In the Age of “Misery”. The Romanian Sociology during the Communist Regime (1948-1977)
The history of the Romanian sociology in the twentieth century was closely connected to the political history of the country. Experiencing a fertile period during the two interwar decades, as a result of a modernization process that followed the creation of the national state in 1918, the discipline would be “banned” thirty years later, once with the instauration of the “people’s democracy” regime. A new education reform (1948), that aimed a deep “restructuring” of the Romanian educational system, virtually abolished the sociology – considered to be a “bourgeois” and “reactionary” science, by removing it from the university curricula. The revival of the sociology was possible in the context of an intellectual “opening” in the mid 60s. The sociology regained its place among the academic disciplines and departments of sociology were re-established within the universities. The subsequent history of sociology would be an equally difficult one, punctuated by moments that will lead to a new “dissolution” of the discipline (1977).
My paper aims an analysis of the history of sociology in this particular chronological framework (1948-1977). I will approach several aspects. Firstly, I intend to undertake a regional comparative analysis. What was the fate of the Hungarian, Bulgarian or Polish sociology after 1948? The marginalization of the discipline in the context of the instauration of the communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe can be regarded as a regional phenomenon, or we can speak about a Romanian exception? Can we speak about a “reinvention” of the sociology in the countries of the “Soviet bloc” in the 60s, or, once again, we are talking about a Romanian singularity? Only such an approach will allow us to clarify the different aspects of the history of the Romanian sociology as a discipline within its two decades of “illegality”, and the avatars of its revival in the 60s.
Regarding the history of the Romanian sociology, it is essential to try to follow and reconstruct the personal, professional and the intellectual destiny of the preeminent figures of the interwar Romanian school of sociology after 1948. Which were the professional retraining possibilities of the interwar sociologist? What happened with their professional and intellectual careers?
Another issue that I will approach is that of the revival of the sociology in the context of an intellectual “opening” in the 1960s. Which were the avatars of the revival of the sociology? In what type of paradigm one may include this restoration of the discipline? Can we speak about some kind of continuity of the interwar Romanian school of sociology? Or is it just about an institutionalization of the rupture?
II. East-European Sociologies. A Regional Context
The Central and East European area, which was to fall under the influence of the Soviet Union after the Second World War, is characterized by an ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity. Politically dependent until the middle of the 19thcentury, the area has known a late modernization of the indigenous political structures and could be characterized by economic underdevelopment and by a predominance of agrarian economy and rural population. To the general characteristics of the area, one might add the absence of an urban middle class, the partial absence of a national identity, a late coding of the indigenous languages and a high religiosity.
After the Second World War, the entire region came under the influence of the Soviet Union, which imposed regimes of popular democracy in all the states. Subsequently, all these states experienced significant political, economic, social and cultural changes. All these changes produced ruptures and discontinuities within the intellectual tradition of the Central and East European states. The interwar democratic values and the opening towards Western Europe were replaced by a propaganda that praised the Soviet Union and the Soviet economic, political and cultural achievements. The Marxism-Leninism became the dominant ideology and the dialectical and historical materialism became the two disciplines which underlay the new social order.
Regarding the history of sociologies of the Central and Eastern Europe post-World War II, there are at least two types of discourse. On the one hand, there is a quite detailed internal discourse, which highlights the most important moments in the evolution of the discipline in a particular state. More often than not, this type of discourse can be characterized as being distorted and lacking in critical spirit, due to the fact that it tries to ignore or, at best, reduce the influence that communist ideology had on the discipline. There is also a second type of discourse, external, which seems to lack the same critical spirit, as it chooses to ignore the sociological production in former communist countries in its entirety, considering that it would not have departed from the canons of the Marxist-Leninist ideology. For this reason, it is assumed that East European sociology has no scientific value and would not make a significant contribution from a theoretical perspective. Moreover, there are views according to which even this type of external speech presents several directions. For example, some researchers consider Central and East European sociologies as antagonistic to Western sociologies. This type of discourse is based on the idea that Marxism would be based on an ontological and epistemological conception, completely different from that of the main Western sociological currents. Others believe that the issue is not antagonism, but deviation, since East European sociologies have not been an alternative to Western sociology.
The postwar history of social sciences in Central and Eastern Europe is marked by the forced establishment of communist regimes in the states which entered the Soviet sphere of influence. The first post-war years correspond to a phase in which the political power imposed a strict control over the social sciences. The purpose of this offensive stance was the desire to institute Marxism-Leninism as the only ideology accepted. Everything that existed outside the accepted canons of dialectical and historical materialism was labeled as being bourgeois and reactionary. Repressive measures were taken against those who held different, uncanonical, views: elimination from higher education or from specialized research institutes, social marginalization or, in the worst cases, arrest and imprisonment. Of all the social sciences, sociology was the most affected. Regarded as a “bourgeois pseudo-science” or even a “reactionary science”, sociology was marginalized or even eliminated from the academic disciplines, but also from the departments of new multidisciplinary research institutes established under the subordination of the new Academies of Sciences. This offensive position against interwar intellectual traditions had profound implications on the history of sociology in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania. The natural development of the discipline was slowed or even stopped. In some cases, the re-institutionalization of sociology, which was to take place two decades later, did not take account of those interwar traditions, and they were lost as a consequence.
The period of ideological dogmatism and immobilism relaxed a bit after Stalin’s death (1953) and with the process of liberalization imposed by the new leader from Kremlin, Nikita Khrushchev. In this period, several important changes occurred in what concerns sociology.
Firstly, the term of sociology itself was to disappear from the dictionary of taboo words, being accepted in academic discussion and political discourse. Sociology became one of the fronts of ideological disputes between the states of the Soviet bloc and the West. The bourgeois pseudo-science of society became the bourgeois sociology, to which the Soviet Union and the satellite states responded through Marxist sociology, as historical materialism began to be perceived. The Marxist sociology had the mission of carrying an ideological war with the Western sociology, the goal being that of discovering the latter’s bourgeois and reactionary roots.
Liberalization also meant resuming academic contacts with the West, although they were strictly monitored by the political power. Nonetheless, the resumption of academic contacts was an important step in the development of sociology in Eastern Europe. The most significant examples in this sense are the cases of Poland and of the Soviet Union. Poland was the state with the most important sociological tradition in the area. Even after the coming to power of the communist regime, Polish sociology continued its activity for a while. Furthermore, Polish sociologists tried to maintain permanent contact with international intellectual circles. After 1956, the relations of institutional cooperation and collaboration with various institutions from the United States were facilitated. Last but not least, Polish sociologists were always present at the I.S.A. (International Sociological Association) Congresses, and some of them were part of the I.S.A. management. Similarly, in the 1950s, the Soviet Union resumed the contacts with the West in what concerns academic relations. The thaw imposed by Khrushchev did not only initiate a process of liberalization, but also marked the beginning of an “ideological war between the socialist pro-Soviet camp and the capitalist pro-American camp”.Sociology thus complied with the political agenda of the Soviet state, but the changes that took place are worth to be mentioned. First, in 1955, a delegation of the Soviet Union participated for the first time at an international congress organized by the I.S.A. The mission of the Soviet delegates was simple – to come into contact with the ideological “enemies”, but also with the Western sociologists who maintained progressive views.Also in 1955, several leading scholars from the West made work visits to Moscow. It is the case of a group of French sociologists, led by Jean Piaget, none other than the President of the ISA (April), of Adam Schaff (September), or of Jorgen Jorgensen (October). Not least, it is worth mentioning that in 1958, Moscow organized the International Conference of Sociologists, an occasion for Everett Hughes, Raymond Aron, Georges Friedmann, T.H. Marshall, Helmut Schelsky and Tom Bottomore to visit the capital of the Soviet Union.
