Dimitrie Gusti’s Perspective on the Beginning of World War II
University of Bucharest
Doctoral School of Sociology
Abstract. This paper approaches the actions of Professor Dimitrie Gusti, the founder of the Bucharest School of Sociology, at the beginning of War World II. The importance of the topic lies in the fact that the year of 1939 would have brought Gusti’s school the international recognition of its scientific value, if war had not broken out. For providing a wider context, the author draws up a concise history of the institutionalization process of Romanian sociology from the beginning of the 1920s onwards. Special emphasis is placed on the particularity of this sociology, lying in the development of an interdisciplinary and collective field research methodology, known as monographic sociology. The development of an original methodology of social work, put into practice by Gustian sociologists at the Royal Cultural Foundation, is also presented here. The paper describes thoroughly Professor Gusti’s nonconventional manner of approaching this historical context, as well as his tenacity in securing the editing of the works produced by his Romanian and foreign collaborators during the war, thus preserving an active sociology.
Keywords: World War II, Bucharest School of Sociology, Dimitrie Gusti, 14th International Congress of Sociology, Social Service, Royal Cultural Foundation.
Any relatively well-informed person knows that the last world war began on September 1st, 1939. One would also expect him to know that this armed conflict did not start out of the blue: there is a logic behind the events which lead to its outbreak and which governed its actual development. This logic, as we know it, is the result of subsequent historical reconstructions. Contemporary insights of the war, as is the case of other, more peaceful social intervals, may differ significantly from those developed by readers of history several decades apart. For the latter, the actions of those contemporary with the events may appear as “unnatural”: some may have ignored the gravity of a moment, some may have overestimated it. Hence, a tendency to criticize the contemporaries of such events for their “lack of far-sightedness”. While such an attitude is explainable from a generic subjective point of view, it nonetheless remains an intellectual fallacy.
In this context, the decision taken on August 17th, 1939 by Dimitrie Gusti (1), the leader of the Bucharest School of Sociology, regarding the postponement of the International Congress of Sociology (2), which was to start on September 29th, 1939, remains a “mystery”. What were the professors’ views on the international situation, which led to a decision some would find disappointing, but which nonetheless avoided the failure of an international meeting? An even more poignant question would be: why did he delay it, and not cancel it, as reasons for the latter option surely were not lacking? In this paper, I shall focus on the views of this sociology professor regarding the importance of his school’s projects and the war.
The Development of Sociology and the International Context – 1939
In order to understand the perspective of a sociology school founder, one should begin by reviewing the situation of this institutionalized science in the fatidic year of 1939. Sociology as a university discipline appeared in Romania at the beginning of the 20th century, only to attain public importance after 1918, at the University of Bucharest. Here, Professor Dimitrie Gusti established, in connection with his university chair, a sociological seminar organized as a sui generis workshop (3), as well as an extra-universitary structure – the Romanian Social Institute – with the aim of putting social sciences to work for the modernization of the Romanian society. The crystallization of the Bucharest School of Sociology commenced in 1925 with the first field researches in rural monographic sociology (4). The next five years saw the development of an original methodology on the foundations of Gusti’s sociological system, the assembling of a scientific community around Gusti’s leading figure, and the publication of several studies fuelled by this environment. Due to this direct initiative and to its interdisciplinary methodology, the monographic team and its work gained national and international visibility. At a time when the most popular intellectual trends in Romania promoted autochthonism, Gusti’s school of sociology, through its experiences in rural research, attempted to promote a sociological conception both generalizable and applicable beyond Romanian borders. Foreign researchers were admitted in the rural field researches of the school, while young Romanian sociologists improved their specializations in Western universities. After a brief ministerial intermezzo (5), Dimitrie Gusti was appointed the general director of the “Prince Carol” Royal Cultural Foundation, a position which fuelled the development of social intervention within the school of sociological monographs. Based on an original methodology of social work, student teams focused their efforts on the actual advancement of some villages, with the villagers’ cooperation and under the guidance of Gustian sociologists.
