Search

This paper responds to a comment by T. R. Young, who sought to intervene in the exchange between the author and Marc Wardell on the role of conceptual frameworks or paradigms in the development of theory in sociology and the social sciences. Young suggested that some of the less well known assumptions of Karl Marx could serve as uniting points between the two correspondents. The dualism of the historicist conceptualization of the transition from capitalism to socialism which appears in Young's comments underestimates the empirical complexity of the political and economic problems of the period of transition. This paper disagrees with Young's final assertion that too much Marxist theory has stood in the way of radical revolution and socialist transformation.

This paper comments on the exchange between Donald McQuarie and Mark Wardell in "The Sociological Quarterly" over the role of conceptual frameworks or paradigms in the development of theory in sociology and the social sciences. It offers some friendly criticism of these two comments and suggests that some of the less well known assumptions of Karl Marx concerning the nature of theory, history and human labor may help reunite McQuarie and Wardell. Marx was concerned with the problem of human alienation. For him, history was not that which was written in textbooks, rather, what people do when they seize the moment, make revolution and gain control over their own social institutions.

While many scholars assert the importance of the narrative mode in historical inquiry, none have demonstrated how it is used specifically to analyze historical events and social action in processual, action-oriented ways. In this essay, we examine recent research on capital-state relations and urban development to demonstrate how political sociologists and urban sociologists are using narrative mode to examine the interconnectedness of human agency and social structure and the temporality of historical events in processual ways. We find that this newest research is utilizing narrative to generate new meanings of causality and to redefine the role of theory and explanation. We conclude by considering the implications of these developments for the future of sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]