An ecumenical sensibility

On reading Philip Selznick’s “Sociology and Natural Law” (1961), Philippe Nonet wrote him to ask if he could come from Belgium to UC Berkeley to study with him. He went on to become for a long time his closest collaborator. Nonet (2002, 50) later observed, somewhat Delphically but insightfully, that “those who look to Philip’s work for contributions to this or that ‘field’—‘sociology of organization,’ ‘industrial sociology,’ ‘sociology of law’—will doubtless find something, indeed a great deal, but they will miss all that matters.” This observation, perhaps overheated but in the right direction, resonated with me since I too have long thought that much that was most distinctive and distinguished about Selznick’s thought is not well captured within conventional frames or characterizations. I have speculated about what is missed ever since I heard Nonet’s remark. I have several candidates but here will focus on matters of sensibility