Showing papers on "Social theory published in 1968"

Knowledge and Human Interests

Abstract: Preface. Translatora s Note. Part I: The Crisis of the Critique of Knowledge. 1. Hegela s Critique of Kant:. Radicalization or Abolition of the Theory of Knowledge. 2. Marxa s Metacritique of Hegel:. Synthesis Through Social Labour. 3. The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory. Part II: Positivism, Pragmatism, Historicism. 4. Comte and Mach: . The Intention of Early Positivism. 5. Peircea s Logic of Inquiry:. The Dilemma of a Scholastic Realism Restored by the Logic of Language. 6. The Self--Reflection of the Natural Sciences:. The Pragmatist Critique of Meaning. 7. Diltheya s Theory of Understanding Expression:. Ego Identity and Linguistic Communication. 8. The Self--Reflection of the Cultural Sciences:. The Historicist Critique of Meaning. Part III: Critique as the Unity of Knowledge and Interest. 9. Reason and Interest:. Retrospect on Kant and Fichte. 10. Self--Reflection as Science:. Freuda s Psychoanalytic Critique of Meaning. 11. The Scientistic Self--misunderstanding of Meta--psychology: . On the Logic of General Interpretation. 12. Psychoanalysis and Social Theory:. Nieqzschea s Reduction of Cognitive Interests. Appendix. Knowledge and Human Interests: A General Perspective. Jurgen Habermas: A Postscript. Index.

Constructing social theories

Abstract: "Constructing Social Theories" presents to the reader a range of strategies for constructing theories, and in a clear, rigorous, and imaginative manner, illustrates how they can be applied. Arthur L. Stinchcombe argues that theories should not be invented in the abstract or applied "a priori" to a problem but should be dictated by the nature of the data to be explained. This work was awarded the Sorokin prize by the American Sociological Association as the book that made an outstanding contribution to the progress of sociology in 1970."

Reason and revolution;: Hegel and the rise of social theory

Abstract: Marcuse's classic work first published in this country in 1941. Its first part is a survey of the structure of Hegel's system, elucidating those implications of Hegel's ideas that identify them closely with later developments in European thought, particularly after Marx. The second section surveys the post-Hegelian rise of social theory.

Modern Social Theory

Abstract: ~ t h e w y a n d a t h e r ~ a f t h e w y ~ * ~ p o M k a l t h c o r y ~ W ~ p s y d s l o g l r W t h e a y a n d t h c ~

Some conceptual difficulties in the theory of social conflict

Abstract: classification. For example, industrial conflict (employer vs. employed) can appear under any of the abstract types, since either party can be a person, group, or organization (Boulding, 1962, p. 213). International conflict can fall under either homogeneous or heterogeneous organization conflict, depending on whether the parties (which may be tribes, feudal states, universal agricultural empires, industrial powers, or superpowers) are equal, unequal, or hopelessly unequal (pp. 227-229). The conflict of ideological systems is partly ecological, partly organizational (p. 278). In Boulding’s view, these empirical types (which do not represent an exhaustive list) are different enough from each other to require separate treatment. Whether this dual classification implies 8 -f4 special theories, 8 X 4 special theories, or some intermediate or larger number, is not at all clear. The mode of abstraction represented in Boulding’s eight-type scheme has been carried a step further. One need only distinguish two types of parties-individuals vs. collective entities (e.g., Sorokin’s distinction between persons and groups). Similarly, the structural relations between parties can be reduced to a simple dichotomy : either the conflicting parties are members of a larger system or else they are separate, autonomous entities which happen to interact in a common environment. This latter distinction has appeared (under various labels) in many schemes: distinctions such as those between intragroup and intergroup conflict (Simmel, 1955; Coser, 1956), intraparty and interparty conflict (Mack and Snyder, 1957), conflict within a social unit and conflict between social units (Levinger, 1957), or internal conflict (&dquo;quandaries&dquo;) and conflicts between parties (Boulding, 1957), all reflect the same basic dichotomy. By combining these two basic dichotomies, one arrives at a simple classification containing four types of conflict, as illustrated by Galtung (1965b, p. 348), who presents the following table: By ignoring the differences among concrete types which could appear in the bottom row, this table implies a smaller number of special theories than any scheme so far discussed. Galtung’s four-cell scheme is not merely a condensation of Boulding’s eight abstract types, but rather a partial condensation combined with the addition of new types. On one axis (nature of parties), Galtung has simply ignored Boulding’s distinction between groups and organizations, replacing these with a single category, i.e., &dquo;collectivities.&dquo; Furthermore, he ignores the distinction between homogeneous and heterogeneous pairs of parties. The result is that one of Boulding’s types of conflict (interpersonal) is retained in Galtung’s scheme, while the remaining seven types are apparently subsumed under a single category (intersystem, collective level). Thus Galtung’s scheme reduces Boulding’s eight types to only two by ignoring certain distinctions. On the other axis (structural relations between parties), Galtung introduces new types by attending to an aspect (intrasystem vs. intersystem) which is at best only implicit in Boulding’s scheme. Thus intrapersonal conflict is not one of Boulding’s eight types (even though he does discuss intrapersonal conflict as a factor which influences the behavior of indi-

