Search results

The purpose of this conceptual chapter is to analyze the current state of the astructural bias in symbolic interactionism as it relates to three inter-related processes over time: (1) the formalization of critiques of symbolic interactionism as ahistorical, astructural, and acritical perspectives; (2) an ahistorical understanding of early expressions of the disjuncture between symbolic interactionism and more widely accepted forms of sociological theorizing; and (3) persistent and widespread inattentiveness to past and present evidence-based arguments that address the argument regarding symbolic interactionism as an astructural, ahistorical, and acritical sociological perspective. The argument frames the historical development of the astructural bias concept in an historically and socially conditioned way, from its emergence through its rejection and ultimately including conclusions about contemporary state of the astructural bias as evidenced in the symbolic interactionist literatures of the last couple of decades. The analysis and argument concludes that the contemporary result of these intertwined historical and social conditioning processes is that the astructural bias myth has been made real in practice, and that the reification of the myth of an astructural bias has had the ruinous effect of virtually eradicating a vital tradition in the interactionist perspective which extends back to the earliest formulations of the perspective. As a result, a handful of suggestions that serve to aid in reclaiming the unorthodox structuralism of symbolic interactionism and the related interactionist study of social organization are provided in the conclusion.

In this chapter I argue that the search for a sociological postcolonial critique of modernity should not restrict itself to academic sociology. In Latin America a strong tradition of essayists has at times assumed genuinely sociological tasks. As I have argued elsewhere (Kozlarek, 2009) the Mexican poet and essayist Octavio Paz should be read in this fashion.In what follows I try to show that what could be termed Paz's sociological critique of modernity is essentially related to his critique of the teleological understanding of modernity that expresses itself in modernization theory. In a second step I argue that Paz's alternative sociology resembles a comparative sociology in which different experiences in the processes of modernizations are compared. Finally, I mention Paz's historical reconstruction of colonial and postcolonial experiences, and close with his description of pathological forms of social interaction that colonialism inscribed in the cultural fabric of everyday life.

For Weberian Marxists, the social theories of Max Weber and Karl Marx are complementary contributions to the analysis of modern capitalist society. Combining Weber's theory of rationalization with Marx's critique of commodity fetishism to develop his own critique of reification, Georg Lukács contended that the combination of Marx's and Weber's social theories is essential to envisioning socially transformative modes of praxis in advanced capitalist society. By comparing Lukács's theory of reification with Habermas's theory of communicative action as two theories in the tradition of Weberian Marxism, I show how the prevailing mode of “doing theory” has shifted from Marx's critique of economic determinism to Weber's idea of the inner logic of social value spheres. Today, Weberian Marxism can make an important contribution to theoretical sociology by reconstituting itself as a framework for critically examining prevailing societal definitions of the rationalization imperatives specific to purposive-rational social value spheres (the economy, the administrative state, etc.). In a second step, Weberian Marxists would explore how these value spheres relate to each other and to value spheres that are open to the type of communicative rationalization characteristic of the lifeworld level of social organization.

This chapter critically discusses implications of working with ‘big data’ from the perspective of qualitative research and methodology. A critique is developed of the analytic troubles that come with integrating qualitative methodologies with ‘big data’ analyses and, moreover, the ways in which qualitative traditions themselves offer a challenge, as well as contributions, to computational social science.

The chapter draws on Interactionist understandings of social organisation as an ongoing production, tied to and accomplished in the actual practices of actual people. This is a matter of analytic priority but also points to a distinctiveness of sociological work which may be undermined in moving from the study of such actualities, suggesting an alternative coming crisis of empirical sociology.

A cautionary tale is offered regarding the contribution and character of sociological analysis within the ‘digital turn’. It is suggested that ‘big data’ analyses of traces abstracted from actual people and their practices not only miss and distort the relation of social practice to social product but, consequentially, can take on an ideological character.

The chapter offers an original contribution to current discussions and debates surrounding ‘big data’ by developing enduring critiques of sociological methodology and analysis. It concludes by pointing to contributions and interventions that such an empirical programme of qualitative research might make in the context of the ‘digital turn’ and is of value to those working at the interface of traditional and digital(ised) inquiries and methods.

This chapter explores the contribution of the work of Len Barton to the evolving inclusive education discourse; in particular his 1986 article, The Politics of Special Educational Needs. In this article, he discusses the influence of a sociological lens to problematize the current special education policy, practices, and inquiry. The future directions piece at the end of the article called for teacher awareness of the relationship between the personal and political. I felt I was a living, breathing example of the teacher who Len Barton was talking about. I chose this article because of its particular pertinence to my continuing understandings about the phenomenon of special education and subsequently my research with teachers of students with profound and multiple learning difficulties.

Feminist critiques can provide new insights into organizational theories by examining the historical context in which these theories emerged, the research methods in which the theories are grounded, and the assumptions underlying the theories themselves. This paper applies a feminist critique to sociological theories of entrepreneurship. First, the sociological theories are described, focusing on the effects of political factors, state policies, culture, spatial location, and professionalization on entrepreneurship. This is followed by an analysis of these sociological theories investigating the values embedded in these theories and demonstrating how they can take gender relations into consideration. Finally, several directions for future research are discussed along with the potential feminist theories which have to produce change at the societal level.

The article argues for the necessity of theory within sociology, in general, and metatheory, in particular. It explores how theoretical, metatheoretical, and philosophical background conditions affect sociological research. It makes the case for why attending to background conditions is important for both the sociologist as an individual and also sociology as a collective and a discipline. In this context, it makes the case for critical realism as a useful program of metatheoretical reflexivity that focuses upon the more philosophical dimensions of sociology including the place of ontology and even how theory itself should be understood.

This chapter discusses the significance of Sally Tomlinson’s article, The Irresistible Rise of Special Education and of her sociological thinking more generally. The paradox highlighted in the Tomlinson’s article, that is, the constantly evolving expansion, globally, of special education, alongside a simultaneous growth in support for the idea of inclusive education, is discussed in this chapter. Tomlinson’s influence on the sociological direction of Julie Allan’s work is traced and exemplified, and the continuing tensions in inclusive education are explored.

Social critique is an enduring and pervasive feature of social life. It is deeply embedded in the fabric of modern societies, and certainly seems alive and well today: more- as well as less-institutionalized forms of critically monitoring societal and political processes through the social sciences and mass media are being supplemented by moral entrepreneurs, public intellectuals, and forms of activist protest; furthermore, this protest is no longer confined to demonstration marches, but instead also makes creative use of new technologies. In any case, critique is a matter of practical engagement. Therefore, as authors like Michael Walzer (2000) have argued, while social critique might depend on certain faculties of judgment, it definitely is not in need of a theory.