Since professor Gusti had by then become a specialist in public relations, he was given the task of organizing the Romanian pavilion at the Paris World’s Fair in 1937 (6). In his position of general commissioner, Gusti put to good use his field research experience, designing the pavilion so as to promote the results of his school of sociology. The natural outcome of this blend of original research and modern promotion strategies was the long sought-after decision taken at the 13th International Congress of Sociology, held during the 1937 World’s Fair: Bucharest was to accommodate the upcoming 14th congress in 1939, under Gusti’s presidency. It happened to be the first time that a congress of sociology of this level was scheduled to take place in an East-European capital. The following months amounted to a race against the clock to finish the Romanian presentations (7) and to organize a congress that would surpass the expectations of the international élite of sociology. The years 1938 and 1939 proved very busy for Gusti and his collaborators. Under Gusti’s direction, but supervised directly by Mircea Vulcănescu, the editing of the Encyclopedia of Romania (8) was initiated, mobilizing several hundred leading intellectuals of the day. The success of the Romanian pavilion in Paris brought Gusti the responsibility of organizing the one for the New York World’s Fair, scheduled for opening in May 1939. This year also saw the application of the Social Service Law, designed by Gusti. This, in turn, led to an unprecedented effort to organize new institutions which were to coordinate the rural work of thousands of young university graduates (9). As much as Gusti would have emphasized the social character of these three objectives, their partisan political significance was obvious. The Social Service Law stipulated the enrolment of young intellectuals for constructive ideals, gravitating around the advancement of the Romanian rural world, and sensibly opposed to those of the Legionnaire movement. The participation of Romania at the New York World’s Fair, with all the efforts invested in promoting the country’s economic potential, conveyed a clear counter-revisionist and anti- war message. In the same vein, the International Congress of Sociology was designed to boost scientific collaboration within the researchers’ communities, and not conflict.
Tensions Foreshadowing the War
After the success gained in the United States (10), Gusti returned to Romania on July 1st, 1939, and was received in audience by king Carol II, resumed taking part in the sessions of the Romanian Academy, took direct control of the Social Service and immersed himself in organizing the International Congress of Sociology – without losing sight of the New York pavilion, which was to remain open until 1940, directed by him through telegrams. In his robust optimism, it would seem that Gusti did not foresee any incoming danger interfering with his two main projects.
Gusti’s perspective on the national and international context did not apparently make him wary. At the moment of his return in the country, he would have been content to see that the institutional structuring of the Social Service had been given its finishing touches, hundreds of individuals had been hired or transferred, and several training schools for the future commanders of the Royal teams had been opened. The placing of the teams in the envisaged rural areas had been already planned, and the methodological handbooks of the future team members had been printed as well. In the first week of August, thousands of students were gathering in these training schools, before leaving for the allotted villages. Since the students’ duty to bring their contribution to the advancement of villages was not confined to a professional experience, but also had a strong political dimension, local authorities and high officials of the state took part at the solemn openings of these training courses. Gusti himself spoke at the opening of the Pitești Royal Teams’ school, reminding the public in accordance with the trends of the day that, in 1921, prince Carol, then heir apparent to the throne, established
“the first cultural Foundation meant to work for the advancement of villages, which one understands as the primary source of power and renewal of Romania. Thus, the idea of the Social Service sprouted among us, conceived by a princely mind. It had, from its first pronouncement, an aspect entirely of its own. The Romanian Social Service requires a mobilization of all the available goodwill for the improvement of the most significant section of our population, the peasantry. Since 1921, when the Foundation was born, since October 18th, 1938, when the Social Service Law was promulgated, years of hardship and learning have passed” (Curentul, August 9, 1939, 1).
