by Gordon Welty
Wright State University
Dayton, OH 45435 USA

This essay considers the 1829 article "Remarks On Associations" by the Unitarian minister, William Ellery Channing, as a candidate for the origin of the Iron Law of Oligarchy. Such consideration is of interest to the history of sociology in the first place because of the high status accorded to the "Law" by sociologists (Strub and Carr, 1977: 38). In the second place, it is of interest because of the date: Comte's Cours was as yet programmatic (Manuel, 1962: 261-263). Finally, it is of interest because Channing was an American, born in Newport, Rhode Island in 1780 , educated at Harvard, and relatively untravelled (Mendelsohn, 1971, Chap. I). Consider, if you will, the formulation of such a renowned "Law" by an American as early as 1829. This might occasion a reconsideration of the received opinion of the origins of sociology.

This essay has three parts: first, the Context of Channing's 1829 article; second, the Content of his article, i.e. his formulation of the "Law"; and third, the Consequences of this formulation. This essay continues the analysis of Channing's influence began in Welty (1976).

The Context
The context in which Channing wrote his "Remarks on Associations," the situation on which he was commenting, had a general and a particular aspect. The general aspect of the situation was the process of "disestablishment" of the state-supported churches. Before the War of Independence, most of the colonies had "established" churches. For instances, Connecticut and Massachusetts were Congregational; New York and Virginia were Episcopalian, etc. In keeping with the doctrine of the separation of church and state, no state had an established church after 1833.

In 1820, the Massachusetts constitutional convention debated the topic of establishment; on this occasion Channing promoted the principle of the state-supported church (Mendelsohn, 1971: 176-179). The consequences of the process of disestablishment, then taking place in the other states, were evident. The assured fiscal solvency of the established church permitted it to attend to theological issues; the necessity of maintaining its membership, hence its revenues, allowed the disestablished church no such luxury. Not only did the quality of American theology deteriorate, perhaps irreparably; a correlate of the commercialism of disestablished Protestantism was the emergence of the marketable personality and the marketing-oriented church organization. In this the disestablished church was emulating the technique of those evangelical churches such as Baptism and Methodism which had never been established. These non-established churches had already perfected their techniques and had identified their targets as the burgeoning immigrant populations. The disestablished church was never able to compete and showed a steady deterioration of its membership position.

Thus Channing was reflecting his interest when he defended the established church against religious voluntarism in 1820. By the end of the Twenties it was clear that disestablishment was coming to Massachusetts anyhow and the critique of religious voluntarism was no longer tenable for a minister who wanted to attract a congregation. Hence Channing raised the level of abstraction of his argument from churches per se and the dangers of religious voluntarism to the dangers of voluntary associations in general. So much for the general aspect of Channing's situation.

The particular aspect of Channing's situation was the failure of the Unitarian proselytizing movement in Calcutta, India in the mid-Twenties (cf. Lavan, 1973). During the first quarter of the Nineteenth Century, a high-caste Bengali named Rammohun Roy published speculations about universal religion, concerning himself with the Muslim, Hindu, and Christian religions. Baptist missionaries attacked Roy when he commented on Jesus and Scripture, and he thereby came to the attention of the Boston Unitarians. When William Adam, a Baptist missionary in Calcutta, converted to Unitarianism and joined forces with Roy, Unitarian hopes were raised to the point that a Missionary Society was founded in Boston in 1825. By 1828 the Society asked Channing to prepare a lecture on the effort, but in January 1829 Adam wrote that he had resigned his missionary post and taken a secular job. Meanwhile Adam and Roy had fallen out, and the Calcutta mission was defunct.

Thus Channing was again reflecting his interests when he sharply criticized "missionary societies" in his "Remarks on Associations" (1881: 145-146). "A few missionaries are supported, of whom most have hitherto brought little to pass." Furthermore: "one missionary at a distance is thought of more importance than a hundred ministers near." As he continues, Channing acknowledges his own enthusiasm for the Calcutta mission. "The readers of this work cannot have forgotten the earnestness with which we recommended the support of a mission in India at a time when we thought that peculiar circumstances invited exertion in that quarter. We only oppose the preference of these institutions to the natural associations and connections of life" (1881: 146). It will be evident later that the distinction of "natural" and "artificial" associations was a crucial element of Channing's comments on this topic. So much for the particular aspect of Channing's situation.

