The Gusti Empire. Facts and hypotheses
All the actions of the young professor from Iaşi, starting with his inaugural lecture, his reorganization plan for the University Library, and his letter to the contributors of the Arhiva announced an unusual career for a university professor. After the return from his studies abroad, Gusti was clearly eager to create in Romania certain debating structures which existed in Western countries as a result of the modernization of society.
From this point of view, it is significant that in his anthology of studies entitled Sociologia Militans, published in 1934, he included his inaugural lecture at the University of Iaşi, in which he declared for the first time his intention to reform the basis and the mission of university social sciences:
“Our only ambition is to found a seminar of sociology and ethics similar to those we have attended in our long studies in Germany. There, the teacher and the students research and discuss not only the problems related to the special sciences under specie aeternitatis, but especially the problems of immediate social significance. I remember the activity of the members of the state sciences seminars in Berlin or Leipzig, as well as the activity of the seminar of criminology in Berlin. … These seminars consisted primarily of “pure” scientific research. But besides this activity, the members of the seminar constituted a sort of ad hoc consultative groups which studied the legislative material in a strictly scientific and minutely monographic manner. These studies were later used, to a large extent, by the parliament in its legislative actions” (D. Gusti, 1934, p. 39).
The fact that Romania went into the World War I, the catastrophe of Turtucaia, the retreat to Iaşi of the state authorities, the crisis of the political parties and, consequently, of the former state organization made Gusti believe that the country was going through a period of transition in which one reform would follow another. According to G. Vlădescu-Răcoasa, apart from this revelation, what constituted the first step – essential maybe – toward the achievement of his plans was the fact that Iasi had become crowded with refugees:
“As Iaşi became the center of the most passionate struggles, professor Gusti, who was tightly connected to a large number of the leaders of the intellectual and political life who had sought refuge in Iasi and to whom he had granted access to his library and even his home, managed to accomplish the idea he had dropped in 1913 to create a publication dedicated to the social sciences. Together with a group of young intellectuals he lay the foundations of the «Association for Social Study and Reform» (1918)” (Arhiva pentru Stiinţă şi Reformă Socială, XIV, 1936, p. 1075).
The impression of a transitional period was given not only by the traumatic refuge to Iasi, but by the humiliating peace of Bucharest as well. Politically non-aligned intellectuals became aware of the necessity of creating some knowledge and action structures which should prevent such catastrophes in the future. Characteristically, the victory of the Entente and Romania’s Union with Transylvania, Northern Bucovina and Basarabia constituted for Gusti and his circle of intellectuals a reason of joy, certainly, but, according to H. H. Stahl, “of worried joy”:
“Romania of the great landed properties had died. Nobody knew what would take its place. The annexation of the Romanian provinces would change, in a way no one could anticipate, the aspect of the new country.” (Arhiva, XIV, 1936, p. 1135)
In such a period of dismemberment and destructuring of the old regime, when prestige and financial resources had not been identified or allotted, the elite was trying to create new institutions. As Gusti was conscious of the importance of his project defined in the statute of the “Association for Social Science and Reform”, as well as of the value of his own personality, he designed ab ovo an umbrella organization. This configuration was promoted by its initiators who wanted to obtain funds not from the social group to which their activity would be dedicated, but from sources exterior to it. For instance Gusti, in his rural research activities, planned and later accomplished, did not count on the financial resources of his subjects, but on royal, state funds.
The S.S.R. association declared that its first purpose was “to research all sides of the Romanian society”. Obviously, when in 1921 the Association changed into the Romanian Social Institute, its sections covered everything called “social science” at the time. They did not have research funds for each section, but through the activities of each section, he managed to attract and meet the intellectuals from Bucharest. In order to cover all topical phenomena, he organized public conferences and invited great scientific and political personalities of the time to lecture under the care of the Romanian Social Institute. Even though the meetings at the Romanian Social Institute or the public conferences were not as significant as the research work, they were very important to Gusti, as he was conscious that, without personal relations, the formal structures he had created could never succeed. For Gusti, building the Romanian Social Institute into a powerful institution was important in itself, but also as a useful means.
In fact, this type of organization was based on Gusti’s view on sociology:
“The social reality forms a single whole of unitary life, that is, as social unit motivated by the social will potentially conditioned by cosmic, biological, psychological and historical factors, and actualized at the same time by its manifestations: economic, spiritual, political and juridical (…) These categories are not in a relationship of logical subordination and they are not linked in a causal chain, but only existential reciprocal conditions; they can only be understood in their structural unity, as sui generis totalities” (D. Gusti, 1934, p. 45)
Consequently, monographic sociology required the existence of an umbrella organization, through the many-sided research of its social units, by introducing a multidisciplinary social research. The sociologist’s mission was to offer a synthesis of the conclusions of particular sciences dealing with the research of a community. This sociologic project was applied gradually in most of the campaigns organized by the professor starting from 1925.
