Enlightenment and Despair

Abstract

Geoffrey Hawthorn has written a substantial conclusion for the second edition of his widely acclaimed critical history of social theory in England, France, Germany and the USA from the eighteenth century onwards. Hawthorn begins with the 'prehistory' of the subject and traces, particularly in the thought of Rousseau, Kant and Hegel, the emergence of certain fundamental distinctions and assumptions whose existence is often overlooked in studies of the traditional 'founding-fathers' of sociology like Marx, Durkheim and Weber.

Patrick Geddes: Founder of Environmental Sociology

“…In his own lifetime, Geddes’ intellectual fortune (like his finances) seemed to wane as much as it waxed, and by the end of 1907 sociology had gained an institutional foothold in the British university system that left both he and his supporters outside it. The story of Hobhouse's appointment to the Martin White chair, and Geddes’ exclusion, is a complex one, and in spite of a number of historical accounts, has yet to be fully explored (but see Halliday, 1968; Mitchell, 1968; Owen, 1974; Hawthorn, 1976; Boardman, 1978; Collini, 1979; Abrams, 1985; Bulmer, 1985; Meller, 1990). Whatever the reasons, however, Geddes’ lack of either presence or support at LSE, for a long time the only place in Britain where sociology was offered at degree level (Fincham, 1975), is significant, since as Edward Shils astutely pointed out, institutions ‘create a resonant and echoing intellectual environment.…”

“…Indeed, it has been suggested on at least two separate occasions that Patrick Geddes deserves to be re-instated as an early founder of environmental sociology (Martinez-Alier, 1987: 98;Meller, 1990: 312-14). As Robson (1981: 198) suggests, Geddes anticipated what has recently become recognised as essential in any approach to 'environmental management' -the need for a multidisciplinary approach.Yet in so far as he appears in texts devoted to the history of sociology he is usually presented as having been eccentric (Hawthorn, 1976), amateur (Philip Abrams, 1968), a 'sociographer' whose theory made no impact on sociology (Fletcher, 1971); or with having contributed little beyond the development of the survey method (which is mainly attributed to Booth and Rowntree (Mark Abrams, 1951)). A.H. Halsey, who in his recent history of sociology acknowledges that Geddes might have made a positive contribution to the development of a sociology in which 'much greater emphasis might have been given to environmental forces' nevertheless fails to devote space to his work (Halsey, 2004: 48).…”

Explaining land use and forest change: more theory or better methodology?

“…These contemporary views emphasize causal histories and mechanisms as foundations of explanation and acknowledge that causal explanations are often highly contextual and may be singular in occurrence (Hawthorn 1991 ; Roberts 1996 ; Mahoney 2000 ; Glennan 2011 ; Lewis 2011 ; Priest 2017 ; Walters and Vayda 2020 ). Deductive, theory-focused approaches to research that predominated for decades in the natural and social sciences are simply no longer viewed as efficacious by many philosophers who study explanation (Hawthorn 1987 ; Vayda and Walters 2011 ).…”

“…This special issue explores the potential for social theory to contribute to landscape ecology. Theory typically plays a more central role in the social sciences than in ecology and environmental science (Hawthorn 1987 ; Abend 2008 ), so it is not surprising that social scientists who study environmental subjects often view them as insufficiently theorized (e.g., Robbins and Fraser 2003 ; Munroe et al 2014 ; see Vayda and Walters 2011 ). In fields like landscape ecology and land change science, where the actions of people are often central to understanding environmental patterns and changes, the adoption of social science theories has seeming appeal.…”

Demythologizing the machine: Patrick geddes, lewis mumford, and classical sociological theory

“…As Alex Law has noted, Geddes has come to be such an inspiration for some scholars that their assessments of his achievements often border on the hagiographic (Law, 2005). Yet for others, Geddes is someone to be dismissed as either an amateur or an eccentric (Abrams, 1968;Hawthorn, 1976). Consequently, there is a lack of historically sophisticated or critically engaged analyses of Geddes's work.…”