The Role of Philanthropic Foundations in the Reproduction and Production of Hegemony: Rockefeller Foundations and the Social Sciences

Sociology

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 1983, Pages 206-233

  Fisher, Donald ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84972592490     PISSN: 00380385     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0038038583017002004     Document Type: Article

References (98)

1. Refer to the section “State and Civil Society” in A. Gramsci, (trans. Q. Hoare and G. Nowell Smith) Selections from the Prison Notebooks, New York: International Publishers, 1971.
2. For a detailed discussion of this concept refer to Raymond Williams, “Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory”, New Left Review, 83. 1973, 3-16.
3. See Williams, and Raymond Williams, Marxism and Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. 121-127.
4. Lengermann provides a Table description of the three major approaches in the sociology of science taken toward our understanding of the nature and source of change. These approaches are labelled “Developmental”, “Kuhnian” and “Critical-Conflict”. See Patricia M. Lengermann, “The Founding of the American Sociological Review: The Anatomy of a Rebellion”, American Sociological Review, 44. 1979, 185-198. There are obvious difficulties in any attempt to use explanatory models from the sociology of science in an attempt to explain the development of the social sciences. Therefore, this writer will examine the “Critical-Conflict” perspectives as it relates to the nature and source of change in the systematic production of social science knowledge and social scientists.
5. See, George Lukacs, History and Class Consciousness, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1971; and, Alvin W. Gouldner, The Coming Crisis in Western Sociology New York: Avon Books, 1971.
6. For accounts of the ASSA and the shaping of the social sciences during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries refer to Mary O. Furner, Advocacy and Objectivity: A Crisis in the Professionalization of American Social Science, 1865-1905 Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1975; Thomas L. Haskell, The Emergence of Professional Social Science: The American Social Science Association and the Nineteenth-Century Crisis of Authority, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1977; L.L. Bernard and Jessie Bernard, Origins of American Sociology: The Social Science Movement in the United States, New York: Russell and Russell, 1965; Louis Wirth, “The Social Sciences”, in Merle E. Curti (ed.), American Scholarship in the Twentieth Century, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953; and Sheila Slaughter and Edward T. Silva, “Looking Backwards: How Foundations Formulated Ideology in the Progressive Period”, in Robert F. Amove, Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism, Boston; G.K. Hall & Co., 1980.
7. For an account of the changing nature of philanthropy during the early twentieth century, see Barbara Howe, “The Emergence of Scientific Philanthropy, 1900-1920: Origins, Issues and Outcomes”, in Amove
8. The original idea was discussed by JDR Jr., Senator Aldrich (Junior's father-in-law), Henry P. Davidson (Banker, J.P. Morgan and Co.) and Theodore M. Vail (President, American Telegraph and Telephone Co.) in Morgan's office. Vail and Davidson each pledged $250,000 per year for five years towards a total sum of $1,000,000 per year. Mr. W.K. Vanderbilt and Mr. Walters (President of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad) each guaranteed $50,000 a year. The group hoped to persuade the Rockefellers to pledge a further $250,000 per year toward the balance. See Letter, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. to Frederick T. Gates, 27/7/12. File 95, National Bureau of Economic Research, Box 18, JDR, Jr. Economic Reform Interests, Rockefeller Family Archive (RFA). It is important to note that while the letter is typed all the names have been written in by JDR, Jr. This document provides substantial support for those who believe that capitalists have on occasion conspired to protect their interests. Frederick T. Gates was the key personal advisor to John D. Rockefeller, Sr. and a trustee of the RF. The RFA is located in the Rockefeller Center, New York.
9. To discuss the idea JDR, Jr. arranged a conference of businessmen and academics in the summer of 1912. The participants at this conference were John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Jerome D. Greene (Secretary, RF); Edwin F. Gay (Dean, Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration). H.P. Judson (President, University of Chicago); Henry P. Davidson and Theodore N. Vail, “Social Sciences - Program and Policy, Institute for Social and Economic Research (proposed) Memorandum re January 21, 1914 DR 22” Folder 10, 910 Program and Policy-Reports Pro 1-4, 1914, 1927. Rockefeller Foundation, Record Group 3, Series 910, Box 2, Rockefeller Archive Centre. The RF labelled all important documents as Documents of Record (DR) and gave each a chronological number. The papers of both the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial and the Rockefeller Foundation are stored at the Rockefeller Archive Center (henceforth referred to as RAC), Hillcrest, Pocantico Hills, North Tarrytown, New York, 10591. All citations will include numerals to indicate the institution, Record Group, Series, and Box. For example, the above citation would include the name of the folder then RF, 3, 910, 2, RAC.