By analyzing professor Gusti’s activity during the decade he spent in Iasi, one can notice that it was a period when he achieved all that a university professor could expect to achieve: he became a professor in ordinary, dean, corresponding member of the Romanian Academy, then a full member of this high forum, president of the association he had founded, and finally professor of sociology, ethics and politics at Bucharest University. But intellectuals, especially Eastern European ones, cannot resist the challenge of their social medium and are permanently seduced by action:
“Can we ever hope that, through the activity of future seminars and associations, we shall be able to change fundamentally the awfully shallow way of approaching social and sociological sciences in general and the problems related to the Romanian society in particular? It is high time, I think, for the study of social sciences, and the study of the specific problems of the Romanian society to move from parliamentary commissions and Ministries to Universities, as they did in Germany”. (D. Gusti, 1934, p. 39-40)
This text from 1910, republished in 1934, discusses not only the issue of high education, but also the idea of the Romanian Social Institute, and even his other projects, achieved or miscarried, all of which serve one single purpose: building the national state united by what he called “the Science of the Nation”.
One might believe that Dimitrie Gusti designed the Romanian Social Institute and the method of social monograph in order to control more and more disciplines and to lead more people. In fact, this umbrella served a different purpose: the more domains it covered, the more important it became and the more resources it could attract, including for the benefit of those who led it.
Image and Legitimation
The group research of the social reality does not require, apparently, any justification other than the researcher’s curiosity and thirst for knowledge. They do not need to make any effort in order to win the community’s trust, except in the case of an outsider guest. In the case of Gusti’s school, the gestures that were strictly related to winning trust were very frequent. We can say that the production of “image” which in the 20s had already gone beyond the purpose of gaining the community’s confidence, was even more exaggerated in the 30s.
The first signs appeared from the first research activities. The fact that professor Gusti asked a photographer to accompany him in every campaign should not surprise us. Photography is an auxiliary means used by every social researcher. But in this case, the camera was very often not turned to its subjects, but to the researchers. In larger or smaller groups, in an official, stiff attitude, in the dining room or in staged “compositions”, showing the team at work around a table and surrounded by an audience formed by villagers which are – as one would expect – standing. Similarly, when Gusti became a honorary citizen of one of the villages he was studying, the publishing of the photography immortalizing the event proves that the head of the school himself encouraged this practice, which was not scientific in nature, but which was considered necessary for the achievement of the organization’s purpose.
We shall enlarge upon this and propose a classification of the “image-production” means.
1. “Enlightening” the villagers: became essential when the members of the team realized that they could not work without making clear the motives (which they considered harmless) for the students’ coming into the village. This meeting between the students and the villagers became institutionalized soon under the name of şezătoare (bee, an evening sitting of the villagers), which in the 1930s became the central activity of the royal teams and of the Social Service. The way in which H. H. Stahl described, in 1936, the team’s meetings with the village is significant from this point of view:
“(…) I felt the need to facilitate our work through the action of rendering our purpose clear to the villagers. The best way to do this was to gather the villagers and talk to them. To make this communication of ideas more pleasant, we chose to do this during a cultural şezătoare, a cultural bee conducted by us, the monographers. This could not be improvised, it had to be exemplary. So we tried hard to find the best methods of organizing bees. We pride ourselves on the fact that, since 1926, in Goicea, we have used the type of bee still organized by the Students’ Royal Teams. The same strategy of mixing the funny, pleasant part with the short, instructive speeches addressed to the villagers when dealing with health, work problems or with ways of improving the mind or the soul. The attempt to make the villagers participate actively, through all kinds of methods, among which offering books as gifts to those who solved riddles faster, proved to be very efficient”. (Arhiva, XIV, 1936, p. 1164)
Besides the bees, the campaigns consisted of less important events: contests of beautiful folklore costumes, of households best taken care of, and reading contests. The inauguration of a cultural club or the improvement campaign of a cooperative farm were events that a photographer could not miss for the world. We should also include in this category the social medicine campaigns.
These events contributed to the increase in the number of images distributed in the School’s publications and in large circulation magazine.
