The beginning of the end or the end of the beginning? the theory construction movement revisited

Using book publication dates as markers, I divide the movement of (formal) theory construction into two periods. The first period started in 1954 and lasted for about a decade; the second period started in 1965 and ended in 1972. I argue in this paper that the publication of a dozen more books on how to construct scientific theories in the seven years after 1965 marked the beginning of the end of, rather than the end of the beginning of, the theory construction movement in sociology. Although the formal mode of theory construction is dead now, efforts toward theory construction will never end. I conclude by delineating the major features of a new approach to theory construction that has been emerging in sociology.     

Theorizing theory: Invitation to a broader conversation about ‘theory’ in sociology

‘Theory’ is a seminal term in sociology. Sociologists tend to ask that articles, chapters and monographs are ‘theoretical’, ‘develop theory’ or ‘make a theoretical contribution’. Yet, as demonstrated in Gabriel Abend’s 2008 article ‘The Meaning of ‘Theory’, it is generally unclear what sociologists mean when they talk about theory. Abend distinguishes seven different meanings sociologists tend to impute to ‘theory’ and argues that no single definition can usefully capture these substantively different meanings. Counter to Abend, we propose and defend a minimal and versatile theory of theory, which does capture the important common denominators in sociologists' various uses of the term theory. The major strengths of our proposal are that it enables informed and synthetic discussion and fosters reflexivity about differences and similarities between different types of theory. Our minimal theory of theory thus serves as an invitation to a broader conversation about theory in sociology.     

Standpoint theory and middle-range theorizing in International Sociology

This paper responds to Julian Go's Lecture “Thinking against Empire. Anti-colonial Thought and Social Theory.” It proceeds in two parts: I first follow Go's invitation to read and reread Mabel Dove Danquah and Frantz Fanon and explore what their work contributes to our understanding of state-forms. I then examine the terms of Go's invitation more closely. I contrast Go's juxtaposition of imperial sociology on the one hand and anti-colonial sociology on the other hand, with the broader range of theoretical traditions and methods, which a practice-oriented sociology of sociology and an international history of sociology would highlight. I raise the question what “standpoint” adds to the authors Go discusses and the broader range of scholars who have engaged with post-colonial contexts in their research at this point in time. Calling for consideration of the anti-colonial standpoint is a particular choice, which has a distinctive heritage in Hegelian-Marxian projections of the social whole and is in tension with either deep exploration of particular thinkers or the middle-range theorizing that Go also seems to endorse. Defined at a level of abstraction that is “above” (or underneath) actual conversations in a range of fields and subfields, it can appear as a “test” for scholars who have long engaged with post-colonial contexts, which can have unintended consequences when coupled with the institutional power and asymmetric insularity of Anglo-American academia.     

Dwelling in epistemic disobedience: A reply to Go

In Thinking Against Empire: Anticolonial Thought as Social Theory, Julian Go continues his vital work on rethinking and redirecting the discipline of sociology. Go’s piece relates to his wider oeuvre of postcolonial sociology – found in works such as his Postcolonial Thought and Social Theory (2016) as well as multiple journal articles on epistemic exclusion (Go 2020), Southern theory (Go 2016), metrocentrism (Go 2014), and the history of sociology (Go 2009). In this response article, my aim is to think alongside some of the central themes outlined in Go’s paper rather than offering a rebuttal of any sorts. In particular, I want to think through how the recent work on ‘decoloniality’ may play more of a central role in Go’s vision of sociology and social theory than he acknowledges. In doing so, I hope to engage in Go’s prodigious scholarship through centering discussions of the geopolitics of knowledge, double translation, and border thinking. Before proceeding to this discussion, I will offer a brief review of my reading of Go’s paper.     

Max Weber and the Sociology of Music

The sociology of music has been an area largely left to European sociologists. In an effort to generate greater domestic interest in the field, an examination of Max Weber's methodology and an update to his study of music is proposed. Fewer occupations or cultural projects are more social than making music, and the domestic sociological community's absence from the debate is deplorable given the dominant position our country possesses regarding musical production. Weber's Sociology of Music, which combines urban theory, class/labor theory, rationalization theory, and even climatic changes, is an excellent place to begin a thorough discussion of the social components of music. Our present understanding of cultural theories, urban theories, and Habermas's Communicative Action Theory can be employed to improve on Weber's theory; toward a new approach for the study of the sociology of music.     

Emotion Management: Unexpected Research Opportunities

During the process of emotion management , individuals perceive that they are feeling emotions that differ from what is expected within the situation. Consequently, they use cognitive, physical, and/or other means either to display more appropriate emotions or to change their emotions on a deeper level to be consistent with what is customarily expressed. Beginning with the first examinations of emotion management in 1979 by the pioneer Arlie Hochschild , emotion scholars have produced over 6,000 studies of this phenomenon. We join this vibrant research program by proposing new avenues of research using an interdisciplinary strategy. First, we explore possibilities for emotion management research within its “home base” of sociology; then, we branch out to the areas of morality and political science. In so doing, we craft new and unexpected pathways for advancements in theory, theory adjudication, and methodology, for the future of emotion management research .     

