¹ The studies of modernization are analyzed in Eisenstadt, S. N., Modernization: Protest and Change (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1966)Google Scholar; idem, Tradition, Change and Modernity (New York, 1973).Google Scholar The most representative illustrations of the initial paradigms of studies of modernization can be found in Lerner, D., The Passing of Traditional Society (Glencoe, Ill., 1958)Google Scholar; idem, “Modernization: Social Aspects,” in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York, 1968); 10, 386–395Google Scholar; and the various volumes published under the auspices of the Committee on Comparative Politics of the Social Sciences Research Council. The work of the Committee has been critically appraised in its seventh volume, Binder, L., Crises and Sequences in Political Development (Princeton, 1971).Google Scholar For some of the latest illustrations and extensions of the initial model of modernization, see Levy, M., Modernization and the Structure of Societies: A Setting for International Affairs (Princeton, N.J., 1965)Google Scholar; Inkeles, A., “The Modernization of Man,” in Weiner, N., ed., Modernization (New York, 1966), pp. 138–150Google Scholar; idem, “Making Men Modern,” American Journal of Sociology, 75 (1969), 208–225Google Scholar; Inkeles, A. and Smith, D. H., Becoming Moderning: Individual Change in Six Developing Countries (Cambridge, Mass., 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar The best illustrations of studies of the convergence of industrial societies are Kerr, C., Industrialism and Industrial Man (Cambridge, Mass., 1960)Google Scholar; Rostow, W. W., The Stages of Economic Growth (Cambridge, 1961).Google Scholar For a critical evaluation of this approach see Goldthorpe, J., “Theories of Industrial Society: Reflections on the Recrudescence of Historicism and the Future of Futurology,” Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 12, 2 (1971). 263–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar An earlier, in many ways more sophisticated, version of this approach can be found in Aron, R., 18 Lectures on Industrial Society (London, 1961).Google Scholar

² These studies are analyzed in greater detail in Eisenstadt, Tradition, Change and Modernity, esp. chaps. 1, 2.

³ The concept of “social mobilization” has been coined by Deutsch, K., “Social Mobilization and Political Development”, American Political Science Review, 55 (09 1961), 463–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ These assumptions are documented and analyzed in greater detail in Eisenstadt, Tradition, Change and Modernity, esp. chaps. 1, 2.

⁵ On these concepts see: Eisenstadt, S. N., “Breakdowns of Modernization,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, 12, 4 (07 1964), 345–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in chapter 3 of Tradition, Change and Modernity; Huntington, S. P., “Political Development and Political Decay,” World Politics, 17 (04 1965), 386–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ For the convergence thesis see in greater detail Kerr, , Industrialism and Industrial ManGoogle Scholar; Inkeles, A., “Social Stratification in the Modernization of Russia,” in Black, C. E., ed., The Transformation of Russian Society (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), pp. 341–350.Google Scholar For the criticism of the convergence thesis see Goldthorpe, , “Theories of Industrial Society.” For further theoretical developments concerning the convergence thesis and its criticismGoogle Scholar see Baum, R. C., “Beyond Convergence: Toward Theoretical Relevance in Quantitative Modernization Research,” Sociological Inquiry, 44, 4 (1974), 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ These criticisms are analyzed in greater detail in Eisenstadt, Tradition, Change and Modernity, esp. chap. 5, where an extensive bibliography is given. Some of the more interesting illustrations of such criticism have been brought together in Desi, A. R., ed., Essays on Modernization of Underdeveloped Society (Bombay, 1971), 2 vols.Google Scholar

⁸ See Riggs, F., Administration in Developing Countries: The Theory of Prismatic Society (Boston, 1964)Google Scholar; idem, “Administrative Development: An Elusive Concept,” in Montgomery, J. D. and Siffin, W. J., eds., Approaches to Development Politics, Administration and Change (New York, 1966)Google Scholar; idem, Thailand: The Modernization of Traditional Polity (Honolulu, 1966).Google Scholar