2. The public image of the organization was also propagated in publications. The first magazine was Arhiva pentru Ştiinţă şi Reformă Socială, mouthpiece of the Romanian Social Institute, which also became in the 1930s the official paper of the International Society of Sociology. The Arhiva was not very well known because it was a high level magazine with few issues. It is certain that Gusti accepted the foundation of Sociologia Românească, a popularization magazine, when he became the head of the Foundation and cultural action became preponderant. Curierul Echipelor Studenţeşti (and its continuation in 1939, Curierul Serviciului Social), Căminul Cultural and Albina, the multiple publications of the Foundation were a legitimization of the cultural side of the action.
3. While the events which were staged in the villages, their distribution through photography and the School’s publication had a somewhat ephemeral character, one must say that Gusti had a vocation for producing legitimation by creating a more lasting image medium. From the very first research activities, the members of the teams gathered materials for the museum of the seminar, which was first set in the researched villages, then at the University. At the inauguration, on the 25th November 1929, of the sociologic museum in Dragus at the seminar of sociology, professor Gusti clearly stated that: “the purpose of this action is first and foremost that of drawing the attention and waking everybody’s interest for monographic works” (Arhiva, XIL, 1936, p. 1024).
But the objects displayed here traveled far – they accompanied the leader of the school to exhibitions in Barcelona, Belgrade, Paris, New York and to many congresses of sociology. This type of advertisement took proportion when Gusti became general director of the Foundation. He stated that the purpose of the Royal Students’ Teams was to create the Cultural Clubs which, beside organizing cultural activities, were charged with hosting the village museum and the material gathered by the team of monographers. And if these activities did not have much impact, building the VillageMuseum in Bucharest was the most impressive illustration of the effort to create an exhibition place for monographic sociology.
4. Finally, the chapter dedicated to the creation of image must also include the paramilitary rituals of the Social Service, introduced in 1939. Emphasizing the exterior side of the Royal Students’ Teams, the Social Service introduced the uniform, the square formation, the ceremony of setting up the flag, the singing of patriotic songs, the military-style march. All these integrated in the cultural and youth politics of Carol II’s dictatorship.
After this brief enumeration of the means of image-production, we feel we must provide an explanation for the above mentioned practices. In our opinion, any intellectual group which is trying to integrate in the network of organizations and institutions of a period must begin by developing an image-creation strategy.
A developing group intending to practice a new profession, sociology, could only legitimize itself in many years of famous scientific activity and many articles. And to this purpose, they needed an indisputable leader (in the beginning at least) and a number of gestures which would be favorably perceived by both the official representatives of the villages and the sponsors foreign to the village. Having Gusti as their leader was the best choice, for the reasons enumerated in the previous paragraphs. He had the merit of having discovered the right strategies through which he drew attention to the summer student campaigns, although he did not obtain concrete results for years. Moreover, Gusti managed to persuade the public that the research campaigns are useful not only to the students, but especially to the villagers who were grateful to the monographers, foremost of whom was the Professor.
Judging from the above mentioned activities, similar to those of the public relations agent, we wonder whether Gusti was conscious of the strategy he so perseveringly followed. We must also ask ourselves the question whether this legitimation strategy had been planned or was improvised. Obviously, it was something planned which had been improved during the process. In his famous appeal written on the occasion of the inauguration of his Association in 1918, he declared his intention of creating, beside the research center and documentation center, a propaganda center. It is not accidental that in these few pages Gusti dedicated a paragraph to this preoccupation:
“Beside the scientific activity, the Association will organize a propaganda department for the achievement of social reform – as the Association will decide – and of social education for the masses by means of conferences, courses, meetings and publications which will form «The Library for Propaganda and Social Education»”. (D. Gusti, 1934, p. 22)
This program was not only achieved, but raised to a professional level, which deserves to be not just praised, but also researched thoroughly. Without this art of legitimation, neither the School, nor its achievements would have existed.
It Is not the End but the Road that Counts
There are a lot of intellectual currents which, in a way similar to the political or religious movements, emphasize the action and therefore leave aside the purpose for which they were created. From this point of view, the scientific and cultural organizations which were led by Gusti represent a paradox. Although they were rationally planned, the research activities did not prove to be significantly efficient. And what is more interesting is the fact that Gusti did not seem to mind this.
