Search

Dilthey has no place in sociology because his Verstehen method was accused of psychologism. He fell into the trap of scientism, a positivist ideal of science to which even the German sociological tradition wanted to belong. The paper attempts to extend the sociological canon to the interpretive categories of 'life' and 'thought' theorized by Dilthey, and to demonstrate the valid application of his method, particularly in understanding human suffering and social needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper is intended to be a humble attempt to redeem sociology, a discipline unjustly perceived as a handmaiden among the human sciences, from the secondary role to which it is inappropriately relegated in deference to an evergrowing trend of technicalization and formalization, even algorithmic, of economics and law and even of certain specialized branches of sociology itself. On the contrary, an attempt is made to demonstrate, keeping in the background the great work of Mireilles Delmas-Marti, that it is precisely the most general, historically-anthropologically compromised and culturologically oriented part of this discipline that is the one most capable of accounting for the complexity underlying the local/global dynamics in progress, deciphering the asynchronic and destabilizing forces that corrode the effectiveness of the rules redesigning scenarios and destinies of social actors, and partially motivating the reasons involved. It seems all the more significant and urgent to us to push academic reflection towards a revival of the "great sociology" traditionally understood, in a season of disturbing juridical nihilism and worrying déshistoricisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]