Hermeneutics Sociology

One of the legacies of classical social theory is that we are confronted today with a number of profound and apparently stubborn problems of a general theoretical nature.

Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 2019

This paper addresses a key moment in the development of sociology when its status as a science was criticised from within by ethnomethodologists (Harvey Sacks and Harold Garfinkel), post-Althusserian Marxists (Barry Hindess) and Michel Foucault. These criticisms seemed to come from different sides, but they converged in arguing their positions from the point of view of a proper conception of science through which mainstream sociology was found wanting. Neither secured its own position and each had a similar legacy of a form of interpretivism hostile both to scientific sociology and its critical project. The paper situates this moment and its legacy where both correspondence and coherence criteria for sociological knowledge claims come to be undermined.

This essay provides a basis for examining the basic ontological, explanatory, and theoretical characteristics of social scientific knowledge, with special application to sociology. The philosophy of the social sciences is the field within philosophy that thinks critically about the nature and scope of social scientific knowledge and explanation. The essay considers some of the ways that philosophers and social scientists have conceptualized the nature of social phenomena, and argues for an ontology based on socially situated individuals in interaction. The essay examines several features of social explanation, focusing on the idea of a causal mechanism. It argues that social explanations come down to a claim about social causation, and social causation in turn should be understood in terms of a hypothesized causal mechanism connecting one set of social facts with another. The essay turns finally to several issues of epistemology. How are social science hypotheses and theories to be tested empirically? And what are some of the limitations of positivism and naturalism as theories of social science knowledge? The essay closes by returning to ontology in a consideration of methodological individualism and holism.

Current Sociology, 2008

If the conventional position that sociology emerged in the 19th century is accepted, then two 18th- and/or 19th-century rationalist knowledge conditions ‘positivism gives way to theory’ and ‘the centrality of modern rational philosophy’ can be accepted as the conventional knowledge conditions for the discipline’s emergence. While acknowledging that this conventional position and these two conventional knowledge conditions form an important part of the story of sociology, this article argues that they should not be accepted as the whole story, or even as the most important part of it. The article presents two counter-arguments by way of a challenge to convention. The two arguments focus on the history of sociology’s principal object, ‘the social’. One contends that the social actually emerged in the early modern era, not in the 19th century, and that, therefore, the discipline has its most significant roots in the period 1550–1700, especially in the work of thinkers more attuned to voluntarist factors. The second argument contends that sociology was only able to blossom as a discipline when the social achieved a significant level of autonomy from the three forces responsible for its emergence – politics, law and the state – something that did not happen until the late 19th century. On the back of these two arguments, the article develops a further argument: that sociology needs to extend its list of standard knowledge factors beyond the conventional two. This argument has it that while these two accurately reflect some important 18th- and 19th-century developments, they need to be supplemented by conditions that allowed the social to make the journey from the early modern era to the later era. The article then goes on to consider four different technologies for ‘seeing socially’ – perspective, the microscope, the camera obscura and ballooning – as additional knowledge conditions for sociology.

This article explores the limits of social constructionism and criticizes the 'demiurgic conception of society' associated with it. It contemplates the possibility of sociological realism by investigating the intrinsic and objective properties of action, cognition and morality. The incorporation of intrinsic meanings and intentions in social actions, the objective information supporting cognitive processes and human sensitivity to pleasure and pain as well as the normative rejection of undue suffering, delineate the objective core of social facts, which can be interpreted or influenced, but not arbitrarily or capriciously constructed or manipulated. This general argument is supported by various illustrations drawn from the semantics of social actions and classical puzzles of interpretative sociology such as the meaning of suicide or the morality of social sanctions.

人文学報, 2012

Vol. 56, No 6 of Current Sociology, 2008

abstract: If the conventional position that sociology emerged in the 19th century is accepted, then two 18th-and/or 19th-century rationalist knowledge conditions – 'positivism gives way to theory' and 'the centrality of modern rational philosophy' – can be accepted as the conventional knowledge conditions for the discipline's emergence. While acknowledging that this conventional position and these two conventional knowledge conditions form an important part of the story of sociology , this article argues that they should not be accepted as the whole story, or even as the most important part of it. The article presents two counter-arguments by way of a challenge to convention. The two arguments focus on the history of soci-ology's principal object, 'the social'. One contends that the social actually emerged in the early modern era, not in the 19th century, and that, therefore, the discipline has its most significant roots in the period 1550–1700, especially in the work of thinkers more attuned to voluntarist factors. The second argument contends that sociology was only able to blossom as a discipline when the social achieved a significant level of autonomy from the three forces responsible for its emergence – politics , law and the state – something that did not happen until the late 19th century. On the back of these two arguments, the article develops a further argument: that sociology needs to extend its list of standard knowledge factors beyond the conventional two. This argument has it that while these two accurately reflect some important 18th-and 19th-century developments, they need to be supplemented by conditions that allowed the social to make the journey from the early modern era to the later era. The article then goes on to consider four different technologies for 'seeing socially' – perspective, the microscope, the camera obscura and ballooning – as additional knowledge conditions for sociology. keywords: history of sociology ! rationalism ! the social ! technologies for seeing socially ! voluntarism

2011

and tracking their changing characteristics. Sociology is one of several social science disciplines and smaller bodies of knowledge which seeks to understand the patterns in social life. There is a broad congruence between the objective configurations of social life and the components of the disciplines studying them, the body of sociological knowledge is socially constructed and the pathways to its gaining of knowledge influenced by a variety of factors. Moreover, since social life is ever-changing, sociology often has to scramble to catch-up with the changing social world. The chapter introduces the theme and shows how social reality and its study interact.

