daniel r.

huebner

Toward a Sociology of the State and War: Emil Lederers Political Sociology*

Abstract
Although recognized for innovations in economics and economic sociology, Emil Lederers impressive contributions to political sociology have been almost completely ignored. Lederer wrote extensively on questions of practical and theoretical relevance for a sociological analysis of the state and war, especially in response to and anticipation of the World Wars of the last century. This article considers the elements of his political-sociological work in the context of the circumstances under which they developed and concludes with an attempt to construct an outline of the basic tenets of a sociology of the state and war derived from Lederers writings. This analysis highlights Lederers sensitivity to a dynamic understanding of the total social conguration and its impact on the individual psyche as central to explicating the characteristics of particular political-sociological phenomena.

Introduction E m i l L e d e r e r (1882-1939) was admired during and after his own lifetime for his important contributions to economic sociology, and for his commitment to the mutual inuence of practicalpolitical activity and intellectual study (Social Research 1940a). Yet a major aspect of his work has been overlooked (Joas 2006, p. 241). Lederer crafted a political sociology that attempts to relate socioeconomic conditions to the modern state and war. His contributions are especially remarkable as his political-sociological writings were bracketed by the two World Wars. Through an analysis of the development of his works in relation to the social turbulences of his time, this paper sketches the aspects of
* The author would like to thank Brian Cody, Hans Joas, and Paola Castan o Rodriguez for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper

65
Daniel R. Huebner, Dept. of Sociology, University of Chicago [huebner@uchicago.edu].
Arch.europ.sociol., XLIX, 1 (2008), pp. 65900003-9756/08/0000-891$07.50per art + $0.10 per page2008 A.E.S.

daniel r. huebner a reective political sociology. The paper is structured around the major intellectual-biographical periods of Lederers life, which are utilized to explicate the development of his sociology. Lederers earliest work is characterized by its engagement in practical politics and the intellectual debates of his contemporaries. With the advent of World War I he became especially reective about the social conguration that led to war and the subsequent transformations it effected, resulting in an important sociological analysis of the war and the seeds of his later analysis of totalitarianism. In the post-war period, he continued to develop the ideas rst generated in this period and rene them with developments in Europe and Asia. With the rise of Nazism, Lederer emigrated to the United States and began the enterprise of reinterpreting his political sociology to understand the emergence and implications of fascism. This development culminated in his posthumously published State of the Masses, in which he analyzed the novel sociological character of the totalitarian state. The professional reception of Lederers nal works provides a further proving ground for his ideas, and indicates directions for a political sociology of the state. Finally, this paper concludes with an attempt to outline the basic tenets of a political sociology based on Lederers work.

Early Writings Emil Lederers earliest publications show him to be a social scientist actively engaged with both academic critique and practical social action. It is beyond the scope of this paper to evaluate all the professional literature Lederer produced, let alone its relation to his contemporary social politics1. Instead, a brief overview of his early work serves as a point of departure for assessing the subsequent development of a political sociology. In 1907 Lederer made his rst contribution to the journal he would later edit, the Archiv fu r Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik (hereafter, the Archiv) with an analysis of real-estate speculation and the housing question (Lederer 1907). Prior to his hiatus while lecturing
1 The only comprehensive bibliography of which the author is aware is contained in the German translation of Lederers last book (Lederer 1995, p. 190-209). This translation

also contains an introductory intellectual biography that places Lederer in his historical context and locates his political action (see Krohn 1995).

66

toward a sociology of the state and war at Tokyo Imperial University in the early 1920s, Lederer was the Archivs primary contributor on questions of the middle class, the conditions of public and private ofcials2, and the organizations of employers and workers (Lederer 1925, p. 56). He also contributed over a dozen reviews of the latest literature of his time in economic subelds and had a series of contributions under the title Sozialpolitische Chronik outlining the daily conditions of workers and their organizations, agricultural social politics, public ofcials, trade unions, and a number of other socio-political topics (Lederer 1925, p. 28, 31-32). Evidenced in his contributions is the consistent attention which Lederer gave to the practical social problems of economic groups. Beyond publications in the Archiv and other professional journals, Lederer wrote in socialist and trade union newsletters and in popular newspapers on topics of timely political interest to the publications readers. He not only wished to understand and explicate social processes, he wanted to be engaged in guiding them toward progressive outcomes (Social Research 1940a, p. 338). Before the onset of World War I, Lederers intellectual engagement with politics was primarily focused on the political movements, organization, and struggles of the economic strata, especially the newly emerging middle class. With the onset of the war, Lederers attention became focused on studying the impact war had on these socio-economic phenomena. To these particular studies he added an outline of a more analytical and general perspective on the war, which would become a touchstone of his political sociology. Lederers rst piece on war and the only piece in 1914, was an article in Die Hilfe, a weekly revue of politics, literature and art, on the early transformation of the national economy in war (Lederer 1914). The following year he wrote eight articles of the wars impact on the trade union movement and ideologies, the labor market, owners organizations, and the overall national economy and sociopolitical situation. His contributions were part of a larger German intellectual discourse aiming to impact the war through study and commentary on it, a discourse that included three collections relating the war to the economy, Kriegshefte, issued by the Archiv in 1915 with three contributions by Emil Lederer.
2 Lederers work identifying the emergence and implications of the Privatangestellten is widely regarded as one of his most innovative contributions to economic sociology (eg. Social Forces 1940b, Jackall 1987,

p. 277). This work is primarily available to an English audience through a partial translation of his 1912 Habilitationschrift (Lederer 1937a).

67

daniel r. huebner Through reviews of this literature in professional publications, the social science coming out of Germany, including the Kriegshefte, became an access point for information on Germany for the British academic public and government (eg. F.Y.E. 1917). In fact, John Maynard Keynes published the commentary on the Kriegshefte for The Economic Journal. His general impression was:
that Germany and Germans are not so different from the rest of the world as our daily Press would hypnotise us into believing. The German myth, which is currently offered for our belief, is of a superhuman machine driven by inhuman hands. The machine is a good one, but has by no means moved with such uncanny smoothness, as we come too easily to believe when it is hidden from us by a curtain of silence. Nor are the drivers, after all, so changed from what before the war we used to think of them. (Keynes 1915, p. 452)

Keynes stressed the moderation, sobriety, accuracy, reasonableness, and truth striven for by this group of social scientists, despite the exceptions, including the newly-emergent nationalist fervor of Edgar Jaff e (Keynes 1915, p. 452). He spoke somewhat disappointingly of Lederers contributions as illuminating very little which could not be surmised a priori (Keynes 1915, p. 446). Instead, these descriptive studies did not anticipate the problems that a long-term war would pose. Lederer stressed the problems of the reorganization of industrial production, the reduction of unexpected unemployment, and ofcial measures for the regulation of food supplies, while ignoring problems such as the reorganization of credit and the shortage of labor that would become increasingly pressing (Keynes 1915, p. 446-52). Yet, this was not a shortcoming only of Lederer, or of German intellectuals; Keynes saw much the same shortsightedness in Britain. Reading Keynes perception of German intellectuals, one would have the image of a general adherence to sober, if overly descriptive, analysis with notable exceptions. Yet this is clearly not the case, as objectivity was the exception in the face of war fervor3. In fact, several commentators have noted that Lederer was one of only a few social scientists in any affected country to consistently write objectively, and he, himself, remarked forcefully on the lack of objectivity among his peers (Verhey 2000, p. 131; Joas 2003, p. 55; Lederer 2006, p. 260). Lederers comments came in his 1915 article for the Archiv, Zur Soziologie des Weltkrieges,4 in which he attempted to make a sociological analysis of the war; an endeavor that, for him, required
3 Keynes was no doubt sensitive to this observation and had a moderating agenda of his own in writing of Germans as not so different from the rest of the world. 4 Translated in English as On the Sociology of World War (Lederer 2006). The referenced page numbers are from the English version of the text.

