Explore the vast range of titles available.

As the Ottoman Empire advanced westward from the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries, humanists responded on a grand scale, leaving behind a large body of fascinating yet understudied works. These compositions included Crusade orations and histories; ethnographic, historical, and religious studies of the Turks; epic poetry; and even tracts on converting the Turks to Christianity. Most scholars have seen this vast literature as atypical of Renaissance humanism. Nancy Bisaha now offers an in-depth look at the body of Renaissance humanist works that focus not on classical or contemporary Italian subjects but on the Ottoman Empire, Islam, and the Crusades. Throughout, Bisaha probes these texts to reveal the significant role Renaissance writers played in shaping Western views of self and other.Medieval concepts of Islam were generally informed and constrained by religious attitudes and rhetoric in which Muslims were depicted as enemies of the faith. While humanist thinkers of the Renaissance did not move entirely beyond this stance, Creating East and West argues that their understanding was considerably more complex, in that it addressed secular and cultural issues, marking a watershed between the medieval and modern. Taking a close look at a number of texts, Bisaha expands current notions of Renaissance humanism and of the history of cross-cultural perceptions. Engaging both traditional methods of intellectual history and more recent methods of cross-cultural studies, she demonstrates that modern attitudes of Western societies toward other cultures emerged not during the later period of expansion and domination but rather as a defensive intellectual reaction to a sophisticated and threatening power to the East.

Viewed etymologically, such modifiers of \"sociology\" as \"radical\" & \"humanist\" are superfluous. A science dealing with people in their SR has to get to the roots or radices of those relationships. To be \"scientific,\" its practitioners cannot content themselves with superficialities. All human interrelationships tend to be problematic. Sociology's practitioners thus must, through the nature of their data, preoccupy themselves with existing & pressing human problems in context & with how those problems might be mitigated or resolved. As one does not have to dig very far or very critically to learn, however, much that is called sociology today is neither radical nor humanist. As much as one is bound to admire the forthrightness & the keen insights of Marx & Engels, there have been many other more or less radical sociologists who have contributed to what fundamental knowledge we have today concerning society. Whether or not Marx or someone else said something or meant something is not nearly so important as whether or not a given statement is accurate & useful. Efforts to open sociological conventions to a broader spectrum of discussion are outlined, with special reference to the founding of the Eastern Sociological Society in 1930, the development of regular sessions for \"submitted papers\" in the late 1930's, the opening up of conventions to press coverage, the formation of the Society for the Study of Social Problems in 1950-51, the influence of outside organizations, & finally the development of radical, women's, & black caucuses in the late 1960's. Radical & humanist sociology is a constant struggle. Elitism is tempting. The armies of the Swiss Guards are well paid & equipped. Graduate students rarely learn much about other efforts at revolt against the general sociological establishment or against the particular sociological cult into which their professors are attempting to initiate them. Modified AA.

A revised version of SA 26:5/78S09541/AHS/1978/0072.

THE CURRENTLY DOMINANT PERSPECTIVE IN US SOCIOLOGY IS POSITIVIST, 'SCIENTIFIC', SUBSIDIZED BY MONEY FROM GIANT & POLITICALLY BIASED FOUNDATIONS, & INVOLVED IN RESEARCH WHICH TENDS TO REINFORCE DOMINANT VALUES. IT REQUIRES FROM THE RANKS OF HUMANIST SOCIOLOGISTS, A BROADLY HUMANIST, EXISTENTIAL, & RADICAL CRITIQUE. THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE 2 SCHOOLS MAY BE SCHEMATIZED. HUMANISTS SEE SOCIOLOGY AS PEOPLE CENTERED, EGALITARIAN, ETHICAL, A HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY, 'OPPOSITIONAL' (CRITICAL OF EXTANT KNOWLEDGE & SOCIAL ORGANIZATION) & DEDICATED TO SOCIAL CHANGE. POSITIVISTS SEE SOCIOLOGY AS NATURE- CENTERED, ELITIST, ETHICALLY NEUTRAL, A RESPONSIBILITY OF IMPERSONAL METHODS & MACHINES, SUPPORTIVE & 'CLARIFYING' OF EXISTING KNOWLEDGE & SOCIAL ORGANIZATION, & DEDICATED TO THE MAINTENANCE OR STABILIZATION OF SOCIETY. FOR HUMANISTS, SOCIOLOGY IS A PRODUCT OF INTIMATE OBSERVATION & CREATIVE INTELLECTUAL FERMENT; FOR POSITIVISTS IT IS A PRODUCT OF PROFESSIONALS CAREFULLY TRAINED IN METHODOLOGY & THEORY. BOTH CAN OFFER TELLING COMMENTARIES ON THE OTHER. OUT OF THE TENSION CREATED BY THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THESE VIEWPOINTS MORE FRUITFUL THEORIZING & SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO SOCIAL ACTION MAY RESULT. C. LELAND.

Issues in the contemporary \"politics of interpretation\" are reviewed, focusing on: (1) the circumstances of information & knowledge production; (2) the conception of audience currently accepted by producers; & (3) the special political role (if any) played by humanist intellectuals. The initially \"populist\" tendencies of French & US New Criticism in the 1950s & 1960s & their progressive narrowing within academic circles are discussed as indicators of current intellectual elitism. The division of literary from other textual analysis (& of literary from all other forms of representation) is also examined as a depoliticizing influence, citing the Marxist criticism of Fredric Jameson & Terry Eagleton as illustrative of the \"closed\" literary community. Finally, the restricting of audience among US critics is analyzed in relation to neoconservative ideologies (eg, promotion of free enterprise, reindustrialization, & the remystification of science). L. Whittemore.

An effort is made to capture, within the confines of a theory, the sense derived from personal experience in the attempt to build liberatory organizations, & to convey the sense that the act of social construction is negentropic & works against both psychological & social forces. The path of least resistance is top-down organization & bureaucracy; however, the examples of liberatory & humanistic organization that do exist prove that it is possible. They are often conflict-ridden & problematic, as members try to make use of their expanded freedom. Freedom, however, is not a given; it must be won, & participants in organizations are more to blame for its loss than they readily imagine. Modified HA.

The belief is expressed that social science should serve humanistic goals, & should be evaluated accordingly. While diversity among modes of practice is encouraged, tolerance for differences should not become a passive indifference. Rather, humanist sociologists have an obligation to engage intellectually in the work of colleagues. D. Dunseath.

The relationship between science & humanities is discussed with reference to a recent report on the role of the humanities in US life issued by the Commission on the Humanities (The Humanities in American Life, Berkeley: U of California Press, 1980). A \"new partnership\" between science & humanities is invoked. B. Annesser.

An image of the technocrat is being elaborated at the present time & is spreading to more & more strata of society. At the same time, technocrats express their views on society in specialized journals. The aim here is to analyze, for the case of France, the doctrines propounded by the technocrats & to confront these doctrines with the image of the technocrat. The technocrats tend to view society from their own rationalist perspective & to assimilate society to the enterprise. The critics of technocracy, on the other, pull the doctrine of the technocrats out of the humanist context & construct an image of the technocrat that is a caricature of reality. The technocrat thus becomes a scapegoat for all the soc ills, & the politicians, who collaborated in the construction of the image, are absolved of responsibility. A. Peskin.