Search

After merely a brief, comparative reconstruction of the three most general theoretical models underlying contemporary Sociology (atomic, systemic, and fluid) it becomes necessary to review the question about the unity or plurality of Sociology, which is the main objective of this paper. To do so, the basic terms of the question are firstly updated by following the hegemonic trends in current studies of science. Secondly the convergences and divergences among the three models discussed are shown. Following some additional discussion, the conclusion is reached that contemporary Sociology is not unitary, and need not be so. It is plural, but its plurality is limited and articulated by those very models. It may therefore be portrayed as integrated and commensurable, to the extent that a partial and unstable (dis)unity may be said to exist in Sociology, which is not too far off from what happens in the natural sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper pretends to demonstrate the complementary relations between three relatively recent sociological theories, each one of which explains a different aspect of the same social object: the origin, diffusion and change of social and cultural values, aiming at demonstrating that there is not such a thing as a sociological theory that explains all, but rather diverse theories that offer partial explanations of social reality. To that effect, and on the basis of the necessary relationship between theory and research, three different theories are evaluated separately: Hawley's and Duncan's theory of the social ecosystem, Galtung's centre-periphery theory, and Inglehart's theory of values' change in modern-industrial societies, offering theoretical and empirical evidence of their complementary relations, based on Spanish and international data. Social ecosystem and centre-periphery theories show a high level of generalization (through space and time) and a high level of abstraction, though both can easily operationalize their main concepts through valid and reliable indicators. The theory of values' change, however, though showing a high level of generalization, is limited in time to the historical period after World War II, and also shows a high level of abstraction. Centre-periphery theory and values' change theory use individual and collective units of analysis, but social ecosystem theory only uses collective units, by definition. The three theories lead to the conclusion that 'security' values will gain a growing importance in present societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper pretends to demonstrate the complementary relations between three relatively recent sociological theories, each one of which explains a different aspect of the same social object: the origin, diffusion and change of social and cultural values, aiming at demonstrating that there is not such a thing as a sociological theory that explains all, but rather diverse theories that offer partial explanations of social reality. To that effect, and on the basis of the necessary relationship between theory and research, three different theories are evaluated separately: Hawley's and Duncan's theory of the social ecosystem, Galtung's centre-periphery theory, and Inglehart's theory of values' change in modern-industrial societies, offering theoretical and empirical evidence of their complementary relations, based on Spanish and international data. Social ecosystem and centre-periphery theories show a high level of generalization (through space and time) and a high level of abstraction, though both can easily operationalize their main concepts through valid and reliable indicators. The theory of values' change, however, though showing a high level of generalization, is limited in time to the historical period after World War II, and also shows a high level of abstraction. Centre-periphery theory and values' change theory use individual and collective units of analysis, but social ecosystem theory only uses collective units, by definition. The three theories lead to the conclusion that 'security' values will gain a growing importance in present societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses on the social theory of freedom proposed by Norbert Elias, as opposed to classic philosophical views. Firstly, it analyses the basic features of the metaphysical theories of freedom which Elias rejects. Then the key points on which Norbert Elias's social theory of freedom is based are developed. Finally, two Eliasian classic empirical examples are briefly discussed: the cases of Louis XIV and Mozart. The above is intended to show that Elias has a legitimate voice in the current scientific debate about freedom, especially within Neuroscience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agent-based modeling is a new research method that allows the complexity, emergency and nonlinearity of many social processes to be managed in a simple way. In this paper we define agent-based modeling — and its different classes— on the basis of a classic example: the Schelling model of urban segregation, which seeks to explain how it is possible that ghettos can arise in cities where citizens have no racial prejudices. Finally, some of its possible applications are considered: developing, formalising and assessing sociological theories; deciding amongst rival theories about the same social phenomenon; integrating different theories in a common setting; explaining social dynamics through their micro-mechanisms; carrying out experiments in a virtual world; assessing social policies and their a priori results; and predicting certain social phenomena. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]