68

toward a sociology of the state and war taking a detached position outside the claims of belligerents (Lederer 2006, p. 242). The uniqueness of this work both in his oeuvre and among intellectual accounts of World War I demands an in-depth explication.

On the Sociology of World War In his sociology of world war, Lederer expressly avoided a recounting of immediate causes of the war in favor of an examination of the deep-seated nexus of causes because, to him, the discussion of immediate causes was almost necessarily implicated in discussions of guilt, and missed the larger picture (Lederer 2006, p. 243). He wished to illustrate the conguration of developments in the military, the state, capitalism, and ideology, the interaction of which led to war. Ultimately, this study would become a watershed in the development of Lederers political sociology, as the conceptual apparatus rst crafted in this article would remain a central reference point for his later writings. Lederer began with Ferdinand To nnies distinction between Gemeinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (society). In mobilizing for war the society is turned into a community one feels a sense of unity, a temporary lifting-out [Aufheben] of regular social relations (Lederer 2006, p. 244). The unity created is a coerced totality; it does not tolerate individual opposition. The military imitates the form of community to mobilize people by assigning social forces to national defense when existence seems threatened. This mobilization does not appear as coercive, or even as state action, but as a transcendental fate because of the perceived threat (Lederer 2006, p. 245). For Lederer, the military takes distinct forms in history conditioned by prevailing social relations. Thus, trench warfare was the response to the new possibilities of technological weaponry and the incorporation of masses of men and machines through universal conscription (Lederer 2006, p. 246). The intrinsic logic of military competition requires ever greater technology and manpower to accomplish its end of enemy defeat (Lederer 2006, p. 248). New war technology tended to homogenize the people who became soldiers and led the military to be more organizationally autonomous from society at the same time that universal conscription linked the military to the people psychologically more than ever before (Lederer 2006, p. 249). 69

daniel r. huebner This military autonomy developed further through the bureaucratization of military organization and the self-reinforcing development whereby increased military power led to increased state power and thereby further growth in military power (Lederer 2006, p. 253). The militaries of combatants became more uniform in structures, strategies, and capabilities under this military competition all despite their intensied claims to unique social and cultural nationality. The states sovereignty had until recently been experienced in Lederers view as a consciousness of citizenship the individual as a citizen with rights was experienced as an end of the state and not as a limitless power (Lederer 2006, p. 250). But World War I illustrated the state in a new way as having a dual nature: internally it is linked to its socioeconomic stratications and thus to a normative order while externally it is a unitary sovereign centre of violence with limitless command and disposal over the entire people and land (Lederer 2006, p. 251). The political theorist Ernst Fraenkel credited this paper as being the rst recognition of the coexistence of the normative and prerogative states, which would become the center of Fraenkels own later analysis of the Nazi regime (Fraenkel 1941, p. 168). The full strength of the sovereign violence of the state, too, only arose with the development of universal conscription, giving the state disposability over the whole population, and with the growing autonomy of the military, cutting free all its social embedding (Lederer 2006, p. 252-253). In war the state became the universal organization of the entire social substance and nds in the army a social form that could prevent opposition between the state and society. Still further, Lederer argued that industrial capitalism conditioned the modern military. Commodity production, agricultural transformation, and urbanization all facilitated universal conscription (Lederer 2006, p. 255). The massive reserves of labor not involved in production of necessities become surplus in times of war so that, despite the economic strains of universal conscription, Lederer argued that industrial capitalist economies are more adaptable to the manpower demands of war (Lederer 2006, p. 256). Advanced capitalism could also supply the modern army with all needed articles, replenish supplies during war, and provide disciplined, semi-skilled industrial workers as soldiers (Lederer 2006, p. 257). Thus, capitalism as the most universal current of our time encompasses the military complexs formation as a phase in its own development (Lederer 2006, p. 258). 70

toward a sociology of the state and war Lederer argued that all classes, despite their struggle with one another, developed a consciousness of the superiority of the state as an integral part of social development (Lederer 2006, p. 259). In Lederers view an ideology of a unity of the people under a state arises, especially when confronted with perceived danger, which is key to overcoming social stratications. The state, for Lederer, commanded the domestic intellectual forces by drilling of public argumentation in favour of war that went far beyond the limits of ofcial propaganda (Lederer 2006, p. 259). The state has a power to dene itself as a state of law while subordinating individual rights to its purposes (Lederer 2006, p. 260). This is where Lederer returned to a critique of the willingness of intellectuals to exploit the war for their own ideological purposes. They simultaneously create and are taken by ideologies that justify war as the vehicle of consummation (Lederer 2006, p. 261). This criticism was directed at every attempt to nd ultimate meaning in the war, whether Marxian attempts to justify it as the expression of class conict and imperialism or existentialist attempts to view it as the opportunity to sacrice their lives to a cause with rmness and sincerity (Lederer 2006, p. 261-3). Lederer drew a series of conclusions from his analysis. Firstly, war is economically conditioned but not caused by economic motives; war is latent in the very nature of the modern state (Lederer 2006, p. 265). This is why one cannot talk of the proximate causes of war because they only provide the occasion for war that is inherent in the very logic of military competition. This leads his analysis to sound deterministic, and this tendency is only amplied by his unwillingness to discuss the war on a level of specicity with regard to causes that could illustrate the radical contingency of its occasion and process (see Joas 2003, p. 80). Secondly, because of the homogeneity of state organization, the distinct qualities of people or culture are less decisive; the war can be understood increasingly quantitatively, as the relative level of organization of the belligerents (Lederer 2006, p. 266). There is repeated emphasis on the increasing similarity of states with respect to their organization, their capacities, and the content of their claims to uniqueness. Thirdly, World War I, perhaps especially, had the quality of enabling people to subjectively experience their individual goals as lying in the ultimate ends of the war. In this transformation the actual historical experiences were understood through the framework of the August experiences, empowering the collective narrative of German unity as the real story (Verhey 2000, p. 131). Fourthly, the state is not a real community, but 71