10. Gay was the Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration. The other members of the committee were James L. Laughlin (Professor and Head of Department of Political Economy, University of Chicago), T.W. Page (Professor of Economics, University of Virginia), Harry A. Wheeler (Banker and Industrialist, Chicago), and Victor Morawetz (Corporate Lawyer, New York). For an account of Gay's contribution to the social sciences refer to Herbert Heaton, A Scholar in Action: Edwin F. Gay Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1952.
11. “Social Sciences - Program and Policy, Institute for Social and Economic Research (proposed). Majority and Minority Report of Committee on August 4, 1914 DR 33' Folder 163, 900 Program and Policy - Reports - PRO-1, PRO-1a, PRO-16, PRO-2, PRO-3, 1913-1916. RF, 3, 900, 21, RAC. Also Letter, Victor Morawetz to Edwin F. Gay, 29/4/14. Folder 293, 200 Institute for Economic Research Proposed, April-October, 1914. RF, 1.1, 200, 26, RAC.
12. Letter, Gates to JDR, Jr., (1912 date unclear). File 95, National Bureau of Economic Research, Box 18, JDR, Jr. Economic Reform Interests, RFA.
13. Letter W.L. McKenzie King to Jerome D. Greene, 21/10/14. Folder 107, 910 Program and Policy - Wages, 1914, 1940-1941. RF, 3, 910, 11, RAC.
14. The Rockefeller family and the RF were accused of conflict of interest. The uproar and subsequent investigation by the Commission on Industrial Relations (U.S. Congress, Final Report, United States Commission on Industrial Relations, Washington, D.C.: 1915) arose because the country had just experienced perhaps the most savage strike in the history of American industrial relations. This strike of Colorado mineworkers was against a number of firms, but included as one of the largest the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, in which the Rockefeller family held shares. The strike ended with the tragedy of the “Ludlow Massacre” where many strikers were either killed or injured. The RF in its evidence before the commission noted that John D. Rockefeller, Jr., as President was so impressed by the Colorado disturbances that it “… caused him to urge a far-reaching study of industrial relations as the most important inquiry to which the Foundation could direct attention”. (Rockefeller Foundation, Information Furnished by the Rockefeller Foundation in response to questionnaires submitted by United States Commission on Industrial Relations, New York: The Rockefeller Foundation, 1915. p. 15) For a detailed account of the McKenzie King affair refer to Sheila S. McVey and Edward R. Silva, in Amove
15. Letter, Star J. Murphy (assistant to JRD Sr.) to W.S. Richardson (Secretary, LSRM), 21/9/20. File 33, Publicity. LSRM, II, 3, RAC. In the LSRM papers there are no separate Record Groups.
16. Ruml was twenty-seven years old. He received his Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Chicago. During the war he became the co-director of the Division of Trade Tests and then became assistant to the President of the Carnegie Corporation, James R. Angell. Ruml was appointed at the substantial salary of $7,500. For an account of Ruml's entry into the Rockefeller fold refer to Barry D. Karl, Charles E. Merriam and the Study of Politics, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1974, p. 132.
17. While it is difficult to evaluate the effect of an individual personality at this distance it does seem clear to this writer that Ruml was extremely forceful. He was physically big and had a direct aggressive style. This impression comes from an examination of correspondence in the LSRM files as well as a personal description from Robert J. Havighurst. During the 1930s Havighurst worked for another Rockefeller foundation, the General Education Board. Interview, author with Robert J. Havighurst, Vancouver, 19/7/79. Raymond Fosdick, a New York lawyer, became a trustee of the LSRM in 1921. He was a trustee of the RF and in 1936 became the President. Fosdick was JDR, Jr. s lawyer and most trusted advisor. Throughout the inter-war years he acted as a link between the family and its philanthropy. For Fosdick's own account of his relationship with JDR, Jr. refer to Raymond Fosdick, Chronical of a Generation: An Autobiography, New York: Harper, 1958. pp. 214-217. Colonel Arthur Woods was an ex Police Commissioner of New York. He had close personal and business ties with the family. He was the Vice-President of Colorado Fuel and Iron Company and a Director of Bankers Trust Company. Woods was a trustee of the LSRM, the International Education Board (another Rockefeller foundation) and the RF. He became the acting President of the LSRM in 1928 and later the Chairman and a trustee of the Spelman Fund of New York.