Sociology is being defined differently by our sociologists and other's each one of course, has its own news about the nature and scope of the subject, as he conceives it.

Pravo - teorija i praksa, 2019

The content of this paper includes an analysis of basic principles and validity of the Marxist sociological theory. In the Introduction, there is explained a problem of acquiring knowledge as well as the possibilities of establishing theories in social sciences, with a special attention paid to the possibility of gaining unconditional truth and question about an influence that personal values can perform in the work of a scientist. In the second part of the paper, there are given the basic principles of the Marxist social theory, there are explained the ideas of class-struggle, bourgeoisie economy and capitalistic type of property with the origin and type of functioning of the proletariat and historical necessity of establishing a classless society. The third part of the paper establishes a critique of Marxist sociology from the standpoint of its scientific validity. A special attention is paid to the way of functioning its basic principles and the problem of establishing the unquestionable facts in social sciences. In the conclusion, it is explained the substantial difference between science and ideology, and, it is indicated the necessity of establishing unconditional criteria for the recognition of scientific facts.

Paul Veyne has suggested in 1971 that Sociology lacked a study object. Three quarters of a century after Durkheim's Rules, it had yet to discover social types and orders of preponderant facts. At any rate, Veyne claimed, since Sociology or at least sociologists exist, we must conclude that, under that label, they do something else. Briefly, besides studying the logical conditions of Sociology, we should also sociologically consider it, as well as other neighbour and potentially rival disciplines. In this paper it is argued that, contrary to other scientific fields, Sociology lives in an environment of permanently renewed crisis. Different authors and traditions have indeed asserted exactly that, while based on entirely diverse assumptions. In order to justify the characteristic traits of today's crisis, we try to list some of the little demons that have contributed to the current situation: 1) The hagiographic syndrome; 2) The isomorphism defence; 3) The acceptance urge.

1998

During the second half of the 20th century, sociology as a social technology in service of the welfare state has been the predominant form, especially in Scandinavia. The crisis of the welfare state has led this form of sociology into a crisis as well. Instead, I argue for a critical sociology contributing diagnostics of the social pathologies of the modern state. Such an approach can find inspiration in classical sociology, but it is also important to realize that, today, we are living in another modernity. A liberation from social technology must thus include a liberation from objectivistic methods.

IJCIRAS, 2019

The inquiry into the origin of sociology as a discipline is the central quest of this paper. Diverse scholars have given divergent opinions about the origin and development of sociology in the west. They have tried to give accounts of the history and development of sociology in the west. The aim of this paper would be to give justice to the sociological investigation and interpretation. This paper looks into the philosophical roots, the historical accounts, the evolutionary theories and the various socio-political reforms of the origin and development of sociology in the west. The paper also gives accounts of the scholars who contributed towards the origin and development of sociology in the west. This paper would be a significant contribution to knowledge production. It has given a wider overview of the origin of sociology in the west. It has not just focused on the historicity of the sociological emergence. But, understands the origin of sociology in a more holistic and systematic way.

FACTA UNIVERSITATIS Series: Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology and History Vol. 11, No2, 2012, pp. 201 - 210, 2012

The sudden changes that the contemporary world has seen during the last several years pose the following question: to what extent can sociology provide an answer, theoretically and methodologically. Ever since it emerged as a science, sociology has been faced with various difficulties, including those pertaining to the definition of its object, which is the result of the underdeveloped state of this particular science and the specificities of its subject matter (primarily its historicalness). Within the discipline itself, there is some confusion about what it actually means to be a sociologist. The fact that many people outside sociology (including nonsociologists at universities) do not take sociology seriously would be easier to accept if sociologists themselves did not occasionally have such thoughts as well. Still, anyone who participates in the various sociological gatherings cannot help noticing the self-doubt and even clear dissatisfaction with the fate of the sociologist today. Sociology must go back to the ''great'' questions, say Berger and Kelner, thereby referring to the questions about the very nature and structure of the modern world. In other words, it is not important only how to be, but also what it means to be a sociologist. The paper analyses the position of sociology as a profession. Because of the way in which it emerged after the Second World War and the way it has been developing, the position of sociology has oscillated with political changes, which have determined its development. Sociology has developed against two backgrounds: the political and sociological context, in which it has been instrumentalized by politics, on the one hand, and the ontological and theoretical one, as a "younger and more immature sister of philosophy''. Since the classic results of sociology represent the foundation of all the important social sciences and the humanities, sociology could be a transdisciplinary spiritual field in which those sciences can cooperate and communicate most profitably. It is through a rational dialogue among the humanities that sociology can be best and sustainably revived. In that way, it would not only regain the status it used to have but would also attain a new, more lasting one.