ABSTRACT

This article theoretically and empirically analyses the allocation of recognition and status in a scientific community and of the rank ‘classic’ to better comprehend the selective and reputational mechanisms at work since the beginning of the discipline. The aim is to examine the process of canonisation and the exclusionary logic, which systematically eliminates certain knowledge of specific scholars over time. The role of cultural capital , such as excellent scientific work and its recognition, is taken into consideration in contrast to social capital, such as influential social positions within the field, and to personal attributes such as gender, regarding their relevance for status. A unique database of 957 scholars representing the field of early German sociology was created, and a quantitative analysis was conducted. The results indicate the field was structured very unequally with high rewards for scholars with social capital. However, other than what one might expect, social power does not appear to be relevant for joining the classics canon in the twentieth century. Regardless of the type of capital, while there is great continuity for the most successful male scholars without social positions, women were largely excluded . Exclusionary mechanisms, eliminating the knowledge produced by minorities, may still be at work.

摘要

本文从理论和实证上分析了科学界的认可和地位以及“经典”等级的分配，以更好地理解自该学科开始以来在起作用的选择性和声誉机制。目的是检查经典化过程和排他性逻辑，随着时间的推移，系统性地消除了特定学者的某些知识。文化资本的作用，如优秀的科学工作及其认可，与社会资本（如该领域内有影响力的社会职位）以及个人属性（如性别）相对于地位的相关性，被考虑在内。创建了一个由代表早期德国社会学领域的 957 位学者组成的独特数据库，并进行了定量分析。结果表明，该领域的结构非常不平等，对具有社会资本的学者的奖励很高。然而，与人们所期望的不同，社会权力似乎与加入 20 世纪的经典经典无关。不管资本的类型如何，虽然最成功的没有社会地位的男性学者有很大的连续性，但女性在很大程度上被排除在外。排除少数人产生的知识的排除机制可能仍在发挥作用。虽然没有社会职位的最成功的男性学者有很大的连续性，但女性在很大程度上被排除在外。排除少数人产生的知识的排除机制可能仍在发挥作用。虽然没有社会职位的最成功的男性学者有很大的连续性，但女性在很大程度上被排除在外。排除少数人产生的知识的排除机制可能仍在发挥作用。