18. American Historical Association (1884), American Economic Association (1885), American Psychological Association (1892), American Anthropological Association (1902), American Political Science Association (1903), and, the American Sociological Society (1905).
19. See Hamilton Cravens, “American Science Comes of Age: An Institutional Perspective, 1850-1930”, American Studies 17, 2, 1976. 49-70; George H. Daniels, “The Process of Professionalization in American Science: The Emergent Period, 1820-1860”, Isis, 58, 1967. 151-166; Al Gedicks, “American Social Scientists and the Emerging Corporate Economy: 1885-1915”, Insurgent Sociologist, 5, 1975. 25-47; and David Michael Grossman, “Professors and Public Service 1885-1925: A Chapter in the Professionalization of the Social Sciences”, Ph.D. Diss Washington University, 1973.
20. For accounts of the history of the social science and these three disciplines, see L.L. Bernard and Jessie Bernard, D. Ross, “The Development of the Social Sciences”, in A. Oleson and J. Voss, (eds.), The Organization of Knowledge in Modern America, 1860-1920, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979; Robert L. Church, “Economists as Experts: The Rise of an Academic Profession in the United States”, in Lawrence Stone (ed.), The University in Society, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974; Albert Somit and Joseph Tannenhaus, The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behaviourism, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1967. D. Waldo, “Political Science: Tradition, Discipline, Profession, Science, Enterprise”, in F.I. Greenstein and N. Polsby, (eds.), The Handbook of Political Science, vol. 1, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975; Bernard Crick, The American Science of Politics: Its Origins and Conditions, Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1959; Lewis M. Coser, “American Trends”, in Tom Bottomere and Robert Nisbet (eds.). A History of Sociological Analysis London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1979; and, Stephen J. Diner, “Department and Disciplines: The Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago, 1892-1920”, Minerva, 13, 1975. 514-553.
21. Lawrence K. Frank, “The Status of the Social Sciences in the United States” 1923. pp.4,6. File 679, Social Science - Pamphlet and Report, LSRM, 3, 63, RAC.
22. Before joining the LSRM, Edmund E. Day, an economist, had been the Dean of the School of Business Administration, University of Michigan. He was the Treasurer of the SSRC from its creation until 1928. Day first took a leave of absence from Michigan for the academic year 1927/28, to join the LSRM. He was made responsible for the social sciences in the United States and spent part of the year travelling with Ruml through the Southern and Western parts of the country visiting social science departments. Day was appointed Director of the social sciences in October 1928 at the enormous salary of $20,000.
23. “General Memorandum, October 1922” File 677, Social Sciences-Policy. LSRM, 3, 63, RAC.
24. “Meeting 26 February 1924” p. 14. File 6, Dockets, Jan.-Feb., 1924. LSRM, 1, 1, RAC.
25. “Social Sciences - Program and Policy - Recent Trends in Social Sciences - Speech delivered at the dedication of social science building of the University of Chicago on 17 December 1929 by Beardsley Ruml” p.5. Folder 12, Program and Policy-Reports. PRO 6-12a, 1929-1933. RF, 3, 910, 2, RAC.
26. “Memorandum: The executive Committee and Director to the Board of Trustees, The Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial for the year 1 October 1923 to 30 September 1924, 13 November 1924”. p.15. File 10, Dockets Nov.-Dec. 1924. LSRM, 1, 1, RAC.
27. “Staff Meeting of the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, 24-27 August 1927, Hanover, New Hampshire” p.47. LSRM, 2, 3, RAC.
28. For a detailed account of Merriam's career, see Karl
29. “Meeting 26 February 1924” p. 18. File 6, Dockets Jan.-Feb. 1924. LSRM, 1, 1, RAC.
30. Those men were G.S. Ford, J.J. Coss, Gay, A.B. Hall, Howard Odum, Edward L. Thorndyke and Ogburn. Early in 1924 Dr. John J. Coss of Columbia University accompanied President Frank Aydelotto of Swarthmore College on a visit to Western Europe on behalf of the LSRM to study the feasibility of a fellowship programme. Dr. Guy Stanton Ford, the Dean of the Graduate School of the University of Minnesota accompanied Coss on his visits to France, Germany, Czechoslovakia and Austria. Ford subsequently took leave for the year 1926-27 to work for the LSRM.
