Is sociological theory too grand for social mechanisms?

Berg, Axel van den

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511663901.009

Cited by 29 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To use the clearest example: the reproduction of a language operates through the skilful enactment of it by their speakers. This overlook of the action character of reproduction is shown in the reception of Bourdieu: A common criticism is that he is 'structuralist' and he does not gave any strong space for action, and for change (Aguilar, 2008;Atkinson, 2010;Martuccelli, 2013;van der Berg, 1998), but at the same time Bourdieu stresses the practical and strategical character of reproduction, hence, even if he falls also in the pitfalls of the scheme we discuss, there is space to point out that reproduction is not something simply given (Frank, 2012; Nieto Calleja, 2012; Swedberg, 2011) 2 .…”

Section: And Wementioning

confidence: 99%

The permanent and unavoidable construction of social practices

Jiménez-Albornoz¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question about social order and its transformation has been at the basis of theoretical discussion in sociology, and they are commonly thought as terms in opposition. In this paper we argue that the same process that generates social practices, that stablish order, is the one that transform them, and that this process is inherent to social life. In conclusion, it is unavoidable to construct social order and it is unavoidable its transformation: Social order is always in construction.

show abstract

Section: And Wementioning

confidence: 99%

The permanent and unavoidable construction of social practices

Jiménez-Albornoz¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the popular discourse, which nevertheless has a strong theoretical underpinning, this is acknowledged in "black swan" theories, which show clearly that economic subsystem cannot be separated from other outer events. 55 Quentin Skinner, "Introduction," in Th e Return of Grand Th eory in the Human Sciences his successors Archer and Mouzelis, 57 but there were also other pretenders such as Habermas, Bourdieu, or Alexander, 58 who sought to reconcile the existing rifts and provide a general theory of a sort. Theoreticians such as Turner and Boyns 59 maintain that "the micro-meso-macro linkage problem" is the main obstacle standing in the way to the desirable return of a grand theory, and in overcoming it they see a way ahead that should prevent both the overspecialization and the decline of the status of sociology.…”

Section: Th E Eternal Dreaming Of a Grand Th Eorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Against Grand Theories: A (Cautionary) Tale of Two Disciplines

Jedlička¹

2020

Theory of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I combine an exposition of the historical development of sociology and philosophy of science from the era of grand theories onwards, with an explication as to why the grand theories have failed. First, I trace some parallels in the history of each of the disciplines. After presenting their chronological development, I scrutinize the metatheoretical findings about the disciplines and examine the main ontological and epistemic reasons why attempts at these general theories or frameworks have not succeeded. Among them are the lack of a universal methodology and of a theoretical core, together with the impossibility of achieving a common objective view. On this basis I conclude that general theories or frameworks are not achievable in principle. As it turns out, however, some contemporary social theorists and philosophers still harbor hopes that they can be successfully formulated, or at the least do not rule out such possibility. Thus, in closing, I argue that the critical points can also be applied to these latest attempts, as the call for grand theories or frameworks has never ceased and returns regularly with each new generation of social theorists and philosophers of science.

show abstract

“…Although it is true that sociology's theoretical constructs are often nebulous, subjective, and/or ideologically laden, and this surely does impede the discipline's scientific aspirations, the problem has nothing to do with psychology. It is sociology that has largely discarded nomothesis (van den Berg 1998), and it is the absence of psychology's characteristic insistence on empirical substantiation of constructs that makes the proliferation of such inferior concepts possible.…”

Section: The Dubious Case For Puritymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Dangers of Purity: On the Incompatibility of “Pure Sociology” and Science

Marshall

2008

The Sociological Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Donald Black insists that sociology must be purged of its psychological elements in order to become a genuinely distinct and scientific discipline. But such "purification" is simultaneously unnecessary, undesirable, and unattainable. It is unnecessary because the scientific shortcomings of sociology are indigenous and have nothing to do with psychologism. Indeed, a more scientific sociology would look more, not less, like psychology. Purity is undesirable in that it is not only not a scientific virtue, but is antithetical to the very scientific values that Black invokes to justify it. His systems are neither theories nor laws, but heuristics, more akin to common sense than to scientific theory. Finally, purity is unattainable because though society is indeed discontinuous with the individuals who make it up, it and all theorizing about it, are ontologically and conceptually dependent upon them.For 30 years now, Donald Black has been fomenting revolution in sociology, urging the discipline to purify itself ". . . of the unsociological elements that now contaminate and spoil it as a science" (Black 2000b:705). Beginning with the sociology of law, but intending nothing less than a discipline-wide transformation (Black 2002a), Black seeks to reconstruct the field upon a "pure sociology" framework. While no revolution has transpired, his message has attracted widespread attention, appeared in major journals (Black Unlike those critics offended by his positivism, universalism, or eschewing of agency (e.g., Frankford 1995; Vaughan 1998), I share and welcome Black's conviction that sociology can and should be a scientific discipline. But contra Black, I contend that his vision of "pure sociology" not only fails to make the discipline more scientific, but is contrary to that goal. THE DUBIOUS CASE FOR PURITYAs Black (1995:848) sees it, psychologism is the bane of sociology's scientific aspirations. Citing the social psychology that pervades the work of the discipline's founders, he laments that "Despite endless protests to the contrary, sociology is saturated with psychology," the chief offenses of which are its purported teleology and subjectivity (via its invocation of internal and hence directly unobservable states, events, and constructs).

show abstract

Is sociological theory too grand for social mechanisms?

Cited by 29 publications

References 0 publications

The permanent and unavoidable construction of social practices

The permanent and unavoidable construction of social practices

Against Grand Theories: A (Cautionary) Tale of Two Disciplines

The Dangers of Purity: On the Incompatibility of “Pure Sociology” and Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About