Sociology and Sisyphus: postcolonialism,anti-positivism,and modernist narrative in Patterson’s oeuvre

Theory and Society - This article argues that Orlando Patterson is a key contributor to postcolonial fiction and postcolonial theory as well as historical sociology and social theory, whose work...     

Between Mechanism Talk And Mechanism Cult: New Emphases in Explanatory Sociology And Empirical Research

The study of mechanisms has received increased attention in recent years and contributed to the formation of so-called ‘analytical sociology’ that has put the idea of social mechanisms at its core. We discuss the crucial characteristics of mechanism-based explanations and their relation to the longstanding tradition of explanatory sociology. Looking at the widespread and growing number of references to ‘mechanisms’ in the current research literature, we identify typical deviations from the ideal of a mechanism-based explanation. Many references come down to mechanism talk insofar as it is not explicated in detail how and why particular inputs tend to result in particular outputs. To this end, researchers have to give a detailed verbal account of how exactly a mechanism is thought to unfold under specified conditions, or to specify a formal generative model which can be analysed analytically or by simulation. This agenda has been at the core of methodological individualism, sociological rational choice theory, and explanatory sociology for some time, but has received a new coat of whitewash by analytical sociology. This more recent theoretical movement offers a fresh problem-centred agenda based on the well-known macro-micro-macro model and could inspire a new generation of research that places greater weight on analysing social dynamics than on developing theories of action. However, we submit that, rather than constituting a competing approach, these impulses should be located within the longstanding and multifaceted explanatory agenda in sociology. Avoiding any form of mechanism cult and choosing from the full toolbox of explanatory/analytical sociology will be crucial to answer key questions in established areas of sociological research.     

Cognitive Value Commitments in Formal Theoretical Sociology

This paper aims to communicate some of the value commitments that characterize my approach to formal model building in theoretical sociology. It does this through a narrative method, an autobiographical account of shifts in intellectual interests through various phases of my career: from history to philosophy, from philosophy to sociology, from sociology to mathematics and back, followed by several long-term formal theoretical research programs. One of these, pertaining to the formal representation of institutionalized social action systems, is described in terms of its linkage to interpretive sociology, while also noting its limitations from a theoretical science point of view. By interweaving intellectual biography and intellectual history, the paper also provides some contextual background for appreciating the work of the other contributors to this symposium.     

Current theoretical and political perspectives of Western sociological theorists

While sociological theorists frequently express concern about theoretical fragmentation and the politicization of sociology, little research has been done to demonstrate the actual state of the field. In an earlier study of sociologists in general, Sanderson and Ellis (1992) found a high degree of theoretical fragmentation and a close correspondence between sociologists’ political views and their theory preferences. The current study extends this line of analysis to sociological theorists. Data gathered from over half of the members of the American Sociological Association (ASA) Theory Section show sociological theorists to be enormously divided with respect to their preferred theoretical perspectives, their conceptions of the most important social theorists, and their stance on modern theoretical debates and controversies (such as the virtues of postmodernism). As was the case with sociologists in general, political ideology was the strongest correlate of theory choice, and gender was less closely related to theory choice than would be expected. From these data, a picture is painted of the current state of social theory as we approach the next millennium. Jane T. Lord received her M.A. degree in sociology and her Ph.D. in rhetoric and linguistics from Indiana University of Pennsylvania. She is currently teaching at the Community College of Allegheny in Pittsburgh. He is the author of numerous journal articles and book chapters, and has authored or edited five books, the most recent of which is Social Transformations: A General Theory of Historical Development, expanded edition (Rowman and Littlefield, 1999). His book Synthetic Materialism: A Unified Evolutionary Theory of Human Society will be published by Rowman and Littlefield in the near future.     

A History and Analysis of Radical Activism in Sociology, 1967–1969, with Special Reference to the Sociology Liberation Movement,the Black Caucus,the Executive Council,the War in Vietnam and a Few Other Things*

Radical activism in sociology can be explained as reaction against developments in American society, university structure, social theory and the American Sociology Association. Beginning in 1967 with a controversy over a Vietnam resolution, it has grown to include organized opposition through the Sociology Liberation Movement and the separation of the Black Sociologists Association. The assumptions behind sociology as an academic field and an occupation, have been and are being tested and found erroneous by an increasing number of sociologists.     

Weberian Political Sociology and Sociological Disaster Studies

The specialized field of disaster studies seems to be moving farther away from mainstream sociology, to the detriment of both. For sociologists working in this field, application of Max Weber's political sociology is proposed as one way to reconnect their research with longstanding concerns of the discipline. Weber's political sociology contains a conflict model focusing on structured inequalities of class, status, and power. Its relevance to both contemporary sociology and sociological disaster studies is illustrated through a reexamination of one of the early classic studies of disaster. The paper concludes with an overview of Weber's thoughts about the role of values in research and a brief comparison of Weber's political sociology with alternative theories.     

