David Riesman
David Riesman
A Sociologist of Human Relationships
Full Name and Common Aliases
David Easton Riesman was an American sociologist born on September 22, 1909. He is often referred to by his initials, D.E.R.
Birth and Death Dates
Riesman's life spanned nearly eight decades, from 1909 to 2002.
Nationality and Profession(s)
American sociologist
Early Life and Background
David Riesman was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. His family moved frequently during his childhood, eventually settling in the Boston area. He received a Bachelor's degree from Harvard University in 1931 and later earned a Ph.D. in sociology from Columbia University.
Riesman's academic interests were shaped by the tumultuous period of the Great Depression. The social upheaval he witnessed inspired him to explore how individuals navigate societal expectations. His father, Joseph Riesman, was an accomplished lawyer who instilled in his son a strong sense of critical thinking and intellectual curiosity.
Major Accomplishments
David Riesman made significant contributions to the field of sociology through his groundbreaking theories on social change and human relationships. Some notable achievements include:
The Lonely Crowd (1950) - a seminal work that introduced the concept of "other-directedness," describing how individuals in modern societies prioritize external validation over internal values.
Individualism Reconsidered (1954) - an influential book that challenged traditional notions of individualism and explored its limitations in contemporary society.
Abundance for What? (1964) - a collection of essays examining the consequences of economic abundance on human relationships and social structures.
Riesman's work not only addressed pressing social issues but also engaged with prominent thinkers, such as Max Weber and Thorstein Veblen. His ideas continue to shape discussions in sociology, psychology, and philosophy.
Notable Works or Actions
Throughout his career, Riesman demonstrated a commitment to understanding the complexities of human relationships. Some notable works include:
The Affluent Society (1958) - an analysis of how societal values have shifted toward material comfort, but at the cost of meaningful personal connections.
* The Academic Revolution (1968) - a comprehensive study on the rise of higher education and its impact on American society.
Riesman's writing often incorporated historical context, drawing from philosophers such as Aristotle and sociologists like Émile Durkheim. His unique blend of theory and observation offered new perspectives on individual behavior in modern societies.
Impact and Legacy
David Riesman's work has had a lasting impact on various fields, including sociology, psychology, philosophy, and education. His concept of "other-directedness" remains particularly influential, encouraging readers to reflect on their own values and social norms.
Riesman's ideas continue to resonate in contemporary society, where issues like loneliness, consumerism, and technological dependency are increasingly pressing concerns. His writing serves as a reminder that understanding human relationships is crucial for addressing these challenges.
Why They Are Widely Quoted or Remembered
David Riesman is remembered for his groundbreaking theories on social change and individual behavior in modern societies. His ability to blend theoretical insights with practical observations has made his work accessible and relevant across various disciplines. The quotes selected from his writings provide a glimpse into his thought-provoking ideas, which continue to inspire reflection and discussion about the human condition.
As Riesman's legacy endures, so too does his commitment to understanding the complexities of human relationships. His contributions will undoubtedly remain an essential part of ongoing conversations in sociology, psychology, philosophy, and beyond.
Quotes by David Riesman
Why, I ask, isn’t it possible that advertising as a whole is a fantastic fraud, presenting an image of America taken seriously by no one, least of all by the advertising men who create it?
The situation of the factory worker today is reminiscent in certain respects of that of the nineteenth-century capitalist whose wife dragged him reluctantly toward “culture” and away from his “materialistic” preoccupations.
In preindustrial cultures leisure is scarcely a burden or a “problem” because it is built into the ritual and ground plan of life for which people are conditioned in childhood; often they possess a relatively timeless attitude toward events.
One of the things people are fleeing when they leave the city is the need either to reject people who are less well educated than themselves, or to accept them with all that implies for their children’s education and future placement in the society.
The mass media are the wholesalers; the peer-groups, the retailers of the communications industry
Men are created different; they lose their social freedom and their individual autonomy in seeking to become like each other.
Words not only affect us temporarily; they change us, they socialize or unsocialize us.
Nowadays, truth is the greatest news. The mass media are the wholesalers, the peer groups, the retailers of the communications industry.
![The ethical regime [of the Jews] was quite definitely Ptolemaic, revolving around the small group of Jews, not the larger Gentile group and, accordingly, they learned to remain unimpressed by Gentile temporal power. Being unimpressed did not mean being unafraid material power might beat or starve one to death; it did mean refusing to surrender moral hegemony to the majority merely because it had power.](/_vercel/image?url=https:%2F%2Flakl0ama8n6qbptj.public.blob.vercel-storage.com%2Fquotes%2Fquote-2296859.png&w=1536&q=100)
The ethical regime [of the Jews] was quite definitely Ptolemaic, revolving around the small group of Jews, not the larger Gentile group and, accordingly, they learned to remain unimpressed by Gentile temporal power. Being unimpressed did not mean being unafraid material power might beat or starve one to death; it did mean refusing to surrender moral hegemony to the majority merely because it had power.