The rise and fall of the elites;: An application of theoretical sociology

Abstract: Combining a thorough introduction to the work of nineteenth-and early twentieth-century Italian social theorist Vilfredo Pareto with a highly readable English translation of Pareto's last monograph "Generalizations," originally published in 1920, this work illustrates how and why democratic forms of government undergo decay and are eventually reinvigorated. More than any other social scientist of his generation, Pareto offers a well-developed, articulate, and compelling theory of change based on a Newtonian vision of science and an engineering model of social equilibrium. This dynamic involves a shifting balance among the countervailing forces of centralization and decentralization of power, economic expansion and contraction, and liberalism versus traditionalism in public sentiment. By 1920, Pareto had developed a scheme for predicting shifts in magnitude of these forces and subsequent change in the character of society. This book will be of interest to students, teachers, or general readers interested in political science, sociology and late-nineteenth/ early-twentieth century social theory.

Causation and functionalism in sociology

Abstract: This comprehensive set introduces the fundamental principles of Sociology as propounded by such great figures as Gerth and Mills, Schlesinger, and Homans. Containing classic works of social theory and empirical research, volumes in this set bring together the British, European and American traditions. The whole body of sociological theory is presented in such a way that is valuable and accessible to both students and teachers of Sociology, Political Theory and Geography.

An introduction to sociology

Abstract: The third edition of this comprehensive introduction to sociology, incorporating major revisions to the text.

Social Science and Political Commitments in the Young Max Weber

Abstract: In 1892 the Verein fur Sozialpolitik (Association for Social Policy) published six studies of agricultural workers in Germany (1). Five of the six authors were Karl Kaerger, H. Losch, Kuno Frankenstein, Friedrich Grossman, and Otto Auhagen. The sixth author was Max Weber. He was only 28 years old. But his study of agricultural workers touched on many themes that he developed in his more mature scholarship, and on some of the dilemmas that he faced in his later political writings and political activities.

The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx: Hegel's political philosophy reconsidered

Abstract: THE IMPACT OF HEGEL AND FEUERBACH Marx's programmatic letter to his father, 10 November 1837, informs us that his first encounter, at the age of nineteen, with Hegelian philosophy, occurred through his acquaintance with the Doktorenklub at Berlin University. In this most revealing letter Marx gives a comprehensive account of his studies at Berlin, trying to justify to his father his switch from legal studies to philosophy. It becomes clear from this letter that even at this early stage Marx was drawn to Hegel's philosophy because he saw in it a powerful instrument for changing reality. He might have used such an argument in the attempt to anticipate his father's possible objection to the change of subject: the father, himself a lawyer, felt that his son's step was impractical and immature. Marx writes that what troubled him about German philosophy since Kant was ‘the antagonism between the “is” and the “ought”’. But now, since he has become acquainted with Hegel, the young student feels he has found the idea within reality itself: ‘If the Gods have dwelt till now above the earth’, he tells his father, ‘they have now become its centre.’ This first evidence of Marx's encounter with the Hegelian tradition seems to foreshadow the way in which Hegel was absorbed by Marx from the outset. It was neither the institutional conclusions of Hegel's doctrine that attracted him, nor the philosophical premises per se .

IV. The Revolution of July 1830 and the Expression ‘Bourgeoisie’

Abstract: Although there have been recently critical studies on the social forces initiating both the revolutions of 1789 and 1830 in France, they have been concerned with the question of defining the ‘bourgeoisie’ or of estimating the role played by the problem by examining the origin of the idea in the political and social theories of that time to show and why the phrase ‘bourgeois revolution’ was used, and to see whether the concept is any longer of use in terms of historical analysis.