Showing papers on "Social theory published in 1973"

The new criminology: for a social theory of deviance,

Abstract: A major contribution to criminology in which Taylor, Walton and Young provide a framework for a fully social theory of crime.

The Concept of Social Change : A Critique of the Functionalist Theory of Social Change

Abstract: 1. Functionalism and Social Change 2. The 'neo-revolutionary' revival 3. The Stages of Evolution 4. Modernism and Modernisation 5. Revolution 6. Equilibrium and Social Change 7. Evolution and History

Social indicators—systems, methods and problems

Abstract: Professor Moser regards the purpose of social indicators as being to aid the policy maker by summarizing the state and changing conditions of society, pinpointing the outstanding existing and emerging social problems and monitoring the effects of social policies and programmes. Thus social indicators will frequently, though not necessarily, be normative and they will often, though again not necessarily, be concerned with outputs rather than inputs. Although many writers regard social indicators as being combinations of series, the problems of construction are substantial. Central to the idea of a social indicator, however, is that it should represent or summarize a broader concept than itself and that it should belong to a structure or system of series. Although there are no social theories about society in general on which a structure of indicators can at present be based there are a number of middle range theories relating to specific fields or sectors, such as occupational mobility, education, migration, mental health, etc., around which quantitative relationships and models can gradually be be built to give insight into social changes and perhaps eventually into the manipulation of policy instruments for the improvement of social conditions.

Social policy and social change – explanations of the development of social policy

Abstract: The resources of sociology do not appear to have been extensively or systematically utilized in the study of social policy and administration. One source of evidence for this statement is the absence of explicit references to sociological theories in some of the most well known general texts on British social policy and administration. Pinker's recent analysis of social theory and social policy also lends support to the view that there has been, and still remains, something of a division between sociologists and students of social policy and administration. He concludes that the ‘founding fathers’ of sociology (Marx, Durkheim, Weber and Spencer) had a tendency to be ‘not greatly interested…(in)…remedies for social problems’, and makes the general observation that ‘sociologists have been oddly diffident about the subject-matter of social administration’, possibly because of the latter's atheoretical nature.

Evolution and communication: the domestication of the savage mind

Abstract: For some time now evolution has tended to be a dirty word in the social sciences.' The adjectival form, applied to a writer, tends to indicate old-fashioned, even 'biological' concerns. It is time to lay aside this negative attitude. Just as there is no sociology without comparison (implicit or explicit), so comparison almost inevitably raises the question of the change from one form to another. And the process of evolution, stripped of the implications of unilineality and irreversibility, is simply long-term change.2 Much of the best known sociology, that associated with the names of Comte, Marx, Spencer, Weber and Durkheim (not to mention the more obvious candidates, Maine, Morgan, Tylor, Robertson-Smith and Frazer) has displayed both comparative and evolutionary interests. The work of Spencer and Durkheim shows an extensive knowledge of the writings about non-European societies; that of Weber has a similar command of Asia. Much of this interest derived from a somewhat egocentric but none the less important concern having to do with the rise of modern industrial society; it centred upon a question which Parsons has recently reiterated. 'Why, then, did the breakthrough to modernization not occur in any of the "Oriental" advanced intermediate civilizations?' (1966: 4). This question immediately implies an opposition between 'our' type of society and 'theirs'; and its answer requires that we search the world for positive and negative cases to confirm our ideas about the relevant factors. There is nothing wrong with the search as such, but we need to recognize the ethnocentric nature of its starting point and the fact that the dichotomizing of 'we' and 'they' in this manner narrows the field of both the topic and of its explanation. If we are interested in even longer-term development (as certain of the hypotheses of Spencer, Durkheim, Marx and Weber force us to be), then a further set of considerations come into play. If I put these in an over-obvious way, it is because much contemporary social theory leads us to neglect certain obvious lines of enquiry. When we think of long-term evolutionary change, it is inevitable

Symbolic Interactionism: A “Left-Meadian” Interpretation

Abstract: In their general disdain for American thought, and in their fascination with such Continental philosophies as Marxism and phenomenology, American radicals have failed to appreciate the critical import of the work of George Herbert Mead. Mead is one of the most creative and, at the same time, one of the most neglected of original American thinkers. It is true that his social philosophy is the foundation of the symbolic interactionist school of social psychology; and the critical implications of Meadian theory have received expression in the work of such writers as C. Wright Mills, Peter Berger, Hugh Duncan, Erving Goffman, and John Seeley. Several European social theorists have also begun to take Mead's writings seriously; e.g. the Swedish sociologist, Joachim Israel, has argued that symbolic interactionism and Marxism are complementary approaches to the problems of alienation and reification in modern society. But symbolic interactionism is, after all, a minority movement in American social theory. Orthodox functionalist theorists (e.g. Talcott Parsons and Robert Merton) have largely rejected symbolic interactionism as insufficiently deterministic; and radical theorists (e.g. Herbert Marcuse) have simply ignored the symbolic interactionist perspective.

The role of experience in the construction of social theory: an essay in reflexive sociology

Abstract: Unusually for an article in a journal of academic sociology, two personal political reminiscences provide a fundamental point of departure. I remember, first, being lost with four or five others at the end of a gruelling second day of an Aldermaston march. We had somehow managed to take a wrong turning just before reaching our overnight billet and, tired to the point of exhaustion, we found ourselves wandering bemusedly through a maze of residential streets, all semi-detacheds, lace curtains and neat grass verges. At that moment the utter remoteness of those streets from everything we were attempting to bring home to them through the march struck me with a force I can still remember today. We could see nothing stirring, nor hear any sound save our own hysterical giggling. There were no doubt people in those houses, spending their Easter holiday as they had always done; as I had always done until this particular Easter. But between them and us, there was no connection. We were in a foreign land, which was all the more foreign to me because I was acutely conscious of the fact that, in my everyday life, it was also my land. We, who were supposed to be dramatising for the whole nation the most important political issue of our time, did not touch them. The debate about the political influence of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament continues; though, as the movement recedes in memory, it declines into the fading conversation of old soldiers. For me, however, its impact is captured by the memory I have recalled. We did not touch them. Nor did we touch those in power. For a moment we thought we had, but Cuba ended that illusion and with it, C.N.D. Nor, if I am honest, can I pretend that its stated political objectives ever constituted the real meaning of C.N.D. for me. The movement may have meant many things, to other participants as to me— f̂un, an

Everyday Life in Stochastic Networks

Abstract: Models of Stochastic networks may prove important tools for integrating ideas about structure with ideas about process in social theory.

Thorstein Veblen: Incrementalist and Utopian

Abstract: A CRITICISM commonly voiced against the work of Thorstein Veblen is that he failed to move from acting as a social critic and theorist to the realm of policy prescription (1). This criticism is not without validity but it places insufficient emphasis on Veblen's numerous policy recommendations which are sometimes implicit in his analysis rather than overt. While Veblen sponsored reform proposals of an incremental rather than of a utopian nature and suggested technical means for achieving economic and political changes, it is no doubt true that his main impact has been as a theorist and social critic, not as a policy prescriber. Nevertheless it is our main task to show that both incrementalist policy prescription and utopian social theory are important parts of his analysis, and that they are linked with his methodological employment of constructed types. The introduction will briefly explain the basic outline of Veblen's political sociology, his theory of social and economic change, and its relationship to his conception of the future of the industrial state. The author will then 1) analyze those policy proposals Veblen made which are essentially incrementalist (2); 2) summarize that part of his social theory and criticism which is clearly utopian in nature 3) show how Veblen used ideal and mixed types as methodological and explanatory devices and indicate how this usage is related to his role as a theorist and policy advocate of both incremental and utopian reform (3). It is often difficult to distinguish Veblen's incrementalist policy prescriptions from his utopian proposals since his incrementalism is often based on the assumption of radical change in the institutional fabric of society before piecemeal change is undertaken. What is designated here as incrementalism are policy proposals, usually made to men in power, which were not of such a broad scope as to necessitate wholesale renovation of existing social institutions.

Toward a New Social Theory of Art

Abstract: T HE "LITERARY AND ART HISTORY" issue of New Literary History (3 [19721) was a more exceptional event in the latter field than in the former. It is the only theoretical symposium that I can recall involving American art historians on any general problem of method. Art history in this country has been a discipline without any avowed theoretical base; until quite recently, few of us have cared to reflect on the assumptions by which we work. It is symptomatic that the field is represented in the Spring 1972 issue entirely by young scholars-the first to feel the need for a firmer philosophical foundation.

De krisis in de sociale wetenschap: het probleem der vooronderstellingen

Abstract: The crisis in social science originates in epistemology as well as in SofK, & can be called the problem of presuppositions. The epistemological character of the crisis manifests itself by the fact that scientific thought itself had become problematic. The sociological aspect shows itself by the incompatibility between the social role the sociologist wants to fulfill on one side, & the methodological possibilities of prevailing paradigmata on the other. 3 groups of presuppositions can be distinguished in social science, corresponding to the main directions of the philosophical tradition, namely social metaphysics, theory of knowledge, & theory of value. Social metaphysics offers a diversity of assumptions which are categorical distinctions within social processes. Social epistemology shows that perception can be taken as an empirical foundation of social thought. But social action can also afford a foundation & so can the logical resources of natural & artificial language systems. Values manifest themselves as the aims of social thought. The aims of traditional theory center on the conditions of human communication & reliable information. Critical theory is concerned with ethical problems in relation to social science & especially with emancipatory processes. Interpretative theory is an elaboration of the quest for self-knowledge in respect to social events. The diversity of these presuppositions makes a social theory of knowledge necessary, which can show the interrelations between them & can serve as a foundation of social thought. The possibility of resolving the current crisis of social science depends on the elaboration of such a theory. Modified AA.

Towards a Social Theory of Literature

Abstract: What follows is a provisional formulation of the theory upon which my own recent literary studies have been based, provisional because all theory is subject to test and alteration, provisional also because research into the social character of literature is still in its early stages. The theory itself derives, with some modifications, from the work of Lucien Goldmann, and, beyond him, from Georg Lukács, Plekhanov and Marx. Even such a tentative formulation has seemed to me useful so that, by being made explicit, the premises of a sociological theory might be debated, and the methodology might be tested.

Social Theory, Civil Rights, and Crime

Abstract: Fundamental changes have occurred in juvenile court pro cedure, the administration of probation and parole, and the op eration of correctional institutions. While they do not constitute a "criminal law revolution," they are steps in "an orderly evolu tion." These changes, which re-emphasize our constitutional guar antees of civil rights, have been brought about largely through decisions in the federal and state supreme courts, not through sociological theory. Sociological theories of the causes of crime- especially individual psychological, social psychological learning, and functional sociological theories—have not been validated by empirical research and do not explain crime from a truly scien tific point of view. They have not been of much practical utility to correctional workers.

Sartre's Individualist Social Theory

Abstract: Followers of Jean-Paul Sartre will be puzzled, at the least, by the most recent turns of his thought. On the one hand he gives us the anti-intellectual radicalism which wants to operate “merely” as a sort of mediator between the workers of Grenoble and Billancourt. He asserts that the “status of the intellectual has changed,” that he must smash his privileges “through direct action.” He urges us into a mindless activism which takes itself wherever the action is, in which we use our technical skills—not our theoretical understanding or analytic ability—to help the masses express themselves. On the other hand, Sartre's Flaubert, the most enormous of his four magnum opii, is his most remote, unreal, wordy, self-indulgent work yet.

Social theory and the historical construction of social work activity: the role of samuel barnett

Abstract: T here are histories of social work, but there has as yet been little attempt to provide a sociological analysis of the historical construction of social work activity." If the nature and form of the activity are viewed as socio-historically constructed rather than the 'natural' unfolding or recognition of objective truths their construction becomes a problem to be investigated. This article does not claim to represent such an analysis. The task here is the more modest and menial one of making a start on the preparation of the ground, of weeding out some of the more misleading conceptions serving to obscure our view of the early forms of social work activity. One approach for the sociologist wishing to analyse the social processes involved in the construction of social work as a social activity would be to begin by consulting the available histories of social work, and, more generally, social welfare. The analyses in such texts generally share two features in common. First, a central role in the development of social work is allotted to the Charity Organisation Society and second, the principles and practices of the COS, and thus in large measure the principles and practice of social work in general as it developed in Britain, are related to the prevailing social and economic philosophy. The development of social work in nineteenth century Britain and the particular form taken by social work activity is to this extent treated as unproblematic. Put crudely the argument runs as follows: given the common sense knowledge and philosophy of social and economic problems in nineteenth century Britain the particular form, the principles and practices assumed by the COS follow logically; the COS constituted the main, if not the only, available model of institutionalised social work activity and thus the particular form assumed by social work in Britain in this century is similarly predictable. The suggestion in this article is that a consideration of the work of Samuel Barnett raises important doubts concerning the adequacy

Twentieth-Century Urbanisation: The North American Experience

Abstract: By the end of the First World War, interpretations of the industrial metropolis had been provided, its ills had been diagnosed, new social movements had emerged, and city planning had professionalised. During the two inter-war decades most American social scientists simply accepted the conventional wisdom of the social theorists as they analysed cities. Hope Tisdale, for example, summarised what had by then become a generally accepted definition in her paper ‘The Process of Urbanisation’ (1942). Louis Wirth, likewise, was responsible for the definitive codification of the social theory in ‘Urbanism as a Way of Life’. But even as Tisdale and Wirth wrote, American cities were being transformed. It is to the nature of this transformation that we now should turn, because it created a new and different process of urbanisation and a contrasting array of human consequences.

Social science and democratic theory

Abstract: NOW that there is talk of our moving into a ‘post-behavioural’ era in political science, it is perhaps timely to take a cool, hard look at the achievements, limitations and present status of the intellectual ‘revolution’ carried out in the United States between the end of the Second World War and the mid-1960s. The behavioural movement still persists, of course. But it has unquestionably taken a battering in recent years. And not only from the ideologues of the New Left. The old, brash confidence that at last the key to a truly scientific analysis of politics had been discovered was sharply attacked at the philosophical level as being based on a crude neo-positivist epistemology. The stir created by Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is only the best-known example of the way in which the philosophical foundations of behaviourism were undermined.I At the level of political science itself, the movement seemed to some critics to promise much and yield little.2 Ideology was always the achilles heel of behaviourism. Despite their repeated protestations of ‘value-neutrality’, American political scientists could not resist the temptations of real politics. The movement was born in the 1930s at the University of Chicago where, under the leadership of Charles Merriam, ‘systematic politics’ was heavily soaked in themoralizing of Progressivism? It grew to maturity during the world war against Fascism and the cold war against Communism. Then, in the 1950s, it had once again to defend its right flank, this time against the onslaught of McCarthyism. It was hardly surprising that, be it ever so scientific. American ‘behaviourism’ bore the marks of the momentous political events it bad lived through. What emerged was the now familiar mixture of ‘science’ and a wary, conservative brand of liberalism. Hard-won liberties must be protected from extremisms of all varieties. Hitler and McCarthy had made ‘populism’ very suspect? ‘Totalitarian democracy’ was a fashionable notion.s Put crudely, but not, I think. unjustly, liberalism was once again building its defences against democracy? Nowhere was this mixture of science and conservative-liberalism more striking than in the field of voting studies. Popular participation in politics had been part of the Progressive pr~gramme.~ A more elitist conception had been put forward in the early 1940s by Schumpeter and Schatt-

Aesthetics as Social Theory: Introduction to Feher's “Is the Novel Problematic?”

Abstract: Paradoxically, the rebirth of Marxist literary criticism in the United States goes hand in hand with renewed interest in the pre-Marxist writings of Georg Lukács. The important article by Ferenc Fehér which follows should contribute significantly to this Lukács revival. But Fehér's approach presupposes a background of aesthetic and philosophical debates which are only beginning to be known in this country. These remarks should be understood as a—tentative—sketch of a lengthy theoretical development within which American Marxist criticism must find its place. The German Enlightenment did not produce an Adam Smith, a Montesquieu, a Rousseau. It read these authors but its most original contribution to social theory lay not so much in economics and politics as in, surprisingly, aesthetics.