Search

This paper traces relations between the study of work and the evolution of British sociology as an academic discipline. This reveals broad trajectories of marginalization, as the study of work becomes less central to Sociology as a discipline; increasing fragmentation of divergent approaches to the study of work; and -- as a consequence of both -- a narrowing of the sociological vision for the study of work. Our paper calls for constructive dialogue across different approaches to the study of work and a re-invigoration of sociological debate about work and -- on this basis -- for in-depth interdisciplinary engagement enabling us to build new approaches that will allow us to study work in all its diversity and complexity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reconsiders the possibility for unification of sociological theory by the rational choice model. This is induced by the claims of rational choice theorists that extending this model from economics to sociology can be conducive to establishing a unifying paradigm and method to be given 'paradigmatic privilege' within sociology. The outcome of such an extension of the economic approach has been 'sociological rational choice theory' or 'rational action theory for sociology'. Within sociology, such a rational choice model is regarded as a major theoretical or/and methodological innovation and thus a 'new' promise for sociology's unification. Overall, the paper suggests that these 'ecumenistic' claims of rational choice theorists cannot be taken at face value since they are predicated upon dubious views of the relations between economy and society and between economics and sociology, including inadequate interpretations of neoclassical economics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociological reconceptualisations of the structure/agency divide have motivated important theoretical advances in the discipline, and the development of 'structuration theories' and 'analytical dualism' has promoted fresh thought about dominant views of the human agent. These approaches have sought to release sociology from any residual reliance on the oversocialised conception of the individual that formed part of the legacy of Parsonian sociology. It is the argument of this paper, however, that while structuration theory and analytical dualism focus on the creative powers of human reflexivity, as part of their rejection of the 'oversocialised agent', the theoretical weight they place on consciousness neglects the socially shaped somatic bases of action and structure, and results in an undersocialised view of the embodied agent. If the relationship between socialisation and agency needs analysing in terms of embodiment as much as in terms of the cognitive internalisation of norms and values, however, there are good reasons for structuration theory and analytical dualism rejecting attempts to ground subsequent notions of the embodied agent they may develop in dominant, static notions of the habitus. These minimise creativity and make it difficult to analyse social change. An important challenge for future reconceptualisations of the structure/agency divide, then, is to construct a sociology which recognises the significance for human agency of a socially shaped form of embodiment, yet which refuses to make the embodied actor a mere product of society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses critically some major developments of post-Parsonian sociological/social theory, focusing particularly on the micro-macro and agency-structure issues. The failure to deal in a satisfactory manner with these issues has led to a theoretical impasse that present theorising does not seem able to overcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper traces the contours of current, practical explanatory problems in stratification theory showing the similarity of issues in apparently diverse approaches, both Marxist and non- Marxist. There are two related purposes. The first is to show the specific nature of the current crisis, locating paninular explanatory failures. The second is to illustrate the more general issue of the way in which the central epistemology of self-conscious social science derives from and describes failures in social scientific practice. This is well illustrated in the response to current problems. Both purposes are served by Laying bare the procedures by which attempts are made to convert the contradictions inherent in explanatory failures into contradictory features of social experience which could be explained by consistent theories. Contradiction is thus, apparently, removed from its role in specifying the need for theoretical development, to encapsulating the processes by which current social arrangements are reproduced. However, we show that despite initial plausibility such attempts merely displace explanatory contradictions rather than solve them. The attempts are justified by an explicit or implicit action frame of reference which, though it is central to abstract discussions of the nature of social science, is invoked in practical social science only in circumstances of explanatory failure in an unproductive attempt to insulate the theories from the consequences of their failure. Productive social science is the resolution of contradictions in the transformation of theoretical objects and relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is an attempt to critically examine the social theory of Pierre Bourdieu. His theoretical model is rooted in the attempt to dialectically transcend the opposition between objectivism and subjectivism. However, since his scheme remains essentially deterministic and circular - objective structures produce culture, which determines practice, which reproduces those objective structures - this project necessarily fails. The effect of Bourdieu's work on certain works in the English cultural studies genre is briefly discussed and Halsey's recent empirical critique of Bourdieu is itself criticized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes the origins and development of the sociology of health and illness in Britain and shows that these were rooted in practical concerns, rather than deriving from sociological theory or general sociology. Medical practitioners and researchers, health administrators, patients and the feminist movement have been influences encouraging sociologists to turn their attention to health and illness. The present state of the sub-discipline is one of great activity, but little theoretical or methodological unity. The contribution to the subject of Parsons, Freidson and Mechanic, the marxists, the British post-Fabians, empiricists and phenomenologists are discussed, as is the contribution of the subdiscipline to health and health policy research. In considering the future of the subject, a sociology of health and illness rather than of medicine is proposed and the inevitable moral and political implications of sociological activity in this area are exposed. The need to face the implications of suffering for social relations in health care and the tendency to ignore these is discussed. The wide-ranging importance of the sociology of health and illness to general sociology is stressed and its potential contribution to health and health policy assessed [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]