Search

The human body has in recent years become a ‘hot’ topic in sociology, not just in empirical research but also in sociological theorizing. In the latter context, the body has been variously a resource for broadening the parameters of traditional sociological thought deriving from the nineteenth century, and for overturning that paradigm and fundamentally reorienting the assumptions and concepts of sociological thinking. Attempts to abandon the old paradigm and foster a new one through the means of thinking about bodies are many and manifold, and in this paper we trace out the intricate history of moves towards a ‘corporeal sociology’. We identify the dilemmas that have attended these developments, especially as concerns the ways in which new modes of thinking sociologically have tended to founder over the classical sociological dichotomy between social structure and social action. Through tracing out the various moves and counter-moves within this field, we identify a central contradiction that affects all contemporary sociological practice, not just that dealing with the body: an oscillation between judging the utility of conceptual tools in terms of criteria derived from the discipline of Cultural Studies, and evaluating the arguments created by those tools on the basis of the incompatible criteria of classical sociology. The paper challenges sociologists to choose one set of’criteria or the other, for sociological practice cannot be based on both such antagonistic paradigms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper attempts to present, by means of a case study, a method for the study of cultural phenomena--in particular the drama, It is not concerned with the purposes or functions of the drama in general or of particular dramas, nor is it an enquiry into the ultimate status of the arts in society. The paper is simply concerned to demonstrate how it was that one form of drama was eclipsed and superseded by an entirely new one.
should be recognised that there exist presently close limits to what a sociologist is able to say concerning such phenomena as the drama, dependent upon his particular theoretical posture. A neo-Durkheimian such as J. S. R. Goodlad[1] is, fairly predictably, concerned to demonstrate that the popular drama is a device for the explication of the social structure, the inculcation of morality, the expression of emotion at repressed items in culture (catharsis), and the reproduction and consideration of conflicts inherent in society. The Marxist, Lucien Goldmann[2], however, stresses the determinacy of the class-moment and the status of a valid work as the expression of a world view. 'Simationalisms' of considerably less subtlety than the Lukacs-Goldmann tradition exist, which usually tend toward nominalism.[3]
But whether we take the drama to be pulled into being by the weight of need the social organism has of it, or to be thrust up from the bowels of the substructure, it seems possible to discuss the drama, its form, and the relation of its form to the agencies producing it, in such a way as to be its mechanic rather than its philosopher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the article, the author presents a response to the article "The body in Sociology," by Alexandra Howson and David Inglis, published in this issue of the journal "The Sociological Review." According to the author, Howson and Inglis' paper is both timely and thought provoking. However, the author's contention is that their argument, made through five claims, is fundamentally flawed. The first two concern the emergence of sociological interest in "the body," which, according to the author, are sound. The third is that the work of M. Merleau-Ponty, which has been central to many forms of "corporeal sociology," lacks an account of social structure and is insufficiently sociological in focus to be of use to sociology. The fourth suggests that the work of Pierre Bourdieu, which might be deemed a corrective to Merleau-Ponty, cannot serve this purpose without generating a form of social structural determinism which would undermine the benefits of Merleau-Ponty's contribution. The fifth speculates on whether cultural studies might not provide a more fruitful avenue for those who wish either to avoid determinism or to rejoin Merleau-Ponty. The author's contention is with the third and fourth of these claims, though his view also necessarily has implications for the fifth.

This paper presents a theoretical argument about the relationships between people and architectural space. Customarily, arguments of this type focus on the functional, the instrumental character of these relations. In so doing, they posit causal links between space and behaviour; they treat the former as active and the latter as passive facets of a determinate relationship. We suggest an alternative perspective---one that emphasizes human agency. We contend that people actively endow aspects of their physical environments with meanings; meanings on which they and others may, indeed do act. That is, we stress the symbolic as well as the functional utility of architectural space.