31. “Meeting 14 November 1923” Memorandum of the Executive Committee and Director, p.8. File 5. Dockets Nov.-Dec. 1923. LSRM, 1, 1, RAC.
32. “Memorandum: The Executive Committee and Director to the Board of Trustees, The Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial for the year 1 October 1924 through 30 September 1925, 5 November 1925, p.7. File 16, Dockets Nov. 1925. LSRM, 1, 2, RAC.
33. “Report of the Executive Committee and Director 1926-1927, 22 November 1927”. p.7. File 29, Dockets Nov. 1927. LSRM, 1, 4, RAC.
34. “Principle's Governing the Memorial's Program in the Social Sciences - Report of the Memorial's Trustee Committee of Review, 1928”. File 678 - Social Science-Pamphlet and Report. LSRM, 3, 63, RAC.
35. Refer to Letters, John D. Rockefeller Jr. to John D. Rockefeller, 9/4/26; and JDR to JDR Jr., 4/5/26. File 36, Rockefeller, John D. Jr., 1919-1928. LSRM, 2, 3, RAC.
36. Hopkins, the President of Dartmouth College later became a trustee of the RF (1928-42) and the General Education Board (1930-1942).
37. The committee amended two sections of current policy. They recommended extending programs to include more non-university institutions. Second, under-graduate instruction was excluded. This ommission confirmed an earlier decision documented in an earlier draft of the report, to transfer this responsibility to the General Education Board. “Tentative Report of Trustee Committee of Review” 16/5/28 p6. File 531, Committee in Review - Social Sciences, Feb.-Dec., 1928. LSRM, 3, 50, RAC.
38. Memorandum, May to Fosdick, 7/11/36. “Program in Public Administration” p. 13. Folder 941, 910 Program and Policy - Public Administration Reports. PRO - PUB - 1 - 4, 1928-1936. RF, 910, 10, RAC.
39. In a letter to George E. Vincent (President, RF) Jerome D. Greene (Trustee and former Secretary, RF) notes that important officers of the LSRM were “… antagonistic to absorption in the RF as they have considered the RF as a rather hidebound organization and have felt that the strength of the LSRM resided largely in elasticity”. Letter, Greene to Vincent, 6/3/28. Folder 1, 910 Program and Policy, 1928. RF, 910, 1, RAC.
40. Letter, John Van Sickle. (Associate Director for the Social Sciences) to Tracy B. Kitteridge (RF European representative), 15/8/34. Folder 3, 910 Program and Policy, 1933-1936. RF, 910, 1, RAC. Van Sickle outlines the distribution of responsibilities: economic stabilization (Van Sickle); university centers and international relations (Walker); public administration (Stacy May).
41. It was C.E. Merriam who after Day's election as SSRC Treasurer brought him to Ruml's attention by describing Day as “… an excellent man.” Letter, C.E. Merriam to Ruml, 19/5/24. File 682, Social Science Research Council, 1923-24. LSRM, III, 64, RAC.
42. In 1929, Rockefeller philanthropy consolidated most of its separate interests under the one organization, the Rockefeller Foundation. The LSRM became the Division of the Social Sciences.
43. “Staff Meeting 14/1/30”. p.1 Folder 2. Program and Policy 1929-1932. RF, 910, 1, RAC.
44. “Memorandum on the Connection of the Foundation with the League of Nations” Raymond B. Fosdick to Syndor M. Walker (officer in the LSRM and the DSS), 20/3/30. P.2. Folder 60, Program and Policy-International Relations 1929-1941. RF, 910, 7, RAC. Fosdick published a book on this general theme, see Raymond B. Fosdick, The Old Savage in the New Civilization, Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Doran and Company, 1928. The perceived gap between the natural and social sciences built upon the concept “cultural-lag” initially proposed by the sociologist Ogburn in 1922. For an analysis of this concept during the inter-war period refer to Bernard Barber, Science and the Social Order, New York: Collier Books, 1962.
45. “Rockefeller Foundation Activities - Statement Prepared for JDR 3rd” 6/30 Folder 166, 900 Program and Policy - Reports, PRO - 15, PRO - 22, 1926-1930. RF, 900, 22, RAC.
