Search

What is social theory? This paper opens with a conception of social theory as an ontological approach explicating the nature of the worldview that we should adopt provided that the results of the most advanced empirical social science are true. After loosening the limitations of such a realist conception by introducing normative standards and dialogue with other provinces of meaning than science, it raises another question: How can we choose between various alternative conceptions in social theory? It seems that although the element of voluntaristic choice cannot be completely avoided, there are still many ways to limit the number of conceptions that can be taken seriously. In the final part of the paper, the ontologically oriented approach is put into dialogue with an understanding of social theory as a form of practical reason in the service of our ideas about a better society, and a synthetic view is outlined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Phenomenological sociology was founded at the beginning of 1930s by Alfred Schutz. His mundane phenomenology sought to combine impulses drawn from Husserl's transcendental phenomenology and Weber's action theory. It was made famous at the turn of 1960s and 1970s by Garfinkel's ethnomethodology and Berger & Luckmann's social constructionism. This paper deals with the notable accomplishments of Schutz and his followers and then proceeds to a shared shortcoming, which is that the phenomenological approach is unable to understand meaning in any other way but as actors's knowledge. Therefore, phenomenological sociologists are forced to describe the actor's interpretations of meaning as transparent to the actor him/herself, even if they sometimes make heroic attempts to escape the limitations of the phenomenological conception. The limitation is apparent in Husserl's and Schutz's definition of meaning as a 'reflective intentional act', Garfinkel's use of the term 'accounting' to refer to a signifying effect, and the way Berger and Luckmann describe their social theory as 'sociology of knowledge'. Today, similar confusions are present in Michael Polanyi's 'tacit knowledge'and in Giddens' structuration theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Modernization, in the sociological tradition, was usually understood as increasing differentiation. Theorists as different as Marx, Durkheim, Weber and Parsons all shared the view that modernization meant the opening of new horizons. The publication of Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition transformed the discursive universe: contrary to the tradition of differentiation theoretical sociology the pamphlet interpreted modernization as a process in which the plurality of local cultural traditions was destroyed and their various narratives were rearticulated into a unified modern canon under the repressive meta-narratives of science, progress and the Enlightenment. At first, sociologists were at odds with this new interpretation until Beck, Giddens and Lash brought up the idea of modernity in two phases in their Reflexive Modernization (1994) and related publications. According to them, 'traditional modernity' was based on cultural closures, such as unified class-identities, nationalities and fixed gender-identities, but it was followed by a 'second' or 'reflexive modernity', where several traditions lived side by side, just as the postmodernists claimed. An intense debate emerged. The article asks: did we learn anything from the debate on reflexive modernization and if so, can the learnt lessons be used fruitfully in the study of contemporary society? The answer seems to be negative for the most part. However, the modernization theoretical approach can still be seen as a useful tool for framing research questions and contributing to the diagnosis of the era. This is how it can still provide a point of departure for research, but not deliver all the answers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The field of sociology can be described as a triangle, the apexes of which are represented by the structure of social organisation (Spencer's theory of the division of labour), the structure of cultural codes (Saussure's theory of language and semiology) and social action (Weber's methodological individualism). This becomes a three-dimensional discursive space when underneath it we place, as the fourth apex, nature. Consequently we have a triangular pyramid standing on its head (nature): its four plans are represented by the field of sociology (the structure of social organisation, the structure of cultural codes, action), structuralist social anthropology (the structure of social organisation, the structure of cultural codes, nature), cultural anthropology (the structure of cultural codes, action, nature) and historical materialism (the structure of social organisation, action, nature). This turned-over tetrahedron is described in the paper as the discursive space of sociology, a space that has taken shape with the attempts at a theoretical synthesis of sociology during the 1980s (Alexander, Bourdieu, Collins, Giddens, Habermas). As in the case of the discursive conditions for all forms of knowledge, the discursive space of sociology is a rhetorical closure which determines who are classical writers and how these classical writers are to be read and understood. At the same time it serves as the basis for the positivity of sociological knowledge. It is suggested that this space will emerge to reorganise the uncertainty produced by the collapse of the Parsonian orthodoxy which was primarily concerned to examine society from the perspective of the structure of social organisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the project is to make a contribution to the semiotic theory of culture, and to study male and female cultural identities from this angle. The material for the study consists of popular Finnish cultural products (novels, films, hits and magazines concentrating on human relations). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the idea of modern society which Marx presented in his critique of political economy. According to Marx, modern society is born in the mode of capitalism but will only be actualized in its full wealth when capitalism is thrown over in favor of communism. The problem with Marx's conceptual strategy, however, is that he only discusses man as human species, in this way identifying the human individual with the species being Accordingly, he assumes that all social antagonisms will come to an end if the capital relation is broken and a transfer into communism takes place. In this way, his conception of a modern, non-capitalist society remains an abstract, aesthetically descriptive vision. On the basis of Marx's later works. although overstepping its limits, it is, however, possible to present an experimental construction of a modern, non-capitalist, dual society, where the social synthesis is no longer dominated by the principle of self-valorization of capital, but a 'democratic discussion of needs'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It feels good to know that Thórólfur Thórlindsson, Rúnar Vilhjálmsson and Torgerdur Einarsdottir will be taking over the responsibility of the journal Acta Sociologica for the years 2001 to 2003. The former editors claimed that they worked as a close team but Klaus Mäkelä had the main responsibility for articles, Risto Heiskala was in charge of review essays and book reviews and Anna Leppo was the editorial secretary. During their 3 years as editors, Acta Sociologica published 63 articles, 11 review essays and 65 book reviews, with an acceptance rate for articles of 29%. In 28% of the articles and review essays, the first author was a woman and in 72% a man; 15% came from Denmark, 12% from Finland, 1% from Iceland, 19% from Norway, 30% from Sweden and 23% from non-Nordic countries. The following are their goals: to be open to a wide variety of theoretical approaches and research techniques; to publish as many articles as possible presenting data from more than one country; to keep Acta open to contributions from all members of the international republic of sociology; to publish high quality articles from all Nordic countries; to assist young Nordic sociologists in learning the trade of writing articles; to provide feedback as quickly as possible on the manuscripts submitted to Acta; to have each manuscript reviewed by at least two specialists from different countries; to provide constructive comments to all authors irrespective of whether their manuscript might be accepted for publication; to publish informative reviews and review essays on books by Nordic scholars, on Nordic countries or on topics of special interest to Nordic sociologists, written by sociologists from a country and academic tribe other than those of the authors; to print as comprehensible English as possible for a team of non-native editors in a community of non-native authors.