It is obvious that the first field-work campaigns, at Goicea Mare (1925) and Ruşeţu (1926) could not represent more than a first contact with the world of the village, and could not claim to lead to publishable conclusions. (Although the first article of juridical sociology – Stahl’s – was inspired by these campaigns and written immediately afterwards.) The campaign from Nerej was already better planned methodologically, but the doubling- tripling of the number of participants added nothing more than experience in organization. The monumental volume Nerej – un village d’une region archaique was achieved with the help of a small number of experts led by H. H. Stahl in 1938. The next summer Gusti went to Câmpulung Moldovenesc with a larger group. Again, this campaign did not produce more than 2-3 articles. But, after this campaign, the Professor’s closest associates suggested that it was time for the monographic study, done on a professional level, to isolate itself from the campaigns meant to introduce the students to the social research. In fact, they were raising the problem of rendering professional the sociologist’s work and of imposing the discipline of sociology through publications. It is interesting to notice that Gusti did not always require performant results from his young assistants and he had doubts about their maturity. At Drăguş, he invited almost a hundred participants and, as he had gathered a lot of valuable material, his assistants insisted that he should put an end to the new campaigns and dedicate the next summer to a follow-up campaign. As we all know, in 1930 and 1931 two new campaigns followed: at Runcu (Gorj) and Cornova (Orhei). It was only in 1931 and 1932 that they managed to organize some follow-up campaigns at Drăguş.
One of Gusti’s most talented and devoted disciples, Mircea Vulcănescu, characterized the leader of the School most accurately in a study from 1936:
“A restless, inquisitive spirit, always on the move, urges him to invent ever new things, new programs, new institutions, new activities. Near-by him, even the most tenacious people tire quickly and the most fertile ideas die out. For him, people, like the ideas, cannot mature outside the action, but while accomplishing it. As soon as they have matured, they become autonomous, further integrating, of their own accord, in the common project. Even the institutions that Gusti founded gain autonomy as soon as they become viable. How many of his creations did not get to render other people famous for them? But that matters little. Because others and others will follow” (Arhiva, XIV, 1936, p. 1246).
It would be wrong to try to explain this attitude by giving personal reasons. It is true that Gusti was very demanding in his scientific work and this could be the reason for which he never accomplished his treatise of sociology. In fact, Gusti was more interested in attracting as many intellectuals, especially students, as possible, to the study of the village, rather than in writing scientific papers. We must not forget the fact that he lay as much emphasis on the cultural action as on knowledge. In other words, we might say that for him, cultural action was not conditioned by academic knowledge. He did not prevent anybody from becoming a professional sociologist: on the contrary, he gave help and support, but when it came to allocating funds, he preferred to spend money on a new campaign rather than bringing his work to an end by publishing papers.
When Gusti became general director of the Royal Cultural Foundation “Prince Carol”, he initiated a number of cultural work campaigns in the villages, where research was less important and he expected to obtain immediate, quantifiable results. The teams’ tasks – which Gusti had divided into four chapters – aimed at the development of the economic, hygienic, spiritual and intellectual culture of the villagers. But, just as in the 1920s, when the number of participants increased almost eight times, now (i.e. between 1934 and 1939) the number – of the teams this time – increased over ten times. If we go through the synthetic reports of these campaigns, we find that the volume of work is impressive in itself (see the tables, end of the article), but not in comparison with the number of villages (15,000). It is certain that it was not the results in themselves, but their signification made known by the media that was more important. And this was not only because the actions patriotically aimed at educating the villagers, but because they were done in order to build the cult of Carol II.
Those who reproached and still reproach Gusti with this predilection for vast actions which were dropped in order to invent new ones forget that the Professor, like any intellectual during a period of transition, was anxious. This is how Mircea Vulcănescu portrayed him in the same study:
“For him, time is unforgiving. Creation is for time, not for eternity. Whatever you ca do, do it once! But this creative restlessness was not limited to writing books and attracting new people to his teams. He was yearning for order and reality. What he had imagined had to be carried out at once.” (Arhiva, XIV, 1936, 1246)
Those who sneer at his idealist utopism forget that the vocation for sociology, for “digging” the reality was born and institutionalized in the organisms created by Gusti. Even if not in the way he wanted.
Movement or Counter-movement
Social movements are born whenever a society goes into a period of crisis and power and party structures lose their credibility. They absorb the population dissatisfied with both the power and with the opposition. Cultural movements are not identical with social ones, but the refusal of dominant cultural forms characteristic of the former are similar with the latter.
During the 30s, Gusti and his assistants began to present the widening of scope of the royal teams’ actions and the Foundation’s activity as a cultural movement meant to elevate the Romanian village. This kind of statement had been heard during the 20s, and was supported by the increase in the number of participants to the monographic research. But the more the number of teams increased and Romania advanced towards a totalitarian system, the more the paramilitary character of the foundation increased. At the same time with the installation of Charles II’s dictatorship and following the promulgation of the Social Service Law – which required fresh bachelors to take part in the teams – all the costumes, choreography and the teams’ gestures began to resemble those of the Iron Guard. Similarly, the vocabulary became more nationalist, without reaching, however, the performances of the Iron Guard. The Social Service emphasized more and more the instruction of the students for the work with the villagers, rather than elevating the village. (From this point of view, the difference between Curierul Echipelor Studenţeşti and Curierul Serviciului Social is significant.)