46. Letter, Max Mason (President of the RF, 1929-1936) to A.L. Kroeber (Professor of Anthropology, U.C. Berkeley) 1/4/35. Folder 3, 910 Program and Policy 1933-1936. RF, 910, 1, RAC.
47. Letter Mason to Kroeber, 1/4/35. Folder 3, 910. Program and Policy, 1933-1936. RF, 910, 1, RAC. Also E.E. Day Presentation: “Verbatim Notes on Princeton Conference on Trustees and Officers, October 29, 1930” Folder 167, 900 Program and Policy Reports PRO-22, 29/10/30. RF, 900, 22, RAC.
48. “Staff Conference and Circular, 29/1/30”. Folder 2, 910 Program and Policy, 1929-1932. RF, 910, 1 RAC.
49. “A Brief Summary of Conferences of Trustees and Officers, October 1930’. DR 428. pp. 1-2. Folder 166, 900 Program and Policy - Reports - PRO-15, PRO-22, 1926-1930. RF, 900, 22, RAC.
50. “Proposed Foundation Program in Economic Stabilization” by Edmund E. Day 14 September 1931. Folder 12, 910 Program and Policy - Reports - PRO - 6 - 12a, 1929-1933. RF, 910, 1, RAC. The statements that Day quotes come from an address that Woods gave before the American Society for Engineers, 1/12/30. For an account of Woods involvement in Rockefeller's business and philanthropy, refer to footnote 19.
51. “Interim Report of Activities of the Rockefeller Foundation During 1933” 13/12/33. pp.23-25: Folder 168, 900 Program and Policy - Reports PRO - 23, PRO - 24, 1933. RF, 900, 22, RAC.
52. “Social Intelligence” Commencement Address delivered by Edmund E. Day, University of Vermont, 15 June 1931. p.5. Folder 21, 910 Program and Policy - Reports PRO 45, 1931. RF, 910, 3, RAC. Similarly, “Proposed Foundation Program in Economic Stabilization” by Edmund E. Day 14 September 1931. p.4. Folder 12, 910 Program and Policy - Reports PRO - 6 - 12a, 1929-1933. RF, 910, 2, RAC.
53. “Social Intelligence” Day, 15/6/31. P.2 Folder 21, 910 Program and Policy - Reports PRO - 45 1931. RF, 910, 3, RAC.
54. “Proposed Foundation Program in Economic Stabilization” Day, 14/9/31. pp.2-4 Folder 12, 910. Program and Policy - Reports PRO - 6 - 12a, 1929-1933. RF, 910, 1, RAC.
55. “Social Intelligence” Day, 15/6/31. P.9 Folder 21, 910 Program and Policy - Reports PRO - 45 1931. RF, 910, 3, RAC.
56. “Proposed Foundation Program in Economic Stabilization” Day, 14/9/31. pp.2-4. Folder 12, 910. Program and Policy - Reports PRO - 6 - 12a, 1929-1933. RF, 910, 1, RAC.
57. Previous references make it clear that Fosdick and Woods agreed with Day's analysis. Beardsley Ruml contributed to the debate and supported Day. Ruml, “Memorandum to Whom it May Concern. Re: Things that might be Done (in the Social Sciences)” 21/9/31. Folder 2, 910 Program and Policy, 1929-1932. RF, 910, 1 RAC. And Ruml “Memorandum” 12/33. Folder 13, 910 Program and Policy - Reports PRO 13-18, 1933-1935, 910, 2, RAC.
58. “Development of the Social Science Program, Summary Statement” prepared by Janet M. Paine for Joseph H. Willits (became Director of DSS in 1939) 30/1/39, p.11. Folder 16, 910 Program and Policy - Reports PRO 25-30, 1938-1941. RF, 910, 3, RAC.
59. Professor James R. Angell, a psychologist was the President of Yale University (1921-1939). In addition to being an RF Trustee he had been the Acting President of the University of Chicago and President of the Carnegie Corporation. Walter W. Stewart was recognized as a leading economist in both the academy and government. Between 1930 and 1937 Stewart was the President of Case and Pomeroy Investment Company. Stewart was a trustee of the RF (1931-1950) and the GEB (1933-1950). He became Chairman of both these boards from 1940 to 1950 and 1942 to 1950 respectively.