daniel r. huebner a powerful fabrication of one, and there is consequently a need to resume the struggle for individual rights and for the society against the ideational power of the state (Lederer 2006, p. 267)5. From this analysis, Lederer had gained an important set of analytical sensibilities. Lederer illustrated the importance of a view of social dynamics as being conditioned by the interaction of the total conguration of social, economic, and political institutions. From the distinction between socially differentiated society and a unied community Lederer illustrated the essentially social-psychological transformation of a society engaged in mobilization in response to perceived threat. Under the pressures of intense military competition, states are forced to adopt isomorphic forms and strategies just as essentially as they must ideologically maintain their uniqueness. With technological and social developments, the state gains near limitless power and an increasing consciousness of its capabilities. A fortiori, the ideological capacity of the state is dramatically increased with its power, and with the increased susceptibility of the population to unifying justicatory narratives under conditions of insecurity. Lederer contributed a number of other articles on the war, yet none of these works possessed the novelty or sociological insight of Zur Soziologie des Weltkrieges. This piece inuenced later thought on war across the political spectrum, from Carl Schmitt6 to Ernst Fraenkel and Franz Neumann (Joas 2006, p. 242) and was treated retrospectively as a surprisingly incisive and objective analysis of the experience of World War I in Germany (Joas 2003, p. 78-81; Verhey
5 Toward this end Lederer offered three solutions. The rst is a hope for an international platform of oppositional voices akin to an international civil society (Lederer 2006, p. 267). The second is a radical reshaping of the economy to emphasize justice over prosperity. The third, and most realistic, Lederer thought, is that states could be brought into interrelation in all aspects of international affairs to deny the freedom of movement of the dynamic conictual tendencies of any individual modern state. See also Joas (2003, p. 80-81) for further analysis of Lederers proposed alternatives. War, for Lederer, presented the limited opportunity for dramatic change, for reconstruction of society not simply along pre-war lines, but toward a more free, just, and peaceful society. 6 Carl Schmitt takes up Lederers reversal of To nnies in his 1927 article originally published in the Archiv, which Lederer was

editing at the time, translated as The Concept of the Political. Schmitt used the concept to critique liberal individualist views of the state as simply the agglomeration of social associations. That society can become community under threat means that there exists a potential underlying unity of the political community beneath social groups, and this unity consists, for Schmitt, of the ever-present possibility of a friendand-enemy grouping (Schmitt 1976, p. 45). It did not matter to Schmitt that Lederer considered this a fabricated unity, only that the potential for friend/enemy groupings exists. On this point, see also Heinz Guradzes (1941, p. 229) review of State of the Masses, which notes that the fabrication of a friend/enemy relation is an essential point of fascist mass psychology set forth by Schmitt, and recognized by Lederer in his posthumous analysis of the fascist state.

72

toward a sociology of the state and war 2000, p. 131). After this piece Lederer returned regularly to the concepts distilled from his analysis, utilizing and modifying them to understand later socio-political developments. Ultimately this article would become the springboard for his analysis of the Nazi state (Krohn 1995, p. 32) and, thus, a central aspect of Lederers contribution to a sociology of the state and war.

Post-War Writings Two interconnected developments that bear on a political sociology can be detected in Lederers work in the post-war period. First, Lederer redoubled his commitment to analyzing and engaging with practical social problems, especially those of German reconstruction and the Russian Revolution. Lederer identied the conjuncture of causes leading to the growing socio-economic crisis in Germany, and its implications for social and economic conditions across the globe. This concern returned with the crisis of the Great Depression. The second development is the project of understanding the impact of social trauma on psychological states, an enterprise that led him to make notable contributions toward a social psychology, especially on the potential socio-psychical appeal of fascism. Throughout this work, he drew from and in some cases extended his analyses rst developed in his 1915 article. By 1917, Lederer was shifting his political-programmatic writings toward the problems of a transition to post-war German reconstruction. In Social Evolution During War and Revolution, Lederer reiterated a thesis from his 1915 work: that industrial countries are fundamentally better at waging war than agricultural countries, because the productive forces can be immediately adapted to the needs of war and this mobilization can be maintained for extended times (Lederer 1921, p. 15). However, this observation now takes an ironic turn as Lederer added a commentary on the war economys after-war effects. The depression of consumption coupled with the massive debts and costs of reparation imposed on all belligerents, but especially on the defeated, had led to a cycle of social and economic devastation. There was dramatically increased concentration of capital, as smaller enterprises were swallowed up by larger ones during and after the war (Lederer 1921, p. 18). The middle class was wrecked, as real wages dropped and the decreased level of consumption led to 73

daniel r. huebner social degradation; in a word they were proletarianized (Lederer 1921, p. 19). An industrial country, thus, possesses only a dubious advantage over the agrarian country in war: the power to ruin itself (Lederer 1921, p. 27). Lederer wrote a number of other commentaries on specic aspects of this crisis in Germany and Austria, appearing in articles in the Archiv and in popular periodicals. With the advent of the Great Depression, Lederer picked up on these themes again to discuss the paralysis of the world economy and potential ways out of the crisis (Lederer 1931; Lederer 1932). Yet, perhaps the most remarkable of Lederers writings to come out of this early post-war period was 1918s Zum sozialpsychischen Habitus der Gegenwart7. Lederer attempted to outline a perspective from which to understand psychological states as emerging from social context. For Lederer, the psychological element in any period is decisively affected by the totality of social forces economic and technological institutions and legal, political, and intellectual relationships (Social Research 1940a, p. 352). To understand the character of a situation or social action one must nd the social frame of reference and analyze the ways in which the social relationships determine social action (Lederer 1937c, p. 32). But for Lederer this social conditioning also happens on the societal level so that the changing alignments of social forces of each society affect the possibilities of the individual, independently of any groups particular position in the social strata, making ideas such as national character and historical epoch potentially meaningful sociological concepts (Social Research 1940a, p. 349). In early twentieth century Europe, Lederer argued, the psychic attitudes of all social strata were profoundly affected by the permanent insecurity of their rhythms of life caused by rapid economic and technological development that increasingly detached them from the means of production (Lederer 1937c, p. 3). This article has denite echoes of his congurational analysis of the deep seated nexus of causes of World War I and the psychological insecurity the war unleashed, and may even be viewed as an attempt to work out the social-psychological implications of a theory that centers socio-historical conjuncture. This would also become a seed for Lederers view that the social insecurity
7 Translated in English as On the Sociopsychic Constitution of the Present Time (Lederer 1937c). References are to this edition. Robert Jackall argued that this piece would later provide a foundational framing

for the work of the members of the New Schools University in Exile who transformed the social traumas that had torn apart their own lives and careers into intellectual problems (Jackall 1987, p. 277).

74

toward a sociology of the state and war that comes with destructured mass society tends to make individuals more susceptible to unifying ideologies, as in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.

