Search

Presents a preface to the June 01, 1990, issue of the periodical "Sociological Forum."

Mathematics provides a set of tools and a language by which sociologists can precisely develop and express an abstract theory of society. Simulation games provide relatively limited and controlled contexts in which qualitative observations may suggest insights upon which to build systematic quantitative social theory. James Coleman was one of the strongest advocates for the use of simulation games in developing and communicating social theory; his Democracy game was a valuable tool in the development of his theory of collective action. In this paper, I provide an extended example of the use of observations of simulation games. My observations of two different games suggested ways to reconsider and revise certain aspects of rational choice theory. Building upon Herbert A. Simon's ([1957] Models of Man, Social and Rational: Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting, New York: Wiley) and John W. Thibaut and Harold H. Kelley's ([1959] The Social Psychology of Groups, New York: Wiley) theories of rationality in the context of incomplete information, my observations suggested that “frustration behavior” may be a rational response to the failure to meet expectations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accomplished sciences are distinguished by an active orientation to data. Rather than explaining passive observations or even laboratory results, these sciences put a premium on creating effects or objects never before observed. Theories provide a basic for denying the data, in showing how nature can be better organized to produce some new effect or object. In this paper, a method for constructing these theories is developed A sociological application is carried out to the point where an accomplishment is claimed. A very peculiar object is discovered - a relationship. Though it does not resemble anything we may have ever observed it offers to groping actors a guide to something that works and hence could become something that is commonly observed. Likely scruples are addressed that might block the pursuit of such accomplishments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper has several objectives. First, it demonstrates the utility of employing an array of metatheoretical tools (paradigm, paradigm bridging micro -- macro, integrated paradigm, theoretical syntheses) to analyze the recent history of mainstream American sociological theory. Second, it shows that we have moved through three rather well defined epochs in sociological theory over the last three decades and are entering a fourth. Third, it demonstrates that the trend in recent years has been away from theoretical separatism and exclusivity, and toward theoretical synthesis and integration. Finally, and relatedly, the integrated sociological paradigm that I sketched a decade ago, or at least something very much like it, it shown to be now much closer to being a reality, perhaps even a defining reality, in sociological theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most theory and research on organizations assumes that the great diversity of organizational attributes reflects variation in implementation of a relatively small number of forms. Modern conceptions of organizational form concentrate on discontinuities in distributions of either attributes or relationships with other organizations. We argue that this approach be supplemented with an explicitly dynamic one that focuses on processes that create and erode boundaries in the organizational world. This paper discusses some of the advantages of this approach and specifics a number of processes that create and erode boundaries around organizational populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this essay, I reflect on the ways elements of Robin M. Williams Jr.’s research agenda might be carried forth in a meaningful way to sociological studies of twenty-first-century phenomena—in particular identifying the ways in which the facts of human interaction, of human expectation, and of human influence shapes outcomes of significance for our present, our future, and, therefore, our past. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

American sociology as a field tends to marginalize psychoanalytic perspectives despite scholars Cavalletto and Silver showing that this was not the case during Talcott Parson's intellectual heyday in the 1940s. From the 1970s on, though, constructionists emphasized the conservative rather than liberatory side of the Freudian tradition and symbolic interactionism took the place of psychoanalysis as the legitimized framework for understanding individuals. Marginalization has occurred for at least three reasons: (1) the legacies of positivism created a bias toward empirically observable rather than relatively unmeasurable concepts like the Freudian unconscious; (2) psychoanalysis uses internal data whereas sociologists look externally rather than inward; (3) because psychoanalysis focuses on individuals and sociology on groups, it is argued that the two are incommensurate. Nevertheless, even in the face of marginalization, some scholars have combined psychoanalytic and sociological perspectives in myriad ways conceiving of multi dimensional rather than rationalistic individuals within social and cultural settings; exploring interactional dynamics that are at once psychic-and-social; and, as in the work of Wilfred Bion, studying the psychoanalytic mechanisms of groups themselves. I posit that the ongoing marginalization of psychoanalysis deprives the discipline of an innovative tool of analysis, an especially salient one at times when the emotional and psychological dimensions of social life are glaringly evident. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A literary criticism of the book "Shalimar the Clown," by Salman Rushdie, is presented. The article discusses the sociological aspects of the book in terms of grief, injustice, activism, and political sociology. The article connects the novel to issues of terrorism, Muslim activism, and the causes and effects of violence.

Contemporary social theory suggests that the meaning of any object differs by how we, as social actors, respond and relate to it. The challenge for sociology lies in exploring the different strategies and practices recursively and productively embedded in these relationships. In this article, I present data from in-depth interviews with 20 home-based employees to illustrate how these individuals interact with familiar objects in their surroundings to form anchor points for diverse lines of conduct. Although I draw from a number of sociological theories in my analyses, I further utilize cognitive theory to outline three micro-psychological practices (i.e., routinization, goal targeting, and emotional alignment) that respondents apply in their attempt to establish the desired association between objects and identities. In this way, the article both extends previous lines of inquiry into the relationship between objects and actors, and makes a new contribution to the growing literature on culture and cognition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay proposes that sociology can learn from social theory developed in the humanities. In the face of recent challenges to sociological explanations of social outcomes (from rational choice and economic theory, cognitive psychological theories of intelligence, and communitarian social philosophy), social theory should specify the constitutive force of social signification. After identifying a key weakness in theoretical approaches currently available in sociology, the inadequacy of various conceptions of the social, I analyze three significant new works in cultural studies in order to sketch out alternative ways of defining and measuring the force of social signification. The essay concludes with an attempt to establish the basis of a dialogue between cultural studies and sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a review essay on several books related to world systems that existed before 1500. The article provides information about works done on social theory which are identified into four broad sets of implications. These implications, if pursued, would promote rethinking of significant problems in social theory. First, much precapitalist world-systems work has considerable bearing on the process of state formation. These writings suggest that a major source of the formation, transformation and possible demise of the state as a form of social organization is found in intersocial interactions. The problem of patriarchy is closely tied to state formation which explains male dominance in all state societies. Third, many state-based world systems absorbed and formed nonstate societies generating oppositional states, creating enclave minorities or generating problems of acculturation or resocialization for those incorporated into the world-system. Fourth, even absorption by a state may create new status groups. System dynamics are a major source of ethnic transformations.

