Prof. em. Dr. Gerhard Schmied

Sociology was taught at the University of Mainz even before the Institute of Sociology was founded. Leopold von Wiese from Cologne held the first teaching contract for Sociology at the University of Mainz. He was appointed an honorary doctor here in 1951. The names of Hans Paul Bahrdt and Wilhelm E. Mühlmann are also connected to Mainz. In the “Dictionary of Sociology” by Karl-Heinz Hillmann (1994), in the case of Bahrdt it says “1958 Priv.doz. Mainz” (p.69), and for Mühlmann it states: “1950 apl. prof. for sociology and international psychology, Mainz, 1952 o. prof. Mainz, 1952 o. Prof. for Cultural Anthropology and Sociol. ibid.” (S.581). Whether Bahrdt held sociological courses could be examined on the basis of course catalogs. In 1973, the chairs of Sociology at the Faculty of Philosophy and the School of Law and Economics were merged into one institute at the newly founded Faculty 12.

In 1966, Helmut Schoeck took over the chair of Sociology at the university’s School of Philosophy. Almost at the same time, Friedrich Jonas, another substitute for the subject, was appointed to the School of Law and Economics. Helmut Schoeck was my doctoral supervisor and later supervisor. He was born in Graz in 1922. His Austrian origins remained recognizable in his language throughout his life, although he had come to Württemberg as a child and passed his exams in Ludwigsburg. Even as a schoolboy, his antipathy towards totalitarianism – both right-wing and later left-wing – was pronounced. He was the only one in his school who was not a member of the Hitler Youth, and he belonged to a circle that listened to the BBC during the war, which was forbidden. The latter was also the reason why he was assigned liaison functions between the military administration and German radio and the state government after the end of the war. Helmut Schoeck studied medicine, Philosophy and psychology in Munich and Tübingen, interrupted by periods of military service, and obtained a doctorate (from.) in 1948 under Eduard Spranger with a thesis on Karl Mannheim’s sociology of knowledge. Although he would have had good career opportunities in Germany due to both his achievements and his contacts, he took up a new challenge and moved to the USA. Stations included Yale University, Fairmont State College, Virginia, and finally Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, where he held a professorship in Sociology from 1954 to 1965. He then took up a professorship in Sociology at Johannes Gutenberg University.

His work “Der Neid” was published in 1966 and made him internationally famous. This work was translated into several languages, most recently even into Chinese. The book was not only perceived as an important technical contribution, but was also used for political argumentation. The term “social envy”, which tends to be used by conservatives, is evidence of this. Schoeck consciously contributed to the political debate. In a series of books, articles and columns (including in the “Industriekurier” and the “Welt am Sonntag”), he presented his theses to a wide audience. Two of the many book titles should be mentioned here as examples: “Ist Leistung unanständig?” from 1971, which was published seven times in quick succession and re-edited in 1988, and “Schülermanipulation” from 1976. With the performance principle and the school reforms practiced at the time, Schoeck discussed two central topoi of the political debate at the time, which earned him angry protests, but also the respect of co-workers who agreed with him, but did not expose themselves in the same way as he did. In his personal dealings, Schoeck was a rather reserved person, consistently friendly and inspiring in discussion. Schoeck’s employees were successively Peter Kaupp, Annelies Ritter and Gerhard Schmied, who received his post-doctoral professorial qualification with a thesis on social time in 1974 and retired in 2005.

There was not much contact with Friedrich Jonas’ department, although Jonas and Schoeck were both conservatives. In a course I attended, Jonas emphasized that he substituted the line of Arnold Gehlen, who was known for this orientation. Another parallel between the two was their interest in the history of Sociology. Jonas wrote a four-volume “Geschichte der Soziologie” from 1968 onwards, and Schoeck had already published his comprehensive “Soziologie” in 1952 (a later edition was entitled “Soziologie und die Gesellschaft”, the 1974 paperback edition was called “Geschichte der Soziologie”). This work was a pioneering achievement in the history of Sociology in the period after the Second World War. Among other things, texts by Talcott Parsons were presented to German-speaking readers for the first time. Jonas’ employment with industry was philosophically oriented, if his doctoral dissertation is anything to go by, although he also had practical experience at Gutehoffnungshütte. He died in a traffic accident in 1968.

The sociological understanding of his successor Friedrich Landwehrmann, who came to Mainz from Bochum in 1971 after Helmut Klages and Gerhard Schmidtchen had declined the offer of appointment, was clearly empirically based. Landwehrmann, who has lived in Spain since his retirement, headed the “Industrie und Betrieb” department. There was also something to be found in his mannerisms that suited this discipline. He acted resolutely and argued offensively. As far as I was involved, I found the atmosphere in meetings between department heads, which I was allowed to attend, constructive, especially as Schoeck was not interested in confrontation. Differing opinions, which were not constantly discussed, concerned the type of degrees and the size of the institute. Schoeck always argued that only the Magister and Dr. phil. degrees could be pursued; he rejected the Diplom sociology degree. He could not imagine the diverse fields in which sociologists work today. He believed that sociologists were only there to train other sociologists, who in turn trained other sociologists … All that was needed was a small institute like the one he had: with one professor, one employee and office staff. Even the position of a second academic staff member, that was Harald Lofink, who retired in 2011, was assigned to him rather than him seeking it. Landwehrmann was different: he not only took over Manfred Hennen, Jonas’ employee, but also brought a whole host of other staff with him: Klaus Marel, Wolfgang-Ulrich Prigge and Rolf Sudek. Manfred Hennen and Wolfgang-Ulrich Prigge received their post-doctoral professorial qualifications under Landwehrmann. Hennen later headed the newly founded “Center for Quality Assurance and Development” (ZQ) and Prigge was head of the “Sociology of Work” department in Mainz.