There is finally one factor which does not seem to have been an element of Channing's situation in 1829: that is Charles Fourier's "Associationism." Fourier's doctrines identified voluntary association and the hierarchy of "series," and were discussed in his Theory of Four Movements of 1808 and Treatise on Domestic and Agricultural Association of 1822 (Fourier, 1966, Tomes I-V). Thus elements of the "Law" preceded Channing's formulation. Given the ideological thrust of Twentieth-Century formulations of the "Law," it is tempting to suppose that the appearance of the term "Association" in Fourier and Channing is not fortuitous, that Channing can be read as criticizing Fourier and utopianism. Thus the "Law" would be construed as bearing on the Social Question even in its first formulation.

However, it is unlikely that Channing would have known this doctrine on the one hand or its author on the other hand in 1829. Fourier was residing in Lyons until 1826; the doctrine was popularized in America by Albert Brisbane's Social Destiny of Man (Brisbane, 1840). And it was in the 1841 address "The Present Age" that Channing made allusions perhaps to Fourier's doctrines (Channing, 1881: 171).

This illustrates the point made by Frederick Engels that the economic aspect is determinative but not directly so (Marx and Engels, 1975). Hence Channing's formulation of the "Law" needs not be construed simply as an ideological reflex of the Social Question. Rather, the economic aspect is determinative only indirectly and in a mediated fashion, i.e. only in the final analysis. Thus the commercialization of the church upon disestablishment generated competitive and oligarchic tendencies; it was these tendencies that were reflected in Channing's formulation.

The Content
A striking phenomenon of the first quarter of the Nineteenth Century was the emergence of bureaucratically organized voluntary associations. In his "Remarks on Associations," Channing made six sociological points on this topic worth reiterating here (Channing, 1881: 138 ff.)

(1) The proliferation of associations (or bureaucratically structured organizations) is a peculiarly modern phenomenon. (2) "Our daily intercourse [in these associations] is with fallible beings, most of whom are undisciplined in intellect, the slaves of prejudice, and unconscious of their own spiritual energies. The essential condition of intellectual progress in such a world is the resistance of social influence . . ." (Channing, 1881: 141). The anticipation of John Stuart Mill's Liberty is obvious (Mill, 1963, Vol. 12: 49). (3) The extension of social interdependency decreases the "enslaving power" of any particular association's social influence. This becomes an argument for "extensive institutions" of public education. (4) "Natural" associations such as the family are distinguished from "contrived" or "artificial" associations such as hospitals and orphan asylums, to the advantage of the natural associations. This distinction is suggestive of Henry Maine's and Ferdinand Toennies' dichotomy of community and association (McKinney, 1966: 100-104). (5) "Charitable associations, which weaken in men the motives to exertion, which offer a bounty to idleness, or make beggary as profitable as labor are great calamities to society, and peculiarly calamitous to those whom they relieve" (Channing, 1881: 147). (6) Voluntary Associations "accumulate power in a few hands, and this takes place just in proportion to the surface over which they spread" (Channing, 1881: 148). Channing goes on to specify the instruments of this power, particularly the accumulation of funds and control of sectarian publications and newspapers. The consequences of this power include (a) facilitating action of the powerful few and (b) producing dependency and passivity of the great multitude. Point Six is of greatest interest here, as it constitutes Channing's formulation of the "Iron Law of Oligarchy."

Consider a brief review of the intellectual history of the "Law". It is evident that Robert Michels cannot be credited with originating the "Iron Law of Oligarchy" usually credited to him because, as Runciman has pointed out (1969: 71), Moses Ostrogorski had preceded him. But Ostrogorski himself cannot be credited with originating the "Law" since he in turn depended upon Alexis de Tocqueville (Ostrogorski, 1964: XIV, note 10 and 338-339). The question then becomes the relationship of Tocqueville to Channing.