However, the most important consequence of this liberalization was the reestablishment of departments of sociology in East European universities and of research laboratories within these universities. Once more, Poland was the first of the East European states to take such action after the Second World War. In 1956, programs of specialization in the discipline of sociology, with duration of five years, were introduced in the universities of Krakow, Lodz, and Warsaw and in the Catholic University of Lublin. In the Soviet Union, the development from this point of view was a little slower. The first sociological research laboratory appeared in 1960 in Novosibirsk, within the Institute of Economics and Organization of Industrial Enterprise. Subsequently, a Laboratory of Social Research was established at the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Leningrad.
It should also be noted that both in Poland and in the Soviet Union, at the time of these developments, national professional associations of sociologists were established: in 1957 in Poland – the Polish Association of Sociology, and in 1958 in the Soviet Union – the Soviet Sociological Association.
The favorable developments from Poland, but especially those from the Soviet Union influenced the development of sociology in the other countries of the Soviet bloc as well. The only difference was the delay and the difficulty with which they made the steps that Poland, for example, made in a very short time, during 1956-1958. The gap between countries such as Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic Republic on the one hand and Poland on the other hand, was not bridged even ten years later. This reality was caused by the fact that the evolution of the discipline was slower in these states. Undoubtedly, the absence of a tradition of sociology in some of these states also had consequences in this regard.
There are enough similarities in what concerns the national developments of the institutionalization of sociology in the other socialist states. A first common feature is the interference of the political power in the process of restoring sociology. This was the case of the German Democratic Republic, where, only after the decision of the VI Congress of the Party (1963), the first steps toward institutionalizing the discipline were taken.The same held true in Hungary (1963), Czechoslovakia (1964) or Bulgaria (1967). Thenceforth, the developments of sociology in these states followed a specific pattern: the emergence of a national professional organization, the establishment of the first university departments or research centers, and the appearance of specialized periodicals.
In Hungary, an important sociological tradition did not exist until the beginning of World War II. An attempt to institutionalize sociology took place immediately after the end of the war. Sándor Szalai, a Marxist-oriented intellectual, managed to establish a department of sociology at the University of Budapest.The experiment failed, his department being disbanded in 1948. The discussions as regards sociology broke out again in the early 1960s, in a publicist “debate” between the same Sándor Szalai and Andras Hegedus. The first suggested that the development of Hungarian sociology had to be based on Western models, given the substantial gap that it had to overcome, while Hegedus believed that Marxist philosophy provided a sufficient theoretical framework. As for the ideological imports, he deemed them to be too dangerous. The latter was to come off victorious; he was the one who was to lead the Committee on Sociology established within the Department of Social Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 1963. The institutional evolution of Hungarian sociology was going to be very slow, since the first publication in the field and the first department of sociology (which became operational only in 1978) was established as late as 1972. Subsequently, the first professional association of Hungarian sociologists was established in 1978.
Not having had an institutional profile before World War II, Bulgarian sociology made a first attempt at institutionalization at the end the war, when Todor Pavlov set up an Institute of Sociology within the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. The coming to power of the communist party and the imposition of the Stalinist ideological dogmatism led to the abolition of this institution in the late 1940s.After 1960, there were several attempts to lay the basis of sociology in Bulgaria, the representative figure being Zhivko Oshavkov, a Bulgarian Marxist philosopher who had studied in Paris before the war, at that time leader of the Department of historical materialism within the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences. However, it also took an external impulse for Bulgarian sociology to be placed on institutional basis. At the VI Congress of the ISA, (1966, Evian, France), Bulgaria was granted the privilege to organize the next congress, scheduled to take place in 1970. The Bulgarian political authorities embraced this opportunity, reason for which, a year later, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party took the decision of institutionally empowering the emerging Bulgarian sociology. The establishment of the Institute of Sociology within the Academy of Sciences followed a year later, as well as the appearance of the first magazine in the field – Sotsiologcheski Izsledvanyia (Sociological Research). Later, in 1975, the first department of sociology at the University of Sofia was established.
The history of sociology in Czechoslovakia followed a similar route, despite the important tradition of inter-war Czechoslovak sociology. The revival of the discipline occurred in the 1960s, when an Institute of Sociology was established within the Academy of Sciences in Prague, specialized periodicals appeared and departments of sociology were introduced in Charles and Masaryk Universities. The history of Czechoslovak sociology was also marked by less favorable moments, such as the direct repressive campaigns against sociologists after the events of 1968.
The examples above, briefly presented as they are, allow us to draw some general conclusions concerning the Eastern Europe sociologies. First of all, the absence of sociology from the academic landscape of all these states in the first years following the establishment of communism must be remarked upon. Stalin’s death and policy shift promoted by Moscow produced the gap that allowed the first changes in the status of sociology.The process of revival of the discipline after 1956 was confronted with various initiatives and actors, but the political power was the one that, each and every time, admitted and“validated”the (re)institutionalization. It is interesting to observe that despite the differences between East European countries, despite their distinct historical past, despite the heterogeneous traditions as regards sociological research, and despite differences related to intellectual trends, the revival of sociology seems to have been a common phenomenon. Nonetheless, the process was neither unitary, nor simultaneous. There were different stages in the evolution of sociology, the causes behind these differences being related either to certain previous intellectual traditions, or to the inconsistency and reluctance of the political regimes. Instead, it was a similar process, since a pattern of development specific to sociology can be easily observed.
Still, a large number of uncertainties remain. First, we should ask ourselves whether this common and similar phenomenon, even in the conditions in which it was not simultaneous, led to the appearance of a single East European sociology or of more sociologies, particular to each nation. Furthermore, the issues regarding the particularities of East European sociologies should also be put under analysis. What will have been their traditions? How important will have been the influence of Western sociology? Last but not least, we should also ask ourselves to what extent sociology managed to individualize itself in relation to the official ideology, and especially in relation to historical materialism.
From these perspectives, the dimension of our analysis could take an entirely different turn, as all these issues indicate differences much rather than similarities. Since the main purpose of this study differs, however, we shall not dwell on these issues, even though we believe them to be of the highest importance. We shall merely say that in what concerns the tradition of East European sociologies, there are different opinions. The trend in the specialized literature from each and every state is to find the intellectual roots of sociology in the autochthonous intellectual traditions. External influence was very rarely accepted as preponderant. However, we believe that M.F. Keen and J. Mucha are right to indicate Soviet sociology as being the most important tradition of East European sociologies, having had an important influence over all East European sociologies. Their arguments are perfectly valid –a great part of the specialized literature and of the theoretical essays on historical materialism and Marxist sociology have been translated from Russian in almost all East European languages. These translations aimed at establishing a common standard regarding what was right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable.With regard to the influence of Western sociology and the degree of autonomy of sociology, it is obvious that there are significant differences between the socialist countries, caused first and foremost by the flexibility and leniency of the deciders from the ideological apparatus or even from the political regimes.
