Search

A genuinely sociological theory of social change is lacking, but the literature of the social sciences abounds with the elements of such a theory. The present paper deals with one of these elements, namely the change from tribalism to urbanism as a major instance of social change. For this purpose the concepts of culture and civilization are examined, and a plea is made to restore the concept of civilization to its rightful place in the vocabulary of sociologists and anthropologists. In doing this, the intention is not to reduce social change to the process of urbanization, but rather to isolate the sociological element which makes for social change within the supersession of a familial by a territorial society, wherever it occurs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Similar in scope and significance to the industrial and agrarian revolutions, the modem scientific revolution has been slowly developing for the past century bringing changes which are both obvious and obscure. In general, scholars have analyzed this revolution in terms of two major conceptions which have emphasized either the effect of science technology or the effect of science on the social institutions and social organization of society. More recently interest has focused upon the growth of power of science and its alienating effects. But one aspect of this revolution, perhaps the most important aspect, has been almost totally ignored. This paper is devoted to an examination of this aspect the effect of science on culture. From its early beginnings, when it was at war with theology, to the postindustrial period of widespread acceptance, science has made its mark upon culture first in the production of new information and thus a "new world view" and later in the rise of "scientism" where the uncritical adoration of science has produced a new value in society-that of science itself. Because of their historical development and confinement to certain types of analytical models, sociology and the sociology of science have been unsuccessful in dealing with this type of social change. In addition to sociology's neglect of the effect of science on culture, sociologists are producing fragmented information about science and the revolution which leads to the belief that science, because of its internal value structure and utilitarian relationship to other social institutions, can not develop unchecked to a position of overwhelming power. Without any manifest intentions, sociologists have produced a conservative evaluation of science and the revolution.ceptions of the revolution; (2) the reasons for the neglect of sociological analysis of the effect of science on culture; (3) a brief overview of the replacement, destruction, and accommodation theories of the effect of science on culture; and (4) the change from atomistic accommodation during the preindustrial period, when science was at war with theology, to the holistic accommodation of science in the rise of scientism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary applications of behavioral and social science to the understanding of how cinematic narratives influence viewers tend to be bifurcated. Cognitive film/media theorists and psychologists emphasize microlevel processes at the expense of the macrolevel. Sociological approaches emphasize macrolevel analysis at the expense of the microlevel. Bridging these two levels is the mesolevel concept of identification elaborated to apply to stereotypic role relationships; that is, schemas or associative networks linking thoughts, memories, emotions, and behaviors. Here assumptions of Social Cognitive Theory and Transactional Analysis are employed to contextualize a discussion of how cinematic narrative can operate to construct an ideologically hegemonic narrative reinforcing the legitimation of gendered domination at the sociocultural (macro)level of analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article serves as a reply to comments made on the author's article, wherein the commentator suggested that a congruence exists between the authors' description of the mystique in anthropology and the idea of cultural primitivism unobjectionable. The authors of the article in question claim that nowhere have they identified the mystique as a theory and deny that they proposed a reversal of the direction of valuation of the dichotomic theory in anthropological thought. Anthropology, according to the authors, is the study of culture, and culture not in any restricted range of manifestation.

The postmodem challenge to sociological notions of individual agency assails its experiential substantiality, conveying agency instead in philosophically abstract terms and fleeting media images. In opposition to this, we argue that everyday interpretive practice reflexively constructs agency, utilizing resources drawn from the ordinary contours of experience. Narrative and ethnographic material collected in diverse settings, both formal and informal, illustrate how enduring features of the ordinary—locally shared meanings, biographical particulars, and material objects—are used for the production of manifold selves with recognizable substantiality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]