The University in Exile During the 1920s Emil Lederers popularity in Germany seems to have been at its peak. In 1922 he became the editor of the Archiv and oversaw its publication until the journal folded in 1933. He wrote and edited highly regarded books, articles, and journalistic pieces, and sat on important government commissions8 in the Weimar Republic. During this period Lederer became acquainted with the American economist Alvin Johnson, the associate editor of the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (hereafter, the Encyclopedia), for which Lederer contributed eight entries. Under Johnson, the Encyclopedia became the center of a cultural and political movement expanding and elaborating a system of liberal and internationalist norms and values that joined American liberalism with the tradition of European social science (Lentini 2000, p. 817-818). Liberals and social-democrats were united in unique enterprise of liberal-democratic and internationalist denition of world situation, which would be later translated into a solid antifascist alliance (Lentini 2000, p. 818). The collection became, in this view, a generative socializing experience for its contributors, especially in their subsequent collaborative attempts to understand the socio-political developments in Europe. In 1933, when Lederers name appeared on the rst list of professors provisionally banned from lecturing in Germany, Johnson, in his position as director of the New School for Social Research, offered Lederer the leading position in a new faculty of political and social science, which Lederer would assemble from banished and threatened professors throughout Europe (Johnson 1939, p. 314). Hence, the New Schools graduate faculty was born, and immediately christened The University in Exile. In year-long faculty General Seminars and in a vast outpouring of books, monographs, and articles, this group of scholars from widely differing schools of
8 By 1919 Lederer was engaged in the Socialization Commissions in Germany and Austria. In fact, he is credited as being practically the leader of the commissions,

with important contributions also being made by his former Vienna schoolmates Joseph Schumpeter and Rudolf Hilferding (Social Research 1940b, p. 94).

75

daniel r. huebner thought and with sharply contrasting temperaments creatively probed central interdisciplinary questions and was held together in large part because of Lederers leadership and scholarship (Jackall 1987, p. 277; Johnson 1939, p. 314). Lederer made notable contributions in a number of collaborative publications, the political-sociological implications of which may be divided into two interdependent themes. The rst of these themes is the increasing importance that Lederer gave to the question of the potential of propaganda to shape minds, drawing from and improving his theoretical grasp of the phenomenon. And the second is the consequent need to defend democracy ideologically and, ultimately, militarily against fascist inltration. In his contribution to Benjamin Lippincotts volume on Government Control of the Economic Order, Lederer argued that the true functional strength of the Bolshevik social system was its political machinery (Lederer 1935, p. 35-36). The state educational institutions and press molded the mind of the people to accept its elaborate propaganda. While in Russia the goal was to entrench the socialistic principle, in Germany the state aimed to shape minds so the people would accept all the state asks them to accept (Lederer 1935, p. 38-39). That is, Russia, for Lederer, remained more dialogical and reective about its ideology, and Germany, without a xed ideology, conditioned its subjects to romanticize the state as an end in itself (Lederer 1935, p. 39). Yet, Lederer concluded that, despite these notable differences, the German and Russian dictatorships were broadly similar in terms of their monopolization of public expression and the subjugation of the unarmed by the armed. At the limits of the states ability to shape the human mind, and thereby the socio-economic structure, Lederer found the Economic Doctrine of National Socialism (1937b). The Nazi view of economics was simple:
will power can mold and change economic data; [. . .] the national will is creative and can draw on psychological resources which the capitalist economic process cannot mobilize. Propaganda and violence are the means used for this purpose. There are no limits for their application. By inaming emotions the old notions are invalidated. What was believed to be impossible becomes easy. Economic miracles can be worked if everybody is enrolled in the common action (Lederer 1937b, p. 221).

Thus, the problem of economic possibilities and, by extension, the states capacity to fundamentally reconstruct social life become problems of social psychology, and are therefore subject to the 76

toward a sociology of the state and war conguration of social forces in each particular nation and the specic goals toward which the activities are directed (Lederer 1937b, p. 222). Lederers residency in the United States witnessed a shift from a purely intellectual defense of democracy against fascism toward a more and more adamant conviction of the inevitability of military confrontation. In the rst edition of the New Schools newly formed journal of 1934, Social Research, Lederer wrote Freedom and Science, in which he critiqued the agnosticism toward valuation in the methodological statements of Max Weber and Werner Sombart, his former superiors and colleagues at the Archiv, to reect upon the preconditions for science and democracy (Lederer 1934, p. 221). He agreed with Weber that, despite the apparent arbitrariness of values, one cannot simply choose between them as they are constitutive of the individual. But this led Lederer to a conclusion divergent from Webers: that some values may be excluded because they would nullify the achievements of our past and what amounts to the same thing the very substance of our being (Lederer 1934, p. 223). Democracy, like science, is a value, a way of living chosen by a people that necessarily excludes other values and defends itself from values that endanger the free formation of public opinion. At this point Lederer defended democracy on a practical and intellectual level; that is, he felt one must ensure the autonomy of intellectual institutions for the articulation of free thought (Lederer 1934, p. 227). However, by 1939, Lederer was adamant about the necessity of militarization to protect democracy. He thought that, for totalitarian states, the view of the state as having prerogative sovereignty had triumphed over the international norm of non-intervention (Lederer 1939a, p. 45). This dangerous new development of aggressive insurgence and militarism in totalitarian states, for Lederer, necessitated a mobilization in all other nations, including modern equipment, large standing armies, and full preparedness of all the population, with all the nancial and psychological consequences thereof (Lederer 1939a, p. 54). His recommendations for this process of militarizing the economy in the face of such necessity included total economic mobilization and control, the principle of which should be the maximum increase in production and equalization (and thus minimization) of consumption (Lederer 1939b, p. 206; Tobin 1939, p. 638). With this piece Lederer had moved fully from an academic to a political confrontation against fascism. 77

daniel r. huebner The State of the Masses When Lederer died in 1939, he left behind a largely completed manuscript, which was to form his sociological analysis of the totalitarian state. With editing and an introduction by his former student in Germany and colleague in the US, Hans Speier, it was released in 1940 as The State of the Masses. The analytical elements of this work bear a close continuity with the political-sociological themes Lederer had been rening over the previous three decades of intellectual enterprise, while its central thesis was something essentially novel in political theory. Lederer began his analysis with an extended discussion of social groups and masses, presenting them as formal analytical concepts. Groups are parts of the population which are united by the same interest, the coexistence of which makes up society (Lederer 1940, p. 23). They are, for Lederer, centers of power to the extent that they are united by an ideology that focuses on their function, and to the extent that they can control the whole community. The psychology of groups was central to Lederers argument. For him, the interaction between individuals within a group will tend to enrich their reasoning. This occurs because individuals and groups are confronted by opposing groups and must present argumentation, motivated by emotional attachment, to support their positions (Lederer 1940, p. 28). On a macroscopic level, then, stratication into social groups facilitates reasoning and checks unrestrained emotions, especially under the conditions of a set of rules for conduct as exist in societies (Lederer 1940, p. 29). Masses, in Lederers analysis, consist of large numbers of people that have some psychological unity, and which are inclined toward action or emotional expression (Lederer 1940, p. 31). For a multitude of people to become a mass, the members must be susceptible to activation of the same emotions. For Lederer, this meant they most likely speak the same language, and share a common cultural basis of values or common historical experiences, such as defeat or victory in war, religious feelings, or race-consciousness (Lederer 1940, p. 31, 36). Psychologically, the crowd consists of individuals who cease to think and instead are moved, they are carried away, they are elated; they feel united with their fellow members in the crowd released from all inhibitions (Lederer 1940, p. 32-3). Yet, unlike Freuds ([1921] 1959) or Le Bons (1896) views of crowd psychology, crowds are not 78

