On dates in citations - consider the following: Despite their limitations, sociology’s founders understood the role religion can play in the articulation of social epistemologies. Durkheim (1995), for example, saw religion as the source of “collective represen- tations,” foundational categories that order our perceptions, structure our actions upon the world, and cement social relations. Similarly, We- ber (1958) referred to the role of various religious worldviews in shap- ing practical, social ethos. And while Marx (1978) saw religion as the expression of a world in which labor is alienated, he also acknowledged that “religion is the general theory of that world, its encyclopaedic com- pendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritualistic point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn completion, its universal ground for consolation and justification.” Has there been a movement trying to promote a different type of citation style - i.e., original publication date, instead of the publication one has used? It does make sense in the bibliography to state the date of the publication one is using. But for the actual body text - it would make so much more sense to see e.g. Marx (1845). Then one knows - if ones up on that kind of thing - that this is about an early work of Marx, and isnt e.g. Das Kapital or the Grundrisse. But nobody but a highly specialized expert is going to have any idea of which works of Marx might have been published in 1978! So you have to page all the way to the bibliography or footnotes to see which work is being referred to. Wouldnt it make sense to have bibliographical citations of author, title, city, publisher, date - this date then being the one used parenthetically in citations - and then pub. for the actual editions publication - with the first date being optional? It is a joy when reading is easy and makes sense! But Marx (1978) - there is something so frustrating about that.
Posted on: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 17:55:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015