ABSTRACT
One feature above all others distinguishes the notion of classics from that of founders, and it is evident in casual speech. “Founders” invariably refers to persons—individuals who are deemed to be the elemental source of distinctive social theories, theoretical traditions, or even entire disciplines, religions or states. “Classics,” on the other hand, directs our attention, first and foremost, to certain exemplary texts. It is true that that this is not always the case. Where the term “classic” is preceded by the definite article, as in the edited collection The Future of the Sociological Classics (Rhea: 1981), it is generally a clear signal that the Classics whose future is being pondered are sociology's great figures or “masters” (Rhea, 1981: xi). Similarly, it is not uncommon to read of “sociology's classical founders” (Alexander, 1983b: xvii). In these cases, person and text have been conflated and for an understandable reason: typically, a text will have a determinate author with a name and an identifiable biography.
