Mead,Contemporary Metatheory,and Twenty-First-Century Interdisciplinary Team Work

George Herbert Mead is reintroduced here as an exemplary practice-minded scholar. His work at Hull-House inspired practitioners to interpret and advocate for the poor and oppressed. Mead pioneered an approach to cross-cultural boundary work that was used to help clients interpret their experiences, to mediate between clients and social institutions, and to represent clients' needs to a nonsympathetic middle class. Contemporary sociological practice occurs in a fragmented, divisive society reminiscent of late nineteenth-century Chicago. Mead's notions of universe of discourse, international mindedness, and the democratic assumption are wedded to those of metatheorists and developed as a metatheory for use. Four metatheoretical tools—translation by membership focus, by metaphor, by map, and by model—are recommended to sociologists committed to interdisciplinary, multitheory service.     

The misuse and use of metatheory

Some approaches to metatheory are criticized for their tendency to avoid scientific sociology's central task: to explain how the social universe operates. While much metatheory is intellectually stimulating, it can also be debilitating in that it pulls social theory into reviews of the history of ideas, textual debate, philosophical discourse, ideological critique, and other unresolvable intellectual issues. In so doing, metatheory directs attention away from the analysis of the operative dynamics of the social world. Such need not be the case, however, for metatheory can be used to produce better theories. A general strategy for using metatheory to produce theory is proposed, and portions of this strategy are illustrated with a preliminary analysis of several conflict theories.     

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.