In another location, Prof. Petre Andrei (11), Minister of National Education and a former disciple of Gusti, held a similar speech. Comparing the schooling of his antebellum generation with that of the new one, Andrei spoke about the social vocation of the youth:
“The youth of the past was static and remained a debtor of society. The one of today is alive, dynamic and heads cheerfully to pay its tribute in work and sacrifice to the nation, something we all owe for our common good. The idea which prevails in the new humanism of the young generation is that of an individual force subsidiary to the general interest of the collectivity. Let us then go and repay with youthful generosity what we should indeed repay to the villages and to the many and poor” (Curentul, August 9, 1939, 1).
In the region of Banat, the Minister of Agriculture and Domains, Prof. Nicolae Cornățeanu (12), who took part in the monographic campaigns led by Gusti, began his speech with a confession:
“I especially cherish your activity as a former team member myself. I recall with emotion the month of field practice conducted under the animator that is Prof. Gusti. First I went to Fundul- Moldovei (Bukovina). Another summer, to Drăguş (Făgăraş), then to Runcu (Gorj) and Cornove (Bessarabia). I did not pass my real schooling in Bucharest, in the West, in Vienna and Zürich, or in America. I did my real schooling in these villages, where I could see how low stands the standard of living of the Romanian peasant, what a wonderful personality and how much working strength he has, and how many social and agrarian problems must be dealt with, in order to succeed in the advancement of the village and the household. There were only few back then. Many around us were sceptical. The path started then is today a wide and smooth one. Without the opening of new life horizons for the Romanian peasant, without his integration in strong economic organizations able to increase rentability, one cannot succeed. I do not think that we shall have a war. But we already have a permanent war, the economic war. In this war, the unequipped and disorganized peasant from Bărăgan fights the American farmer on the great markets of the world. This is the battle that we have to win. This is why your activity, as representatives of every specialization – an activity which will be conducted among villagers and only for villagers – must satisfy all those who wish for the welfare of this country” (Curentul, August 10, 1939, 1).
It may be noted that the preparations for the activation of the students’ teams of the Social Service was not only Gusti’s concern, it was also politically backed up by Armand Călinescu’s government (13) and some of the most iconic figures of the regime. There was substantial confidence in the eventual success of this organization effort. In what circumstances were the preparations for the Bucharest International Congress of Sociology carried out? Since preparations had been undergoing for two years, by the summer of 1939 all the details of the congress were well established, down to the hotel room reservations for foreign participants, the special train passes for the research trips and, of course, the arranging of the exhibition halls. Intense work was invested in printing the presentations sent in advance by the authors (for the first time in the history of sociology congresses). At the beginning of August, four volumes of conference proceedings, containing the presentations of some of the foreign participants, had been already published under the title Les travaux du quatorzième Congrès International de Sociologie; other four volumes were in print. Henri H. Stahl’s monumental three-volume work, which would have proved the validity of Gusti’s monographic method, was also in print. These advanced preparations were reported in great detail by the press. Curentul heralded on August 13th:
“According to the information we have, this congress will have a significant ampleness, thanks to the great number of announced participations and to the importance of the upcoming presentations, already announced by the organizing bureau. This will undoubtedly be one of the biggest congresses ever held in Bucharest”.