⁹ For the concept of “patrimonialism” see Eisenstadt, S. N., “Traditional Patrimonialism and Modern Neo-Patrimonialism,” in Sage Research Papers in the Social Sciences, Studies in Comparative Modernization Series No. 90–003 (Beverly Hills, 1973)Google Scholar; Roth, G., “Personal Rulership, Patrimonialism, and Empire-building in the New States,” in World Politics, 20, 2 (01 1968), 194–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zolberg, A., Creating Political Order: The Party States of West Africa (Chicago, 1966).Google Scholar

¹⁰ The literature on dependency is by now enormous. For some most representative approaches see Cockraft, J. D., Frank, A. G., and Johnson, D. L., eds., Dependence and Underdevelopment: Latin America's Political Economy (New York, 1972)Google Scholar; Frank, A. G., Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America (New York, 1967)Google Scholar; Casanova, G., “Les Classiques Latino-Americains et la Sociologie du Dévoloppement,” Current Sociology, 18, 2 (1970), 5–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bodenheimer, S. J., “The Ideology of Developmentalism: American Political Science Paradigm—Surrogate for Latin American Studies,” Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 35 (1968), 130–159Google Scholar; Cardoso, F. H. and Faletlo, E., Dependencia y Desarrolo en America Latina (Mexico, 1969).Google Scholar

¹¹ See Gellner, E., “The Great Patron: A Re-Interpretation of Tribal Rebellions,” Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 10, 1 (1969), 61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Waterbury, J., The Commander of the Faithful: The Moroccan Elite (London, 1970)Google Scholar; Lacoste, Y., Ibn Khaldoun: Naissance de l'histoire, Passé du Tiers Monde (Paris, 1966).Google Scholar

¹² This approach has been developed in greater detail in Eisenstadt, S. N., ed., Post-Traditional Societies (New York, 1974)Google Scholar, and in the introductory chapter there; idem, “Anthropological Analysis of Complex Societies: The Confrontation of Symbolic-Structuralist and Institutional Approaches,” in Sturtevant, W. C., ed., Anthropology of the United States (a forthcoming publication of the Anthropological Association of Washington);Google Scholar and idem, “Structuralism and Societal Analysis,” (mimeo).

¹³ I am greatly indebted to E. T. Burke, W. Quandt, A. Rassam, N. Yalman, A. Zghal, and M. Zonis, my colleagues on the Committee on Near and Middle Eastern Studies of the Social Science Research Council, for the very important insights about these problems during discussions at the meeting of the Committee.

¹⁴ The most pertinent theoretical discussions and research material on stratification have been collected in several readers: Bendix, R. and Lipset, S. M., eds., Class, Status and Power: A Reader in Social Stratification (Glencoe, Ill., 1953; rev. ed., New York, 1966)Google Scholar; Heller, C., ed., Structural Social Inequality (New York, 1969).Google Scholar For the thesis of the convergence of systems of stratification in sociological analysis see Inkeles, , “Social Stratification in the Modernization of Russia,”Google ScholarKerr, , Industrialism and Industrial Man, esp. chap. 2, pp. 272–275, 282–296.Google Scholar Assumptions on convergence are implied in Marx's major analyses of the modern capitalist system; for stratification see especially Marx, K. and Engels, F., “The Communist Manifesto,” in Mendel, A. P., ed., Essential Works of Marxism (New York, 1961), pp. 13–44Google Scholar; see also Giddens, Anthony, Capitalism and Modern Social Theory (Cambridge, 1971), esp. part I.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Among the modern neo-Marxist analyses see, for instance, Poulanzas, N., Les Classes sociales dans le capitalisme aujourd'hui (Paris, 1974)Google Scholar; Poulanzas, N., Pouvoir politiqtie et classes sociales (Paris, 1950).Google Scholar For a somewhat more critical analysis see Godelier, M., Rationality and Irrationality in Economics (New York and London, 1972)Google Scholar, and the interesting collection Meszaros, I., ed., Aspects of History and Class Consciousness (London, 1971).Google Scholar For criticisms of the convergence thesis as related to modern systems of stratification see Archer, M. Scotford and Giner, S., “Social Stratification in Europe,” in Archer, M. Scotford and Giner, S., eds., Contemporary Europe: Class, Status and Power (London, 1971), pp. 1–59Google Scholar; Goldthorpe, J. H., “Social Stratification in Industrial Society,” in Bendix, R. and Lipset, S. M., eds., Class, Status and Power (New York, 1966), pp. 648–659.Google Scholar Some critical approaches of the Marxist approaches can be found in: Birnbaum, N., “The Crisis in Marxist Sociology”, in Colfax, J. D. and Roach, J. L., eds., Radical Sociology (New York, 1971), pp. 108–131Google Scholar; Werlin, R. J., “Marxist Political Analysis,” Sociological Inquiry, 42, 3–4 (1972), 157–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bottomore, T., “Marxist Sociology,” in the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York, 1969) X, 46–82Google Scholar; Lichtheim, G., Marxism: An Historical and Critical Study (New York, 1961).Google Scholar

