Stark classification

In classifications, Stark classification, as compared to Sorokin classification (Pitirim Sorokin, 1928), refers to the ranking of the various historical forms of social mechanism and or social mechanics theorists, done in 1962 by Czechoslovakian-born English sociologist Werner Stark, of the general mechanistic school of social thought, ranging from: normative, to positive, to secondary, to extreme form.

Forms
In 1962, Czechoslovakian-born English sociologist Werner Stark, in his Fundamental Forms of Social Thought, divided fundamental sociological theory into the study of society as an organism, as a mechanism, and as a process, respectively. Within each perspective, he further subdivided into: normative form, positive form, secondary form, and extreme forms: [1]

Theorist
Normative forms


Rousseau 75Jean-Jacques Rousseau
(1712-1778)
IQ=150

Kant 75 Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804)
IQ=180




Positive forms
Pareto 75 newVilfredo Pareto
(1848-1923)
IQ=190±




Secondary forms
Jeremy Bentham 75Jeremy Bentham
(1748-1832)
IQ=180
Known for his two cultures stylized debate with English poet-philosopher Samuel Coleridge (Coleridge noted for his participation in the 1833 Whewell-Coleridge debate, as a result of which the term "scientist", distinguished from that of the natural philosopher, was coined). [2]

See also: The Two Cultures (pg. xxxiii) on "the 'technologio-Benthamite' reduction of human experience" as commented by British literary critic F.R. Leavis (1962). [2]
Georg Simmel 75Georg Simmel
(1858-1918)

George Lundberg 75George Lundberg
(1895-1966)
“The arrangement of electrons and protons into various types of groups of different symmetrical relations to each other constitute matter. The structure of matter (and of behavior) is, then, a function of its electron-proton configuration. From these elementary hypothetical entities, systems of all degrees of complexity are constructed, variously called atoms, molecules, elements, compounds, tissues, plants, animals, men, races, nations, constellations, galaxies, etc. The social sciences are concerned with the behavior of those electron-proton configurations called societal groups, principally human groups. Just as the properties of a substance are a function of the dynamic and spatial arrangements of limited groups of electrons and protons, so the various energy transformations are functions of the movement types by which tone type of electron symmetry changes into another until a new symmetry has been established.”
Foundations of Sociology (1939)
Photo needed 75Stuart Dodd
(1900-1975)


Extreme forms
Spiru Haret 75Spiru Haret
(1851-1912)

Ludwig Buchner 75Ludwig Buchner
(1824-1899)
His 1855 “just as man and woman attract one another, so oxygen attracts hydrogen” and “just as a steam engine produces motion, so the intricate organic complex of force-bearing substance in an animal organism produces a total sum of certain effects” matter-force philosophy has been described as "gross materialist (Finck, 1877) and "extreme materialism" (Britannica, 1911).
Goethe 75 newJohann Goethe
(1749-1832)
IQ=230
Chemical version and human version (mechanism)William Cullen (1757): “the dart between them expresses the elective attraction; when I put a dart with the tail to one substance and the point to another, I mean that the substance to which the tail is directed unites with the one to which the point is directed more strongly than it does with the one united to it in the crotchet {.”

Goethe (1809): “The moral symbols of the natural sciences are the elective affinities discovered and employed by the great Bergman.” [3]
Henry Carey 75Henry Carey
(1793-1879)
American sociologist
The following statement by Stark seems to capture the gist of why he considers Carey the extreme form:

“The essential submission is the assertion that development is due, not to human effort, but to the automatic effect of certain external circumstances or events. It comes about in the manner in which a flame is produced when a match is struck against the side of the box. Surely, there are few who would accept this theory of culture-growth as realistic. But then the whole idea of ‘social heat’ is no more than a downright absurdity.”
Extreme form (lunatic)
Stark, moreover, classifies the following 1858 statement by Carey:

“In the inorganic world, every act of combination is an act of motion. So it is in the social one. If it is true that there is but one system of laws for the government of all matter, then those which govern the movements of the various inorganic bodies should be the same with those by which is regulated the motion of society; and that such is the case can readily be shown.”

as being someone "back in his strait-jacket." Correctly, however, this is a genius statement. This view by Carey, in fact, is nearly verbatim to that of Goethe's chemical philosophy based human chemical theory, who is well-established as being the greatest genius ever.

Additions
Those individuals, namely Goethe (1809) and Buchner (1855), shown highlighted, are additions to Stark's original 9-person classification scheme. Buchner was described in 1911 Britannica as "extreme materialist".

Though Stark does not include Goethe in his classification scheme, he does mention him twice in his book, but refers to him as one of the great all around philosophers, though not necessarily a sociologist. It seems that Stark was unaware of Goethe's chemical mechanism usage. In any event, the following are nine main representative social mechanism theorists, according to Stark, which Goethe shown listed as guessed where Stark would have put him had he known of Goethe's chemical mechanism, the total group divided into Stark's four historical "forms" of mechanistic social thought: normative, positive, secondary, and extreme, as he classifies things: [1]

See also
Human chemical reaction theory

References
1. Stark, Werner. (1962). The Fundamental Forms of Social Thought. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
2. Collini, Stefan. (1993). “Introduction”, in: The Two Cultures (by Charles Snow) (Coleridge vs. Bentham, pg. xxxv). Canto.
3. Torbern Bergman (1775) got his symbols from William Cullen (1757) who got his symbols from Etienne Geoffroy (1718) who got his symbols from Isaac Newton's last and final "Query 31" (1718), who in turn derived his chemical reaction rules from personal study of chemical reactions, along with discussion with Robert Boyle, as found in correspondences dating back to at least 1678.

TDics icon ns

More pages