After a review of the scheduled panels of the congress, the author of the article points out an aspect which may have been less important for
researchers involved in scientific debates, but remains nonetheless essential for the cultural atmosphere of the capital:
“This is a unique chance for the Romanian intellectual to follow the sessions of a congress so complex, varied and attractive in its topics. It is to this Romanian intellectual, outside the group of specialists in social research, that we address ourselves, enumerating the more important papers. If we make a stop at the chapter on “village and city”, we shall see that the problem of structure and relation between these two social units – a problem so typical and urgent for our country, from a scientific point of view, as well as in other respects – is enriched with data and reports from other countries. Researchers, some of them famous, from Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, France, Germany, Italy, Yugoslavia, Poland, the Netherlands, the United States, Turkey, Hungary deal with this much-debated problem. We see among the discussions, just picking up randomly some paper topics: cities and social evolution (Prof. Jacquemyns), on rural life in Africa (Prof. G. Smets), the social importance of the village and the town throughout history (Mr. Agansky), the origin of cities in Western and Central Europe, as well as in the East- Slavic world (Mr. Kinkel), researches on the mentality of the small town (Dr. Blaha), the urbanization of the outskirts of the city of Prague (Prof. Ullrich), the definition of the French village (Prof. Roger), the morphologic structure of great cities (Mr. Maurice Halbwachs), the big suburb, neither village, nor city (Mr. Kovalevsky), the urban agglomeration and the city (Prof. Gaston Richard), the big industrial city and the workers (Dr. Brepohl), the industrial village in the central mountains of Germany (Dr. Hildebrandt), the capitalist economy in the village (Pleyer), the emigration of peasantry to towns and urbanization (Seiler), the balance between countryside and cities in Mussolini’s work (Prof. Dé Luca), the economic structure of the Yugoslavian village (B. Cosici), the agricultural workers (Mirkovici), the forms of collective property (Nedelkovici), the psychology of rural youth (S. Popovici), the mutual city-village influences in the United States (Prof. Taylor), the pressure of industrialism on rural communication (Mr. Zimmermann) etc.” (Curentul, August 13, 1939, 1).
The emphasis placed on the importance of the congress as a cultural event which could disseminate new knowledge among the intelligentsia shows well the high expectations regarding this congress.
The Beginning of the End?
Despite all this, only four days later, on August 17th, 1939, Dimitrie Gusti announces the postponement of the 14th International Congress of Sociology, motivated by the aggravation of the international situation (it would seem that Gusti’s views differed significantly from those of minister Cornățeanu). The postponement was decided with René Maunier (14), the president of the International Institute of Sociology, the new term having been fixed to the Easter days of the following year. The decision was also determined by
“the demands of a significant number of attendees who are prevented to take part in the debates of the Congress due to the current international situation, as well as by the desire to see all the 207 notable sociologists coming from 22 participating countries convened in Bucharest” (Curentul, August 20, 1939, 1).
What was in fact happening in those days of August? Nazi Germany accomplished the destruction of Czechoslovakia, something which could not loosen the European political atmosphere. The Munich Agreement had been breached by Hitler himself. The treaties of cooperation between the United Kingdom and France, on one hand, and the USSR, on the other hand, had been stalling for a long time. Meanwhile, Hitler was issuing increasingly aggressive threats against Poland, emphasized by the troops amassed at the Eastern border of the Reich.
Certainly, as with any other shocking decision, there were voices which contested Gusti’s decision, looking for ulterior, unspoken reasons behind it. But these doubts disappeared after August 23rd, when the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact was signed in Moscow, thus overturning the entire international political situation. In response to this, the United Kingdom and Poland signed two days later an agreement of mutual assistance. At once, the war became imminent, because Nazi Germany had secured, by means of the USSR’s neutrality, the continuation of its aggressive policies. The attack on Poland conducted by the German Army without any declaration of war on September 1st, 1939, was a surprise only for the uninformed. As an imminent consequence, on September 3rd, England and France declared war on Germany.
Let us stop here. In these very days, numerous German, French and Polish participants would have met at the Bucharest congress. Arguably, it does not pertain to a historical study to presume what would have happened there during the two weeks of the congress, were it not postponed. But such an exercise is nonetheless tempting. It is probable that a lot of speakers could not have arrived in Bucharest on August 29th, as scheduled, the congress would have begun in a tense atmosphere, the ensuing sessions would have been taken over by debates on the perspectives of peace and not on sociology, just to be finally suspended on September 1st. Verbal confrontations, to say the least, would have very likely broken out, and Gusti would have had little chance to settle them. In any case, one can presume that the Bucharest meeting would not have developed any kind of collaborations between sociologists from various countries, but on the contrary, it would have embittered them. Thus, it would have only replicated the situation during World War I, when leading sociologists of the day adhered to the bellicose discourses of their respective homelands – consequently, ten years would have to pass until the International Institute of Sociology was able to bring them together in an international congress, in 1928.
