With its highly visible “academic elite”, the US is regarded as a worldwide center of knowledge production. In this context, we reveal the structure of US American elite sociology to find the social conditions of intellectual production and its external influences. Using specific Multiple Correspondence Analysis along with combinatorial inference, we aim to identify the fundamental power structures and the distribution of sociological capital. Crucially, we present the complex relationships between these structures and the topic choices, methodological orientations and research practices of the 250 most visible US sociologists. The reconstructed space is multidimensional: firstly, it is divided along a “dominant” and “dominated” pole, secondly, along a “pure” scientific versus an institutional power pole. The first division goes hand in hand with the hierarchy of sociological topics, and the second accounts for capital accumulation practices and the choice of methodology. While institutional and economic power is deeply nationally embedded and associated with quantitative methodology, “pure” scientific power goes with an international orientation and a qualitative, more “humanistic” approach. Simultaneously, these oppositions reflect degrees of autonomy. Whereas the “pure” scientific pole is more autonomous, as it is defined by internal field criteria to a larger extent, the institutional power pole is more heteronomous by receiving grants from State institutions. This partially determines the field's heteronomy towards the bureaucratic field, paradoxically protecting, to some extent, against the logic of the economic market.

凭借其高度可见的“学术精英”，美国被视为全球知识生产中心。在此背景下，我们揭示美国精英社会学的结构，以发现知识生产的社会条件及其外部影响。使用特定的多重对应分析和组合推理，我们旨在确定基本的权力结构和社会资本的分布。至关重要的是，我们展示了这些结构与 250 位最著名的美国社会学家的主题选择、方法论方向和研究实践之间的复杂关系。重构的空间是多维的：首先，它沿着“主导”和“主导”极进行划分，其次，沿着“纯粹的”科学与制度的权力极进行划分。第一个部门与社会学主题的等级密切相关，第二个部门说明资本积累实践和方法论的选择。虽然制度和经济力量深深植根于国家并与定量方法相关联，但“纯粹”的科学力量具有国际导向和定性的、更“人文”的方法。同时，这些对立反映了自治的程度。“纯粹的”科学极更自主，因为它在更大程度上由内部领域标准定义，而机构权力极通过接受国家机构的资助而更具他律性。这在一定程度上决定了该领域对官僚领域的他律性，在某种程度上自相矛盾地保护了经济市场的逻辑。