Finally, there are many points of view regarding the issue of the degree of “independence” of sociology in relation with the Marxist-Leninist ideology in general and with historical materialism in particular. A first hypothesis suggests that there were no differences between East European sociology and historical materialism, the two terms being synonymous, both referring to the same science about society.In this case, the only difficulty lay in defining more exactly the two terms – either the term historical materialism was used to indicate the Marxist social science, case in which the term sociology should refer only to bourgeois sociology, or the term was accepted, under the formula „Marxist sociology”, synonymous with historical materialism. Another hypothesis maintained that historical materialism and sociology are two different concepts. The first concept refers to the theoretical and philosophical analysis of society, while the second to the empirical investigation and generalizations based on this type of investigation. There are also authors who, having accepted this difference, emphasized the need of unifying the two into a new and integrated science about society. Neither sociology taken separately as a non-philosophical science, nor historical materialism, as philosophical theory that analyses the relationships between social beings and social consciousness was not able to develop into a complete, logical and fully developed social science. The solution would have been the unification of the two. There were also those who suggested that sociology was an empirical science with a high degree of generalization that studied social phenomena from the perspective of the structure of the group to which they belonged, while historical materialism was defined as a metascientific philosophical reflection of the utmost importance for all social sciences. Thus, the need for a closer link between philosophical metasociology (historical materialism) and sociology itself wash touched upon. Finally, a third way would be defined by the idea that historical materialism overlapped with sociology in the sense that it absorbed the results of the empirical sociological research. In this case, it was admitted that historical materialism was more general than sociology because it dominated and included sociology in the sense of using the facts and conclusions set forth by sociological investigations. But historical materialism goes beyond sociology, as it tries to establish the most general laws of social development.This hypothesis also implies a converse, as sociology includes historical materialism when it uses basic methods to discover the particular laws of social institutions. On the other hand, sociology is outside the realms of historical materialism when it studies the specific issues of general or particular branches through their own methods and techniques of investigation. The issue of the relationship between sociology and historical materialism was one of the current debates in all Central and East European countries. It is worth mentioning that common ground has not been reached regarding this analysis, due to the lack of accurate geographical or national crystallizations.
III. Continuity or rupture in post-war Romanian sociology (1948-1965)?
In the first issue from 2005, the magazine Sociologie românească held a debate on the status and condition of Romanian sociology. Among those who accepted the invitation of the editorial team to comment on some controversial matters were important names in Romanian sociology. Under the heading „Rupture and / or theoretical-methodological continuity between pre-war sociology and sociology in the communist period: the status of the Marxist-Leninist paradigm; defensive strategies of sociology”, some expressed opinions that summarized the manner in which current professionals in the discipline perceive the post-war period of the history of Romanian sociology.
Virgil Măgureanu was of the opinion that there had been a clear rupture, particularly visible in the first decade after the coming to power of the communist regime, when sociology had been “creatively denied”. He also believed that there had been continuity between interwar sociology and that from the communist period, exemplified through the destinies of Henri H. Stahl or Traian Herseni, who resumed their activity in the communist period. Moreover, Măgureanu stated that another phenomenon that would indicate continuity was represented by the field research carried out in the times when sociology was banned. Despite being subsumed to other purposes, they sought the verification of scientific hypotheses. He further mentioned that there had been no Marxist-Leninist paradigm in sociology in Romania, nobody seriously appropriating such a prospect to themselves. Maria Larionescu believed that the establishment of communism led to an obvious rupture in the path of sociology as a science with a critical vocation, since historical materialism, conceived as a dogmatic and simplistic version of Marxism, substituted sociological analysis. She also suggested, however, that the influence of the sociological school of Bucharest on post-war sociology was evident, particularly so after 1965.
The other views expressed under this heading seemed to suggest the same perspective as regards the destiny of Romanian sociology in the aftermath of World War II. 1948 was the year of an obvious rupture which was marked by the dissolution of university departments, and of the specialized institutions. Nonetheless, the existence of a connection labeled as continuity between interwar and post-war Romanian sociology was also suggested. The durability of the discipline would have been ensured by the tradition of monographic research which would be preserved and perpetuated, even if it was under the “scientific umbrella” of other disciplines: philosophy, statistics, economics, and geography.
1944-1948 – an intermezzo
The period 1944-1948 is seen as a revival of inter-war sociology. Sociology tried to survive the war. In Bucharest, Cluj and Iaşi, sociology was still an academic discipline within the Faculties of Letters and Philosophy. Nothing seemed to announce the dark times that lay ahead. In the summer of 1945, old students and collaborators celebrated Professor Dimitrie Gusti, by organizing the 20th anniversary from the first monographic campaign. The old and newer professionals in the discipline predicted the resumption of sociological research and investigations, both in rural and urban areas. The first initiative of this kind after the war took place in August 1945 when a team of ten researchers, led by Anton Golopenţia, was to undertake research in Hodac (Mureş County). Another occasion of such an undertaking was to come in the summer of 1946, when Henri H. Stahl decided to resume research in Runcu village in Gorj County, a research begun in 1930. Another campaign was carried out in 1946 in Drăguş (Făgăraş County), while sociological investigations on forest workers in Vâlcea and Argeş Counties were also carried on.
During this period, one may also observe an increase in the number of sociological publications, as many results of the research carried out during the war would only now meet the print. Those who signed these publications are still renowned sociologists of the interwar period: D. Gusti, H. H. Stahl, Traian Herseni, Vasile V. Caramelea, Lucia Apolzan, Anton Golopenţia, and others. The sociologists felt, however, that there was /would be need to adapt their research to the new post-war realities, as what seemed to be a revival of pre-war sociology actually turned out to be only a brief intermezzo, cut short by the coming to power of the communist regime. The scenario, as we have seen, is similar to that from other countries from Central and Eastern Europe, where attempts to recover the discipline after the war were annulled by political intervention in 1947-1948.
Breakdown of the institutional framework of sociology
Sociology has always been regarded with suspicion, skepticism and even hostility by the communist regimes. In these conditions, the assault on the discipline followed a series of fixed steps. The Decree no. 175/August 3, 1948 (the new Law on Education) ratified the removal of sociology from among academic disciplines. In a gesture of free mimesis caused by a desire to align to the “light” model of the Soviet homeland, where sociology was considered to be a bourgeois pseudo-science, Romania ended an important pre-war intellectual tradition. The short, medium and long-term consequences of this decision were entirely unfavorable to professional sociologists. University departments and specialized institutes were dissolved. The periodical publications disappeared as well. Sociology was eliminated among academic disciplines. Anything that had any relation to sociology was subsumed to the new ideology – Marxism-Leninism; sociology was going to melt in other disciplines: philosophy, political economy, and most often, historical materialism.
This process certainly met with opposition and resistance. Not a direct opposition, but rather a passive resistance. An illustrative example is that of Anton Golopenţia, who tried to continue his projects, despite all the troubles and misfortunes that befell him. He refused to get involved in politics and chose to remain loyal to his preoccupations. The others did not passively witness the foreseen disaster either. In 1947, Dimitrie Gusti tried to reestablish the Romanian Social Institute, compiling a comprehensive plan of research for the coming years. Knowing that in order to carry out his initiative, he would need support from the state institutions, Gusti would have sketched a collaboration agreement between the Romanian Social Institute, the Central Institute of Statistics, and the Superior Economic Council. He sought political support as well, turning to his former student Miron Constantinescu. When Gusti wrote to him insistently asking for support in approving the collaboration agreement, Miron Constantinescu had just been appointed Secretary of the Ministerial Commission for Economic Recovery and Monetary Stabilization. Constantinescu’s answer made Gusti understand that times had changed and the needs and priorities were different. Constantinescu basically approved of Gusti’s initiative, which he found to be “fair and positive”, but he also drew his attention to the fact that both the Romanian Social Institute and the Central Institute of Statistics would have to “work” under the authority and “in agreement with the directives of the Ministerial Commission and the Supreme Economic Council”. Moreover, Constantinescu mentioned to Gusti that the Romanian Social Institute would have to adopt, in the research that they had to carry out, “the materialist dialectics of Marxism-Leninism, the only one that could lead to a fair interpretation of the results obtained through monographic research and statistics of reality”. Finally, the same Constantinescu informed Gusti that Romanian sociology, “former unilaterally rural sociology, must become primarily an urban sociology of the industrial centers and of the working population”. An option that would soon become an illusion.