The explanatory potential of this approach is illustrated in two contexts. First, we examine data about the spatial distribution of residents in Homes for old people. These data are analysed with respect to the status--gender and mental designation--of residents and their customary locations in the sitting spaces and the sleeping and dining areas of the Homes. Second, we consider the allocation of space to personnel in office settings. These data are analysed with respect to the hierarchical status distinctions found in the settings and the correspondingly different meanings that status groups attribute to their spatial environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract The paper addresses the problem of the conceptualisation of morality in sociology. The traditional sociological conception of morality was based upon the acceptance of a fact/value dichotomy, implying that sociology portrays the factual nature of morality, which thereby becomes equivalent to group conformity The opposition of fact and value was brought into question by trends of thought that followed from, respectively, Alfred Schutz and Ludwig Wittgenstein. The line from Schutz's ideas led towards their reformulation by Harold Garfinkel, who to large extent integrated the ‘moral’ with the ‘cognitive’. Wittgenstein's influence, through, especially Peter Winch, John W. Cook and Alfred Louch undercut the idea that sociological descriptions were themselves purely factual, rather than integrally evaluative. A third stream is represented by Alasdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor, who adopt the idea that morality must be understood in its social and historical context, and explicitly reject the separation of fact and value in moral inquiry. The fact/value distinction is the source of chronic problems for the sociology of morality. Specifically, a sociological account of morality, that would define the correct understanding of the nature of morality – ie identify what substantive character and content is appropriate to it – is not possible. The disintegration of the fact/value dichotomy also means that the idea that the social context can itself be described independently of normative considerations is an illusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary research into the field of body pedagogics has produced a growing number of studies concerned with the embodied character of cultural transmission, experience, reproduction and change. This article advances this sociological development by reinterpreting recent writings on situated epistemic relations (SER) and practical epistemological analysis (PEA) as complementary, methodological, techniques that can enhance these investigations. After outlining existing explorations into the body pedagogics of occupational, sporting, religious, educational and other cultures, the author demonstrates how the interlinked approaches to learning made possible by systematizing SER and PEA can be developed into a new approach that increases the effectiveness with which the theoretical and empirical concerns of studies into embodied acculturation are harnessed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study of cultural change requires a dialectical theory of culture that does not reduce vectors of change to extra-cultural forces. Despite changes in expert technology that included the uses of ethnographic film to aid the carvers of Melanesian funerary sculptures, which are named malanggan, the carvers typically present their sculpture to either ritual or secular publics who are incredulous at the brief display, but with a difference in either case. This description of the visual shifts in the making and display of malanggan sculpture can be analyzed as a movement from ontological concerns about how people live in relationships, to epistemological concerns with how to communicate about who they are. These shifts in expert visual technique and its relationship to public culture are wholly cultural processes generating cultural change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both the nature of philosophical and sociological discourses are undergoing a profound change, attuned to the gradual substitution of the postmodern sensibility for the cultural climate dominant during the modern age. In particular, philosophy sustained by legislative reason recedes, replaced by a philosophical style informed by interpretative reason; a movement in many respects reminiscent of the Pyrrhonian Crisis of the 16th-17th centuries. The passage from the orthodox consensus of modern sociology to a postmodern sociological strategy parallels this transformation. The present change, however, affects the very relationship between philosophy and sociology. From the search for the foundations of cognitive certainty, the outspoken domain of philosophy guided by the legislative reason, epistemological concerns move to the communicative problems of communally founded cognitive systems - the acknowledged realm of sociological investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the idea of a 'culture of poverty' has gained widespread acceptance among social scientists. However, sociologists and social anthropologists have not subjected the postulated relationship of poverty and culture to serious examination. In this article, I discuss some or the conceptual and logical problems of the concept of a culture of poverty, as it has been put forward by Oscar Lewis. Secondly, I criticise the way this concept has been applied in a study of a Trinidadian village and thirdly, after summarising the conclusion of my own study of another Trinidadian village, I suggest how sociologists and social anthropologists engaged in community studies can avoid ethnocentricism and overemphasis on 'research problems' and thus further their understanding of the cultures and subcultures they are studying. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]