Expectedly, the German-Polish war had immediate effects on other states in the region. Tensions did not avoid Romania, and here too, the mobilization of reservists started in earnest. Up to this point, the Social Service had been carrying on its activities on schedule, despite the
fact that the State Security had suspicions that the organization had been infiltrated by the legionnaires. No wonder that Gusti eventually
had to issue an order with devastating consequences for his plans:
“In response to the mobilization orders of the General Staff, the Royal teams made up of boys cease their activity on September 5th, 1939. The graduates who have received in the past mobilization orders, as well as those pertained by the latest communiqués of the General Staff, are to present themselves at their respective units, with proofs provided by the team or the camp where they have been working. The group commanders will pack the entire inventory and will send it or bring it personally at the Foundation. They will receive a certificate issued by the Foundation so as to justify their delay in reaching their units. Ceasing an activity started with so much love and devotion, the Foundation, with its teams and commanders, responds with impetus and attachment to the supreme call of H.M. the King, to pursue our superior duty as soldiers” (Universul, September 9, 1939, 1).
The wording of this order makes it clear that the first campaign of the royal teams was compromised by the mobilization of the Romanian army. In order to clarify the conjunctural character of this recalling of the teams from the countryside, Gusti, assisted by Prof. C. Rădulescu-Motru, took part at a meeting held on September 13th at the Village Museum with all the commanders of the boys’ and girls’ teams. On this occasion, he thanked them for their past work and emphasized the importance of the Social Service for the future. Moreover, the professor suggested the establishment of an Association of the Royal Team Members, so as to maintain the cohesion of his young collaborators. Another opportunity to reaffirm the legitimacy of the Social Service was offered by a meeting with the metropolitan bishop Nicodim, when Gusti made a presentation of the institution. As the activity of the Social Service was only partially limited, its monographic research was carried on (15).
Unfortunately, the successes of the German army in Poland and the international tensions aggravated the local state of affairs. The legionnaire movement, encouraged by recent developments, had assassinated prime-minister Armand Călinescu on August 21st. The reprisals, carried out in a state of emergency which included summary executions of hundreds of arrested legionnaires, as well as the flight of those who escaped arrest, could not restore calm in the country. The Social Service was not avoided by these measures, and several members of its personnel were arrested. Since there were real suspicions regarding the legionnaire infiltrations in the Social Service, pressed by his entourage and, above all, by Prime Minister Constantin Argetoianu, King Carol II regretfully suspended the application of the Social Service Law on October 13th, 1939 (Carol II, 1997, p. 245).
In the Shadows
This course of events, which led to the gradual amputation of this institutional structure, may appear as a defeat for Professor Dimitrie Gusti. After all, everything he had set up since the foundation of the Association for Science and Social Reform in April 1918, which had only prestigious members and ambitious plans, had collapsed under the pressure of international and local events. But the perspective of a sociologist who had theoretical interests on war (16) and, moreover, the direct experience of World War I, differed fundamentally from that of his contemporaries. Gusti did not disappear (an intellectual fashion in the interwar period), did not give up (an older custom), but looked feverishly for alternatives to carry on his work, adapting – within certain limits – to the given situation. This is why he was more successful in accomplishing his goals than many of his contemporaries.
Current literature on the history of sociology, scanty as it is when it comes to this topic, does not insist on the consequences of the decision taken on August 17th, 1939 – all the more so, since the congress was eventually postponed sine die in 1940. Gusti and his team carried on the writing and editing of the studies prepared for the congress, since the Romanian Institute of Social Research kept functioning, with all its attributions, as a part of the Social Service. While it is true that its work was slowed down by the concentrations, publications appeared until the spring of 1940 (17). Moreover, the reporting of the postponement in Romanian press did not suggest in any way the cancelling of the event:
“This entire program remains unchanged for the new date of the congress, as well as the other Romanian scientific events organized on this occasion, which are: the Sociological exhibition, the Exhibition of the Sociological Book, as well as the Romanian contribution to the matter of the International Bibliography of Sociology. From this point of view, the Bucharest congress is unlike any other, as it touches the essential questions of Sociology, a fact that explains the substantial number of registered attendees, unreached up to this day by any other congress” (Curentul, August 20, 1939).