Landwehrmann, also with the help of his employees, supervised extensive empirical projects, including supervision of the introduction of private television, whose German beginnings can be traced back to Ludwigshafen. The habilitation of Michael Jäckel, who has been teaching Sociology in Trier for many years, is also part of this project.

With the expansion of the University of Mainz in the 1960s, new demands were placed on the Institute of Sociology. A new degree, which was very popular, was the Diplom-Pädagoge. A professorship for family sociology was called for proposals for the sociological part of the training, which was filled by Georg Schwägler. He had received his doctorate in 1970 with a thesis entitled “Die Soziologie der Familie. Ursprung und Entwicklung” with a doctoral degree. He published little after his appointment, but was also burdened by many examinations. It was known that he was working on a major study on widowhood – he himself had been a widower for years. I heard him speak about this project in the Interdisciplinary Work Group for Thanatology, of which we were both members, but it remained a project. Manfred Herzer, who works at the Center for Quality Assurance and Development (ZQ), received his post-doctoral professorial qualification from him.

For a short time, Wilfried Schlau was also a member of the teaching staff. The professor at the recently closed higher education institution in Worms was unceremoniously assigned to the institute in Mainz, and when the Mainz faculty resisted, he was quickly dismissed. Schlau worked in Mainz from 1979. He was to be responsible for the social studies teachers. Schlau’s involvement proved to be an advantage for the institute in two respects. When logging the examinations he took, I realized that Schlau was a very competent subject representative and, as his position was refilled after his retirement, the Institute had gained an additional professor. Birgitta Nedelmann, the first female university lecturer at the Institute of Sociology, was appointed to this position. With her, sociological theory was once again the main focus. After her retirement, André Kieserling followed her for a relatively short time. After his departure to Bielefeld, the position was rededicated and filled by Herbert Kalthoff, whose focus is “Wissens- und Bildungssoziologie sowie Methoden der qualitativen empirischen Sozialforschung”.

After the death of Helmut Schoeck, it was not possible to find a suitable successor with a focus on “Theorien” and “Geschichte der Soziologie”. In a lengthy procedure, the position was rededicated and Stefan Hradil was appointed as a specialist in the field of “Sozialstruktur und soziale Ungleichheit”. Hradil produced numerous publications in these and related fields. One example is his book “Soziale Ungleichheit in Deutschland” (Social Inequality in Germany), which was published several times. Hradil was also active in many bodies, including his work on the board of the German Sociological Association (DGS) and the Schader Foundation. He founded the “Soziale Ungleichheit und Sozialstrukturanalyse” section of the DGS. Hradil helped to establish the diploma program, which proved to be a success story during his tenure – he retired in 2011 – with the number of graduates in the subject of Sociology rising sharply. One of the academic staff members with a habilitation under his aegis is Udo Thiedeke.

The three departments, which can be labeled with the names of Schoeck, Landwehrmann and Schwägler, can be traced back to the founding of the institute and form the first layer, the basis for researching an archaeology of Mainz Sociology. As can be seen most clearly in the example of the department headed by Schoeck and then by Hradil, there were serious changes in the areas addressed, which also reflect the changes in the subject in general.

Finally, when looking at the new developments, two trends can be observed: First, continuations of the Mainz “tradition” can be noted, with the special focuses of the post holders or newer trends in the subject becoming apparent in the changed denominations. This is most evident in Schwägler’s position, which was dedicated to family sociology. Schwägler’s successor, Norbert F. Schneider, called the position he held “Soziologie der Familie und der privaten Lebensführung”. During his tenure, Heike Matthias-Bleck received her habilitation. Schneider left the Institute and now works at the Federal Institute for Population Research in Wiesbaden. His successor, Marina Hennig, is setting a new focus with “Netzwerkforschung und Familiensoziologie”. Landwehrmann was succeeded by Peter Preisendörfer, who named his department “Organisation von Arbeit und Betrieb”.

Secondly, new positions were created in line with the development of the subject or the needs of the job market. Another new position was the “Frauenprofessur”, initially held by Bettina Heintz, who was also in charge of theory training. When Heintz moved to Bielefeld, she was succeeded by Stefan Hirschauer, who focuses on “Gender Studies” and also teaches “Theorie der Soziologie”. The professorship for “Soziologie der Hochschule”, a position held by Johannes Angermüller, and the subject of “Mediensoziologie”, which is substituted by Elke Wagner, are new institutions.

The author of this overview was associated with Mainz Sociology as a student and teaching staff member from 1966 – 2005, and his text aims to show how the present of this subject in Mainz rests on a past that is worth reflecting on from time to time.