The mission of the Foundation’s cultural activity, which Gusti has envisaged, was compromised twice: a) the members of the team could only rarely involve the villagers in their activities, b) the paramilitary organization with all its propagandistic paraphernalia compromised the initial meaning of the cultural work.
The motives of this manipulation can be understood if we take into account the political environment in which the dictatorship worked. In order to counterpoint the effects of the Guard on the youth, Gusti and his assistants – who, for various reasons were Carol’s followers – consciously adopted elements characteristic to the Iron Guard, starting with the exterior aspects to the rhetorical-nationalist ones; this was done in order to create diversions. Besides the fact that in public life or in the press they did not attack the Iron Guard or any other political party, the Foundation did not forbid the Guardists to join the teams, provided that they did not make political propaganda.
By introducing the Social Service Law, Gusti and his associates (and in fact Carol) won a tacit battle against the Iron Guard. He managed to offer a ritual, a new choreography to his teams, and not to those of the enemy. But this success was only apparent. It appears that the members of the Iron Guard who joined the teams contaminated the other team members. This determined Carol II to abrogate, to his regret, the Social Service Law:
“Wednesday, October 11, 1939. (…) It is to my deepest regret that I forwarded to Argetoianu the request to abrogate the Social Service Law. The law might have been faulty, but the work in itself was so generous and I truly believed in it. Despite this abrogation, the work shall continue, on a smaller scale, as the P/rincipele/ Carol Foundation». These moments were very sad and painful.” “Friday, 13 October. It is a sad day for me. They have suspended the Social Service. What I had dreamed, the idea I had anticipated from the time I was in exile was killed by some dissatisfactions which I continue to consider fictitious and which were caused by Gusti’s exaggerated desire to do good. I tried to calm him as much as I could, but he still slipped through my fingers…” (Carol II. 1997, pp. 224-246).
The facts discussed in the previous paragraph prove that the “movement” initiated by Dimitrie Gusti for Carol II was compromised from within by the Members of the Iron Guard. Gusti did not admit this defeat, and he republished the Social Service Law after the war. The Law and Gusti’s “movement” could not survive because they were not authentic. They were a product of the age, of the construction of the national state and succumbed because they tried, at the same time, to neutralize the currents opposing them. This is a lesson of history: you can fight the enemy by wearing a uniform required by military discipline, but not by a cultural movement.
When did the End Begin?
While the beginning of the School is set – quite arbitrary, in our opinion – in the year 1925 (i.e. on the occasion of the campaign at Goicea Mare), the end is even more debatable. The confusion is due to the fact that the School is often mistaken for other organizations, confusion which was encouraged, or at least not clarified, by Gusti’s followers.
If we identify the School with the Romanian Social Institute, then it began earlier than the monographic research work, and it ended in 1948, then sociology was eliminated from the national curriculum. Although most of the members of this organization were sociologists, it was in fact an umbrella-organization.
The identification with the Foundation cannot be accepted either, because according to its statute, this organization had a different purpose. Nevertheless, the confusion can be caused by its activity of supporting and publishing the monographic papers. Let’s not forget that the monographic research was tightly connected to the politics of social intervention encouraged by the Foundation. It is easy to understand why the suspension of the Social Service Law was received as a deadly blow. But the facts do not entirely support this statement. After the autumn of 1939 both Sociologia Românească and Arhiva continued to publish sociology works and the serios of (fragments of) monographs continued to appear. It is true that no more research campaigns were organized under Gusti’s care this date, but the sociologists re-grouped in the Central Institute of Statistics led by Anton Golopenţia made some summary researches beyond Bug.
Not even after 1944 can we talk about the school’s end. In 1945 Golopenţia led a research in Hodac, and in 1946 Stahl repeated, on a smaller scale, the research of the village Runcu. The Romanian Social Institute no longer edited any magazines, but continued to hold periodical meetings. So 1939 did not prove to be a fatal blow for the sociological school, but only for its concrete, political side. The real blow was the new Education Law passed in the summer of 1948, when sociology was excluded from the university curriculum, and the professors of sociology were made redundant. After this date we can no longer speak about sociology except in negative terms for about a decade. How did the sociologists manage to survive professionally (and not only) is a different question, which shall not be dealt with in this paper.