¹⁵ See on this, among others, Lenski, G., Power and Privilege (New York, 1966), esp. chaps. 10–12Google Scholar; Werlin, , “Marxist Political Analysis”Google Scholar; Giddens, A., The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies (London, 1973)Google Scholar; Eisenstadt, S. N., Social Differentiation and Stratification (Glenview, Ill., 1971), esp. chaps. 7–10Google Scholar; Dahrendorf, R., Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (Stanford, 1959)Google Scholar; Kerr, , Industrialism and Industrial Man.Google Scholar

¹⁶ On comparative studies of occupational prestige, see Inkeles, A. and Rossi, P. H., “National Comparisons of Occupational Prestige,” American Journal of Sociology, 4 (1956), 329–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For early studies of mobility see Glass, D. V., ed., Social Mobility in Great Britain (London, 1954)Google Scholar; Svalastage, K., Prestige, Class and Mobility (Copenhagen, 1959).Google Scholar

¹⁷ See the references in note 14.

¹⁸ Kerr, , Industrialism and Industrial Man.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Hodge, R. W., Treiman, D. J., and Rossi, P. H., “A Comparative Study of Occupational Prestige,”Google Scholar in Bendix, and Lipset, , Class, Status and Power, pp. 309–321 (quotation on p. 320).Google Scholar

²⁰ See on this in greater detail Eisenstadt, Social Differentiation and Stratification, esp. chaps. 6–10.

²¹ On the Asian mode of production see Marx, K., Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations, with an introduction by Hobsbawn, E. J. (New York, 1972)Google Scholar; Tokëi, F., Sur le Mode de Production Asiatique, Studia Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae (Budapest, 1966)Google Scholar; Gion, D., ed., Su il Modo di Produzione Asiatico (Milan, 1972)Google Scholar; and the French collection Sur le Mode de Production Asiatique, with a preface by Garaudy, R. (Paris, 1969).Google Scholar On Gramsci see Gramsci, A., The Modern Prince and Other Writings (London, 1957)Google Scholar; The Open Marxism of A. Gramsci, Marzani, C., trans. (New York, 1957)Google Scholar; Williams, G. A., “Gramsci's Concept of Epemonia,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 21, 4 (12 1960), 586–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pizzorno, A., “Apropos de la méthode de Gramsci,” l'Homme ct la Société, 8 (1968), 165 ff.Google Scholar; Portelli, H., Gramsci et lc Bloque Historiquc (Paris, 1972).Google Scholar

²² van Nieuwenhuijze, C. A. O., Social Stratification and the Middle East: An Interpretation (Leiden, 1965).Google Scholar Useful materials can be found in Lutfyaa, A. M. and Churchill, Ch. W., eds., Readings in Arab Middle Eastern Societies and Cultures (The Hague, 1970), Sections I, IVCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Laqueur, Walter Z., The Middle East in Transition: Studies in Contemporary History (New York, 1958).Google Scholar More systematic materials are gathered in van Nieuwenhuijze, C. A. O., ed., Commoners, Climbers and Notables: Social Ranking in the Middle East (Leiden, forthcoming).Google Scholar One of the few systematic analyses of these processes in the Middle East can be found in Bill, J. A., “Class Analysis and the Dialectics of Modernization in the Middle East,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 3 (1972), 417–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also idem, “The Dynamics of Traditional Society and Strategies of Change,” Journal of International Affairs, 24 (1970), 309–316Google Scholar, and Halpern, M., The Politics of Social Change in the Middle East and North Africa (Princeton, 1963).Google Scholar