The Consequences
There are striking parallels between Channing's formulation of the "Law" and those Tocqueville would make a few years later in Democracy in America. For instance, when writing of the role of the popular press and public associations in American party politics, Tocqueville held that "the effective force of any power is increased in proportion to the centralization of its control" (1969: 184). This is isomorphic to Channing's formulation: "the surface over which [an association] spread" is equivalent to "the effective force of any power" while the "accumulation of power in a few hands" is equivalent to "the centralization of its control;" and the terms are proportional. Of course, an essential characteristic of this "Law" is that it be nomothetic; on this consideration, the Tocqueville or Channing formulation has a far superior claim over the Michel or Ostrogorski formulation.

Moreover, the parallels between Tocqueville's and Channing's formulations of the "Law" are not adventitious. In October 1831, Tocqueville and his colleague, Gustave de Beaumont, were in Boston during their study of American penitentiaries; they spent the day of the 12th with Channing. They held wide-ranging discussions, Tocqueville reported, covering religious and political topics, among others (cf. Pierson, 1938; Tocqueville, 1959).

In light of such circumstances, it seems at first surprising that Tocqueville did not cite Channing's writings on this topic. It is possible, of course, that Channing did not offer Tocqueville a copy of the "Remarks on Associations" and moreover did not mention it. It is possible that he did and Tocqueville later mislaid it, or forgot Channing's mention of the topic. Another alternative seems more plausible. Tocqueville reported that Channing expressed sharply and surprisingly elitist opinions about the qualities of political democracy in the United States (Pierson, 1938). But Channing was a lifelong Federalist. It was perhaps Channing who "confided" what Tocqueville took to be his "secret thoughts" on democracy to the two young French "strangers" (Tocqueville, 1969: 258). Tocqueville sharply disagreed with Channing on the dangerousness of associations to democracy in the United States, especially in comparison to Europe (Tocqueville, 1969: 191-195; Channing, pp. 148-150). Finally, Tocqueville, in characteristic fashion echoing Montesquieu and stressing the role of the intermediate institutions, emphasized the significance of voluntary associations in the preservation of individual liberty against the centralized power of modern society (1969: 686 ff). Hence he might have refrained from citing Channing because of Tocqueville's broader comparative vision, and his sense of Channing's parochialism (cf. Tocqueville, 1969: 278-279 and note). In the end it was Tocqueville's insight into the complex conjunction of positive and negative aspects of associations that prevailed. By 1841, Channing noted in his address on "The Present Age" the positive side of voluntary association (1881: 164-165). He went on to support the Brook Farm experiment in Fourier's Associationism; his nephew became a guiding light of American Associationism.

How did the "Law" come to assume its current ideological thrust? In Channing and then in Tocqueville it possessed a districtly nomothetic form and it lacked the pessimistic content it so strikingly came to have in the writings of Max Weber and Michels. It is well known that Michels was Weber's protege, hence attention can be focussed on Weber.