Both sociology and the entire intellectual and cultural system built by Dimitrie Gusti were subjected to public disapproval after 1948. The new political power qualified in rough terms the period 1944-1948. Later, by means of detached and objective historical analysis, this was considered to be a “revival of inter-war sociology” or “a period of rebirth of sociology”. But in those times it was seen as manifestations of an attack on Marxist-Leninist ideology. The picture depicted by communist propaganda incriminated practices, ruled judgments on trends and pointed at the real or imaginary enemies of the new political and social order:
“In the years 1944-1947, the exploiting classes and their ideologies used the opportunities they still had to publish and disseminate idealistic, mystical and deeply reactionary […] sociological works, to print newspapers and magazines that continued to spread bourgeois ideology. They used these opportunities to focus their attack on Marxist sociology and philosophy. The ideological representatives of the exploiting classes sought to demonstrate that the Marxist-Leninist conception would not be appropriate for the Romanian realities”.
The imaginary dispute between inter-war sociology and Marxist-Leninist ideology was not going to end with the coming to power of the communist regime in 1948. The enemy, whether collective or impersonal, with invisible social features, represented a constant threat, existing everywhere, waiting for the right moment to strike the finishing blow to the newly established political regime:
“With the military defeat of fascism and the establishment of popular democracy, the ideological struggle in our country has not ended […] This is why one of the major tasks repeatedly outlined in the party documents to our ideological front was […] that of liquidating the ideological remnants of the past from the people’s consciousness, by exposing the reactionary character of their class and by confuting them through scientific means. A brake in the normal development of new life in our socialist state […] this lumber of the past had to be removed without a trace (underline. – Ş.B.)”.
Such logic had the advantage of justifying and legitimizing the policies and practices that communists imposed on the cultural field. The intellectuality was going to be subordinated and the purging campaigns of authors and works, as well as the physical repression against those who did not line up to the model imposed by the party, had their own precise purpose, carried out in the service the people, for its good and interest:
“Against all these unscientific theories of bourgeois sociology and philosophy, against these reactionary ideological attacks and maneuvers, a merciless fight was organized and conducted under the leadership of the party. The class basis and social function of these idealistic doctrines and theories, with their deeply anti-scientific content, was exposed. The ideological front, led by the party, conducted a systematic offensive in all domains, opposing these reactionary theories to the bright ideas of the Marxist-Leninist conception, scientifically proving that the only way to social progress, to solving the vital problems of the Romanian people is that indicated by the Marxist -Leninist doctrine”.
In this war against what was considered to be the “remnant of bourgeois ideology”, a special role was given to sociology, a science that was viewed as reactionary, anti-scientific, obscurantist and subjected to capitalism. The purging process was not going to end anytime soon, as the influence of bourgeois sociological ideologies and theories remained a danger against which a continuous fight had to be carried out:
“The disclosure of the anti-scientific, obscurantist nature of all sorts of idealistic, mystical and reactionary philosophical and sociological <systems> which circulated in our country in the past, constitute an important task assigned by our party to the Marxist-Leninist researches from the fields of philosophy and sociology”.
Beyond the institutional disaster, marked by the dissolution of all the research centers and university departments, there was also a collective drama of the professional body of the discipline, though, as we have seen, the communist acerbic discourse seldom marked its enemies accurately. The abolition of sociology was not enough, as the discipline had not existed independent of certain people who made themselves responsible for its propagation. The regime had forged a plan to hold everyone responsible, depending on the seriousness of the acts committed:
“In fighting against the reactionary conceptions of the past, the precise determination of the role played by its supporters was rigorously taken into account. It is self-understood that ideas have not asserted themselves, but were put into circulation by people who are responsible for them. In determining the degree of responsibility which lies with everyone who has supported outdated ideas in the culture of our country of the time, the Leninist difference between the different ways of asserting reactionarism were taken into account”.
Sociologists thus reached little anticipated situations, many of them being removed from the positions they were holding. Their professional training and educational qualifications were not worth very much in the new social and political context. Some of them chose exile, trying to continue their activities abroad. Others sought opportunities for professional reorientation. Finally, the most unfortunate of the lot had to withstand the rigors of communist repression. Few were those who did not suffer, one way or another.
Constantin Brăiloiu (1893-1958) was characterized by Henri H. Stahl as the “precursor and first doctrinaire of popular art sociology”. Invited by Gusti, Brăiloiu participated in several monographic campaigns starting with 1927, in which he carried out folkloric investigations. Constantin Brăiloiu remained abroad ever since the beginning of the war, occupying the position of technical consultant for the Romanian Embassy in Bern. He continued his work in France and Switzerland.
Another such example would be that of the spouses Sabin Manuilă (1894-1964) and Veturia Manuilă (1896-1986) who, in their turn, chose the path of exile, settling in the United States after 1947. A physician by profession, with studies at the University of Budapest, Sabin Manuilă was concerned with domains such as social hygiene and medicine, and later statistics, sociology and demography. From 1929 he participated in several monographic campaigns led by Dimitrie Gusti. From 1936 he was the director of the Central Institute of Statistics.
Dumitru Amzăr (1906-1999) was a close collaborator of Dimitrie Gusti, but in the late 1930s, he had an intellectual dispute with Dimitrie Gusti, which produced a rupture between the two. From 1940 he served as press secretary and cultural attaché of the Romanian embassy in Berlin. After the end of the war, he refused to return to Romania and ended his career as a sociologist, dedicating himself to a career in education in Berlin and later in Wiesbaden.
Mircea Vulcănescu was considered to be one of the most illustrious minds of Dimitrie Gusti’s sociological school. Vulcănescu was one of Dimitrie Gusti’s closest collaborators, participating in most annual monographic campaigns. During World War II he was appointed Undersecretary in the Ministry of Finance, position which he held until 23 August 1944. On August 30, 1948 he was arrested and tried as a former member of the Ion Antonescu government, accused of being a “war criminal”. In October 1946, he was sentenced to eight years in prison. He served his sentence in the prisons of Jilava and Aiud. He died in prison on 28 October 1952, in Aiud.
Anton Golopenţia was another victim of the regime. One of Dimitrie Gusti’s assistants, Golopenţia had an exemplary intellectual training, obtaining a PhD in Germany (1936). After 23 August 1944, Anton Golopenţia refused to get involved in political battles, remaining loyal to his intellectual concerns. He held the position of Director General Delegate of the Central Institute of Statistics, but was released from his job in 1948. He later worked as a collaborator on various projects of the State Planning Committee, without a doubt with the help of the President of the State Planning Committee of that time, Miron Constantinescu, a former student of his. In January 1950, he was arrested and incriminated in the Pătrăşcanu lawsuit. Golopenţia did not resist the harsh conditions of detention and the exhausting investigations and died of galloping consumption on 9 September 1951 in Văcăreşti Hospital.