When one examines current national anthems and flags, one finds a great deal of variety. What explains this variation? Possible factors include a nation's world-system position and its degree of modernization. Specifically, I analyze the ways in which world-system position and modernization affect the design or configuration the syntactic structure of the symbols national leaders adopt to convey their nation's identity. Findings reveal a link between a nation's world-system position and the structure of its symbols. Leaden of corn nations adopt more basic anthems and flags than their semiperiphery and periphery counterparts. However,modernization has no such influence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on the author's view on the non cumulation of social science literature. He says that when he was a graduate sociology student many years ago, he visualized the literature as an ever growing mountain of sociological findings that would continue to grow until, someday, the discipline had obtained reasonably complete and perfect knowledge about the workings of society. He says that others held more sensible versions of this image, but the hope that scientific research could be cumulative was for-ever destroyed by Thomas Kuhns, a sociologist, finding that the paradigmatic atoms that underlie everyday normal science are overthrown and replaced periodically. He says that empirical researchers regularly carry out research that repeats findings already reported by earlier sociologists. Moreover, they do so not to replicate previous findings. He further says that only social theory seems to be exempt from this rule, for theoretical writings often build on the ideas of past major theorists.

A brief review of the evolutionism of Comte, Marx, Spencer, and Durkheim, representatives of the Masters, reveals an excessive concern with the integration of differentiation. This represents their most common feature, but neither it nor anything else adds up to a definite evolutionary theory. An antithetical convergence, with Comte excluded, refers to a varying utilization of the Darwinian "mechanism," natural selection. It is not clear, however, that the masters fully grasped the meaning of natural selection, or indeed that this could be understood unequivocally. As a result they failed to convey unambiguously a fundamental interest in evolution to subsequent generations of social scientists. A period of estrangement from evolutionary theory ensued in which the focus seemed to shift from social evolution to social change. By the 1950s, sociology and anthropology experienced a revival of evolutionary interest largely in the form of a reiteration of old conceptions and problems. A critical glance at evolutionary biology reveals, next, an ambiguity in the concept of natural selection when understood as ultimate cause and mechanism of evolution. The basic significance of the evolutionistic alliance known as sociobiology lies in the latter's partial redressing of the ambiguity by way of the "maximization principle." Equally important, indeed complementary, is the sociobiological appeal to the social sciences for help to discover the environmental parameters that impinge on the principle- and thus for a contribution to the development of a biocultural model. A few examples of biocultural theorizing follow that show varying degrees of systemic dependence between the biological and the cultural. The basic nomothetic thrust of the emerging biocultural model is to emphasize the adaptive paths along which cultural phenomena are likely to evolve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After long neglect, evolutionary thinking is receiving new emphasis in the social sciences. Although evolutionary theories in biology are complex, changing, and often controversial, the basic concepts of variation, selection, and transmission potentially have powerful applications in sociology. In such uses, a crucial distinction must be made between developmental processes and evolutionary processes. Two main approaches characterize current evolutionary thinking in sociology: sociobiological explanations, and coevolutionary accounts of the interaction of genes and culture. Evolution through natural selection can occur with genes, cultural elements, and any other self-replicating codes. Although social learning is the cultural analogue of genetic transmission, cultural evolution does not necessarily maximize genetic fitness. Newly emerging sociological theories of evolution hold promise of integrating micro- and macroprocesses, providing explanations of complexity and diversity in social change, reconciling ideas of agency and structure, and linking sociology to biology without misleading reductionism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some approaches to metatheory are criticized for their tendency to avoid scientific sociology's central task: to explain how the social universe operates. While much metatheory is intellectually stimulating, it can also be debilitating in that it pulls social theory into reviews of the history of ideas, textual debate, philosophical discourse, ideological critique, and other unresolvable intellectual issues. In so doing, metatheory directs attention away from the analysis of the operative dynamics of the social world. Such need not be the case, however, for metatheory can be used to produce better theories. A general strategy for using metatheory to produce theory is proposed, and portions of this strategy are illustrated with a preliminary analysis of several conflict theories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The theoretical origins of the conflict, functionalist and organizational paradigms in sociology are usually seen as distinct. Common elements in the social theories of Marx, Durkheim and Weber are usually seen as common responses to the development of industrial, capitalist, democratic, bureaucratic structures. However, in all three milieus, Hegel's social theory, particularly his theory of the break-up of feudal society, was a looming point of reference. Thus, an inventory of the respective common elements and breaks from Hegel of founding sociological theorists represents one of the simplest ways of relating Marx, Durkheim and Weber to each other and to neighboring disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]