But beyond organizational, administrative conflicts, in the lifetime o a school many non-violent changes can occur. One can state that a scientific school functions as such as long as its founders, its central, paradigmatic pillars are not contested by the followers. For instance, the fact that Mircea Vulcănescu or Traian Herseni chose not to follow Gusti at the Foundation could not be seen as a breech inside Gusti’s School. But Anton Golopenţia’s initiatives – who followed Gusti at the Foundation – regarding the research of the 60 villages, or the attempt to problematise social matters instead of just recording social phenomena in Dâmbovnic challenged Gusti’s conception of the social monograph, not to mention his project on the science of the nation. Not even H. H. Stahl’s social archeology could fit into Gusti’s system. One can prove that the congress of sociology that took place in Bucharest in the autumn of 1939 (had it not been canceled because of the war) would have made Gusti’s school famous all over the world, but wouldn’t have imposed it as major direction even in the Romanian sociology. After 1939 it was not the Gustian system that still attracted followers around the founder, but his personality and the political conditions which were more and more hostile.
Translated by Alexandra Vasilescu
The Sociological School in Tables
I. Monographic campaigns
The Romanian Social Institute
- Goicea Mare, Dolj District, 20-24 April 1925, 11 participants
- Ruşeţ, Brăila District, 12-26 July 1926, 17 participants
- Nerej, Putna District, 15-16 August 1927, 41 participants
- Fundul-Moldovei, Câmpulung District, 10 July – 10 August 1928, 60 participants
- Drăguş, Făgăraş District, 13 July – 16 August 1929, 89 participants
- Runcu, Gorj District, 29 July – 1 August 1930, 67 participants
- Cornova, Orhei District, 25 July – 13 August 1931, 55 participants
- Drăguş, follow-up campaign, during the summer of 1932
- Făgăraş, drawing-up campaign during the summer of 1933
- Şanţ, Năsăud District, summer of 1935, 46 participants, second part – 1936, 50 participants
- Nerej, Putna District, 15 July – 15 August 1938, collective return
- Ţara Oltului, Făgăraş District, 1939
- Plasa Dâmbovnic, Argeş District, 15 July – 6 September and 15 September – 13 October 1939, 23 participants
Banat-Crişana Social Institute
- Belinţ, Timiş-Torontal District, 1934
- Sârbova, Timiş-Torontal District, 1935
- Pojejena-de-Jos, Caraş District, 1934
- Obaha-Bistra, Severin, 1938
- Valea Almajului, Caraş
The Social Research Institute, Cluj Department
- Măgura, Cluj, summer of 1934, 18 participants
- Baia de Arieş and Iara, Turda, 15 July – 6 September 1939, 58 participants
The Romanian Social Institute of Basarabia
- Niscani-Iurceni, summer of 1937, 15 participants
- Copanca, summer of 1938, 17 participants
II. Regional Monographs
- Old county (65 villages from the district of Făgăraş, 4 from Sibiu, 2 from Târnava Mare), 1939
- Apuseni Mountains (18 villages from the region Baia de Arieş and Iara), Turda District, 1939
- Almaj Valley (16 villages from the Rural District Bozovici), Caraş, 1939
- Dâmbovnic Rural District (35 villages), Argeş District, 1939
III. Concise Monographs (during 1938 or 1939)
- Gura Teghii, Buzău District
- Bogaţi, Dâmboviţa
- Lunca, Dâmboviţa
- Perieţi, Ialomiţa
- Poiana, Ialomiţa
- Poiana-Câmpina, Prahova
- Cârligele, Râmnicul Sărat
- Cara-Ezechiol, Durustor
- Cusuiul din Vale, Dorostor
- Atmagea, Tulcea
- Bârseşti, Putna
- Stoiseşti, Totova
- Bucşoaia, Câmpulung
- Fundul Moldovei, Câmpulung
- Slobozia-Pruncului, Suceava
- Clopotiva, Hunedoara District
- Merişor, Hunedoara
- Mocod, Năsăud
- Căianul-Mic, Someş
- Vidra, Turda
- Târnoava, Caraş
- Jdioara, Severin
- Mărul, Severin
- Şepreuş, Arad
IV. The Overall Results of the Five Social Action Campaigns of the Monographic Teams
b) Physical Training
Gatherings with the boy scouts 3,677
Gatherings with the recruits 1,877
Cooperative farms founded 66
b) Live-stock farms:
Vaccinations and injections 272,905
Model ploughland 6,565.97 ha
Manure platforms 1,922
Excavations with soaked fodder 797
Selected seeds 345
Seed beds 345waggons and 7,489 kg
Supervised trees 306,061
Supervised colonies of bees 8,368
Ameliorations 445.98 ha
Afforestation and regeneration of arboretum 138.82 ha
Commons looked after 16,316.38 ha
e) Household management
Demonstrations and lessons 51,057
f) Municipal management
Ditches 504,738 m
New roads 233,603 m
Bridges and footbridges 5,520
Sewerage systems 11,643
Diked in and built fountains 1,954
Buildings (student hostels, baths, stables etc) 421
Books obtained 20,813
Museum objects 3,231
Distributed books 35,637
Bees and other festivities 3,004
Roadside crucifixes (conserved or built) 650
Icons distributed 6,110
Prayer books distributed 20,989
Family counselling groups 68
Choral concerts 5,828
V. General Statistics of the Teams
Total Number of Members in Five Years: 2563
1. The Students
Human Medicine 198
Veterinary Medicine 170
Faculty of Law 112
Letters and Philosophy 216
Psysical Training 115
Trainers for housewives 200
Weawing mill women 11
Social assistance 19
Other specialities 70
Overall number of students: 1625
2. The Technicians
Physicians (on probation or of circumscription) 224
Veterinary surgeons 136
Agronomy engineers 178
Sylvic engineers 37
PP commanders 68
Guard commanders 79
Overall number of technicians: 938
VI. Outstanding Papers of the Sociological School of Bucharest
Sociologia Militans. Introducere în sociologia politică (Sociologia Militans. Introduction to Political Sociology), by Prof. D. Gusti, 1934, XII + 614 p.