Therefore, the postponement of the congress was understood merely as an opportunity to further improve the performance of his team, on one hand, while assuming that the war would be short and soon followed by an improvement of the international state of affairs, which would allow the congress to take place.
The royal decision to suspend the Social Service, presented to the press as the will of its own leaders, was often equated with the actual destruction of the Bucharest school of sociology. The appearances speak in favour of this reading: research was halted, the journals of the Foundation, including the sociological ones, were cancelled, the budget of the Royal Cultural Foundation was cut down. Thus, Gusti’s collaborators scattered away, many getting employed in the Central Institute of Statistics. In such circumstances, Gusti himself stepped down from his office at the Foundation, having been its president for six years.
Sad as this may have been, Gusti at least tried to keep the initial organization above the water-line. He managed to rebrand the
Romanian Institute of Social Research as the Romanian Institute of Social Sciences, thus securing the continuity of his informal network
of collaborators and, under this guise, to carry on their work. The chair of sociology at the University functioned normally, excepting the interlude of the legionnaire regime in the autumn of 1940, when the University was closed down, and its professors threatened with expurgation.
Instead of Conclusion: an Argument for Continuity
Dimitrie Gusti’s perspective on the international situation of 1939 resembles that of April 1918, when the fate of the war seemed far from
favourable to Romania, then negotiating a humiliating peace treaty with the Central Powers. It was then that Gusti set up the
Association for Science and Social Reform, outlining a program for the modernization of social life founded on the actual knowledge of reality, with appropriate methods of implementing change. This program, drawn up as it was in disastrous circumstances, did not need any subsequent change after the victory of the Entente, because it addressed Romania’s fundamental problems, and not its conjuctural ones. This is the reason why, in the new context of Greater Romania, this program was successfully adopted by the Romanian Social Institute.
Twenty years later, Gusti persevered in consolidating two of his essential projects: the Bucharest International Congress of Sociology, which was to validate Romanian sociology on the international stage, and the mass application of social intervention in the countryside, through the Social Service. This was happening while Czechoslovakia was being destroyed, Poland severely threatened and then attacked, and Romania’s integrity lacked efficient guarantees, as well – speaking only of the situation in Eastern Europe. For Gusti, the threat of war, even the war itself, were not reasons to abandon ongoing projects, new designs or the publication of his results.
For him, the “long term” was not only an important historiographic concept, but also an interiorised way of planning his work. Gusti surprises us not only with his tenacity to carry on his plans in the eve of the war, but in the following years, as well. During the war, he did not miss any opportunity to print the texts prepared for the congress and to defend, in press and at the Romanian Academy, the future validity of the Social Service. Moreover, as the president of the Academy after August 23rd, 1944, he initiated the battle to persuade the authorities to support the establishment of the National Council for Scientific Research, without ignoring the two goals left unfinished by the outbreak of the war.
Thus, it would seem that the ancient adage inter arma silent Musae may have been true for poets, but not for the sociologist Dimitrie Gusti.
(1) Dimitrie Gusti (1880-1955) sociologist, philosopher, politician, professor at the University of Bucharest, member of the Romanian Academy (and its president between 1944-1946), minister of Public Instruction, Cults and Arts (1932-1933), General Director of the “Prince Carol” Royal Cultural Foundation, General Commissioner of the Romanian pavilions at the Paris (1937) and New York (1939) World’s Fairs, completely marginalized after 1948.
(2) The International Institute of Sociology was founded in 1892 in Paris and by 1893 had started a series of international congresses, held every two years.