toward a sociology of the state and war the awakening of a common subconsciousness of individuals (Lederer 1940, p. 36)9. Instead, the content of crowd psychology changes with the historicity of the conditions of the common cultural basis of crowd emotion (Lederer 1940, p. 37). A crowd, to be integrated, requires leadership that can activate and express its members collective emotions, but also direct its expression, a man with charisma (Lederer 1940, p. 40). With the advent of radio and mass media the abstract crowd is possible, whereby the lone individual can be affected as if he were in a crowd either because the awareness of the other hundreds of thousands tuned in. disposes him to listen as if he were in the crowd, or because of the understudied appeal of certain qualities of voice and wording (Lederer 1940, p. 44). Lederer acknowledged that the masses have played important roles throughout history, as in revolutions, but their movements have been periodic and short-lived phenomena (Lederer 1940, p. 45). Some modern political leaders, however, had capitalized on the strengths of masses as the basis of a movement that aimed at the permanence of domination and the swallowing up of the state (Lederer 1940, p. 45). This is the central element of Lederers thesis: totalitarian states utilize the institutionalized masses, turning them into a social steam roller to destroy independent social groups and create a monopoly not only of force but also of expression. This was a fundamentally new phenomenon, in Lederers view, as even previous dictatorships had maintained a society apart from the state. Lederer argued that transforming a whole people into masses and maintaining them in this excited state only became possible with the new social conditions of the post-war period (Lederer 1940, p. 46). Industrialization had dramatically increased the perceived insecurity of all classes and prepared their minds for a dramatic movement which would not bother with scientic and calm analysis but promised to strike boldly and ruthlessly (Lederer 1940, p. 51). Nationalism appealed to the middle class as a compensation of their feelings of social inferiority, and the fear of Bolshevism had further increased the insecurity of people with property or who had hoped to acquire it (Lederer 1940, p. 53, 64). Science and democracy refused to take stands to defend their own constitutive values, proposing a sharp
9 Lederer made explicit mention of both of these theories, as well as Graham Wallas ([1908] 1921) and Jose Ortega y Gassets ([1930] 1993), and as a result there is a danger

that a cursory reading would give too much weight to his importation of these ideas and not appreciate the historical development of Lederers own social-psychological thought.

79

daniel r. huebner difference between establishing facts and drawing conclusions, and retreating into abstract justications of liberty for all (Lederer 1940, p. 54, 61). Lederer also concluded that World War I brought a great psychological crisis in the traditional sources of authority, including the state and, at the same time, the insight that fundamental psychical attitudes can be changed only under the impact of terric experiences; that is, war had proved that modern life made for a stronger and at the same time a more vulnerable state (Lederer 1940, p. 58-59). From this understanding of the emergence of totalitarianism Lederer proceeded to examine its primary exponents in Europe, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. In Italy, he illustrated the ways in which the party apparatus had begun actively destroying the traditional social structure and monopolizing social functions, all by keeping the masses in agitated motion through terror and propaganda (Lederer 1940, p. 73-85). The party functioned to supervise and control the movements of the masses and buffer between the leadership and the street (Lederer 1940, p. 89). In Nazism, Lederer found this process even more complete than in Italy (Lederer 1940, p. 98). Special emphasis here was given to the molding and mobilization of the masses through the terrorism of the storm-troopers (Lederer 1940, p. 103). To demolish an independent society the party created proxy organizations within its own apparatus for the various social groups as it undermined their independent organizations (Lederer 1940, p. 107). An active and offensive foreign policy, Lederer posited, served to keep people active in an articial state of mobilization for war: the psychological education of the whole people for war again paralyzes the social groups and destroys their foundations; it canalizes mass-emotions and keeps them alive (Lederer 1940, p. 122). Whether this collective state of mind could persist psychologically continued to be a question, but Lederer remained skeptical of change (Lederer 1940, p. 127). He found little left of an independent society to challenge German totalitarianism, because it had been increasingly co-opted by the ruling party (Lederer 1940, p. 176-84). And terroristic control within the party and loyalty to the leader prevented independent voices to arise in its ranks (Lederer 1940, p. 185). Even if the emotional basis for the regime disappeared, the machineries of bureaucracy and coercion that it had created would remain as the pillars of social order (Lederer 1940, p. 192). Thus, for Lederer, the increasingly inevitable battle with totalitarianism would not be merely 80

toward a sociology of the state and war an abstract ght for democracy but for something more concrete: for the existence of society and private life (Lederer 1940, p. 201). Finally, and perhaps most controversially, Lederer used this analysis as a point from which to turn Marxist sociology against Marxist eschatology:
If we realize that truth is a process in which mental and social forces are interwoven in constant interaction, it is only a step toward the hypothesis that this articulation and stratication is necessary to the existence of society. An unstratied society would become either a religious community or emotionally driven masses. What else could it be, with all partial interest and the rich contribution of groups eliminated? The idea of a classless or of an unstratied society is empty. It lacks that tension which is life. It is an idyl, old as the dreams of mankind, and tedious as all idyls if we must live in them. It is rather agitating to see that even revolutionary Marxism, with all its realism and its pitiless analysis of our present historic period, should envision a solution of all problems which would do away not only with conicts, but with all the energy that emanates from them. (Lederer 1940, p. 142-143)

Social struggle is the agent of progress in Marxism, and social peace must, therefore, be understood as simply the acceptance over a certain period of the rules of the game (Lederer 1940, p. 148). It was an irony, for Lederer, that the great movement for liberation should have developed the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and this irony was indicative of the inherent incompatibility between the undifferentiated society and social progress (Lederer 1940, p. 150-151). Because of this fundamental contradiction Marxism had avoided the practical questions of how a classless society would develop a public opinion, what free discussion would mean, and in what way government would be carried on (Lederer 1940, p. 153). Instead, Lederer argued that a more realistic socialism would acknowledge the possibility of a gradual and evolutionary development toward socialism, with economic planning and lower inequality, but without complete classlessness (Lederer 1940, p. 158-69). It is difcult to characterize the numerous ways in which this analysis presents a culmination of his previous political-sociological concepts, but certain elements of these connections deserve highlighting. First, the discussion of social groups that was arguably a central aspect of his On the Sociology of World War and is at least latent in much of his subsequent work, had become the central analytical concept of this text. Whereas in his analysis of World War I the state transformed a differentiated society into an articial community while maintaining latent group identication, society had been destroyed outright in totalitarianism through the institutionalization of the unstratied, 81

daniel r. huebner emotional masses. The process of massication through the ideological equalization of citizens and their practical equalization through universal conscription and industrialization was now a process intensied by the conjuncture of social forces found after World War I. Concomitant with this massication was the increased insecurity and emotional susceptibility of the atomized people to unifying narratives. The new technological possibilities of coercion and ideological control emerged through technological development and the crisis of authority in World War I. This whole analysis mirrors the congurational sensibilities Lederer brought to bear on his analysis of the previous war. And his lifelong engagement with Marxism concluded with this controversial thesis, turning Marxian science against its religion.

