Clarity and Confusion in Social Theory

Tsilipakos, Leonidas

doi:10.4324/9781315572338

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For adherents of a realist social ontology, these are examples ‘real but non‐observable mechanisms at work’, the existence of which we can postulate by their effects (Archer : 45). But even if we reject the position that ‘societal expressions’ such as these refer to ‘real’ non‐observable entities (Tsilipakos : 69–116), they can still be held to usefully describe sets of institutional arrangements, relations and practices which share certain common features. Consider, patriarchy, for example.…”

Section: Reassembling Sociology: Avoiding Reification But Recognizinmentioning

confidence: 94%

What has become of critique? Reassembling sociology after Latour

Mills

2017

British Journal of Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper offers a defence of sociology through an engagement with Actor Network Theory (ANT) and particularly the critique of 'critical' and politically engaged social science developed by Bruno Latour. It argues that ANT identifies some weaknesses in more conventional sociology and social theory, and suggests that 'critical' and 'public' orientated sociologists can learn from the analytical precision and ethnographic sensibilities that characterize ANT as a framework of analysis and a research programme. It argues, however, that Latour et al. have too hastily dispensed with 'critique' in favour of a value neutral descriptive sociology, and that the symmetrical and horizontalist approach adopted in ANT is particularly ill-suited to the development of scientific knowledge about social structures. It argues that a more straightforwardly realist sociology would share many of the strengths of ANT whilst being better able to interrogate, empirically and normatively, the centres of contemporary social power.

show abstract

Section: Reassembling Sociology: Avoiding Reification But Recognizinmentioning

confidence: 94%

What has become of critique? Reassembling sociology after Latour

Mills

2017

British Journal of Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is beyond the scope of the present article to take up the metaphysics of the past or to argue against Roth's constructionism for either a realist or a moderate constructionist stance. For what it is worth, I do not regard such crystallised 'isms' as particularly helpful in illuminating the issues at stake.10 For an elaboration and further defence of this way of proceeding, in other words, the position of Ordinary Language Philosophy, seeHacker (2007),Baz (2012) andTsilipakos (2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I also find particularly welcome what is, in effect, a lifting of the stipulative restriction on the word “explanation” that informs the basis of philosophical discussion and a challenge mounted toward an item of faith in social scientific methodological discussion, namely, that description is somehow one thing and explanation is another so that a description cannot possibly be explanatory in response to a posed question. This is but a simple logical reminder as to the logical grammar of words like “description” and “explanation” (Tsilipakos 2016, Ch. 2).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Descriptive Accuracy in History: The Case of Narrative Explanations

Tsilipakos

2020

Philosophy of the Social Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses the issue of the conceptual accuracy of descriptions of social life, which, although fundamental for the social sciences, has in fact been neglected. I approach this task via an examination of Paul Roth’s recent work, which recapitulates reflection in analytic philosophy of history and sets out a view of the past as indeterminate until retrospectively constructed in historical narratives. I argue that Roth’s position embraces an overly restricted notion of historical significance and underestimates how anachronistic descriptions vitiate central historiographical tasks. I contend that the importance of conceptually accurate descriptions for history and the social sciences cannot be overstated.

show abstract

“…Utoliko bi pokušaj da se iskaže razumijevanje i za pozitivističke koncepcije društva za Lawa predstavljao daleko zahtjevniju i za čitatelja vjerojatno zanimljiviju zadaću. Za razliku od nekih pozitivista koji su se poduhvatili čitanja klasika sociologije ne bi li, primjenjujući logičku analizu jezika, izlučili formule kojima bi se jednom zauvijek odredili značenja i odnosi između pojmova korištenih u tim teorijama (Mueller, 2014;Tsilipakos, 2015), Law ničim ne pokazuje ni da je pročitao išta iz tog teorijskog korpusa niti da ga to uopće zanima.…”

unclassified

Društvena teorija i postnormalna znanost

Kovačević¹

2016

Rev Sociol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

 Alex Law. Social Theory for Today: Making Sense of Social Worlds. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2015, 344 str.Alex Law, profesor sociologije na Sveučilištu Abertay u Škotskoj, napisao je -kako to i njezin naslov sugerira -vrlo ambicioznu knjigu. Ona pokušava uobličiti društvenu teoriju koja bi odgovarala složenoj stvarnosti suvremenog svijeta. Taj svijet je od vremena nastupanja prosvjetiteljstva i modernosti obilježen krizom. Različite teorije o društvu pokušaji su pronalaženja odgovora na pitanja o skrivenim zakonima u skladu s kojima se odvijaju naizgled kaotične promjene društvene zbilje. Mnoštvo teorija o društvu i -za razliku od prirodnih znanosti -nepostojanje jedne neupitne paradigme navode na pomisao o krizi društvene teorije. Takvo stanje posljedica je narcizma malih razlika i teorijskog harangiranja (theory-baiting) koje se provodi sa svrhom da se pod svaku cijenu pokaže da suparnička teorija nije prihvatljiva. Umjesto takvog pristupa Law predlože da se u relevantnim društvenim teorijama prepozna ono vrijedno čime svaka od njih pokušava odrediti probleme društvene zbilje. Tako bi se mogli prepoznati dugoročni obrasci teorijskog razvitka. »Nužna dionica u teorijskom napretku je razumijevanje protivnika u bilo kojoj teorijskoj raspravi kao mogućih saveznika, ne kao neprijatelja koji trebaju biti uništeni, jer su oni možda otkrili prave probleme koji zahtijevaju ozbiljnu sociološku analizu« (Law, 2015: 299). U istom duhu on konstatira da je isticanje fatalnih pogrešaka u suparničkim teorijama »skolastička igra koja nužno izaziva krizu« (Law, 2015: 301).Nasuprot pretjeranoj specijalizaciji i fragmentaciji sociologije, Law se zauzima za teorijsku sintezu. Ta sinteza ipak ostaje nejasna jer ona ne podrazumijeva standardni pojmovni vokabular ni standardnu metodologiju. Temeljem načina na koji obrađuje pojedine primjere iz tradicije društvene misli i referenci na koje se poziva u svojim interpretacijama možemo zaključiti da bi se ta sinteza zasnivala na Bourdieuu i poststrukturalističkom/postmodernističkom razumijevanju teorije kao načina konstruiranja predmeta koji se proučava. Pomalo u neskladu s najavom iz naslova knjige da će ponuditi društvenu teoriju za današnji svijet, Law zapravo nudi još jedno od čitanja priznatih i nepriznatih klasika društvene misli.Ta povijest društvene misli opisana je u trinaest zaokreta, od Comteova pozitivističkog i Marxova zaokreta do, u konačnici, relacionističkog zaokreta Norber-

show abstract

Clarity and Confusion in Social Theory

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

What has become of critique? Reassembling sociology after Latour

What has become of critique? Reassembling sociology after Latour

Descriptive Accuracy in History: The Case of Narrative Explanations

Društvena teorija i postnormalna znanost

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About