Social theory of the 20th century

Author: [British] Patrick Bertel
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-07-01
Features: Patrick Bertel, a renowned sociologist from the University of Cambridge, UK, published Social Theory of the 20th Century in 1998, which received widespread acclaim. This book can be considered a comprehensive and integrated examination of the contributions of 20th-century social theory. The author discusses most of the key figures in the field of 20th-century social theory, as well as numerous social theory schools, such as functionalism, structuralism, symbolic interactionism, dramaturgy, ethnomethodology, and rational choice theory. Expert reviews describe the book as having a high level of analytical depth, providing readers with a clear trajectory of the development of social theory over the past century, and it is vivid and accessible, making it an ideal reference for readers interested in understanding 20th-century social theory. The purpose of this book is to critically examine the various contributions to social theory made in this century. I believe that social theory is a relatively systematic, abstract, and general reflection on the role of the social world. Regardless of how fundamental this definition is, a series of consequences have emerged. First, I will only discuss theories that have reached a high level of abstraction. This certainly does not mean that social theory is necessarily independent of empirical research on society. Of course, some theories are almost unrelated to empirical research, while others are highly dependent on empirical research or have an empirical sociological orientation. However, regardless of whether they are based on experience or not, the primary goal of sociologists clearly is to create theories, so the abstract nature of social theory is distinctly different from the practical orientation of empirical sociology. Second (and related to this), I will explore theories that reach a high degree of generality. That is, they aim to cover all aspects of social domains across different periods and societies. For example, they might examine how social order arises in any society—not just a specific one. Third, social theory has an systematic character. Compared to mere opinions and beliefs, they demonstrate a high degree of internal consistency and coherence. Even recent attempts to break away from grand theoretical constructs are systematic efforts; they are not just a mix of various opinions. This book discusses 20th-century social theory, but this does not imply that a consensus on this topic had not emerged before. Many ancient and pre-modern political philosophers based their political agendas on highly complex views of the social realm. Additionally, the emergence of sociology as an independent discipline in the 19th century was highly significant for social theory. Auguste Comte, émile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Karl Marx (to name a few) all proposed highly precise views on the structure of the social world. However, 20th-century social theory, at least in some aspects, is entirely different from its predecessors. For clarity, let me propose three differences between the position of 19th-century social theory and its contemporary status. , although Comte, Durkheim, and others made significant efforts to establish sociology as an independent discipline, they did not explore a systematic boundary between theory and empirical research. In contrast, in many countries, social theory has increasingly become an independent academic field—clearly distinct from empirical sociology. Second, social theory has become increasingly specialized. In the 19th century, those engaged in this field were educated in closely related disciplines (philosophy or political science). Few held academic positions that allowed them to train others. Whether it was Comte, Alexis de Tocqueville, Marx, Herbert Spencer, or Georg Simmel, none held long-term academic positions. It was not until the late 19th century that some graduate schools began to offer formal training in social theory. Third, social theory now has a less obvious connection to political action than in the past. Social theory was once a tool for addressing political issues. For example, Comte (to some extent, also Durkheim) wanted to know how social order could be restored after the political and economic turmoil of that era. Tocqueville sought to understand how equality of opportunity and freedom could be reconciled, while Marx aimed to develop a more equal and less alienated social model. For them, social theory was not its own purpose; it was seen as a necessary means to address contemporary political challenges. The intricate connection between social theory and political reality weakened over the course of the 20th century. I will briefly outline the main premises of each school of thought. Most views of the 20th century were influenced by some 19th-century predecessors. Structuralism (see Chapter 1) and functionalism (see Chapter 2) share many similarities because they both adopt Durkheim's holist social image. According to holism, society must be studied as a whole, and this whole cannot simply be a sum of its parts. Like Comte, Durkheim emphasized that society is a unique entity, an entity with its own complexity. Therefore, society cannot be seen as a mere collection of individuals pursuing personal interests. Similarly, both structuralism and functionalism are interested in the extent to which different parts of a social system are interconnected and how they contribute to the system. Structuralists explore the basic social structures that constrain and determine people's actions and thoughts. Individuals themselves are not necessarily aware of the existence of these structures, and they are even less likely to recognize the constraints of truly identical structures. Additionally, structuralist social theorists often use language as an analogy to understand non-linguistic social phenomena. They typically rely on the works of Ferdinand de Saussure, the Swiss linguist and founder of structural linguistics, to do so.