai. Viszonyuk az általános környezethez és az együttes élet részleteihez.
A társadalmi környezet e fogalmának jelentősége. Ha ezt elvetjük, a szociológia nem lesz képes több okozati viszonyt megállapítani, hanem csak az egymásutániság viszonyát, amely előre való tudományos megállapítást nem tesz lehetővé. Comte-ból és Spencer-ből vett példák. E fogalom jelentősége a tények magyarázásában abban áll, hogy a társadalmi szokások gyakorlati értéke változhatik, anélkül, hogy önkényes berendezésektől függne. E kérdésnek a társadalmi típusokhoz való viszonya.
Az így felfogott társadalmi élet belső okoktól függ.
IV. Ennek a szociológiai felfogásnak általános karaktere. –Hobbes szerint a pszichikai és a társadalmi között a kapcsolat szintétikus és mesterséges. Spencer és a nemzetgazdászok szerint természetes és analitikus; szerintünk természetes és szintétikus. Mennyiben egyeztethetők össze e tulajdonságok. Általános következtetések.
VI. Fejezet. A bizonyító eljárás szabályai 167
I. Az összehasonlító módszer vagy az indirekt kísérlet a szociológiai kutatás módszere. Comte úgynevezett történelmi módszerének hiábavalósága. Felelet Mill ellenvetésére az összehasonlító szociológiai módszert illetőleg. Ennek az alapelvnek fontossága: ugyanazon hatásnak mindig ugyanazon ok felel meg.
II. Miért legjobb az összehasonlító módszertani eljárás különböző fajai közül a párhuzamos variációk módszere: 1. Mert az oksági kapcsolatot belülről ragadja meg; 2. mert lehetségessé teszi jobb és kritikaibb bizonyítékok alkalmazását. Mert a szociológia, ámbár egy eljárásra van korlátozva, egyéb tudományokkal szemben nincs alárendelt helyzetben a variációk folytán, amellyel rendelkezik. Szükséges, hogy csak a folytonos és kiterjedt változásokat hasonlítsuk össze és ne az izolált variációkat.
III. E sorok képzésének különböző módjai. Esetek, ahol a sor egyes tagjait egyetlen társadalomból lehet venni. Esetek, ahol ezek különböző, de ugyanazon fajú társadalmaktól vehetők. Esetek, ahol a különböző fajokat össze kell hasonlítani. Miért ez a
legáltalánosabb. Az összehasonlító szociológia maga a szociológia.
Elővigyázati rendszabályok bizonyos tévedések elkerülésére összehasonlítás közben.
Befejezés. E módszer általános jellemvonásai: 185
1. Független mindennemű filozófiától (ez a függetlenség magára a filozófiára hasznos) és gyakorlati tantól. A szociológia viszonya ezekkel a tanokkal. A pártokon mi módon tud uralkodni.
2. Tárgyilagossága. A társadalmi tények úgy tekintetnek mint dolgok. Ez az elv mi módon hatja át az egész módszert.
3. Szociológia karaktere: A társadalmi tények úgy magyaráztatnak meg, hogy specifikus voltukat megőrzik; a szociológia mint önálló tudomány. Ennek az önállóságnak birtoka a legfontosabb haladás, amit a szociológia tehet. Az így tárgyalt szociológia tekintélye nagyobb.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A SZOCIOLÓGIA MÓDSZERE ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGESExcept for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