²³ This point is stressed above all in van Nieuwenhuijze, , Social Stratification and the Middle EastGoogle Scholar, and in Bill, , “Class Analysis and the Dialectics of Modernization in the Middle East.”Google Scholar

²⁴ See on this Bill, , “Class Analysis and the Dialectics of Modernization”Google Scholar; van Nieuwenhuijze, , Social Stratification and the Middle East.Google Scholar

²⁵ These points have been illustrated in many general works on classical Islam as well as in case studies of Islamic societies. See, for instance, von Grunebaum, G. E., Medieval Islam: A Study in Cultural Orientation (2d ed.; Chicago, 1961)Google Scholar; idem, ed., “Studies in Islamic Cultural History,” in American Anthropologist Memoir, 76 (1954), 1–22Google Scholar; idem, Islam: Essays in the Nature and Growth of a Cultural Tradition (London, 1955)Google Scholar; idem, ed., Unity and Variety in Muslim Civilisation (Chicago, 1955).Google Scholar The variety of Islamic societies and institutions is very fully illustrated in Cambridge History of Islam, ed. Holt, P. M., 2 vols. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1970).Google Scholar For a view that stresses the importance of the bourgeoisie in some periods of Islamic history see Goitein, S. D., Studies in Islamic History and Institutions (Leiden, 1966), esp. pp. 217–241Google Scholar; Cahen, C., “L'Histoire Economique et Sociale de l'Overt Musulman Medieval,” Studia Islamica, 3 (1955), 93–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “Mouvements Populaires et Autonomisme Urbain dans l'Asie Musulmane du Moyen Age,” Arabica, 5 (1959), 225–250Google Scholar; idem, “Zur Geschichte der Städtischen Gesellshaft im Orient des Mittelaltes,” Saeculum, 9 (1958), 64 ffGoogle Scholar; Ashtor, E., “Républiques urbaines dans le Proche Orient à l'époque des croisades,” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, 18, 2 (1975), 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ See, from among the many works on the structure of European society, Gilbert, Felix, ed., The Historical Essays of Otto Hintze (New York, 1975)Google Scholar; Bloch, M., Feudal Society, 2 vols. (Chicago, 1961)Google Scholar; Brunner, O., Neuwe wege der Verfassungs u. Sozialgeschichte (Göttingen, 1968)Google Scholar; Heer, F., The Intellectual History of Europe (New York, 1968)Google Scholar; Weber, Max, General Economic History (New York, 1961)Google Scholar; Braudel, F., Capitalism and Material Life (New York, 1973).Google Scholar Some of the major characteristics of European modernity have been brought together in Eisenstadt, Tradition, Change and Modernity, chap. V. See also Eisenstadt, S. N., “The Protestant Ethic Thesis in an Analytical and Comparative Framework,” in Eisenstadt, S. N., ed., The Protestant Ethic and Modernization (New York, 1968), pp. 3–45.Google Scholar

²⁷ Maier, F. G., “Tradition und Wandel: Uber die Grunde der Widerstandskraft von Byzanz,” Historische Zeitschraft, 217 (04 1974), 265–282.Google Scholar

²⁸ See the reference on European history in n. 27 as well as, for somewhat fuller documentation, the references in nn. 29 and 30.

