scholarly publications of Helen P. Sorokin

 

Helen P. Sorokin – articles

 

Helen P. Sorokin
A Study of Meiosis in Ranunculus acris
American Journal of Botany, Vol. 14, No. 2 (February 1927), pp. 76-84

Helen Sorokin – American J of Botany, February 1927 (2)

Helen Sorokin
The Chromosomes of Ranunculus acris
The American Naturalist, Vol. 61, No. 677 (November-December 1927), pp. 571-574

Helen Sorokin – American Naturalist, Nov-Dec 1927 (2)

 

Helen Sorokin
Variation in Homoeotypic Division in Ranunculus acris
American Journal of Botany, Vol. 14, No. 10 (December 1927), pp. 565-581

Helen Sorokin – American J of Botany, December 1927 (2)

 

A. L. Sommer and Helen Sorokin
Effects of the Absence of Boron and of Some Other Essential Elements on the Cell and Tissue Structure of the Root Tips of Pisum sativum
Plant Physiology, Vol. 3, No. 3 (July 1928), pp. 237-260

A. L. Sommer and Helen Sorokin – Plant Physiology, July 1928 (2)

Helen Sorokin and Anna L. Sommer
Changes in the Cells and Tissues of Root Tips Induced by the Absence of Calcium Author(s):
American Journal of Botany, Vol. 16, No. 1 (January 1929), pp. 23-39

Helen Sorokin and Anna L. Sommer – American J of Botany, January 1929 (2)

Helen Sorokin
Idiograms, Nucleoli, and Satellites of Certain Ranunculaceae
American Journal of Botany, Vol. 16, No. 6 (June 1929), pp. 407-420

Helen Sorokin – American J of Botany, June 1929 (2)

 

Helen Sorokin
Mitochondria and Plastids in Living Cells of Allium Cepa
American Journal of Botany, Vol. 25, No. 1 (January 1938), pp. 28-33

Helen Sorokin – American J of Botany, January 1938 (2)

 

Helen Sorokin and Anna L. Sommer
Effects of Calcium Deficiency Upon the Roots of Pisum sativum
American Journal of Botany, Vol. 27, No. 5 (May 1940), pp. 308-318

Helen P. Sorokin and Anna L. Sommer – American J of Botany, May 1940 (2)

 

Helen Sorokin
The Distinction between Mitochondria and Plastids in Living Epidermal Cells
American Journal of Botany, Vol. 28, No. 6 (June 1941), pp. 476-485

Helen Sorokin – American J of Botany, June 1941 (2)

 

Helen P. Sorokin
Mitochondria and Spherosomes in the Living Epidermal Cell
American Journal of Botany, Vol. 42, No. 3 (March 1955), pp. 225-231

Helen P. Sorokin – American J of Botany, March 1955 (2)

Helen P. Sorokin
Mitochondria and Precipitates of A-Type Vacuoles in Plant Cells
Journal of the Arnold Arboretum, Vol. 36, No. 2/3 (April-July 1955), pp. 293-304 (published by Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University)

Helen P. Sorokin – J of the Arnold Arboretum, April-July 1955 (2)

 

Helen P. Sorokin and Sergei Sorokin
Staining of Mitochondria with Neotetrazolium Chloride
American Journal of Botany, Vol. 43, No. 3 (March 1956), pp. 183-190

Helen P. Sorokin and Sergei Sorokin – American J of Botany, March 1956 (2)

 

Helen P. Sorokin
Studies on Living Cells of Pea Seedlings. I. Survey of Vacuolar Precipitates, Mitochondria, Plastids, and Spherosomes
American Journal of Botany, Vol. 43, No. 10 (December 1956), pp. 787-794

Helen P. Sorokin – American J of Botany, December 1956 (2)

Helen P. Sorokin
Studies on Living Cells of Pea Seedlings. II. Intercellular Tubular Matter
Helen P. Sorokin
American Journal of Botany, Vol. 45, No. 6 (June 1958), pp. 504-513

