Sociology of film : studies and documents (1946)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

PREFACE ment and advice have helped me greatly. The second and third chapters attempt appreciations of historic universal or popular audiences. I should have liked to give a more complete comparative sociological account of the history of audiences, but the task proved too immense for the time-table I had set myself. Chapters IV, V, VI are studies in child and adolescent reactions. Chapter VII discusses adolescent reactions, taking Professor Blumer's pioneer work on Movies and Conduct as basis. Chapter VIII raises the problem of the contents of films. Chapter IX, almost a book by itself, gives documents of adult picture-goers and our comment on them. Chapter X, 'Conclusions and Postulates', was written shortly before the book went to press in order to make it as up to date as possible. I must say I found this volume most difficult to write, not because the subject-matter is fleeting and visual and as such defying definite abstract concepts with which the sociologist must operate. No, I think the main difficulty which I had to face was that so many disciplines appear to meet when one attempts a sociological analysis of film: Psychology, Ethics, History, Political Science. As my personal preferences in the latter three fields of human studies may easily be ascertained from my previous books, it may, perhaps, be opportune to say a word about those psychologists from whose works I had learnt before I became engaged in the present studies: Levy-Bruhl, Malinowski and Piaget helped me to clarify the concept of participation mystique. By MacCurdy's Structure of Morale, I was confirmed in my conviction that human norms and values cannot be separated from psychological mechanisms. Trained by Scheler's and Dilthey's work, I found MacCurdy's book was to me an important confirmation of long-held views. Victor von Weizsaecker's Studien zur Pathogeneses together with the works by the students already mentioned, helped me to realise how far off we still are from an adequate and satisfactory contemporary doctrine of what the human being really is. It was this difficulty which led me to write this volume in such a 'subjective' manner. It is humility, not arrogance, which explains this personal approach. From beginning to end, I tried to write the book in such a way that the reader might, as it were, take part in the actual process of writing. I always meant to apply to a sociological investigation what Andre Gide had asked from the novelist in his Les Faux-Monnayeurs: 'Et . . . le sujet de ce roman?' writes Andre Gide. Tl n'en a pas. . . . Depuis plus d'un an que j'y travaille, il ne m'arrive rien 13