Teoria monografiei sociologice (The Theory of Sociologic Monograph), by Traian Herseni. With an introductory study: “Sociologia monografică, ştiinţă a realităţii sociale” (“Monographic Sociology, a Science of Social Reality”) by Prof. D. Gusti.
Tehnica monografiei sociologice (The Technique of Sociologic Monograph), by H. H. Stahl, 1934, 184 p.
Realitatea socială. Încercare de ontologie regională (Social Reality, an essay in regional ontology), by Traian Herseni, 1935, 174 p.
Sociologia românească. Încercare istorică (Romanian Sociology, an essay on history), by Traian Herseni, 1940, 168 p.
Probleme de sociologie pastorală (Problems of Pastoral Sociology), by Traian Herseni, 1941, 224 p.
Cercetarea mongrafică a familiei. Contribuţie metodologică (Monographic Research of the Family. A Methodological Contribution), by Xenia Costa-Foru-Andreescu, 1945, VII + 323 p.
Nerej, un village d’une région archaique. Monographie sociologique, dirigée par H. H. Stahl, avec un préface par D. Gusti (Nerej, a village from an archaic region. Sociologic monograph, directed by H. H. Stahl, with a preface by D. Gusti), 1939, XXIII + 406 + 322 + 402 pages.
Vol. I – Les cadres cosmologique, biologique et psychique.
Vol. II – Les manifestations spirituelles.
Vol. III – Les manifestations économiques, juridiques et administratives. Unités, procès et tendances sociales.
Drăguş, un sat din Ţara Oltului – Făgăraş. Monografie sociologică (Drăguş, a village from Olt County – Făgăraş. Sociologic monograph). Fragments published :
Tipul antropologic (The Anthropologic Type), by Prof. Fr. Rainer, 1945, 33 p.
Demografia şi igiena satului (The Demography and Hygiene of the Village), by Dr. D. C. Georgescu, 1945, 125 p.
Împodobirea porţilor, Interioarele caselor, Opinii despre frumos (The Adornment of the Entrance Gate, The Interior of the House, Opinions Regarding Beauty), by Al. Dima, 1945, 43 p.
Reprezentarea Cerului (The Representation of the Sky), by IonI. Ionică, 1944, 83 p.
Credinţe şi mituri magice (Religious Beliefs and Magic Rituals), by Ştefania Cristescu Golopenţia, 1944, 116 p.
Structura economică a satului (The Economic Structure of the Village), by Al. Bărbat, 1944, 188 p.
Unităţi sociale (Social Units), by Traian Herseni, 1944, 158 p.
Clopotiva, un sat din Haţeg. Monografie sociologică (Clopotiva, a Village from Haţeg. Sociologic Monograph) issued under Ion Conea’s supervision, 1940, XX + VII + 574 p.
Vol. I: The Staff
Vol. II: The Manifestations
60 sate româneşti (60 Romanian Villages), a research carried out by the Students’ Teams during the summer of 1938. Sociologic investigation supervised by Anton Golopenţia and Dr. D. C. Georgescu. With a study on the present state of the Romanian village by Prof. D. Gusti, 1941-1942.
Portul şi industria casnică textilă în Munţii Apuseni (The National Costume and the Home-made Textile Industry in the Apuseni Mountains), by Lucia Apolzan, 1944, 255 p.