Helen P. Sorokin – American J of Botany, June 1958 (2)

Helen P. Sorokin, S. N. Mathur and Kenneth V. Thimann
The Effects of Auxins and Kinetin on Xylem Differentiation in the Pea Epicotyl
American Journal of Botany, Vol. 49, No. 5 (May-June 1962), pp. 444-454

Helen P. Sorokin et al. – American J of Botany, May-June 1962 (2)

 

Helen P. Sorokin
Why Should We Subscribe to a Translation of Doklady?
AIBS Bulletin, Vol. 12, No. 3 (June 1962), pp. 35-56

Helen P. Sorokin, ‘Why Should We Subscribe to a Translation of Doklady’ – AIBS Bulletin, June 1962 (2)

Helen P. Sorokin
The Destruction of Xylem by a Plasmodial Parasite in Seedlings of Pisum sativum
American Journal of Botany, Vol. 51, No. 3 (March 1964), pp. 299-306

Helen P. Sorokin – American J of Botany, March 1964 (2)

 

Helen P. Sorokin
The Spherosomes and the Reserve Fat in Plant Cells
American Journal of Botany, Vol. 54, No. 8 (September 1967), pp. 1008-1016

Helen P. Sorokin – American J of Botany, September 1967 (2)

 

— posted by Roger W. Smith

“the mysterious energy of love”

 

Before the first world war and the later catastrophes of our time, science largely shunned this field [altruistic love]. The phenomena of altruistic love were thought to belong to religion and ethics, rather to science. They were considered good topics for preaching, but not for research and teaching. Moreover, prewar science was much more interested in the study of criminals than of saints, of the insane than of the genius, of the struggle for existence than of mutual aid, and of hate and selfishness than of compassion and love.

The explosion of the gigantic disasters after 1914 and the changing danger of a new suicidal war have now radically changed the situation. These calamities have given impetus to the scientific study of unselfish love. …

… without reinforcement by the energy of unselfish love, all the fashionable prescriptions for the elimination of those ills of humanity cannot achieve their task. This conclusion equally applies to all the prescriptions that try to prevent conflicts by either purely political, educational, sham religious, economic, or military means.

For instance, we may like to think that if tomorrow all the governments of the world were to become democratic, we would finally have a lasting peace and crimeless social order. Yet recent careful studies of comparative criminality of 967 wars and 1,629 revolutions in the history of Greece, Rome, and the Western countries … up to the present time show that democracies have hardly reversed belligerent, turbulent, and crime-infested nanotocracies. The same goes for education in its present form, other panaceas against international wars, civil strifes, and crimes.

Since the tenth century … education has made enormous strides forward. … Yet the number and deadliness of wars, bloody revolutions, and grave crimes have not decreased at all. On the contrary, in this most scientific and most educated twentieth century, they have reached unrivaled heights and have made this century the bloodiest in the past twenty-five centuries of Graeco-Roman and Western history.

Similarly, the tremendous progress of knowledge and the domestication of all of all forms of physical energy has not given man any lasting peace. Rather, it has greatly increased his chances of being destroyed in all forms of interhuman conflicts.

— Pitirim A. Sorokin, “The Mysterious Energy of Love”; a lecture by Sorokin given in 1959 at an undisclosed university.

 

*****************************************************

… none of the prevalent prescriptions against international and civil wars and other forms of interhuman bloody strife can eliminate or notably decrease these conflicts.

By these popular prescriptions I mean, first, elimination of wars and strife by political changes, especially by democratic political transformations. Tomorrow the whole world could become democratic and yet wars and bloody strife would not be eliminated because democracies happen to be no less belligerent and strife-infected than autocracies. Still less pacification can be expected from autocracies. Neither the United Nations nor a world government can give a lasting internal and international peace if the establishment of these bodies is not reinforced by notable altruization of persons, groups, institutions, and culture.