²⁹ Eisenstadt, S. N., Introduction to “Patterns of Multiple Centers, Feudal Systems,” in Eisenstadt, S. N., ed., Political Sociology (New York, 1971), pp. 221–225Google Scholar; idem, Eisenstadt, , Social Differentiation and Stratification, esp. pp. 108–113 and chaps. 8, 10Google Scholar; Mousnier, R., Les Hiérarchies Sociales de 1450 à nos Jours (Paris, 1969)Google Scholar; Bloch, , Feudal SocietyGoogle Scholar; Lindsay, J. O., “The Social Classes and the Foundations of the States,” in Lindsay, J. O., ed., The New Cambridge Modern History, vol. 7 (London, 1954), pp. 50–66Google Scholar; idem, “Monarchy and Administration: European Practice,” in ibid., pp. 141–160; Lousse, E., “La Formation des Ordres dans la Société Médiévale,” in L'organisation corporative du moyen-âge à la fin de l'ancien régime, in Etudes Présentées à la Commission Internationale pour l'histoire des Assemblées d'etats (Louvain, 1937), 2, 61–90Google Scholar; idem, La Société d'Ancien Régime, Organisation et Représentation Corporatives (Louvain, 1943)Google Scholar; Wittram, R., “Formen und Wandlungen des Europäischen Absolutismus,” in Glaube und Geschichte, Festshrift für F. Gogarten (Giessen, 1948), pp. 178–299.Google Scholar

³⁰ For general characteristics of imperial and patrimonial systems see S. N. Eisenstadt, Introduction to “Patrimonial Systems,” in idem, Political Sociology, pp. 138–145Google Scholar; idem, “Traditional Patrimonialism and Modern Neo-Patrimonialism,” where fuller bibliographic references can be found; idem, Introduction to “The Centralized Traditional Polity, Bureaucratic Empires,” in idem, Political Sociology, pp. 250–262.Google Scholar In greater detail see idem, The Political Systems of Empires (New York, 1963).Google Scholar For case studies of some imperial societies see (on Byzantium) Brehier, L., Les Institutions de l'empire Byzantin (Paris, 1949)Google Scholar; Diehl, C., “The Government and Administration of the Byzantine Empire,” in Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 5, No. IV (Cambridge, 1923)Google Scholar; (on Sassanid Persia) Altheim, F. and Stiehl, R., Ein Asistischer Staat (Wiesbaden, 1956), II Teil, esp. pp. 131–175Google Scholar; Christensen, A. E., L'Iran sous les Sassanides (Copenhagen, 1936)Google Scholar; (on China) Balazs, E., Chinese Civilization and Bureaucracy (New Haven, 1964)Google Scholar; Lattimore, O., Inner Asian Frontiers of China (New York, 1951)Google Scholar; Eberhard, W., A History of China (London, 1950)Google Scholar; (on different European countries) Rosenberg, H., Bureaucracy, Aristocracy: The Prussian Experience, 1660–1815 (Cambridge, Mass., 1958)Google Scholar; Hintze, O., “Der Oesterreichische und der Preussische Beamtenstaat im 17ten Jhd., 18ten Jhd.,” in Historische Zeitschrift, 86 (1901), 401–449Google Scholar; Schmoller, G., “Der Deutsche Beamtenstaat vom 16ten bis 18ten Jhd.,” in Umrisse und Untersuchungen zur Verfassungs- Verwaltungs-, und Wirtschaftsgeschichte (Leipzig, 1896), pp. 289–323Google Scholar; Pagés, G., La Monarchie d'Ancien Régime en France (Paris, 1946)Google Scholar; Zeller, G., Les Institutions de la France au XVI^c Siècle (Paris, 1948)Google Scholar; Sagnac, P., La Formation de la Société Française Moderne (Paris, 1945), 1, 50–147Google Scholar; Ford, F. L., Robe and Sword: The Regrouping of the French Aristocracy after Louis XIV (Cambridge, Mass., 1953), esp. chaps. 2 and 5Google Scholar; Beloff, M., The Age of Absolutism: 1660–1815 (N.Y., 1966).Google Scholar On tribal societies see Eisenstadt, S. N., “The Tribal Federation: Social Structure, Political Process and the Breakthrough to the Ideological Confrontation between the Ruler and Ruled and the Cosmic Order”Google Scholar in idem, Political Sociology, pp. 178–185.Google Scholar

³¹ See in greater detail Eisenstadt, Political Systems of Empires; idem, Introduction to “The Centralized Traditional Polity,” and the various references to different imperial systems in footnote 30.