Cercetări asupra magiei la românii din Munţii Apuseni (Researches on the Magic Practices of the Romanians in the Apuseni Mountains), by Gh. Pavelescu, 1945, 197 p.
Sociologia rurală (Rural Sociology), by Traian Herseni, 1941, 32 p.
D. Gusti şi Şcoala Sociologică de la Bucureşti (D. Gusti and the Sociological School of Bucharest), XXV years in university education (1910-1935), 1937, 332 p.
Sociologia statului devălmaş românesc (The Sociology of the Romanian Sharer Village), by H. H. Stahl.
Vol. I: Economic and judicial organization of the estate.
VII. Publications of the Romanian Social Institute
Arhiva pentru Ştiinţă şi Reformă socială (The Archives for Social Science and Reform) (1919-1944). Editors:
Years I-XIII: Emanoil Bucuţa
Years XIV-XV: Traian Herseni
Year XVI: Anton Golopenţia
Sociologie românească (Romanian Sociology) (1936-1944). Editors:
Year I : Octavian Neamţu and Traian Herseni
Years II-IV: Anton Golopenţia
Year V: Gheorge Focşa
Affaires Danubiennes, Revue de l’Europe Centrale et du Sud-Est (1938-1942), years I-V.
Revista Institutului Social Banat-Crişana (Magazine of the Banat-Crişana Social Institute) (1933-1945), years I-XII.
Buletinul Institutului Social Român din Basarabia (The Bulletin of the Romanian Social Institute of Basarabia).
Vol. I, 1937
Vol. II, 1938
Buletinul Secţiei de Studii Cooperative (The Bulletin of the Cooperative Studies Department) (1927-1930), years I-III.
Buletinul Secţiei Economice (The Bulletin of the Economic Department), no. 1 and 2, 1932, no. 1-3, 1933-1934.
Buletinul Secţiei Bibliologice (The Bulletin of the Bibliologic Department), no. 1, 1932.
VIII. The Foundation’s Publications
Căminul Cultural (The Cultural Centre), 1934-1948.
Curierul echipelor studenţeşti (The Courier of the Students’ Teams) – in 1939 it became Curierul Serviciului Social (The Courier of the Social Service), 1934-1939.
APOLZAN Lucia, 1945, Sate, oraşe şi regiuni cercetate de Institutul Social Român (1925-1945), Bucureşti, Editura Institutului Social Român, Institutul de Cercetări Sociale al României.
1936, “Omagiu profesorului D. Gusti”, în Arhiva pentru Ştiinţă şi Reformă Socială, an XIV, Bucureşti, Editura Institutului Social Român.
BĂDINA Ovidiu, NEAMŢU Octavian, 1967, Dimitrie Gusti seria “Oameni de seamă”, Bucureşti, Editura Tineretului.
BIRÓ A. Zoltán, 1996, Valami történik (Something is Happening), Editura Interdialog.
CAROL al II-lea, Regele României, 1997, Însemnări zilnice, vol II, Bucureşi, Editura Scripta.
DUBY Georges, 1974, “Histoire sociale et idéologies des sociétés” in Faire de l’histoire (J. Le Goff et Pierre Nora, eds.), vol. I, Paris, Gallimard.
1942, “Ştiinţa şi Pedagogia Naţiunii” în Sociologie românească, an IV, nr. 7-12.
1980, Studii Critice, Bucureşti, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Pedagogică.
INSTITUTUL DE ŞTIINŢE SOCIALE AL ROMÂNIEI, 1944, 25 de ani de publicaţii 1919-1944, Bucureşti, Editura Institutului de Ştiinţe Sociale al României.
LARIONESCU Maria ed., 1996, Şcoala Sociologică de la Bucureşti, Bucureşti, Editura Metropol.
RAPPORTS I (1980), Comité International des Sciences Historiques, XV-e Congres International des Sciences Historiques, Bucarest, 10-17 août 1980, Bucureşti, Editura Academiei RSR.
ROSTÁS Zoltán, 1985, “Documente sociale în istoria orală” în Semnificaţia Documentelor Sociale, coord. Septimiu Chelcea, Bucureşti, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Pedagogică.
STAHL H.H., 1980, Amintiri şi gânduri, Bucureşti, Editura Minerva.
THOMPSON P., The Voice of the Past, Oxford, London, New York, OxfordUniversity Press.
VLĂSCEANU Mihaela, 1993, Psihologia organizaţiilor şi conducerii, Bucureşti, Editura Paideia.
Alte studii semnate de acelasi autor in revista Martor:
- An Experiment of Oral History (1985-1987): Interviews with Members of the Sociological School (I)
- An Experiment of Oral History (1985-1987): Interviews with Members of the Sociological School (II)