The same goes for education in its present form as a panacea against war and bloody strife. Tomorrow all grown-up persons in the world could become Ph.D.’s, and yet this enormous progress in education would not eliminate wars and bloody conflicts. Since the tenth century on up to the present, education has made enormous progress. The number of schools of all kinds, the percentage of literacy, the number of scientific discoveries and inventions have greatly and almost systematically increased, and yet the international wars, the bloody revolutions, and the grave forms of crime have not decreased at all. On the contrary, in the most scientific and most educated twentieth century, they have reached an unrivaled height and made this one the bloodiest of all the twenty­ five centuries of Graeco-Roman and European history.

The same goes for religious changes, if by religion is meant a purely ideological belief in God or in the credo of any of the great religions. One of the evidences for that is given by our investigation of 73 Boston converts “brought to Jesus” by two popular evangelical preachers. Of these 73 converts only one changed his overt behavior in an altruistic direction after his conversion. Thirty-seven converts slightly changed their speech reactions; after their conversion they began to repeat more frequently the words. “Our Lord Jesus Christ” and similar utterances, but their overt behavior did not change tangibly. The remaining converts changed neither their actions nor their speech reactions. If by religious revival and “moral rearmament” is meant this sort of ideological and speech-reactional transformation, it will not bring peace nor decrease interhuman strife, because it represents mainly a cheap self-gratification for psycho­neurotics and sham-religious persons.

The same goes for communist, socialist, or capitalist economic remedies, and for scientific, artistic, legal, or other ways of establishing and maintaining lasting peace in the human universe, when these are not backed by increased altruization of persons and groups. In my Reconstruction of Humanity (1948), I have given the minimum of evidence to substantiate these statements. This assumption positively signifies that without a notable increase of unselfish, creative love (as ideally formulated in the Sermon on the Mount) in overt behavior, in overt inter-individual and intergroup relationships, in social institutions and culture, there is no chance for a lasting peace and for interhuman harmony, internal or external. This, then, was our first assumption, already vindicated to a considerable degree by the existing body of inductive evidence. …

While many modern sociologists and psychologists view the phenomena of hatred, crime, and mental disorders as the legitimate objects of scientific study they quite illogically stigmatize as theological preaching or non-scientific metaphysics any investigation of the phenomena of love, friendship, heroic deeds and creative genius. There is no need to argue the patently unscientific nature of such an attitude. It is but one of the manifestations of the prevalent concentration on the negative, pathological, and subhuman phenomena which is typical for the disintegrating phase of our sensate culture.

— Pitirim A. Sorokin, “The Scientific Search for Love,” Fellowship, April 1956

 

— posted by Roger W. Smith

      February 2022

 

*****************************************************

See also my post

a recorded Sorokin lecture

a recorded Sorokin lecture

 

 

Sorokin, “The Bard of Life” (Walt Whitman 1819-1892)

 

Sorokin, ‘Walt Whitman’

БАРД ЖИЗНИ

‘The Bard of Life’

 

Posted here (English and Russian texts above; also PDF of original text):

Pitirim A. Sorokin, “The Bard of Life (Walt Whitman 1819-1892)

Vseobshchiy Zhurnal [Universal Magazine] 2 (1912), 130-205

Translated from the Russian by Roger W. Smith.

 

posted by Roger W. Smith

      February 2022

“Revolutionary Gardener”

 

“Revolutionary Gardener”

Faculty Profile

By Dennis E. Brown

The Harvard Crimson

May 1, 1954

 

One morning nearly five years after the Russian Revolution of 1917, an article headlined “Professor Sorokin” appeared in Pravda. Written by Lenin himself, the article stated that though Sorokin had never agreed with the Bolsheviks, he was a true revolutionary at heart. Russia, Lenin concluded, “needs his mind.”