³² Eisenstadt, , “Traditional Patrimonialism and Modern Neo-Patrimonialism.”Google Scholar

³³ Eisenstadt, S. N., Social Differentiation and Stratification (Glenview, Ill., 1971), chap. VGoogle Scholar; idem, “Political Orientations of Bureaucracies in Centralized Empires,” in idem, Essays on Comparative Institutions (New York, 1965), pp. 216–251Google Scholar; and the materials on different imperial Systems referred to in footnote 30.

³⁴ In greater detail see Eisenstadt, , Social Differentiation and Stratification, chap. VIGoogle Scholar; and idem, “The Political Orientations of Bureaucracies.”

³⁵ See on this in greater detail Eisenstadt, Social Differentiation and Stratification, chaps. 3 and 6; and idem, “Traditional Patrimonialism and Modern Neo-Patrimonialism.”

³⁶ Some of the best descriptions of the working of such systems can be found in Riggs, F. W., Thailand: The Modernization of a Bureaucratic Polity (Honolulu, 1966)Google Scholar; Lissak, M., “A Socio-Political Hierarchy in a Loose Social Structure: The Structure of Stratification in Thailand,”Google Scholar in Jerusalem Studies on Asia, Modernization Series 1 (Jerusalem, 1973).Google Scholar

³⁷ See on this Eisenstadt, , The Political System of EmpiresGoogle Scholar; and idem, “Political Orientations of Bureaucracies.”

³⁸ For these shifts see: von Grunebaum, , Unity and VarietyGoogle Scholar; Hodgson, , The Venture of IslamGoogle Scholar; Lewis, B., The Arabs in History (London, 1963).Google Scholar See also Gellner, E., “A Pendulum Swing Theory of Islam,” in Robertson, R., ed., Sociology of Religion (Hammondsworth, 1969), pp. 127–141.Google Scholar The fullest concise documentation of these shifts can be found in Holt, The Cambridge History of Islam, 2 vols., esp. vol. 1.Google Scholar

³⁹ This point is stressed in Bellah, R. N., “Islamic Tradition and the Problems of Modernization,”Google Scholar in idem, Beyond Relief (New York, 1970), pp. 146–168Google Scholar; von Grunebaum, , Medieval IslamGoogle Scholar; idem, Islam; Levy, R., The Social Structure of Islam (Cambridge, 1952).Google Scholar See also Gellner, , A Pendulum Swing Theory of IslamGoogle Scholar; Gibb, H. A. R. and Bowen, H., Islamic Society and the West, 2 vols. (London, 1950), esp. vol. 1.Google Scholar On the nature of some of the political orientations derivable from tribal traditions see Eisenstadt, : The Tribal Federation.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See on this Bellah, , “Islamic Tradition and the Problems of Modernization”Google Scholar; von Grunebaum, , Unity and VarietyGoogle Scholar; Gibb, and Bowen, , Islamic Society and the West.Google Scholar On the religious establishment, the ulama, albeit in later times see among others Keddie, N. R., ed., Scholars, Saints and Sufis (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1972)Google Scholar; and Baer, G., ed., The Ulama in Modern HistoryGoogle Scholar, Asian and African Studies 7 Israel Oriental Society (Jerusalem, 1971). On the tension in Islamic societies between the pure religious universalistic criteria and other more ascriptive ones see Lewis, B., Race and Color in Islam (New York, 1970)Google Scholar; Hodgson, Marshall G. S., The Venture of Islam (Chicago, 1974), esp. vols. 1 and 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ See Lewis, B., “The Significance of Heresy in Islam,” “The Revolutions in Early Islam,” and “Islamic Concepts of Revolution,” chaps. 16–18Google Scholar respectively in idem, Islam in History (London, 1973)Google Scholar; Shaban, M. A., The Abbasid Revolution (Cambridge, 1970)Google Scholar; Laouste, H., Les Schismes dans l'Islam (Paris, 1965)Google Scholar; and Turner, B. S., Weber and Islam (London, 1974), esp. p. 11.Google Scholar On the disjunction between the religious and the political dimensions in Islam and some of its consequences see Gibb, H. A. R., “Government and Islam under the Early Abbasids: The Political Collapse of Islam,” L'Elaboration de l'Islam, Colloque de Strasbourg (Paris, 1961) pp. 115–127Google Scholar; and Lapidus, Ira M., “The Separation of State and Religion in the Development of Early Islamic Society, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 6 (1975), 363–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴² On these aspects of the impact of Islam see: Bellah, , “Islamic Tradition and the Problems of Modernization”Google Scholar; von Grunebaum, , Medieval IslamGoogle Scholar,; idem, Unity and Variety; Levy, , The Social Structure of IslamGoogle Scholar; Turner, , Weber and Islam.Google Scholar Some very interesting case studies from one Islamic region, which illustrate this point, can be found in Gellner, E. and Micaud, Ch., eds., Arabs and Berbers (London, 1972), esp. part I.Google Scholar