Traian Herseni, another important member of the inter-war sociological school, was also faced with the torture of the Romanian Gulag. The indictment act against him was his political work and orientation in the inter-war period, Herseni being an overt supporter of the Legionary Movement. Traian Herseni was arrested and imprisoned between 1952-1956. After being released from prison, Traian Herseni continued to be intellectually marginalized, not having the right to sign for a while.
To all this drama was added that of Dimitrie Gusti’s –“the Professor”, who had patronized and animated Romanian sociology for over two decades. His post-war drama was little anticipated, but seemed to coincide with that of the discipline to which he had devoted himself. From the summer of 1944, Dimitrie Gusti became the President of the Romanian Academy, the highest intellectual dignity that came to confirm his status and role in the Romanian culture. In this capacity, he left for Moscow one year later to participate at the 220th years anniversary of the Academy of Sciences of Moscow. In the summer of 1945, his old students and collaborators celebrated him by organizing the anniversary of two decades from the first monographic campaign. One year later (1946), the same Gusti travelled to the United States of America, where he had meetings with the most important sociologists across the Atlantic and held several conferences at the University of Wisconsin and at Harvard and Yale Universities.
These details might mislead us, since we might think that Dimitrie Gusti got safely over the war and over the changes imposed by the new geopolitical order. However, the truth seems to be somewhat tinted. Gusti himself must have seen the dangers entailed by Romania’s entrance into the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union. Otherwise, we would not be able to explain some of his acts – as, for instance, his presence in the committee of intellectuals who decided to found ARLUS (Romanian Society for Friendship with the Soviet Union) in the autumn of 1944. Another example would be the laudatory remarks regarding the Soviet homeland published in the articles of the Romanian informal publications of the Red Army – Graiul nou. The complete change of perspective to Marxism-Leninism, easily discernable in Dimitrie Gusti’s courses after 1945, would be equally difficult to explain. All this makes sense, however, if we admit that Gusti had understood, better and faster than others, the destiny of post-war Romania.
Dimitrie Gusti was going to feel the full shock of the disintegration of sociology, falling into the disgrace of the regime. Gusti’s drama continued and might have amplified if some of his old disciples had not done everything in their power to help him. For five years, Dimitrie Gusti lived in completely inappropriate conditions, in the house of one of his former students and monographist team workers. He was rehabilitated no sooner than 1955, when he was granted a special pension and a comfortable home in the center of the Capital. The burden of old age and the bitterness of the five years of being disgraced had their say, and Gusti could not take advantage of this late rehabilitation. He died just two months after being rehabilitated.
What kind of sociology between 1948-1965?
In 1948, the last series of students of Dimitrie Gusti and Henri H. Stahl’s finished sociology at the University of Bucharest. It was the moment in which a circle was closed, for in the autumn of the same year, a department and a course of sociology disappeared from the curricula of the university from Bucharest. The entire intellectual edifice built by Dimitrie Gusti over the past decades no longer existed.
Sociologists were forced to hide their identity behind other professions, trying to survive the changes of the time. The most common option was the migration to ethnography – professional opportunities were available in institutions such as the Village Museum and the Folklore Institute. This was the case of Gheorghe Focșa, Ernest Bernea, Lucia Apolzan or Mihail Pop. Others worked for the Institute for Anthropological Research of the Academy – Vasile V. Caramelea; or for the Institute of Psychology – Traian Herseni. Last but not least, the Central Institute of Statistics was another option. After Anton Golopenţia’s resignation from the post of Director in 1948, the mathematician Gheorghe Mihoc was appointed leader, and the Institute was subordinated to the State Planning Commission. Gheroghe Retegan, Roman Cresin, Vladimir Trebici, and others worked for the Central Institute of Statistics.
Under these circumstances, is it necessary to ask ourselves to what extent sociology still existed in Romania between 1948-1965? This particular issue was discussed and debated only at the surface level and without great interest. Most scholars recognize the rupture that occurred in sociology in 1948, but they try to suggest that it was not absolute. There were also opinions that went further, suggesting that sociology would have survived „in illegality”, not in institutionalized forms, but as a cultural infrastructure. Not least, there has been talk of the existence of a revival of sociology, or at least an attempt in this direction since 1953, when Paul H. Stahl, Florea Stănculescu and Adrian Gheorghiu started a project concerning the ensemble of peasant architecture, which had in view the publication of sixteen volumes.
The strongest argument in favor of continuity was nonetheless represented by the monographic research, the tradition of which was not lost after 1948. These initiatives of monographic research were undertaken by institutions such as the Central Department of Statistics, the Institute of Economic Research of the P.R.R. (People’s Republic of Romania) Academy, the Institute of Geology and Geography of the P.R.R. Academy, the Department of Social Welfare of the Institute of Hygiene and Labor Protection and the Institute of Philosophy of the P.R.R. Academy. It is true that these activities were additional, and most often than not subordinated to other aims and interests, reason for which their scientific value is not significant. All the more so as this empirical research was limited to information and data collection which has never been analyzed from a theoretical perspective, in a scientific, sociological manner.
What mattered, however, was to continue the tradition of inter-war sociology, despite its having survived underground, in illegality. It nonetheless survived through Dimitri Gusti’s disciples, who conducted studies and programs of empirical research on the model of pre-war tradition. This way, new specialists in sociology were formed, even though they were not sociologists per se.
– va urma/ to be continued –
 Ștefan Bosomitu is researcher atThe Institute for the Investigation of Communist Crimes and the Memory of the Romanian Exile since 2007.
 Mike Forrest Keen, Janusz Mucha, Eastern Europe and Its Sociology, In: Mike Forrest Keen, Janusz Mucha (eds.), Eastern Europe in Transformation. The Impact on Sociology, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, London, 1994, pp. 1-10.
 Robin Okey, Eastern Europe, 1740-1985. Feudalism to Communism, Second Edition, Routledge, London, New York, 2004, pp. 188-198.
 Martine Mespoulet, “Quelle sociologie derrière le « rideau de fer » ?”, In: Revue d’Histoire des Sciences Humaines, 2007/1 n° 16, p. 3-10.
 Victor Leon, “Les sciences sociales en Europe de l’Est”, In: Revue de l’Est, vol. 2, No. 3 (1971), pp. 155-171.
 Mike Forrest Keen, Janusz Mucha, op. cit, loc. cit., pp. 1-10.
 Michael VoŘiŠek, “<Antagonist, Type, or Deviation?>. A Comparative View on Sociology in Post-War Soviet Europe”, In: Revue d’Histoire des Sciences Humaines, 2008/1, no. 18, p. 85-113.
 Jacek Szmatka, Kinga Wysienska, “Polish and Eastern European Sociology”, In: Edgar F. Borgatta, Rhonda F. J. Montgomery, Encyclopedia of Sociology, Second Edition, vol. 3, Macmillan, New York, 2000, pp. 2116-2123.
 Mike Forrest Keen, Janusz Mucha, op. cit, loc. cit., pp. 1-10.
 Ilya Zemtsov, Soviet Sociology. A Study of Lost Illusion in Russia under Soviet Control of Society, Hero Books, Fairfax, 1986, pp. 3-4; Elizabeth A Weinberg, Sociology in the Soviet Union and Beyond. Social Enquiry and Social Change, Ashgate, Burlington, 2004, p. 11.
 Edmund Mokrzycki, “From Social Knowledge to Social Research: the Case of Polish Sociology”, In: Acta Sociologica, vol. 17, no. 1 (1974), pp. 48-54.
 Jennifer Platt, History of ISA: 1948-1997, The International Sociological Association, Quebec, 1998, pp. 65-66.
 Gennady S. Batygin, Inna F. Deviatko, The Metamorphoses of Russian Sociology, In: Mike Forrest Keen, Janusz Mucha (eds.), Eastern Europe in Transformation. The Impact on Sociology, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, London, 1994, pp. 11-23.
 Wladyslaw Kwasniewicz, Dialectics of Systemic Constraint and Academic Freedom: Polish Sociology under Socialist Regime, In: Mike Forrest Keen, Janusz Mucha (eds.), Eastern Europe in Transformation. The Impact on Sociology, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, London, 1994, pp. 25-38.
 George Fischer, “Current Soviet Work in Sociology: A Note in the Sociology of Knowledge”, In: The American Sociologist, vol. 1, nr. 3 (May, 1966), pp. 127-132.
 Janusz Mucha, Paweł Zalecki, Sociology – Poland, text available on-line at the following address: http://www.gesis.org/knowledgebase/archive/sociology/poland/report1.html
 Edward Beliaev, Pavel Burtorin, “The Institutionalization of Soviet Sociology: Its Social and Political Context”, In: Social Forces, vol. 61, nr. 2 (December, 1982), pp. 418-435.
 François Bafoil, “A quoi servait la sociologie en RDA”, In: Revue française de sociologie, vol. 32, nr. 2 (1991), pp. 263-284.
 Michael VoŘiŠek, op.cit., p. 85-113.
 The Hungarian sociology didn’t have a significant tradition before 1945. Sociological studies and sociographic investigations were conducted in the interwar period, but sociology has never been institutionalized. The tendency to analyze social facts appeared in provincial universities, when groups of young students began to undertake sociographic investigations on disadvantaged social groups, see: Gabor Kiss, “History of the Development of Sociology in Hungary from 1945”, In: The American Sociologist, vol. 2, nr. 3 (August, 1967), pp. 141-144.
 Tamás Kolosi, Istvan Szelényi, Social Change and Research on Social Structure in Hungary, In: Brigitta Nedelmann, Piotr Sztompka, Sociology in Europe. In Search of Identity, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1993, pp. 141-163.
Dénes Némedi, Péter Róbert, Sociology – Hungary, text available on-line at the following address: http://www.gesis.org/knowledgebase/archive/sociology/hungary/report1.html#jump13.
 In 1961, S. Szalai raised the issue of the „Magyar sociology” in an article entitled “State of Sociology in Hungary”; to this trend, András Hegedus signed an article which postulated bases for a special sociological discipline within the framework of Marxist social sciences. See: András Hegedus, “A Marxista Szociológia Tárgyáról” (About the Object of Marxist-Sociology), In: Magyar Filozófiai Szemle, 1961, nr. 2, pp. 166-183 apud Gabor Kiss, op. cit, loc. cit., pp. 141-144.
 András HEGEDÜS (31 October 1922, Szilsárkány–23 October 1999, Budapest), Hungarian Communist activist, philosopher, sociologist, Wojciech Roszkowski, Jan Kofman (editors), Biographical Dictionary of Central and Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century, New York, London: M. E. Sharp, 2008, p. 337-338.
Dénes Némedi,Traditions and Ruptures in Hungarian Sociology, In: Sujata Patel (ed.), The ISA Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions, Sage Publications Ltd., London, 2010, pp. 152-162.
Dénes Némedi, Péter Róbert, Sociology – Hungary, text available on-line at the following address: http://www.gesis.org/knowledgebase/archive/sociology/hungary/report1.html#jump13.
 Louis Pinto, “Un regard sur la sociologie en Hongrie”, In: Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales. Vol. 61, mars 1986, pp. 48-51.
 Káláman Kulcsár, Tradition, Modernization and Sociology: the Case of Hungary, In: Nikolai Genov (ed.), National Traditions in Sociology, Sage Publications Ltd., London, 1989, pp. 118-134.
 Todor PAVLOV (14 February 1890 – 8 May 1977), Bulgarian Communist activist and Marxist philosopher, Wojciech Roszkowski, Jan Kofman (editors), op. cit., p. 760.
 Nikolai Genov, Sociology as Promise and Reality: The Bulgarian Experience, In: Mike Forrest Keen, Janusz Mucha (eds.), op. cit., pp. 53-67.
 On the 18th of July 1967, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Bugarian Communist Party published the decision “On the Organization of Sociological Research in Our Country”, Svetla Koleva, “La sociologie en Bulgarie des années 1945 à 2010: une trajectoire disciplinaire à l’épreuve de l’histoire”, In: Sociologies pratiques, 2011/2, n° 23, p. 127-141.
 Pepka Boyadjieva, Shooting at a Moving Target: Rediscovering Sociology in Bulgaria, In: Sujata Patel (ed.), op. cit., pp. 163-174; Nikolai Genov, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 53-67.
 Eduard Urbanek, op. cit, loc. cit., pp. 79-87; Michal Ilner, Sociology – Czech Republic, text available on-line at the following address: http://www.gesis.org/knowledgebase/archive/sociology/czech/report1.html.
 Michael VoŘiŠek, op. cit., p. 85-113.
 Jerzy J. Wiatr, Status and Prospects of Sociology in Eastern Europe: A Trend Report, In: Jerzy J. Wiatr (ed.), The State of Sociology in Eastern Europe Today, Foreword by Herman R. Lantz, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville, 1971, pp. 1-19.
 Mike Forrest Keen, Janusz Mucha, op. cit, loc. cit., pp. 1-10.
 Piotr Sztompka, La condition de la sociologie en Europe centrale et orientale, In: Maxime Forest, Georges Mink (eds.), Post-communisme: les sciences sociales à l’épreuve, L’Harmattan, Paris, 2004, pp. 159-174.
 Jerzy J. Wiatr, op. cit, loc. cit., pp. 1-19.
 Ljubomir Zivkovic, “The Structure of Marxist Sociology”, In: Social Research. An International Quarterly, 34, No. 3 (1967), pp. 479-480, apud. Jerzy J. Wiatr, Status and Prospects of Sociology in Eastern Europe …, In: loc. cit., p. 1-19.
 J. Hochfeld, Studia o marksowskiej teorii spoleczenstwa (Studies in Marx’s teory of society), Warsaw, 1963, pp. 68-75, apud. Jerzy J. Wiatr, Status and Prospects of Sociology in Eastern Europe …, In: loc. cit., p. 1-19.
 O. Mandic, “The Marxist School of Sociology: What is Sociology in a Marxist Sense?”, In: Social Research. An International Quarterly, 34, No. 3 (1967), p. 445, apud. Jerzy J. Wiatr, Status and Prospects of Sociology in Eastern Europe …, In: loc. cit., p. 1-19.
 Ștefan Buzărnescu, Septimiu Chelcea, Dan Dungaciu, Maria Larionescu, Virgil Măgureanu, Zoltan Rostaș, Constantin Schifirneț, “Sociologia în România: trecut, prezent, perspective”, In: Sociologie românească, vol. III, nr. 1/2005, pp. 5-37.
 Cătălin Zamfir, “9 ipoteze pentru o analiză sociologic-epistemologică a sociologiei româneşti în perioada comunistă: 1944-1989”, In: Sociologie românească, vol. III, Nr. 1, 2005, pp. 53-71.
 Ovidiu Bădina, Dimitrie Gusti. Contribuții la cunoașterea operei și activității sale, Editura Științifică, București, 1965, p. 173.
