Great Yet Forgotten?

Though no longer included in an ever-shorter list of canonical thinkers whom apprentice social theorists must be persuaded to read, Raymond Aron has not slipped entirely from view, as have other superior societal analysts, such as Franklin Giddings, Harold Lasswell, Robert MacIver, Gaetano Mosca, Max Scheler, Alfred Schutz, Albion Small, Pitirim Sorokin, Herbert Spencer, W. I. Thomas or Florian Znaniecki—each of whom, like Aron, applauded in his time as a theorist of enduring importance. In fact, Aron's expositors, though less numerous now than during the 1960s and 1970s, continue to keep his flame lit, pursuing his far-flung scholarly and political interests along lines that he would have found faithful to his “domain assumptions” (Gouldner 1970, 31). In addition to a clutch of anglophone monographs and collections (Adair-Toteff 2019; Anderson 1997; Colen and Dutartre-Michaut 2015; Davis 2009; Frost and Mahoney 2011; Mahoney 1991; Schmitt 2018; Stewart 2019), several dozen articles are also regularly brought to the attention of interested readers that take on this or that Aronian topic with skill and the requisite depth (e.g., Baehr 2013; Campbell 1989; Davis 2008; Frost 1996, 1997; Haine 2019; Hall 2011; Hoffmann 1985; Horowitz 2006; Kerkvliet 1968; McConnell 1984; Richter 1984; Scott 2011; Shils 1985; Strong 1972; Yalem 1971).

A subgenre has for some time been probing an obvious question: “If Aron was truly as brilliant and creative as his admirers claim, why has his name and his 40 books been eased out of scholarly or journalistic discourse these 37 years after his death?” A question easier posed than answered, for he does have his champions. That singular arbiter of scholarly reputation, Edward Shils, begins his unique memorial to Aron without inhibition: