scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers on "Social theory published in 1985"


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the extent to which economic action is embedded in structures of social relations, in modern industrial society, is examined, and it is argued that reformist economists who attempt to bring social structure back in do so in the "oversocialized" way criticized by Dennis Wrong.
Abstract: How behavior and institutions are affected by social relations is one of the classic questions of social theory. This paper concerns the extent to which economic action is embedded in structures of social relations, in modern industrial society. Although the usual neoclasical accounts provide an "undersocialized" or atomized-actor explanation of such action, reformist economists who attempt to bring social structure back in do so in the "oversocialized" way criticized by Dennis Wrong. Under-and oversocialized accounts are paradoxically similar in their neglect of ongoing structures of social relations, and a sophisticated account of economic action must consider its embeddedness in such structures. The argument in illustrated by a critique of Oliver Williamson's "markets and hierarchies" research program.

25,601 citations


Book
28 Mar 1985
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss the nature and scope of distributive justice in philosophy and social science, and present a survey of Kant's theory of freedom and its application in political philosophy.
Abstract: Acknowledgements Introduction Part I. Philosophy and Social Science: 1. Interpretation and the sciences of man 2. Neutrality in political science 3. Social theory as practice 4. Understanding and ethnocentricity 5. Rationality 6. Foucault on freedom and truth Part II. Political Philosophy: 7. Atomism 8. What's wrong with negative liberty 9. The diversity of goods 10. Legitimation crisis? 11. The nature and scope of distributive justice 12. Kant's theory of freedom Index.

652 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Using sociolinguistic concepts of status and solidarity and empirical evidence from Catalonia and other community studies, the authors argues that the emphasis by reproduction theorists on formal institutions such as the school is misplaced, and that the structuralist representation of dominant, hegemonic ideologies as impenetrable does not capture the reality of working-class and minority community practices.
Abstract: Although the social theory behind sociolinguistics is in need of explicit formulation and critique, basic insights from the field can be of considerable value in addressing current debates concerning social reproduction. Using sociolinguistic concepts of status and solidarity and empirical evidence from Catalonia and other community studies, this paper argues that the emphasis by reproduction theorists on formal institutions such as the school is misplaced, and that the structuralist representation of dominant, hegemonic ideologies as impenetrable does not capture the reality of working-class and minority community practices. Attention to sociolinguistic evidence by social theorists could advance the understanding of hegemonic and oppositional cultural practices in the maintenance of social inequality. [Spain, language variation, sociolinguistic theory, cultural hegemony, social reproduction]

382 citations


Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 1985
TL;DR: In this paper, the structural pattern of Chinese attitudes and behavior by analyzing the Confucian paradigm of man is discussed, which is a common feature of Chinese people and has been unexplored in theoretical analyses.
Abstract: Publisher Summary The fundamental fact of Confucianism is that it is a secular social theory, the purpose of which is to achieve a harmonious society. This chapter discusses the structural pattern of Chinese attitudes and behavior by analyzing the Confucian paradigm of man. There are different articulations of Confucian theory of society and the individual. Most of the literature depicts Confucianism as a social theory and a social force that tends to mold the Chinese into group-oriented or family-oriented and socially dependent beings. This view has a good deal of sociological truth and has been more or less borne out to date by empirical studies. The Confucian paradigm of man has the theoretical thrust as well as a built-in structural imperative to develop a person into a relation-oriented individual who is not only socially responsive and dependent but is also capable of asserting a self-directed role in constructing a social world. However, this feature of Confucianism has been relatively neglected in theoretical analyses and has been unexplored in empirical research.

315 citations


Book
01 Jan 1985
TL;DR: In this article, the authors introduce the image of deviance and social control as a metaphor for power-reflexive deconstruction of difference and difference in the context of social control.
Abstract: 1. Images Of Deviance And Social Control: An Introduction. 2. The Demonic Perspective: Other Worldly Interpretations Of Deviance. 3. The Classical Perspective: Deviance As Rational Hedonism. 4. The Pathological Perspective: Deviance As Sickness. 5. The Social Disorganization Perspective: Rapid Change And Normative Breakdown In The Slums Of Chicago. 6. The Functionalist Perspective: Cybernetics, Negative Feedback, And The Benefits of Deviance. 7. The Anomie Perspective: Normlessness, Inequality, And Deviant Aspirations. 8. The Learning Perspective: Acquiring Deviance In Association With Others. 9. The Societal Reaction Perspective: Labeling And The Social Construction Of Deviance. 10. Critical Perspectives: Toward A Power-Reflexive Deconstruction Of Deviance And Difference. 11. Critical Perspectives: Social Theory And Social Change.

280 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a theoretical and methodological framework for a "social constructionist" analysis of the role of gay communities in the "urban renaissance" is presented, and an argument is made that gay involvement in the urban renaissance constitutes part of a spatial response to a historically specific form of oppression.
Abstract: This paper provides a theoretical and methodological framework for a "social constructionist" analysis of the role of gay communities in the "urban renaissance." We suggest that this is important both because as a substantive area of research the role of gays in the "urban renaissance" has been neglected, and because it highlights the need to overcome the structure versus agency debate in social theory. Structuralists have tended to regard the role of cultural identity in the "urban renaissance" asepiphenomenal, while voluntarists have regarded it as indicative only of personal choices in "lifestyles." An analysis of the social construction of the gay identity is stipulated, and an argument is made that gay involvement in the "urban renaissance" constitutes part of a spatial response to a historically specific form of oppression. An enumeration of what needs to be done to more fully implement our approach is provided.

253 citations


Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 1985
TL;DR: The theory of structuration is at the heart of social theory, and should hence also be regarded as of very considerable importance for the conduct of empirical research in the social sciences.
Abstract: Most social analysts treat time and space as mere environments of action, and accept unthinkingly the conception of time, as mensurable clock time, characteristic of modern Western culture. With the exception of the recent works of geographers — of which more in a moment — social scientists have failed to construct their thinking around the modes in which social systems are constituted across time-space. I want to argue that investigation of this issue is one main task of what I call the theory of structuration; it is not a specific type or ‘area’ of social science, which can be pursued or discarded at will. It is at the heart of social theory, and should hence also be regarded as of very considerable importance for the conduct of empirical research in the social sciences.

201 citations


Book
01 Dec 1985
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a fresh reading of works by the classic figures of modern European and American social theory Durkheim, Freud, Simmel and Weber, and Park, Parsons, and Merton.
Abstract: The essays turn about a single theme, the loss of the capacity to deal constructively with ambiguity in the modern era. Levine offers a head-on critique of the modern compulsion to flee ambiguity. He centers his analysis on the question of what responses social scientists should adopt in the face of the inexorably ambiguous character of all natural languages. In the course of his argument, Levine presents a fresh reading of works by the classic figures of modern European and American social theory Durkheim, Freud, Simmel and Weber, and Park, Parsons, and Merton."

186 citations


Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 1985
TL;DR: In what sense does space make a difference? How important is it and how should space and its supposed effects be understood? Can there be a general theory of space and society? What are the implications of space for social theory and practice? as mentioned in this paper try to answer these questions by using concepts from realist philosophy.
Abstract: In what sense does space make a difference? How important is it and how should space and its supposed effects be understood? Can there be a general theory of space and society? What are the implications of space for social theory and practice? I shall try to answer these questions by using concepts from realist philosophy. I shall argue that despite the considerable growth of interest in space, the difference it makes and its possible implications for social theory are still widely misunderstood, largely because of a failure to distinguish abstract from concrete research. Yet even when clarified, space still presents both social research and actual practice with considerable difficulties, and these are discussed in the final section.

185 citations


Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 1985
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors summarize some major substantive fruits for the social sciences of the systematic theory construction built on the foundations and continuing developments made by Louis Guttman, with whom I have been privileged to study and work for over a decade.
Abstract: This chapter is an attempt to summarize some major substantive fruits for the social sciences of the systematic theory construction built on the foundations and continuing developments made by Louis Guttman, with whom I have been privileged to study and work for over a decade. The present chapter surveys results attained to date which, stimulated and guided by the facet-analytic approach, have led to substantive theory construction and the recognition of some laws of human behavior. The class of theories to be discussed is that based on regional hypotheses, where the space to be analyzed portrays a set of variables and their intercorrelations. A brief summary of these and other theories is given in Guttman (1980) as well, of course, as being dealt with in various ways in all of the other contributions to this volume.

146 citations





Book ChapterDOI
Charles Taylor1
01 Mar 1985
TL;DR: The authors argue that the activities of searching for, creating, espousing and rejecting theories are too little understood, and that they are far from being unproblematic, as we often assume in our concern to focus on the content of our theories.
Abstract: In this chapter and the next, I want to argue that we could gain a great deal by examining our theorizing about social matters as a practice . My claim is that the activities of searching for, creating, espousing and rejecting theories are too little understood, and that they are far from being unproblematic, as we often assume in our concern to focus on the content of our theories. Moreover, I want to maintain that gaining clarity about the practice of theorizing will help us to understand more about the scope and validity of our theories. Being more reflectively clear about what we do in our theoretical activity will help us to answer questions which we cannot even properly pose as long as we remain convinced that social theory is a straightforward matter of designing hypotheses and comparing them to the facts. In particular, I hope to throw light on two important questions in what follows. The first concerns how we validate social theories. The second starts from the answer to the first and asks what is involved in offering a theoretical account of societies very different from our own. What makes the whole matter appear unproblematical to us is the hold of what I want to call the natural science model, the widespread view that the natural sciences can provide us with paradigms for the methods and procedures of social science. We think we understand the activity of exploring nature. Here, too, we are certainly over-complacent.


Book ChapterDOI
TL;DR: The conceptualization of culture is extraordinary in two respects: at the explanatory level the status of culture oscillates between that of a supremely independent variable, the superordinate power in society and, with a large sweep of the pendulum, a position of supine dependence on other social institutions.
Abstract: The conceptualization of culture is extraordinary in two respects. It has displayed the weakest analytical development of any key concept in sociology and it has played the most wildly vacillating role within sociological theory. At the descriptive level, the notion of ‘culture’ remains inordinately vague despite little dispute that it is indeed a core concept In every way ‘culture’ is the poor relation of ‘structure’. Definition of the former has not undergone an elaboration equivalent to that of the latter. Consequently there is no ready fund of analytical terms for designating the components of the cultural realm corresponding to those which delineate parts of the structural domain (roles, organizations, institutions, systems, etc). Methodologically, such is the poverty of conceptualization that there are as yet no ‘units’ for describing culture: essentially cultures are still ‘grasped’, in contrast to structures which are now ‘analysed’. Basically the notion of cultures being structured is uncommonly rare outside of structuralism: instead of different ‘cultural structures’ there are endless ‘cultural differences’. At the explanatory level the status of culture oscillates between that of a supremely independent variable, the superordinate power in society and, with a large sweep of the pendulum, a position of supine dependence on other social institutions. Hence, in various sociological theories, culture swings from being the prime mover (credited with engulfing and orchestrating the entire social structure) to the opposite extreme where it is reduced to a mere epiphenomenon (charged only with providing an ideational representation of structure). Together, this descriptive vagueness and these theoretical vagaries, mean that culture occupies no clear place in sociological analysis.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: For instance, the authors pointed out that "the models of industrialization and social change, whether Marxist or functionalist, have been derived largely from the historical experience of Western Europe and, especially, of Britain".
Abstract: Models of industrialization and social change, whether Marxist or functionalist, have been derived largely from the historical experience of Western Europe and, especially, of Britain. Social theories came to be constructed upon a specific reading of a particular, and in some respects, unique, historical development. These theories or models, now deepseated in our historiographical consciousness, increasingly offer yardsticks against which industrial development elsewhere in the world is measured. On closer examination, universal postulates thus derived have appeared to generate a large number of special cases. Vast expanses of the globe are seemingly littered with cases of arrested development or examples of frustrated bourgeois revolutions.

Book
01 Jan 1985
TL;DR: Clark argues that the heterogeneous nature of our society, with its pluralism of values, causes the rules of social conduct to be constantly made and remade as discussed by the authors, and he argues that legal doctrine is no different from other social theories: judicial interpretations are constructed out of specific circumstances and conflicting values.
Abstract: In this remarkable inquiry into the bases of social theory, Gordon L. Clark argues that the heterogeneous nature of our society, with its pluralism of values, causes the rules of social conduct to be constantly made and remade. Examining the role of thecourts in structuring and achieving social discourse, he contends that legal doctrine is no different from other social theories: judicial interpretations are constructed out of specific circumstances and conflicting values, not deduced from neutral and logical principles. There is, he asserts, no final arbiter somehow unaffected by our controversies and schisms. As concrete examples, Clark analyzes four court disputes in depth, showing that the concept of local autonomy has very different meanings and implications in each of them. These cases Boston's defense of resident-preference hiring policies, conflict over urban land-use zoning in Toronto, a Chicago's suburb's fight against a sewage treatment plant, and the evolution of the City of Denver's power since 1900 demonstrate that legal reasoning is not impervious to other kinds of reasoning, and the solutions provided by the courts are not unique. To ground his explorations, Clark investigates both liberalism and structuralism, showing that both are inadequate bases for determining social policy. He mounts provocative critiques of the works of de Tocqueville, Nozick, Tiebout, and Posner on the one hand and Castells and Poulantzas on the other. This ambitious and important work will command the interest of geographers, political scientists, economists, sociologists, and legal scholars."


Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 1985
TL;DR: The recent resurgence of philosophical discourse in the social sciences, which seeks to conjoin theoretical realism with so-called "structuration theory" has rekindled the spirit of inquiry once known as dialectical materialism, while contributing much in the way of clarity and systematic development of basic tenets.
Abstract: Class is arguably the single most crucial axis on which human life turns in the modern world, yet is at the same time one of the most difficult of social facts to grasp. Marx provided a powerful conception, rooted in the mode of production, with which to understand the class character of capitalist societies. This theory remains subject to doubt, however, because of persistent failure of vision in the face of a social reality that does not conform to tidy conceptual systems. Space is another fundamental dimension of human life, yet the geographic element in the social sciences has atrophied for want of a way in which spatial relations might comfortably be integrated into social theory. Fortunately, the recent revival of philosophical discourse in the social sciences, which seeks to conjoin ‘theoretical realism’ with so-called ‘structuration theory’, has rekindled the spirit of inquiry once known as dialectical materialism, while contributing much in the way of clarity and systematic development of basic tenets. This mode of thought offers a way out of the dead-ends to which class analysis and geography have come, although the refined tools of philosophy need to be fitted into the powerful machine of Marx’s theory of capitalism in order for the analytic work to proceed.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Giddens as discussed by the authors proposes a general theory centered on the notion of "structuration" and argues that the spatiality of social practices belongs at the center of social theory and historical analysis.
Abstract: A number of social theorists have attempted to elaborate poststructuralist analytics that capture the dialectics of social structure and human agency. Giddens proposes a ‘general theory’, centered on the notion of ‘structuration’. He is particularly important to geography because he suggests that the spatiality of social practices belongs at the center of social theory and historical analysis. Systems of social practices are defined by their time–space characteristics. There are problems in the corpus of Giddens's work that require attention, however, before such a theory can be fully viable. These include: Giddens's derogation of intentional action in favor of practical knowledge; his notion that structure is ‘instantiated’; his concept of power; his treatment of material resources; and his lack of attention to discursive strategies. From an examination of these areas of Giddens's work, it can be seen that he advances several, inconsistent, theories of social change. In a reinvigorated theoretical human ...



Journal ArticleDOI
Scott Lash1
TL;DR: In this article, the problematic nature and political implications of modernist and post-modernist culture are discussed, and the role of Jurgen Habermas's intervention is discussed.
Abstract: Western social theory over the past fifteen to twenty years has been marked by a paucity of communication between Germanic-critical and Gallicstructural inputs; moreover, relations between those Anglo-Americans who drew inspiration from the former and those influenced by the latter have been characterized frostily by silence. It is to the credit of Jurgen Habermas to have recently broken seals on hermetic casks and opened debate. In this context, Habermas's intervention brings into sharp relief the problematic nature and political implications of modernist and postmodernist culture.'


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In recent years a revival has occurred in analytical and empirical studies related to the social theory of Talcott Parsons as discussed by the authors, particularly concerning the more normative components of social systems, and on "general action complexes" that synthesize social, cultural, personality, and behavioral aspects of major phenomena in modern societies.
Abstract: In recent years a revival has occurred in analytical and empirical studies related to the social theory of Talcott Parsons. The newer analytical work addresses the whole of Parsons' effort in the context of general questions that bear on all social theory. Especially important works by Bershady, Habermas, Munch, and Alexander establish a new baseline for future analytical assessments of the theory. Much of the empirical work focuses on specification and assessment of theoretical propositions, particularly concerning the more normative components of social systems, and on "general action complexes" that synthesize social, cultural, personality, and behavioral aspects of major phenomena in modern societies.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that Durkheim, reacting against nineteenth century representatives of the secularization thesis, articulated a contrasting view of modernity and meaning, and that the writings of Bellah and Parsons on modernity this paper fall squarely within this perspective.
Abstract: The rise of modernity signified not only an unprecedented epoch of material progress but evoked a recurring sense of cultural crisis. With the discreditation of the Christian-Aristotelian cosmos, new meaning constellations were necessary to provide cognitive and moral frameworks of order, identity, and purposeful existence. Modern social theory crystallized as an effort to explain but also justify or shape the emerging cultural complex of modernity. In the nineteenth century the dominant perspective on modernity and meaning was the secularization thesis which found its most sophisticated sociological expression in Max Weber and in the Weberians in the twentieth century. I argue that Durkheim, reacting against nineteenth century representatives of the secularization thesis, articulated a contrasting view of modernity and meaning. Furthermore, that the writings of Bellah and Parsons on modernity and meaning fall squarely within this Durkheimian perspective. The great transformation of European societies issued forth problems of meaning as established cultural frameworks securing identity, moral order, and purposeful existence were disrupted. By problems of meaning, I refer, for example, to a pervasive uncertainty regarding ultimate beliefs and values, confusing images of self, society and nature, and the ceaseless conflict over the ends, rules, and norms in terms of which personal and collective life is organized and legitimated. Although these cultural dislocations and problems initially stem from institutional changes linked to the demise of the old order, their more direct and sustaining source lies in the disturbance of the modern cultural configuration accompanying incessant modernization and in the unique cultural logics and dynamics of modernity. In premodern societies the perception of being situated in a sociocultural order expressive of the natural or cosmic order legitimated culturally established patterns of meaning in such an authoritative manner that whatever stirrings of collective existential and moral doubt were felt, they were contained from erupting into a full-blown cultural crisis. If identity, moral coherence, and social integration were experienced as problems in premodern societies, it was either during times of crisis or confined to individuals on the social periphery. The problem of meaning was insinuated into the social center only with the rise of modern society. This is apparent, for example, in the shift in modern philosophical consciousness to the problem of knowledge as well as in the widespread search for secular grounds of belief and morality in the eighteenth century (cf. Crocker, 1959; Lidz, 1979). By the nineteenth century, the problem of meaning was not only expressed as a philosophical problem (grounds of knowledge, being, and morality) and a existential concern with personal meaning and moral coherence (e.g., in Baudelaire, Kierkegaard, or Nietzsche) but, in addition, became a topic of sociological analysis. The sociological tradition emerged, in part, as an attempt to analyze the formation of meaning constellations in modern societies and, at least implicitly, as a form of moral inquiry offering arguments legitimating one or another form of social life (cf. Becker, 1966; Gouldner, 1970:486; Seidman, 1983a).

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the distinction between private troubles and public issues is interpreted as indicating both a conceptual and an institutional separation between civil society and the public sphere, and it is argued that Habermas's social theory is founded upon the view that "distorted communication" should be analysed within an already institutionalized public space within civil society.
Abstract: The paper interprets C. Wright Mills's distinction between ‘private troubles' and ‘public issues' as indicating both a conceptual and an institutional separation between civil society and the public sphere. It goes on to argue that Habermas's social theory is founded upon the view that ‘distorted communication’ should be analysed within an already institutionalized public space within civil society. Arguments that claim that the public sphere is degenerate on historical or theoretical grounds are rejected. The paper differentiates between pre-institutional and institutional levels of the public sphere and concludes by illustrating this conceptual distinction, first, through a brief discussion of ‘new social movements' and Alain Touraine's actionist sociology, and secondly, through a discussion of natural justice and public inquiries.

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Jan 1985-Osiris
TL;DR: The Organization Man (1956), William H. Whyte, Jr., instructed an entire generation in the realities of organizational life in America, insisting that the organization employed the ideas and techniques of the social sciences to resolve tensions between the group and the individual.
Abstract: A FORCEFUL ANSWER to the question why anyone should be interested 1A1. in the history of the social sciences in America was provided three decades ago. In his classic The Organization Man (1956), William H. Whyte, Jr., instructed an entire generation in the realities of organizational life in America. Whyte insisted that the organization employed the ideas and techniques of the social sciences to resolve tensions between the group and the individual. With equal measures of paternalism and insidiousness, the organization established its hegemony in society and culture. The organization and its social ethic were everywhere: in grade schools and colleges, neighborhoods and suburbs, houses of worship and places of recreation, factories and offices, mass culture and popular government, even in the private worlds of family relations and personal friendships. Whyte argued that the organizational ideal demanded the individual's conformity with and acquiescence to the larger group or collective. The organizational ethos branded individualism as subversive. The organization throttled individuality. The individual had no meaningful existence outside the organization or the group. Thus Whyte attributed much of the responsibility for this crisis of American culture and society, not simply to the organization, but to its appropriation of social science thinking for its own purposes.' Whatever the merits of the particulars of Whyte's indictment, his general thesis provides a useful and exciting point of departure for historical inquiry. The social sciences have played an enormous role in science, society, and culture for much of American history. The social sciences have been concerned with people, not things. They have been concerned with us, our society, economy, polity, and culture. Ultimately they have been invented and formulated as responses to the most profound questions of the relations among human beings, above all of the implications of group identity for individuals in the national population. This does not mean that the social sciences have not been sciences, disciplines, and professions. It does, however, signify that much more has been involved. As useful as a traditional disciplinary focus is, scholars should be prepared to use broader perspectives as well. In the last quarter century the history of the social sciences has slowly become a recognized field for historians of science and American historians. Within the field there are several journals, a newsletter, and a scholarly organization. Increasingly contributions to the history of various disciplines have appeared with the full apparatus of professional historical scholarship. Today it is not uncommon for historians to write about eugenics, sociobiology, mental testing, and the so-called helping and manipulative professions, for example, topics that bid

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a hermeneutic theory of action is proposed, which emphasises the importance of tradition, style and rituals, and demonstrates that action and structure presuppose and explain each other.
Abstract: If action theory is to be relevant for the study of social phenomena, its scope has to be enlarged so as to include social structures. A hermeneutic theory of action, which draws on the thoughts of Gadamer, Merleau-Ponty, Ricoeur and Giddens, can meet this requirement. The hermeneutic concept of action, which emphasises the importance of tradition, style and rituals, demonstrates that action and structure presuppose and explain each other. The mutual relationship between action and structure is particularly clear in theories of human development in the domain of psychology, psychotherapy and education. These theories can be used to construct a theory of social evolution, as has been developed by Habermas. By integrating structural, theoretical and critical points of view, a hermeneutic theory of action opens a perspective in which action theory and social theory might be successfully combined.