⁴³ On the Mameluk's see Ayalon, D., L'esclavage du Mamelouk (Jerusalem, 1951).Google Scholar On the Ottomans see Itzkowitz, , Ottoman Empire and Islamic TraditionGoogle Scholar; Wittek, Paul, The Rise of the Ottoman Empire (London, 1938)Google Scholar; Miller, Barnette, The Palace School of Muhammad the Conqueror (Cambridge, Mass., 1941).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ The general characteristics of modern societies in general and of their modern system of stratification in particular are discussed in Eisenstadt, Social Differentiation and Stratification, chaps. VI-X. Good materials can be found in the various readers quoted above all in Bendix and Lipset, eds., Class, Status and Power.

⁴⁵ These general processes are discussed in Eisenstadt, , Social Stratification and Social DifferentiationGoogle Scholar; idem, Tradition, Change and Modernity, p. 111.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ For the analysis of these processes in Middle Eastern societies, see among others: Van Nieuwenhuijze, , Social Stratification and the Middle East: An InterpretationGoogle Scholar; Lutfyaa, and Churchill, , Readings in Arab Middle Eastern Societies and CulturesGoogle Scholar; Berger, Morroe, “The Middle Class in the Arab World,” in Laqueur, Walter Z., ed., The Middle East in Transition (New York, 1958), pp. 61–71.Google ScholarBerque, Jacques, “L'Idée de Classes dans l'Histoire Contemporaine des Arabes,” Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie, 38 (1965), 169–184.Google ScholarKeddie, Nikki R., “The Iranian Power Structure and Social Change 1800–1969: An Overview,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 2 (01 1971) 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁷ See on this: Bill, J. A., The Politics of Iran: Groups, Classes and Modernization (Columbus, Ohio, 1972)Google Scholar; Keddie, , “The Iranian Power Structure, and Social Change”Google Scholar; Perlmutter, Amos, “Egypt and the Myth of the New Middle Class: A Comparative Analysis,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 10 (10 1976), 46–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; van Nieuwenhuijze, , Stratification and the Middle EastGoogle Scholar; idem, Commoners, Climbers and Notables; Bill, James A., “Class Analysis and the Dialectics of Modernization in the Middle East,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 3, 4 (1972), 417–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ These processes have been analyzed in greater detail in Eisenstadt, , Traditional Patrimonialism and Modern Neo-Patrimonialism.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ On Turkey see Mardin, S., “Historical Determination of Stratification: Social Class and Class Consciousness in Turkey,” Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 22, 4 (1967), 111–142Google Scholar; idem, “Power, Civil Society and Culture in the Ottoman Empire,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1 (1969), 258–281Google Scholar; idem, “Center-Periphery Relations: Key to Turkish Politics,” in Eisenstadt, S. N., ed., Post-Traditional Societies (New York 1972), pp. 169–191Google Scholar; Sunar, I., State and Society in the Politics of Turkey's Development (Ankara 1974).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See, for instance: Wiarda, J. H., ed., Politics and Social Change in Latin America: The Distinct Tradition (Amherst, 1974)Google Scholar; Vanger, H. I., “Politics and Class in Twentieth Century Latin America,” Hispanic American Historical Review, 49 (1969), 80–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nakane, Ch., Japanese Society (London, 1970)Google Scholar; and the discussion in Eisenstadt, Post Traditional Societies.