To the man who had spent weeks in an over-crowded prison in north Russia, this statement meant an unexpected salvation. Each day between the hours of four and twelve, guards had entered his cellblock to read off a list of names. “This was a kindly invitation to be shot,” Sorokin recalls, and he adds that most of the prisoners were almost willing to accept. The prison conditions were bad, food was nearly as limited at space, and disease was a commonplace.

But once freed, Sorokin still refused to collaborate with the Bolsheviks and after several close escapes, managed to smuggle himself out of the country. “What a relief,” he recalls, “to cross the border and know that this time they could not come after me.” Sorokin’s last flight from Russia marked the end of an active, fifteen-year career as a revolutionary and gave him the opportunity to continue his work in sociology. Before leaving Russia in 1922, he had become prominent in both fields.

Sorokin usually attributes his early rise in Russia’s political and educational circles to “mistaken ideas about my ability” and “just plain luck.” To ability and chance, his friends would add firm conviction and a tenacity which has brought him both trouble, in the form of political imprisonment, and fame. “This is my stubbornness,” he says: “I regard it a man’s main duty to tell the truth as he sees it.”

As early as 1905, Professor Sorokin was telling his truths to factory workers and villagers in his own Russian district. The son of an artisan, he understood the working class, and because of his talents as an orator and pamphleteer, he soon became a top leader in the Social Revolutionary Party.

Underground Lessons

The years of political activity that followed were lessons in the technique of the underground. Police methods under the Tsars were comparatively lenient, he discovered, because the dying regime was old and soft. Often prisons became centers of revolutionary activity. But the “super heated Turkish bath” that followed 1917 was another matter. Sorokin had enjoyed a few months respite under the Kerensky government as secretary to the Prime Minister and editor of the party newspaper. When the Bolsheviks stormed the Petrograd Garrison, however, it meant that the other socialist parties would be again outlawed and persecuted.

Looking back at his experiences with the Bolsheviks, Sorokin remembers some lighter incidents, although he was hunted almost continually by the secret police. On one occasion, he was sentenced to Peter and Paul Prison where he found many of the elite from former regimes and parties. These old political enemies, from Tsarists to Anarchists, decided to issue prison society notes, which began “The social season at Peter and Paul resort opened brilliantly today . . . .”

At other times, it was harder to laugh. During one summer, Sorokin was forced to hide in the forests of northern Russia. Living off whatever food he could find, he remained there until the first snowfall drove him back to the cities.

Throughout the hardships that political activity caused in those times, Sorokin miraculously managed to pursue his studies in sociology. He was a prolific writer, and long before coming to the United States, had published several texts on the subject. In 1923 he came to this country with an invitation to teach at the University of Minnesota. Eight years later, President Lowell asked him to form the first Sociology Department at Harvard. The University had possessed a grant for such a department since 1906, and officials felt that in Sorokin, they at last had a man who could do the job.

Creative Altruism

His job, as chairman of the new department, lasted fourteen years. Professor Sorokin was only too glad to end what he calls his “Roosevelt term” and devote his time to a project he had long considered. A witness to the revolutions in Russia and two world wars, he had lived with violence and always opposed it. In his mind, the one hope for civilization was the development of man’s creative over his destructive impulses. To study the problem, he has established the Harvard Research Center in Creative Altruism.

Sorokin tackles his new work with the vigor of the young revolutionary who debated with Lenin and Trotsky. He has never lost the ability to support a cause he believes in, and does so in characteristically strong language. To his long list of writings, most of which have been translated into other languages, he has added several new volumes on altruism. Pointing proudly to a bulky, orange book on his desk, he remarked, “They are even writing books about my books now.”

His garden in Winchester is a source of pride almost equal to his literary accomplishments. Each year, nearly ten thousand visitors stop to admire the azaleas which he plants and tends alone. This season, as in the past, he predicts a bad year for the flowers, his last touch with the rural Russia of his youth. Almost unfailingly, however, the plants have survived oppressive frosts, and like their gardener, continue to grow.

 

— posted by Roger W. Smith