As part of Channing's several volume Works, the "Remarks on Associations" was translated into French and after 1855, into German. Moreover, it was widely discussed in German Protestant Circles; Nippold and others had summarized its major themes (Nippold, 1868: 475). Channing was well known to the young Weber. By the age of twenty, Weber wrote that he was reading "a little volume of Channing's writings" on "the infinite worth of the soul" (Marianne Weber, 1975: 86). The reference was apparently to Channing's discourse "Likeness to God" (1881: 292). The following year Weber was reading other volumes of Channing's Works (M. Weber, 1975: 88-89). The reference was apparently to Channing's 1816 discourse on "War." During this period and most important to the present essay, Weber was reading Channing's "sociological" writings as well (M. Weber, 1975: 54-95; cf. Channing, 1881:12 ff.). Not only was Channing well known to Weber; his "sociological" points are suggestive of a psychohistorical interpretation of several interrelated passages in Weber's later writings (more generally, see Mitzman, 1970; Mazlish, 1971; and Green, 1974). Until disestablishment, Unitarianisn and Congregationalism could be considered "hierocratic" in Weber's sense of the term; afterwards they became "sects." The hierocracy was understood to claim a law of its own which derived in the case of Christianity from Acts 5:29 "We must obey God rather than men" (Max Weber, 1968: 1207). This law served to restrain the political power, delimited the relation between church and state, and where consistently applied, dictated pacifism (Troeltsch, 1931: 338-339 and notes). The sect and its secular counterpart, the "association" became increasingly important elements in shaping the American individual. This would explain in part Channing's critique of associations prior to the disestablishmant of his church. Once Unitarianism had become a sect, however, it had also to become apolitical, advocating "tolerance" and "separation of church and state" (Max Weber, 1968: 1208). Thus Weber's later writings provide a theoretical justification of sorts for his youthful chauvinistic reaction to Channing's 1838 pacifist invocation of the adage "We must obey God rather then men" (M. Weber, 1975: 88-89; cf. also Channing, 1881: 676). Channing could be criticized because he had retained his hierocratic tendencies subsequent to disestablishment.

If Weber did bifurcate Channing's career at the point of disestablishnent and discount the later writings, then the circumstances of his selective appropriation of Channing's conception of the "Law" may have been disclosed.

As a concluding point, Talcott Parsons, held that "the United States was not [in Weber's] time a very prominent focus of major intellectual movements to a Central European" (1971: 30). This judgement must be revised in light of Channing's relationship to Mill, Tocqueville, and Weber, to mention only several major if not determinative figures of Western social science.

Brisbane, Albert (1840) Social Destiny of Man or Association, Philadelphia: Stollmeyer

Channing, Wm. Ellery (1881) Works, Boston: American Unitarian Association

Fourier, Charles (1966-1968) Oeuvres Completes, Paris: Editions Anthropos

Green, Martin (1974) The von Richthofen Sisters, New York: Basic Books

Lavan, Spencer (1973) "Raja Rammohun Roy and the American Unitarians," West Bengal and Bangladesh, East Lansing, Michigan: Asian Studies Center.

Manuel, Frank (1962) The Prophets of Paris, Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Marx, Karl and F. Engels (1975) Selected Correspondence, Moscow: Progress Publishers, esp. Engels' 1890 letters to Bloch and Schmidt

Mazlish, Bruce (1971) "A. Mitzman's Psychohistorical Study of Max Weber," History and Theory, Vol. 10:1.

McKinney, John C. (1966) Constructive Typology and Social Theory, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Mendelsohn, Jack (1971) Channing, Boston; Little Brown.

Mill, J.S. (1963) Collected Works, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, esp. his March 6, 1830 letter to Gustave d' Eichthal.

Mitzman, Arthur (1970) The Iron Cage, New York: Knopf.

Nippold, Friedrich (1868) Handbuch der neuesten Kirchengeschichte, Elberfeld: Verlag Friderichs

Ostrogorski, M. (1964) Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties, Chicago: Quadrangle.

Parsons, Talcott (1971) "Value-Freedom and Objectivity" Max Weber and Sociology Today, New York: Harper and Row

Pierson, G.W. (1938) Tocqueville and Beaumont in America, New York: Oxford University Press

Runciman, W.G. (1969) Social Science and Political Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Strub, Peter and L.G. Carr (1977) "Michels Re-examined," Quarterly Journal of Ideology, Vol. 1:4

Tocqueville, Alexis de (1959) Journey to America, New Haven: Yale University Press

Tocqueville, Alexis de (1969) Democracy in America, Garden City: Doubleday-Anchor.

Troeltsch E. (1931) The Social Teachings of the Christian Churches, New York: Macmillan

Weber, Marianne (1975) Max Weber: A Biography, New York: Wiley

Weber, Max (1968) Economy and Society, Berkeley: University of California Press

Welty, Gordon (1976) "Hegel and Weber: From Transcendence to Rationalization," presented to CHEIRON: International Society for the History of the Social Sciences, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, May 29, 1976.