60. “Report of the Committee on Appraisal and Plan - Trustees Meeting December 11, 1934”, p. 111. Folder 170, 900 Program and Policy - Reports PRO - 27, PRO - 27a, 1934. RF, 900, 22, RAC.
61. Letter Day to Tracy B. Kitteridge (officer DSS), 17/1/35. Folder 3, 910 Program and Policy 1933-1936. RF, 910, 1, RAC.
62. The Centers were divided into two groups. Five institutions had been treated as major centers: Columbia, Harvard, Brookings, Chicago and LSE. Fifteen institutions were labelled as regional centers and received less support. These centers were: Stanford, University of California, University of North Carolina, University of Virginia, University of Texas, McGill University, American University of Beirut, University of Stockholm, Institute of Economics and History (Copenhagen), Economic Institute of the Royal University of Oslo, Rumanian Institute of Social Sciences, Oxford University, University of Paris, and two Chinese Universities, Yenching and Nankai. All these institutions were provided with some support through to 1940.
63. “Directors' Report on Program” 11 December 1935, p.45. Folder 171, 900 Program and Policy - Reports, PRO - 28, PRO - 30, 1935-1936. RF, 900, 23, RAC. To prepare for this meeting the DSS organized a conference to discuss Economic Security and Social Insurance. In addition, Day was able to utilize a survey report on research into housing problems. The RF had commissioned Ernest M. Fisher (University of Michigan) to prepare this report in November 1931. Fisher had since become the Director of Research for the Federal Administration.
64. “New Program in the Social Sciences, Trustees Meeting, April 10, 1935”. DR 492, p.25, Folder 13, 910 Program and Policy - Reports, PRO - 13 - 18, 1933-1935. RF, 910, 2, RAC.
65. “Directors' Report on Program” 11 December 1935, p.54. Folder 171, 900 Program and Policy - Reports, PRO - 28, PRO - 30, 1935-1936. RF, 900, 23, RAC.
66. In an unpublished paper, this author traces the developing relation between American Philanthropy and the SSRC. The paper is entitled “American Philanthropy, and the United States Social Science Research Council”. The control exercised by Rockefeller philanthropy over the SSRC is documented in a report that Louis Wirth was commissioned to write in 1937. See “Report on the History, Activities and Policies of the Social Science Research Council”, by Louis Wirth, August 1937. Folder 4747, 2005 Social Science Research Council, Report 1937. RF 1.1, 200, 401, RAC.
67. “Directors Report on Program” 11 December 1935, p.54. Folder 171, 900 Program and Policy - Reports, PRO - 28, PRO - 30,, 1935-1936. RF, 900, 23, RAC.
68. Wirth, p.28.
69. Letters from A.L. Kroeber to Max Mason, and Mason to Kroeber, 1/4/35 and 6/5/35.
70. Memorandum “Future Support of the Social Sciences in Universities” S.H. Walker to J.H. Willits, 24/7/39, pp. 1 and 2. Attached to Letter, Willits to Fosdick, 25/8/39, Folder 4, 910 Program and Policy, 1937-1939. RF, 910, 1, RAC.
71. Memorandum: Trevor B. Arnett to Day, 14/2/36 (circulated to the rest of the DSS). Folder 3, 910 Program and Policy 1933-1936. RF, 910, 1, RAC. Arnett was an administrator at the University of Chicago who became both a trustee of various Rockefeller foundations and an officer.
72. “Memorandum: Program in Public Administration” May to Fosdick, 7/11/36, pp. 13-14. Folder 94, 910 Program and Policy - Public administration - Report, PRO-PUB-1-4, 1928-1936. RF, 910, 10, RAC.
73. “The Rockefeller Foundation Statement of Program” December 1936. pp. 12-13. Folder 17, 900 Program and Policy - Reports PRO - 28, PRO - 30, 1935-1936. RF, 900, 23, RAC.
74. “Joint Meeting of the Trustees, Rockefeller Foundation and the General Education Board, Executive Session, November 30, 1937”. Folder 4, 910 Program and Policy, 1937-1939. RF, 910, 1, RAC.
75. Harold W. Dodds, a long time trustee of the RF was the President of Princeton. John Foster Dulles, a lawyer was a Trustee of the GEB and the RF. For an account of Stewart's career refer to footnote 85.