Reception of Lederers Political Sociology The immediate reaction to Lederers work was strong but ambivalent; some greatly admired the originality and profundity of his thesis while others thought it drastically oversimplied the complex dynamics at play in totalitarian states. The reviews of the State of the Masses shortly after its publication tended to emphasize its originality and objectivity (eg. S. Neumann 1940, p. 1222; Guradze 1941, p. 228; Kolb 1941, p. 588) while later assessments of it have tended to connect it with the growth of mass society theory, and thus to view it as far from earth-shaking (Beck 1982, p. 413; also Bramson 1961, p. 42; Hamilton and Wright 1986, p. 376). The reviews of the text create a discourse in themselves, making almost directly contradictory claims on the major aspects of the text. This is seen most clearly in the discussion of the central thesis: that totalitarian movements utilize the masses to destroy independent social stratication. Some have argued that stratication remains a vital aspect of the totalitarian state. Such is Franz Neumanns criticism of Lederer in his Behemoth, in which he concluded that Nazism was necessarily a class phenomenon; the masses are mobilized and atomized to strengthen the ruling class (F. Neumann 1944, p. 365-7). Others point out that functional social stratication remains long after civil liberties, such as freedom of expression, have died out (Odegard 1941, p. 203). But still others have countered these critics by pointing out that what was essential to Lederer is that by being incorporated as instruments of the state or party bureaucracy, social groups lose 82

toward a sociology of the state and war their freedom and become only atoms in the state of the masses (Guradze 1941, p. 231). Or, in comparing Lederers analysis with Fraenkels The Dual State, two reviewers argued that despite the incompleteness of the process, Lederers view of a movement toward total state control is an important aspect, and that Fraenkels argument of how elements of the normative state still existed should be considered a time of transition (Kolb 1941, p. 588; Cole 1941, p. 256). Out of this Melee of reviews two important critical points emerge. Goetz Briefs introduced the rst of these in his review for The Commonweal in which he argues that Lederer conated class society with all forms of social stratication (Briefs 1940, p. 26)10. There can be societies in which a convivium of social groups, rather than class tensions, willingly cooperates toward a common good, a model which Briefs posited medieval society approximated. By missing this distinction Lederer was forced to accept the problems of previous societies, including the nineteenth century processes that led to massication itself, over the seeming dangers of classless society; he had no alternative models for a stratied but not class-conictual society. To this, Gerhard Meyer added that in this conation of class and stratication, Lederer missed the fact that the party and bureaucracy in totalitarian states are themselves stratied through their incorporation of previous free group organizations (Meyer 1942, p. 454). This distinction is important for the possibilities of reconstruction in the event of a German military defeat. This critique was anticipated by Hans Speier in his foreword to State of the Masses; he predicted that some would see Lederers denition of social groups as dened too comprehensively so as not to be able to distinguish between groups, classes, and institutions, or too narrowly so as not to permit the recognition of the order in tyrannically controlled societies as composed of groups (Speier 1940, p. 14). He, however, thought that this critique missed the intention of Lederer, which was to assess the relationship between society and the modern state: under the hierarchical control of the state, social forms lose their capacity to function as independent sources of power.
10 Briefs criticism of Lederer was very inuential in later assessment of him. It is acknowledged in Franz Neumanns Behemoth (1944, p. 511) and Judith Shklars After Utopia (1957, p. 162) who emphasized Briefs

implicit comparison of Lederers argument to orthodox conservatism. Through his reception of Shklar, Leon Bramson (1961, p. 42) articulated this critique more pointedly.

83

daniel r. huebner The second important critique emerged from a review by William Kolb in the American Sociological Review of several social-scientic studies of the Nazi state. For Kolb, the analysis of totalitarianism as a crowd phenomenon was only one aspect of the social-psychology of the Nazi state, and it would seem that a permanent National Socialist state would reveal the characteristics of an extended primary group, or of what has been called a sacred society, rather than a state of the masses (Kolb 1941, p. 588)11. Aspects of these analyses can be found implicit in Lederers writings. With regard to extended primary group identication in World War I, Lederer indicated the phenomena of subsuming the understanding of ones own experiences to the master narrative of national unity. And in State of the Masses Lederer stressed the importance of a common cultural basis of values and historical experiences as essential in constructing a psychological unity. In terms of the sacred, ritualistic analysis of collective identity in war Lederer drew from Webers analysis of the religious character of social cohesion, i.e. charisma (Lederer 1940, p. 40-1)12, and the mobilization of the masses through collective ritual, the drilling of the public. A thorough explication of the transformation of a state under extraordinary circumstances into an extended primary group or into a sacred society deserves greater attention, but it is important to note that this perspective is not completely divorced from the kind of analysis Lederer undertook in both his early papers on World War I and his manuscript on totalitarianism. By the 1950s, Lederers thesis was beginning to be dened as a foundational piece for the growing mass society theory in sociology 13. This literature constructed a lineage from the aristocratic critique of
11 Analyses that focus explicitly on collective identity through primary groups and sacred ritual in war did develop. Shils and Janowitzs (1948) study is a move toward understanding cohesion among German soldiers not as the result of adherence to ideology, but as attachments to the local unit, which becomes a primary group through their common experiences. And Roger Caillois Bellone (1963) and War and the Sacred ([1939] 2001) conceive of war as occupying a place in the mind of man homologous to ancient festivals: it was the experience of the whole removed from everyday life into an ecstatic state. 12 A whole discourse on the use of the concept of charisma to analyze the leadership

of totalitarian states emerged in this period. See Hans Gerth (1940), who argued that Nazi leadership is the combination of charismatic and bureaucratic domination, and the critique of Gerth in Arendts (1958, p. 361362) Origins of Totalitarianism, who argues that Stalin, and even Hitler, cannot be seen as charismatic orators, but rather as organizational geniuses. 13 Summaries of this literature can be found in Beniger (1987), Kornhauser (1959), and Selznick (1951). J. David Knotterus (1987, p. 117) argues that the mass society theory was a central inuence on status-attainment research of social stratication and, thereby, mainstream sociological thought.

84

toward a sociology of the state and war the nineteenth century masses to the democratic analysis of the role of the masses in the rise of totalitarianism (Kornhauser 1959, p. 21). The former group usually consists of Gustave Le Bon and Jose Ortega y Gasset, and sometimes Sigmund Freud, Wilfred Trotter, Gabriel Tarde and others, while the latter group consists of Emil Lederer and Hannah Arendt, and sometimes Karl Mannheim, Sigmund Neumann14, Herbert Marcuse, C. Wright Mills, Daniel Bell, and others. Discussions of the mass society literature have tended to see Arendts ([1951] 1958) Origins of Totalitarianism and Lederers State of the Masses forming a single thesis (see Shklar 1957, p. 161; Kornhauser 1959, p. 22; Hamilton and Wright 1986, p. 376). This conation caused Lederers unique contributions to have been minimized and ultimately forgotten in the literature. The notability of Lederers account having been crafted eleven years before Arendts and before the outbreak of war has not been a part of this literature15. And the focus on the similarity in their arguments about the institutionalization of the masses ignores broad aspects of Lederers social psychology, his analytical theory of social groups and masses, and the complexity of the congurational narrative he illustrates, not to mention Arendts theory of anti-Semitism and incorporation of Lenins thesis of imperialism into her account. In recent years, the reception of Lederer has been slowly improving. In the work of Ju rgen Kocka, especially an edited volume of selections from Lederers socio-historical writings (1979), Germanspeaking audiences have been reintroduced to aspects of Lederers work, including his sociology of World War I and excerpts of his analysis of totalitarianism. His State of the Masses was also translated into German in 1995 with a new biographical introduction (Krohn 1995) and a complete bibliography of his works. But to an Englishspeaking audience he remains in obscurity (Barkin 1981, p. 147) except through the work of Hans Joas (2003, 2006). In his introduction to the English translation of Lederers 1915 article, Joas laments

14 The thesis of Sigmund Neumanns (1942) Permanent Revolution is almost identical to Lederers State of the Masses, which he cites. This resemblance has not gone unnoticed (eg, Selznick 1951, p. 323). Neumann also wrote one of the more positive reviews of Lederers text (see S. Neumann 1940). 15 The precise relation between Lederer and Arendt is unclear. Despite the noted

similarities between their accounts, Origins of Totalitarianism does not cite Lederer, but does cite works which engaged strongly with Lederers writings, including Fraenkels (1941) and F. Neumanns (1944) analyses of totalitarianism. Lederer does not appear to have ever cited Arendt, who only emigrated to the United States after Lederers death and was 24 years his junior.

