Eliasian Sociology as a ‘Central Theory’ for the Human Sciences

Abstract

For the last three decades, sociology has been in a permanent state of theoretical and programmatic disarray. Symptoms of the crisis include ambivalence about the possible scientific status of sociological knowledge, theoretical and methodological fragmentation and ambivalence about the appropriate degree of political and ethical ‘involvement’ in the sociological stance, and deep-seated anxieties about the relationship between sociology and neighbouring disciplines across the human sciences. Through a comprehensive exegesis of his major contributions, it is argued that Norbert Elias provides the foundations for a ‘central theory’, integrating diverse theoretical traditions within sociology, while providing a clear framework for establishing a synthesis across the full range of (social and biological) human sciences. In short, Elias provides us with the rudiments of a comprehensive human science, with sociology well placed to play an orchestrating role in the investigation of phenomena at the highest level of integration.

Cumulating evidence in environmental governance, policy and planning research: towards a research reform agenda

“…Recently, Goyal and Howlett (2018) have found for the field of policy learning (which is of considerable importance to, and partly overlaps with EGPP) that conceptual fragmentation and stretching prevail, and that despite decades of research, 'the nature of research findings in this field have not been sufficiently cumulative to constitute an active research programme generating generalisable findings' (p. 28), and 'scholars continue to work in silos without much cross-fertilisation, or even conceptual and empirical sharing, of data, knowledge and insights' (p. 29). Quilley and Loyal (2005) contrast knowledge cumulation in the scientific discipline of biology with 'cumulative disarray' in the established social science discipline of sociology. Not buying into reductionist tendencies in biology, the authors argue that the re-emergent holism in biology and its reference to the objective nonhuman world allows the discipline to be inherently cumulative in its knowledge production: 'As science, evolutionary biology is cumulative.…”

“…Not buying into reductionist tendencies in biology, the authors argue that the re-emergent holism in biology and its reference to the objective nonhuman world allows the discipline to be inherently cumulative in its knowledge production: 'As science, evolutionary biology is cumulative. (…) There will always be new syntheses, but these will still be syntheses of cumulative perspectives and vantage points, in relation to a natural world with which we are becoming increasingly familiar' (Quilley & Loyal, 2005). In contrast, after sociology turned away from its early erroneously deterministic socio-biological understanding of the social world and parts of the discipline bought into a radical socio-constructivist world view, 'the illusion of any kind of paradigmatic consensus has been shattered', the authors state (Quilley & Loyal, 2005).…”

“…(…) There will always be new syntheses, but these will still be syntheses of cumulative perspectives and vantage points, in relation to a natural world with which we are becoming increasingly familiar' (Quilley & Loyal, 2005). In contrast, after sociology turned away from its early erroneously deterministic socio-biological understanding of the social world and parts of the discipline bought into a radical socio-constructivist world view, 'the illusion of any kind of paradigmatic consensus has been shattered', the authors state (Quilley & Loyal, 2005). Quoting Dunning and Mannell (2003, p.…”

“…Quoting Dunning and Mannell (2003, p. 1), Quilley and Loyal (2005) find that '[s]ociology remains 'a multi-paradigmatic or multi-perspectival subject … conflict ridden … [and without any] overall consensus … regarding concepts, theories and methods'', and that a majority of sociologists abandoned 'the very idea that the investigation of social processes can be scientific, and by implication (…) the idea that it should be possible to build up, over time, a social-stock of reality-congruent ideas about the operation of social processes' (original emphasis). This discussion is mirrored in the debates and substantial problems of modern sociology when encountering the issue of the generalisation and replication of (necessarily contingent) research findings (see e.g.…”

Norms and Power in Figurational Sociology

“…Material sources of social power, the oldness of the groups, the cohesion, and norms of conduct are linked in Elias's theory: "Greater cohesion, solidarity, uniformity of norms and self-discipline helped to maintain the monopolization, and this in turn helped to reinforce these group characteristics" 22 . Norms of behaviour play an important role in maintaining the power position and the higher status of the group: "The transmission of distinguishing standards usually goes hand in hand with a chance to transmit property of one kind or another…" 23 Elias stresses the importance of the age of the group, its oldness, which explains the emergence of particular group norms, as it is a process, which takes time: the "old families" "stand out from others by certain distinguishing 21 behaviour characteristics which are bred into the individual members from childhood on in accordance with the group's distinguishing tradition" 24 . Developmental perspective is important here: it takes time for the group to become established and it takes time for the shared norms to form, to be learned and transmitted.…”