Search

Gerhard Lenski wrote books on religion, stratification and social evolution. The literature is concernedwith the social organization and implications of inequality. "The Religious Factor" is about family life, politics, the relation of religion to science. Likewise, "Power and Privilege" suggests the importance of technology. "Human Societies" has roots in both the empirical, data-driven approach and the concern for an overall explanation of inequality. Lenski demonstrated that there need not always be a forced choice between breadth, depth, creativity and scholarly persistence.

Let me lay my cards on the table. My intention is to convince you 1) that sociology suffers from and fails to live up to its potential because of its disconnection from large parts of philosophy and interdisciplinary social and political theory, 2) that our aversion to moral discourse (in the name of science) has greatly impoverished our understandings of identity and human agency, and 3) that the recent work of Charles Taylor is perhaps the best starting point for recovering a strong and crucial understanding of the self as moral subject. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three of the classic "founding fathers" of sociology (Comte, Marx and Tocquevile) were contemporary observers of the French Revolution of 1848. In addition, another important theoretical tradition was represented in contemporary observations of 1848 by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. The present paper summarizes aspects of the views of these theoretically minded observers, notes some points at which more recent historical research suggests revisions to these classical views, and poses three arguments: (1) The revolution of 1848 exerted a direct shaping influence on classical social theory through lessons (some now subject to revision) learned from observation of the revolutionary struggles. (2) The 1848 revolution influenced classical social theory indirectly by contributing to the submergence of the radical French revolutionary tradition (along with utopian socialism) after the defeat of the June insurrectionaries and Bonaparte's coup. (3) Both writers in the classical tradition and current researchers have failed to thematize adequately a basic transformation in effectiveness of national integration, communication and administration which made 1848 in crucial ways much more akin to 1789 than it was direct evidence for the growth of class struggle and the likelihood of further revolution in advanced capitalist countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Faced with a minimally participatory democracy, a variety of populists have sought to revitalize popular political participation by strengthening local community mobilizations. Others have called for reliance on frequent referenda. Assessing the limits of these proposals requires theoretical attention to two key issues. The first is the growing importance of very large scale patterns of societal integration which depend on indirect social relationships achieved through communications media, markets and bureaucracies. This split of system world from lifeworld, in Habermas's terms, poses a challenge to democratic theories which assume that the lessons of local social life and political participation are directly translatable into the necessary knowledge for state level (let alone international) activity. Secondly, changes in patterns of community formation and communications media have transformed the basis for democracy. In particular, socio-spatial segmentation by life-style choice, market position and other factors limits direct relationships increasingly to similar individuals. Mass media become increasingly predominant sources of information about people different from oneself, and indirect social relationships form the structural basis for the social integration of most politics. The present paper revised and adapts Habermas's conceptualization of system world and lifeworld in order to address the transformation of patterns of societal integration. This forms the basis for a critical analysis of the implications of changing community form and especially communications media for populist political proposals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the role and significance of religion in social life and customs than in sociology. Though sociologists count beliefs and attendance, these social facts hardly shape sociological theory or analyses of other specific domains of social life. Sociologists have focused a good deal on the ways in which migration is transforming society of the U.S., for example, but only glanced at the impact it is having on religiosity and religious preference. The field of social movements offers a strong example of the general pattern of devaluation and neglect. Much of the most active participation in social movements and popular politics in recent decades has been driven by religious commitments and organized through religious associations. Sociological theory not only shares in the marginalization of religion as a topic of inquiry, it has helped to produce it. This is partly because classical sociologists made the question of secularization so basic to theorizing about religion. Of course, the point is not simply that religion matters for the rest of the world and not for the West.

Perhaps more than any other part of the discipline, sociological theory flourished in relation to the ideal of a "liberal" education in the arts and sciences. Max Weber's "Protestant Ethic" and other classics were taught to undergraduates not just as part of advanced theory courses but as part of first year "Western Civilization" courses. The decline in this mid-twentieth century canon began at a time when sociology majors were numerous, and was in fact supported by many sociologists concerned to see students learn more about non-Western traditions, women and people of color, and contemporary issues. Often, no new "foundation" sequence replaced the old one, and sociology simply competed with other fields as students took a range of courses purporting to introduce disciplines. The proliferation of these disciplinary introductions helped to fuel the rise of the contemporary survey textbook. Sociology, however, competed at some disadvantage partly because students were less likely to have been introduced to the field in high school and to arrive with either a particular desire to study sociology or much preparation.

Presents a foreword to the March 1999 issue of the journal "Sociological Theory."

The article focuses on sociology as a subject and its understanding. Among reasonably competent papers submitted to the journal of "Sociological Theory" perhaps the single most important and frequent critical question the author finds himself posing is "How does this paper help to understand social life better? The journal deserves sponsorship by the American Sociologists Association because it can and should speak to a broad constituency within sociology, because theory is important for all good sociological work. Potential contributors seem to think, however, that "general theory" in sociology consists mainly of commentaries on what other people have said. This is not to say that historical studies are not useful or that commentaries and reanalyzes cannot advance theory in important ways. Accepting sufferance on the basis of staying out of other sociologists' affairs is only one strategy for survival. And it is likely to secure no more than mere survival.

The article focuses on the book "The Creativity of Action," by Hans Joas. Critiques of Parsonsian functionalism often turned on the desire to make the idea of action more central, to reduce the implication that system encompassed and determined everything. Since the late 1970s, much of the work has focused on the idea of agency, on the attempt to identify the relationship between structure and action, on efforts to specify microfoundations for macrosociology, often rooted in purposive action, and on the borderline notions of practice and habit. One key issue has received much less than its due in this discussion. This is the place of creativity in the way one conceptualizes action. Thicker notions of creativity readily appear unsociological. It is the merit of Hans Joas's recent book "The Creativity of Action," to have drawn this issue out of the background and placed it clearly into the center stage of this discussion. It seemed appropriate, therefore, for the journal "Sociological Theory," to ask distinguished scholars to respond to Joas's book.