 Sanda Golopenția, “Cronologia unei vieți: Anton Golopenția”, In: Sociologie românească, Serie nouă, VI, nr. 5-6/1995, pp. 481-527.
 Ibidem. Also see: Lucia Apolzan, “O viață dedicată cercetării tezaurului istoric al satului românesc”, In: Sociologie românească, Serie nouă, II, nr. 5-6/1991, pp. 337-343.
 On the Runcu village monographic campaign, see: Henri H. Stahl, Amintiri și gânduri …, mainly pp. 152-159.
 Ovidiu Bădina, Sociology in Romania, In: Jiri Thomas Kolaja, Man Singh Das (eds.), Glimpses of Sociology in Eastern Europe …, pp. 253-300.
 Cătălin Zamfir, “9 ipoteze …”, In: loc. cit., pp. 53-71.
 Dimitrie Gusti publishes, amoung other works, a new edition of his Sociologia militans: Dimitrie Gusti, Sociologia militans. Cunoaștere și acțiune în serviciul națiunii, Fundația Regele Mihai I, București, 1946.
 Henri H. Stahl, Sociologia satului devălmaș românesc, Fundația Regele Mihai I, București, 1946; Henri H. Stahl, Șerban Voinea, Introducere în sociologie, Editura Partidului Social-Democrat, București, 1947.
 Traian Herseni, Drăgus, un sat din țara Oltului, Făgăras̡. Unităt̡i sociale, Institutul de Științe Sociale al României, București, 1944.
 Vasile V. Caramelea, Satul Berevoiești (Muscel). Obștea moșnenilor, Câmpulung Muscel, 1946.
 Lucia Apolzan, Sate, orașe și regiuni studiate de Institutul Social Român. 1925-1945, Institutul social român, București, 1945.
 Ilya Zemtsov, Soviet Sociology. A Study of Lost Illusion in Russia under Soviet Control of Society, Hero Books, Fairfax, 1986, p. 2.
The new education law – the Decree no. 175/August 3, 1948, aimed a radical change of the Romanian educational system. The main objectives of the law were: the training of the young people in a communist spirit, the strict control over elementary and secondary schools and also over higher education, by the suppression of the university autonomy, the providing of staff for Romania’s industrialization plan, and the development of middle and higher technical education, Vladimir Tismăneanu, Cristian VASILE, Dorin Dobrincu (eds.), Raport final. Comisia Prezidenţială pentru Analiza Dictaturii Comuniste din România, Editura Humanitas, București, 2007, p. 354.
 Leopold Labedz, The Soviet Attitude to Sociology, In: Alex Simirenko (ed.), Soviet Sociology. Historical Antecedents and Current Appraisals, Quadrangle Books, Chicago, 1966, p. 210.
 Sanda Golopenţia, Viaţa noastră cea de toate zilele, Editura Curtea Veche, Bucureşti, 2009, p. 14-15.
 See the letter of Miron Constantinescu addressed to Dimitrie Gusti, from November 5,1947: Dimitrie Gusti, Opere, vol. V, Fragmente autobiografice. Autosociologia unei vieți, 1880-1955, Texte stabilite, comentarii, note, documente de Ovidiu Bădina și Mihail Neamțu, Editura Academiei RSR, București, 1971, pp. 418-419.
 Florica Dobre (coord.), Liviu Marius Bejenaru, Clara Cosmineanu-Mareş, Monica Grigore, Alina Ilinca, Oana Ionel, Nicoleta Ionescu-Gură, Elisabeta Neagoe-Pleşa, Liviu Pleşa, Membrii C.C. al P.C.R., 1945 – 1989. Dicţionar, Editura Enciclopedică, Bucureşti, 2004, p. 176.
 Dimitrie Gusti,Opere, vol. V, Fragmente autobiografice. …, pp. 418-419.
 Miron Constantinescu specified him that it was not about a substantial change of the Romanian sociology, but about a change of priorities: “It doesn’t mean that we will put a stop on the research of different villages. However, the order of study must comply with the order of importance”, Ibidem.
C. I. Gulian (redactor responsabil), S. Ghiță, N. Gogoneață, C. Joja, R. Pantazi, Al. Posescu, Istoria gândirii sociale și filosofice în România, Editura Academiei RPR, 1964, p. 506.
 Al. Posescu, Critica în anii puterii populare a curentelor filosofice și sociologice din România de dinainte de 1944, In: ***, Marxism-leninismul și gândirea științifică românească, Editura Academiei RPR, București, 1964, pp. 301-312.
 C. I. Gulian (redactor responsabil), et alli, op. cit., p. 507.
 Gall Erno, Sociologia burgheză din România. Studii critice, Ediția a II-a, Editura Politică, București, 1963, p. 3-4.
 Al. Posescu, op. cit, loc. cit., pp. 301-312.
 Henri H. Stahl, Amintiri și gânduri din vechea școală …, p. 132.
 He participated at the following monographic campaings: Nerej (1927 and 1938), Fundu Moldovei (1928), Drăguș (1929), Runcu (1930) and Șanț (1935), Ştefan Costea (coord.), Sociologi români. Mică enciclopedie, Editura Expert, București, 2005, pp. 73-76.
 Zoltan Rostaş, Sala luminoasă. Primii monografişti ai Şcolii gustiene, Bucureşti, Editura Paideia, 2003, p. 62.
 Dan Dungaciu, Elita interbelică. Sociologia românească în context european, Editura Mica Valahie, Bucureşti, 2002, p. 232.
 Vladimir Trebici, „Dr. Sabin Manuilă: Omul și epoca sa”, In: Sociologie românească, Serie nouă, V, nr. 4/1994, pp. 387-392.
 Zoltan Rostaș, Sala luminoasă…, passim.
 Sabin Manuilă (editor), Recensământul general al populației României din 29 decembrie 1930, 10 volume, Institutul Central de Statistică, București, 1938-1940.
 Ştefan Costea (coord.), Sociologi români …, pp. 19-20.
 Sorin Lavric, “Cărturarul din exil”, In: România literară, nr. 9/2009 (4-13 martie).
 Ștefan J. Fay, Sokrateion sau mărturie pentru om, Editura Humanitas, București, 1991, passim.
 Mircea Diaconu, “Mircea Vulcănescu – filosoful Școlii Sociologice a lui Dimitrie Gusti”, In: Sociologie românească, Serie nouă, III, nr. 4/1992, pp. 357-379.
 Ştefan Costea (coord.), Sociologi români …, pp. 468-473.
 Virgil Țârău, Ioan Ciupea, “Morții Penitenciarului Aiud, 1945-1965”, In: Anuarul Institutului de Istorie „G. Barițiu” din Cluj-Napoca, tom XLIX, 2010, pp. 143-188.
 Zigu Ornea, “Cazul Anton Golopenţia”, In: România literară, nr. 43/2001 (31 octombrie-6 noiembrie).
 Sanda Golopenţia, op. cit., p. 14-15.
 Lavinia Betea, “Un sociolog, decedat în ancheta Securităţii”, In: Jurnalul naţional, 11 septembrie 2007.
 Anton Golopenţia, Ultima carte …, p. 60.
 Lavinia Betea, Lucrețiu Pătrășcanu. Moartea unui lider comunist, Ediția a III-a, Editura Curtea Veche, București, 2011, passim.
 Sanda Golopenția, “Cronologia unei vieți: Anton Golopenția”, In: Sociologie românească, Serie nouă, VI, nr. 5-6/1995, pp. 481-527.