(3) This seminar attracted the élite of Bucharest students, which subsequently formed a small association attached to professor Gusti.
(4) Based on Gusti’s sociological system, these rural campaigns articulated monogaphic sociology, which aimed at gaining a holistic understanding of social reality through multidisciplinary research. In the 1930s, monographic sociology developed an original social work methodology. Gusti’s school of sociology worked as an informal collective based on strong collaborative relationships, while maintaining steady connections with a vast local and international network of intellectuals with various professional backgrounds.
(5) Dimitrie Gusti was a member of the National Peasants’ Party’s cabinet, between June 1932 and November 1933.
(6) Romania took part in these worlds’ fairs since 1867. Alexandru Odobescu was the general commissioner of the first Romanian pavilion.
(7) Besides the monographists’ individual studies, finalizing several complete monographs of villages was in order. Traian Herseni was to supervise the monograph of Draguș, and Henri H. Stahl the monograph of Nerej. Only the latter would bring to completion his monograph, published in French, in three volumes.
(8) Four volumes of this thematic encyclopaedia were eventually completed; two other volumes, focused on culture, were left unfinished due to the outbreak of World War II.
(9) While based on the Romanian experience, and thus essentially original, the idea of the Social Service sprung up in other contexts, as well.
(10) The pavilion organized by Gusti attracted large numbers of visitors, as well as press coverage; the professor was received by president Franklin D. Roosevelt and visited several American universities.
(11) Petre Andrei (1891-1940), professor of sociology at the University of Iași; as a notable member of the National Peasants’ Party, he was elected several times as a member of the Parliament, he held the positions of undersecretary of state in the Ministry of Agriculture and Domains, and in the Ministry of Instruction, Cults and Arts. After the downfall of the royal dictatorship, he committed suicide to escape the harassments of the legionnaires.
(12) Nicolae Cornățeanu (1899-1977), professor of agrarian economics at the Superior School of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine in Bucharest.
(13) Armand Călinescu (1893-1939), jurist, notable member of the National Peasants’ Party, member of Parliament, member of several cabinets. He was assassinated by the legionnaires on September 21st, 1939.
(14) René Maunier (1887-1951), professor at Sorbonne, specialist in colonial sociology.
(15) Supervised by Anton Golopenția and Mihai Pop, a group of fresh graduates conducted an unpublished research focused not a village, but on a district (Dâmbovnic).
(16) Gusti had edited a volume entitled Sociologia războiului [The Sociology of War] in Iași, in 1915.
(17) Concerned here are two further volumes of the conference proceedings with studies by foreign sociologists, another two with Romanian authors, five fascicle of the Traian Herseni’s unfinished monograph of Drăguș and the exemplary monograph supervised by Henri H. Stahl, Nerej, un village d’une région archaïque.
Butoi, Ionuț, Mircea Vulcănescu, o microistorie a interbelicului românesc, București, Eikon (2015)
Carol al II-lea, Însemnări zilnice, vol. II, București, Scripta (1997)
Diaconu, M., Rostás, Z. (eds), Al XIV-lea Congres Internațional de 2014 Sociologie din 1939. Documentar, București, Ed. Universității din București (2014).
Gusti, Dimitrie, Sociologia Militans, Cunoaștere și acțiune în serviciul națiunii, București, Fundația Regele Mihai I (1946)
Herseni, Traian, Sociologia Românească – Încercare istorică, București, Institutul de Științe Sociale ale României (1940)
Heinen, Armin, Legiunea “Arhanghelului Mihail”. O contribuție la problema fascismului international, Bucuresti, Humanitas (1999)
Rostás, Zoltán, Monografia ca utopie. Interviuri cu Henri H. Stahl, Paideia (2000)
Rostás, Zoltán, Atelierul gustian. O abordare organizațională, Tritonic (2005)
Stahl, Henri H., Amintiri și gânduri din vechea școală a “monografiilor sociologice”, București, Minerva (1981).