Toward a DuBoisian theorization of school curricula

After a near century of mainstream academic exclusion, recent efforts in sociology have centered Du Bois as a foundational figure. However, these efforts have overlooked his contributions to theorizing K-12 and college/university formal curricula. Moreover, curricula, teaching, and learning scholarship, already marginalized within mainstream sociology of education, have typically overlooked Du Bois’ theorizations, thus reproducing his marginalization. As a correction, this article centers Du Bois as a key figure in critical curricula theory. Specifically, Du Bois theorized that schools institutionalize formal curricula imbued with race-class ideologies and that said ideologies shape peoples’ subjectivities, identities, and consciousness of social processes. However, Du Bois also theorized how Black schools can serve as meso-level sites for challenging hegemonic ideologies and producing transformative ideologies. In articulating these processes, Du Bois identifies how ideological propaganda, organizational structures, and interpretations of temporal processes maintain and perpetuate racism and capitalism. This article concludes with suggestions for future research in educational sociology that incorporates these insights.     

The contemporary crisis and the social relations department at Harvard: A case study in hegemony and disintegration

The history of sociology is marked by periods of theoretical pluralism and hegemony. Their interplay has resulted in the slow and uneven development of the discipline. Today, however, bodies of theory and practice have become so diverse that many scholars worry that sociology is in a state of disintegration. The theoretical career of Talcott Parsons provides a microcosm in which to explore similar processes. Building on the success of The Structure of Social Action, Parsons led a movement that transformed Harvard's Department of Sociolgy into the Department of Social Relations. There he attempted a grander, but failed synthesis in Toward A General Theory of Action. His case provides a situation in which to explore features of disciplinary integration and fragmentation. The comparison stimulates one to fashion an informed sense of whether sociology is now facing its latest crisis or may be in the process of decomposition as a corpus of study. This research was supported by grants from the American Sociological Association's Fund for the Advancement of the Discipline and by Indiana University Northwest through a sabbatical leave.     

Reintegrating Theories,Methods, and Historical Analysis in Teaching Sociology

We discuss ways of bringing theory and methods into conversation with each other within courses and across the sociology curriculum. Theory is often taught completely separately from research methods, which in turn are simplistically divided into quantitative and qualitative. To counter this fragmented approach to the discipline we discuss two major paradigms, a social-forces paradigm often linked to quantitative research and an interpretive paradigm often linked to qualitative inquiry. But at a deeper level both paradigms require an understanding of historical context. The relationship between these two paradigms and more familiar categories of theory such as "functionalism" and "conflict theories" is not straightforward. We conclude the discussion by describing classroom-tested strategies that help students explore the complexity of the linkages between theories and empirical inquiry.     

Ethics,human rights and sociological inquiry: Genocide,politicide and other issues of organizational power

This paper introduces a human rights (in contrast to an ethicist) perspective into sociological investigation. Moreover, it indicates why a human rights orientation is necessary for examining genocide, politicide and other issues of organizational power. For years he has been concerned with the sociology of ethics, human rights and bureaucracy. Her research focuses on formal organizations, criminology/deviance, family life and medical sociology. Her primary interests are race and ethnic relations, family life and social psychology. Her interests include formal organizations, American studies and autobiography.     

The Yellow Brick Road to Research: an Evaluation of Graduate Training for Research

Although the most frequently espoused goal of Ph. D. training in sociology is to produce professionals who actively engage in research, the Ph. D. student is rarely introduced to the many personal and social confrontations inherent in the research process. The authors examine research-oriented courses offered at a randomly selected sample of universities granting doctorate degrees in sociology. Finding little formal recognition of such problems in the course offerings, an in-depth study of the research experiences of both faculty members and graduate students of a sociology department was undertaken. Results of the study are used to generate an alternative procedure for such preparation.     

Different while being similar: The dual institutional process and differential organizational status

Connecting the neoinstitutional theory with Bourdieu's field theory, we develop a framework on the dual institutional process of integration and differentiation in a field. While the neoinstitutional theory has focused on similar organizational structures, we shift the research focus to offer an institutional explanation of differential organizational status. Drawing insights from Bourdieu's theory and key concepts, we highlight that the very institutional mechanisms causing isomorphism—regulative forces, normative pressures, and cognitive processes—also generate systematic status differentiation among organizations via their different levels of capital, homologous structures, and various habitus in a field. Our extended framework has theoretical significance in advancing the neoinstitutional theory, the research of status in organizational and economic sociology, and the Bourdieusian perspective. By theorizing status differentiation among organizations, it also adds an important dimension to enrich our understanding of multilevel status and social hierarchies.