Social Theory 2 Enlightenment Legacy and Contemporary Trends
Connell’s article (Am. J. of Sociology, Vol. 102, no 6) gives a number of factors behind the shaping of sociology/social theory
Central to the emergence of sociological theory were issues around liberalism and imperialism
The discipline gained much of its approach (methods, theory and data) from the influences of globalisation and colonisation. The development of theory about social change came from these sources (see Marx in particular). Durkheim’s work- and to some extent, Weber’s- involved contrasts with traditional or ‘primitive’ societies. Anthropology was employed to grasp the importance of ritual and social integration.
The initial emphases on development were later lost as the focus shifted to modern societies which were then explained by means of universalistic models based on rationalisation (Weber), capitalism (Marx) or social integration via the division of labour (Durkheim). The sense of continuity with traditional societies was lost and in the context of colonialism traditional societies were seen as the Other, as fundamentally different from ‘the West’ and so there was no sense of the interrelation with those ‘other’ societies and their impact on the West (see Gilroy, for instance, There Aint No Black in the Union Jack). The past or traditional was annihilated in this modernist stance which was later reflected in modern architecture, for example, as eliminating via pure geometry any detail from past influences, styles (see M. Cacciari, Architecture and Nihilism) .
The problems presented by modern urban societies forced sociologists to abandon empirical studies and come to terms with systemic issues of integration, social order, anomie and alienation. Parsons was a leading figure in the turn to questions of social order with the Comtean idea of progress disappearing from view.
Late modern sociology follows in this mould with the question of how structure and agency are related to create social order. (see Giddens, Bourdieu, Habermas , for instance). The idea that order might be seen from the bottom –up rather than in system/management terms (see Bauman, 2000, ‘Sociological Enlightenment for Whom, about what?’, Theory, Culture and Society, vol 17, no.71) is investigated here.
Strauss: negotiated order – people improvise on the written rules of organisations, make them fit everyday needs
Crompton- class structure as performed or ‘done’ e.g. networking, friendship groups. The Cambridge Group (Blackburn and Prandy) has challenged the static view in Goldthorpe’s occupational schemes that class can be defined (via income, skill, autonomy, power) without reference to networks of influence, social connection. Miliband’s oldish study of the ruling class in Britain is useful too (The State in Capitalist Society)
Connell’s article (Am. J. of Sociology, Vol. 102, no 6) gives a number of factors behind the shaping of sociology/social theory
Central to the emergence of sociological theory were issues around liberalism and imperialism
The discipline gained much of its approach (methods, theory and data) from the influences of globalisation and colonisation. The development of theory about social change came from these sources (see Marx in particular). Durkheim’s work- and to some extent, Weber’s- involved contrasts with traditional or ‘primitive’ societies. Anthropology was employed to grasp the importance of ritual and social integration.
The initial emphases on development were later lost as the focus shifted to modern societies which were then explained by means of universalistic models based on rationalisation (Weber), capitalism (Marx) or social integration via the division of labour (Durkheim). The sense of continuity with traditional societies was lost and in the context of colonialism traditional societies were seen as the Other, as fundamentally different from ‘the West’ and so there was no sense of the interrelation with those ‘other’ societies and their impact on the West (see Gilroy, for instance, There Aint No Black in the Union Jack). The past or traditional was annihilated in this modernist stance which was later reflected in modern architecture, for example, as eliminating via pure geometry any detail from past influences, styles (see M. Cacciari, Architecture and Nihilism) .
The problems presented by modern urban societies forced sociologists to abandon empirical studies and come to terms with systemic issues of integration, social order, anomie and alienation. Parsons was a leading figure in the turn to questions of social order with the Comtean idea of progress disappearing from view.
Late modern sociology follows in this mould with the question of how structure and agency are related to create social order. (see Giddens, Bourdieu, Habermas , for instance). The idea that order might be seen from the bottom –up rather than in system/management terms (see Bauman, 2000, ‘Sociological Enlightenment for Whom, about what?’, Theory, Culture and Society, vol 17, no.71) is investigated here.
Strauss: negotiated order – people improvise on the written rules of organisations, make them fit everyday needs
Crompton- class structure as performed or ‘done’ e.g. networking, friendship groups. The Cambridge Group (Blackburn and Prandy) has challenged the static view in Goldthorpe’s occupational schemes that class can be defined (via income, skill, autonomy, power) without reference to networks of influence, social connection. Miliband’s oldish study of the ruling class in Britain is useful too (The State in Capitalist Society)
posted by Howard Feather at 6:09 AM
0 comments