76. “Report of the Trustee Committee on Social Sciences” DR 538 Presented at Board Meeting 7 December 1938. Folder 106, 910 Program and Policy - Trustees Committee of Review - Reports - PRO-TCR-1-5 1938. RF, 910, 11, RAC.
77. Memorandum: Willits to Fosdick, 22/7/40. Folder 32, 910 Program and Policy-Consultants, 1940-1948, p. 1. RF, 910, 4, RAC.
78. Wirth infers that this was the case. See Report, Wirth, 1937, p. 18. In the initial version of this report Wirth makes the position of control explicit. Wirth was asked to substantially revise his piece in order to remove those statements that made clear the relationship between Rockefeller philanthropy and the SSRC. See Folder 1, Box XXXII, The Papers of Louis Wirth. Department of Special Collections, The University of Chicago Library.
79. See Report, Wirth, 1937, p.95.
80. See File 569, Hanover Conference-Joint Committee Report, 1925, LSRM, 25, 3, 53, RAC.
81. Report of the President's Research Committee on Social Trends, Recent Social Trends in the United States, 2 vols.; New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1933.
82. The writer has included the 1928 LSRM committee because its charge was to prepare guidelines for the DSS after incorporation.
83. Fosdick to Ruml (note attached to) “Memorandum to Mr. Fosdick: National Bureau of Economic Research, 20/10/22” Ruml to Fosdick File 538, Economic Foundation, 1922-1924. LSRM, III, 51, RAC.
84. Letter, Woods to Ruml, 11/5/23. File 758, University of Chicago - Secondary Schools, 1923-1928. LSRM, III, 71 RAC.
85. Letter, Mason to Day, 30/6/30. Folder 2, 910 Program and Policy 1929-1932. RF, 910, 1, RAC.
86. Interviews: Roger F. Evans, Anne Bezanson (RF, Officers) and Willits, 18/11/41. Messrs. David C. Prince and Guy Emerson. Folder 87, 910 Program and Policy - Postwar Planning Conference, 1941. RF, 910, 10, RAC.
87. Letter: Frank B. Stubbs (Comptroller, LSRM) to Fosdick, 23/2/27. File 34, Reorganization. LSRM, II 3, RAC.
88. Other trustees that were particularly important included James R. Angell, Harold W. Dodds, John Foster Dulles and Ernest M. Hopkins.
89. See Donald Fisher, “American Philanthropy and the Social Sciences in Britain, 1919-1939: The Reproduction of a Conservative Ideology”, Sociological Review, 28, 1980, 277-315. For a discussion of this concept see Lewis A. Coser, Men of Ideas, New York: The Free Press, 1970, Chapter 25 “Foundations as Gatekeepers in Contemporary Intellectual Life”.
90. Van Sickle, “Notes on Possible Foundation Program in Fields of International Relations and Economy Security” 17/23/34, p.1. Folder 44, 910 Program and Policy - Economic Security 1931-1938. RF, 910, 5, RAC.
91. Van Sickle “Recommendations for a New Program” (1935?), p.1. Folder 44, 910 Program and Policy - Economic Security, 1931-1938. RF, 910, 5, RAC.
92. Letter, Woods to JDR Jr., 17/1/23. File 790, University of Pennsylvania 1923-24. LSRM, III, 75, RAC. JDR Jr. provided money for Mayo's work prior to the Memorial's involvement.
93. Letter, Willits to Ruml, 17/7/25. File 791, University of Pennsylvania, 1925-1929. LSRM, III, 75, RAC.
94. Edward C. Lindeman, Wealth and Culture: A Study of 100 Foundations and Community Trust and Their Operations During the Decade 1921-1930, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1936. p. 161.
95. The concept “relation” refers to both the internal and external dialectical movements. For clarification see Bentell Ollman, Alienation: Marx's Conception of Man in Capitalist Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. pp. 15-16.
96. Letter, Fosdick to Ruml, 18/9/28. Attached to Memorandum, Shelby Hrrison (Russell Sage), to Fosdick, subject: “Comment on Merriam's Memorandum on Governmental Research” 14/6/28. File 602, Merriam, Charles 1928. LSRM, III, 56, RAC.
97. RF, Annual Report, 1953, pp. 7-8.
98. See Fisher, 1980. Also Donald Fisher, “Rockefeller Philanthropy and the Emergence of British Social Anthropology: Functionalism and British Colonialism in Africa”, 1982, Unpublished paper.