85

daniel r. huebner the fact that the article has not become a classic text in the sociology of war a status that it would clearly deserve (Joas 2006, p. 241).

Conclusion: Elements of a Sociology of the State and War Lederers academic work dees simplistic characterization. He was certainly far more than a social economist, as he is sometimes labeled (Speier 1987, p. 278). This paper is an attempt to highlight the coherent political-sociological aspect in his writings. In this respect, his most important works are in response to and anticipation of the World Wars of the twentieth century. Because Lederer was so responsive to the societal changes of his surroundings, his academic writings present particularly penetrating insights into the sociological character of the state and of war. The most central aspect of this work is the relationship between society and the state, conceived of as the dynamic process of the total conguration of social forces. Lederer problematized the relationship between the mutual conditioning of the economy, society, the state, the military, and cultural institutions. In his analyses of the economy, for example, Lederer examined the movements and formal groups of the different layers that struggle over inuence in the state, society, and the economy itself. But even with regard to the state, Lederer questioned the relation between the bureaucracy, the leadership, the military, the party, and the various other societal aspects incorporated into its apparatus. In his analysis of fascism, for example, Lederer foregrounded the importance of understanding the implications of the monopoly of the entire state apparatus, including the bureaucracy and military, by a single party. In the interrelation between the state and society Lederer examined how the innovations of the state and of technological development changed the conguration of this relationship. For example, the development of mass media technology along with the development of an awareness of its potential within the state led to the new potentialities of mass mobilization that transformed a stratied society increasingly into an emotionally unied weapon. It would be a mistake to see in his analysis of World War I or of the totalitarian state the ultimate end of social process. These relationships were not treated as static states but as the transformation of the form and structure of social institutions in response to the inherent logic of social action and the interaction with other institutions. For 86

toward a sociology of the state and war example, while economic-technological development can condition the possibilities for social action, and thereby determine to a certain extent the timing of events, it is the logic of the emerging prerogative state in interaction with industrial capitalism which led to the First World War. And it is, in part, the necessity of the logic of continuous mass mobilization that led the totalitarian state into confrontation with the normative state, made possible in the rst place by the technologies of modern internal and external coercion and ideological control. With the development of aggressive power in any state, the necessity for analogous development of capacities in other states results in increasing isomorphism of state mobilization, spiraling into violent confrontation. The models that Lederer provides expand the available ideal-types for comparative analysis of the links between society and the state. To the transformation from the traditional community to the socially differentiated society, Lederer adds the possibility of the coerced conversion of society to an articial community through the emotional susceptibility of the masses. He further adds the model of an institutionalized movement of atomized individuals, again motivated by force and emotional susceptibility, serving to perpetuate and extend the totality of the movements coercion and ideational control. This analysis is inextricably linked with a social psychology that centers the social conditioning of the individual psyche. The conguration of social forces in which an individual interacts creates the possibilities of that interaction. In stratied society the individual acts in an intersection of social groups, which facilitate reason. But the irrational basis of values becomes central in times of atomization and insecurity in daily life and in times of crisis for the whole society. In such times the longing for understanding leads to an increased emotional susceptibility to collective identity and action that sublimates individual experiences to supra-individual purpose. Whole societies can experience certain historical events in common, and this can become the basis of mobilization into an extended ecstatic state. Normatively, Lederer attempted to develop philosophical positions which would allow him to defend civil society and the freedom of thought which he found constitutive of democracy and science, while leaving open the possibility for meaningful social conict within these spheres. Lederers critics sensitize one to some of his shortcomings. The differences in the content of social groups, and not simply their independent existence, can have a major impact on this relationship 87

daniel r. huebner between society and the state. Any large society remains differentiated, no matter how institutionally and psychologically unied it is, which has important implications for developing theoretical models and for a practical understanding of the possibilities of a society beyond the bounds of perceived unity. The social psychological unity of the mobilized masses is only one aspect of the interrelation between society and the state. The expansion of the primary group to incorporate an abstract whole, such as a nation, and the development of a sacred society through the collective production of rituals and symbols of unity remain essential perspectives from which to consider this relationship. Lederers writings make a strong case for an understanding of the development of the state and war that begins with a set of analytical sensibilities, and not from a preconceived template of social process. This perspective is all the more important in analyzing war, as wars essential contingency only emerges through a full understanding of the dynamic interplay of the conguration of social forces and the equally dynamic inuence of these social forces on the behavior of the individuals involved in them.
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
Arendt Hannah, 1958. The Origins of Totalitarianism (Cleveland, Meridian Books). Barkin Kenneth D., 1981. Review: Kapitalismus, Klassenstruktur und Probleme der Demokratie in Deutschland, 1910-1940 by Emil Lederer, The Journal of Modern History, vol. 53, 1. Beck Earl, 1982. Review: Kapitalismus, Klassenstruktur und Probleme der Demokratie in Deutschland, 1910-1940 by Emil Lederer, German Studies Review, vol. 5, 3. Beniger James R., 1987. Toward an Old New Paradigm: The Half-Century Flirtation With Mass Society, Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 51, Part 2, Supplemental, 50th Anniversary Issue. Bramson Leon, 1961. The Political Context of Sociology (Princeton, Princeton University Press). Briefs Goetz. A., 1940, Intellectual Tragedy. The Commonweal, vol. 33. Caillois Roger, 1963. Bellone, ou la pente de la guerre (Paris, Nizet). , [1939] 2001. Appendix III. War and the Sacred, Man and the Sacred (Urbana, University of Illinois Press). Cole Taylor, 1941. Review: An Interpretation of the Nazi Regime, The Review of Politics, vol. 3, 2. F.Y.E., 1917. Extracts from German Periodicals Relating to the War, The Economic Journal, vol. 27, 107. Fraenkel Ernst, 1941. The Dual State: A Contribution to the Theory of Dictatorship (New York, Oxford University Press). Freud Sigmund, 1959. Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (New York, W.W. Norton & Company). Gerth Hans, 1940. The Nazi Party: Its Leadership and Composition. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 45, 4. Guradze Heinz, 1941. Review: State of the Masses: The Threat of the Classless Society by Emil Lederer, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 47 (2). Hamilton Richard F. and James D. Wright, 1986. The State of the Masses. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Publishing Company. Jackall Robert, 1987. Review: New School: A History of The New School for Social Research by Peter M. Rutkoff; William B. Scott, Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 16 (3).