 Antonio Momoc, Capcanele politice ale sociologiei interbelice. Școala gustiană între carlism și legionarism, Editura Curtea Veche, București, 2012, pp. 270-282.
 Cicerone Ioniţoiu, Victimele terorii comuniste. Arestaţi, torturaţi, întemniţaţi, ucişi. Dicţionar H, I, J, K, L, Editura Maşina de scris, Bucureşti, 2003, p. 49.
 For this reason, he had to sign with a pseudonym his book on the sociology of success: M. RALEA, T. HARITON, Sociologia succesului, Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică, 1962.
 Ovidiu Bădina, Octavian Neamțu, Dimitrie Gusti. Viață și personalitate, Editura Tineretului, București, 1967, p. 193.
 Constantin Marinescu, Dimitrie Gusti și școala sa. Însemnări, evocări, Editura Felix-Film, București, 1995, p. 33
 Ovidiu Bădina, Dimitrie Gusti. Contribuții …, p. 173.
 Then, he met Becker, T. Parsons, P. Sorockin, R. Linton sau pe H. W. Obit, Ibidem, pp. 176-177, n. 2.
 Adrian Cioroianu, Pe umerii lui Marx. O introducere în istoria comunismului românesc, Editura Curtea Veche, București, 2007, pp. 123-125.
 Dimitrie Gusti, “Câteva impresii din Moscova și Leningrad”, In: Graiul nou, 9 iunie 1945, apud Ovidiu Bădina, Dimitrie Gusti. Contribuții …, p. 184.
 Dimitrie Gusti, Opere, vol. V, Fragmente autobiografice …, pp. 353-417.
 “In early August 1950, called by Octavian Neamtu, I found incredible news: Gusti was banished from his house, his library and his books. We visited him both. I found him in a room with ground below, in an unfinished house, with newspapers that were caught in some pins instead of windows, in the former slum Caţelu, weeping on a suitcase”, Constantin Marinescu, op. cit., p. 35.
 Ibidem, p. 38 and 47.
 Despite the rehabilitation of 1955, within the later monographs on the life and work of Gusti there are no reference to his tragic destiny during the firts years of communist regime, see: O. Bădina, Dimitrie Gusti. Contribuţii …, 1966; și: O. Bădina, O. Neamţu, Dimitrie Gusti …, 1967.
 Marin Constantin, “Paul H. Stahl despre Școala sociologică de la București”, In: Sociologie românească, vol. II, nr. 2/2004, pp. 42-57; Ilie Bădescu, „Școala Gusti: perenitatea unei paradigme”, In: Sociologie românească, III, nr. 2/2005, pp. 5-10.
 Zoltan Rostaș, Strada Latină, nr. 8. Monografiști și echipieri gustieni la Fundația Culturală Regală „Principele Carol”, Editura Curtea Veche, București, 2005, pp. 24-57.
 On the life and the activity of Ernest Bernea, see: Antonio Momoc, op. cit., pp. 261-270; and Zoltan Rostaș, Sala luminoasă …, pp. 15-69.
 Lucia Apolzan, “O viață dedicată cercetării …”, In: loc.cit, pp. 337-343.
 Zoltan Rostaș, Sala luminoasă …, pp. 261-360.
 Vladimir Trebici, “O istorie impresionistă a demografiei românești”, In: Sociologie românească, nr. I, 1999, pp. 9-31.
 Ștefan Buzărnescu, Septimiu Chelcea, Dan Dungaciu, Maria Larionescu, Virgil Măgureanu, Zoltan Rostaș, Constantin Schifirneț, op. cit, loc. cit.; Ilie Bădescu, “Școala Gusti: perenitatea unei paradigme”, In: Sociologie românească, III, nr. 2/2005, pp. 5-10; Cătălin Zamfir, “Ce a lăsat Dimitri Gusti sociologie postbelice?”, In: Sociologie românească, III, nr. 2/2005, pp. 11-14; Idem, “9 ipoteze …”, In: loc. cit., pp. 53-71; Marin Constantin, “Paul H. Stahl despre Școala sociologică …”, In: loc. cit., pp. 42-57; Ștefan Costea, Continuity and Discontinuity in Romanian Sociology, In: Mike Forrest Keen, Janusz Mucha (eds.), op. cit., pp. 69-78; Mihail Cernea, Ion Matei, Rumania, In: Jerzy J. Wiatr (ed.), The State of Sociology in Eastern Europe Today, Foreword by Herman R. Lantz, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville, 1971, pp. 139-176.
 Cătălin Zamfir, “9 ipoteze …”, In: loc. cit., pp. 53-71.
 Ilie Bădescu, “Școala Gusti: perenitatea unei paradigme”, In: loc. cit., pp. 5-10.
 Roman Moldovan, “La sociologie, science du présent et de l’avenir”, In: Revue Roumaine des Sciences Sociales, serie Sociologie, tom 10-11, 1966-1967, pp. 49-54; Miron Constantinescu, Direcţii actuale ale cercetării sociologice în ţara noastră, In: Miron Constantinescu, Cercetări sociologice, 1938-1971, Bucharest: Editura Academiei R.S.R., 1971, pp. 211-222; Idem, “A General Survey of Romanian Sociology”, In: The Romanian Journal of Sociology, vol. VI, 1970, pp. 7-13; Lucia Apolzan, “Țăranii și setea de pământ. Cercetările monografice din anul 1955 în satul Toporu, jud. Teleorman”, In: Sociologie românească, Serie nouă, III, nr. 3/1992, pp. 297-301.
 Costin Murgescu, “Field Research Work as Conducted by the Economic Research Institute of the Academy of the Rumanian’s People Republic”, In: The Romanian Journal of Sociology, vol. I, 1962, pp. 239-247; V. Trebici, L. Tovissi, “Aspects of Sociological Research. At the Statistical Chair for Various Branches of the National Economy at the <V. I. Lenin> Institute of Economic Science, Bucharest, and at the Statistical Chair in the Bucharest Polytechnic Institute”, In: The Romanian Journal of Sociology, vol. I, 1962, pp. 231-238; M. Stănescu, Al. Puiu, “Aspects of the Activity of Sociological Research of the Economic Research Institute Between 1963-1964”, In: The Romanian Journal of Sociology, vol. II-III, 1964, pp. 201-206; P. Grigorescu, “Concrete Sociological Investigation Performed at the Institute of Economic Research”, In: The Romanian Journal of Sociology, vol. IV-V, 1966, pp. 319-321.
 See: ***, “From the Activity of Sociological Research of the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy”, In: The Romanian Journal of Sociology, vol. II-III, 1964, pp. 207-210; H. Ene, “Concrete Sociological Investigation at the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of the Socialist Republic of Romania”, In: The Romanian Journal of Sociology, vol. IV-V, 1966, pp. 321-322; H. Culea, “The Session of the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of the Socialist Republic of Romania Concerning Sociological Problems”, In: The Romanian Journal of Sociology, vol. IV-V, 1966, p. 327.
 Ștefan Costea, Continuity and Discontinuity in Romanian Sociology, In: Mike Forrest Keen, Janusz Mucha (eds.), Eastern Europe in Transformation. The Impact on Sociology, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, London, 1994, pp. 69-78.
 Cătălin Zamfir, “Ce a lăsat Dimitri Gusti sociologie postbelice?”, In: loc. cit.; Idem, “9 ipoteze …”, In: loc. cit., pp. 53-71.