88

toward a sociology of the state and war

Joas Hans, 2003. War and Modernity (New York, Polity Press). , 2006. Introduction to On the Sociology of World War, European Journal of Sociology, vol. 47 (2). Johnson Alvin, 1939. Emil Lederer: In Memory. Social Research, vol. 6, 2. Keynes J. M., 1915. The Economics of War in Germany, The Economic Journal. vol. 25, 99. Knotterus J. David, 1987. Status Attainment Research and its Image of Society. American Sociological Review, vol. 52, 1. Kolb William L., 1941. Review: State of the Masses. The Threat of the Classless Society by Emil Lederer. The Dual State. A Contribution to the Theory of Dictatorship by Ernst Fraenkel. The German Army by Herbert Rosinski. Not by Arms Alone by Hans Kohn. American Sociological Review, Vol. 6, 4. Kornhauser William, 1959. The Politics of Mass Society. New York, The Free Press. Krohn Claus-Dieter, 1995. Wien-Heidelberg-Berlin-New York. Zur intellektuellen Biograe Emil Lederers, in Lederer Emil, Der Massenstaat. Gefahren der klassenlosen Gesellschaft (Graz-Wien, Nausner & Nausner). Le Bon Gustave, 1896. The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (London, T. Fisher Unwin Ltd). Lederer Emil, 1907. Bodenspekulation und Wohnungsfrage, Archiv fu r Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, vol. 25 (Tu bingen, J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]). , 1914. Die Volkswirtschaft im Kriege, Die Hilfe, vol. 20. , 1915. Zur Soziologie der Weltkrieges, Archiv fu r Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, vol. 39 (Tu bingen, J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]). , 1918. Zum sozialpsychischen Habitus der Gegenwart. Archiv fu r Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, vol. 46 (Tu bingen, J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]). , 1921. Social Evolution During War and Revolution. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, 1. , ed., 1925. Register zu Band 1-50, 18881923. Archiv fu r Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik (Tu bingen, J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]). , 1931. Wege aus der Krise, Ein Vortrag (Tu bingen, J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]). , 1932. Die L ahmung der Weltwirtschaft. Archiv fu r Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik. vol. 67. Tu bingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). , 1934. Freedom and Science. Social Research, vol. 1. , 1935. Government Control in Russia. Government Control of the Economic Order. Benjamin Lippincott, ed., London: Oxford University Press. , 1937a. The Problem of the Modern Salaried Employee: Its Theoretical and Statistical Basis. Translation into English of Foreign Social Science Monographs, 5. New York: State Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Social Science, Columbia University. , 1937b. The Economic Doctrine of National Socialism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 191. , 1937c. On the Socio-psychic Constitution of the Present Time. Translation into English of Foreign Social Science Monographs, No. 7. New York: State Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Social Science, Columbia University. , 1939. Domestic Policy and Foreign Relations. War in Our Time. Hans Speier and Alfred K ahler, eds, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. , 1939. War Economics. War in Our Time. Hans Speier and Alfred K ahler, eds (New York, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc). , 1940. State of the Masses: The Threat of the Classless Society. (New York, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc). , 1979. Kapitalismus, Klassenstruktur und Probleme der Demokratie in Deutschland 1910-1940. Ju rgen Kocka, ed., Go ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. , 1995. Der Massenstaat. Gefahren der klassenlosen Gesellschaft (Graz-Wien, Nausner &Nausner). , 2006. On the Sociology of World War, Archives Europeennes de Sociologie, vol. 47, 2. Lentini Orlando, 2000. American Liberalism, One Worldism & World-Systems Analysis. Journal of World-Systems Research , vol. 6 , 3 . Special Issue: Festschrift for Immanuel Wallerstein Part II. Meyer Gerhard, 1942. Review: State of the Masses: The Threat of the Classless Society by Emil Lederer. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 50, No. 3.

89

daniel r. huebner
Neumann Franz, 1944. Behemoth. The Structure and Practice of National Socialism. New York: Oxford University Press. , 1940. Review: State of the Masses; The Threat of the Classless Society by Emil Lederer. The American Political Science Review, vol. 34, 6. , 1942. Permanent Revolution: The Total State in a World at War. New York, Harper & Brothers. Odegard Peter H., 1941. Review: State of the Masses by Emil Lederer. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 213. Ortega y Gasset Jose, 1993. Revolt of the Masses (New York, W.W. Norton & Company). Schmitt Carl, 1976. The Concept of the Political (New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press). Selznick Philip, 1951. Institutional Vulnerability in Mass Society, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 56, 4. Shils Edward and Morris Janowitz, 1948. Group Cohesion and Disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War II. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 12, 2. Shklar Judith N., 1957. After Utopia. The Decline of Political Faith (Princeton, Princeton University Press). Social Research, 1940. Emil Lederer, 18821939: I. The Sociologist, vol. 7 (3). , 1940. Emil Lederer, 18821939: II. The Economist, vol. 8, 1. Speier Hans, 1940. Foreword. State of the Masses. Emil Lederer (New York, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc). , 1987. Review: New School: A History of The New School for Social Research by Peter M. Rutkoff; William B. Scott, Contemporary Sociology, vol. 16 (3). Tobin Harold J., 1939. Review: War in Our Time by Hans Speier; Alfred K ahler, The American Political Science Review, vol. 33, 4. Verhey Jeffrey, 2000. The Spirit of 1914: Militarism, Myth and Mobilization in Germany (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Wallas Graham, 1921. Human Nature in Politics (New York, Alfred A. Knopf).

 sume  Re
Reconnue en  economie et en sociologie politique, luvre dEmil Lederer en sociologie politique est a ee. Il ` peu pre ` s totalement oubli tat et la a pourtant beaucoup  ecrit sur lE guerre en examinant la premie ` re guerre mondiale et en anticipant la seconde. Larticle entend proposer les bases dune sociologie tat et guerre dans la ligne des relations entre E de Lederer. Lint ere t fort quil a port e a ` limpact  evolutif de la conguration sociale globale sur le psychisme individual, appara t central pour comprendre certains ph enome ` nes politico-sociaux.

Zuzammenfassung
Emil Lederers Beitr age zur politischen Soziologie sind in Vergessenheit geraten, obwohl er fu r seine Neuerungen in der Wirtschaft und der Wirtschaftssoziologie bekannt war. Lederer hat sich mit dem Thema Staat und Krieg auseinandergesetzt, so in seiner Untersuchung des 1. Weltkriegs und seiner Vorahnung bezu glich des 2. Weltkriegs. Dieser Aufsatz untersucht die politisch-soziologische Arbeit, die zeitgeno ssischen Umst ande einbeziehend, und schliet mit einer Zusammenfassung der Ledererschen Staats- und Kriegssoziologie. Lederers Interesse am Einu der sozialen Gesamtlage auf das einzelne Individuum wird zum zentralen Element, um einzelne politische und soziologische Ph anomene zu erkl aren

90

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.