Sociological Perspectives

A particular strategy for metatheorizing is proposed. This strategy is designed to produce better theory and is to be distinguished from alternative types of metatheorizing that do not generate testable propositions. This strategy involves extracting the key processes, and their relations, from existing theories in order to create analytical models that express the dynamic processes contained in each theory. Then, these models are reconciled and used to produce abstract principles which, it is argued, can produce testable hypotheses guiding empirical research. This strategy is illustrated by an analysis of three theories of geopolitics.

This paper situates metatheorizing in a postpositivist approach to social science. Postpositivism contends that social science is organized around competing traditions, which are comprised of generalized discourse and research programs. Following an examination of the relations between discourse and programs, the dynamics fueling social scientific competition are outlined. Because that competition is subject to recurrent distortions and therefore cannot insure that the best arguments win, it is proposed that metatheorizing assume an adjudicative posture and evaluate the conflicting claims of rival schools. This suggestion is elaborated in the context of Ritzer's pioneering work on metatheorizing.

The current debates on metatheory in sociology do not account for the fact that metatheorizing, as a distinct intellectual activity, is unequally distributed throughout the sciences. As a reflexive and critical subspecialty, metatheory and metasociology are more likely to routinely accompany work in loosely coupled and highly controversial disciplines. The theory of scientific organizations explains the propensity for metatheorizing as the outcome of weak and conversational fields that rely mostly on texts to support their discourse.

Theoretical strategies are metatheoretical structures that guide construction of specific substantive theories. Postpositivism treats them as incorrigible and incommensurable, hence choice among them as irrational and change as discontinuous rather than “growth.” But strategies are not all of a piece. Some elements are more corrigible and commensurable than others. At the level of “working strategies,” which are more specific and concrete directives for constructing theories and doing research, it is possible to choose strategies and “grow” on rational grounds of reason and evidence.

This paper gives an account of the cultural background to, and the social forms of theory production that shape the characteristic quality of American and the three most influential European social theory traditions: British, French, and German. After an analysis of Americanization after World War II, the prospects for the revitalization of European social theory and its improved position in world sociology are discussed. In this process, the unique contributions to sociology of British, French, and German social theory are outlined.

When Parsons derived action theory from Durkheim's sociology, he also argued with Durkheim, disputed his claims, and expressly rejected some of his fundamental principles. Accordingly, American functionalism contained a hidden “negative image” of Durkheim. Parsons's student, Harold Garfinkel, addressed functionalism at its weak points, eventually overthrowing most of what Parsons had to say about society. Some of these weak points were predicated on Parsons's rejection of Durkheim, including explicit rejection of Durkheim's equivalences between society, morality, and objective reality. Garfinkel's ethnomethodology therefore rejected what had been premised on Parsons's rejection of Durkheim. In so doing, it reversed the negative image of Durkheim back to its positive classical form and empirically demonstrated some of Durkheim's most troubling principles. Since Garfinkel did not deliberately recover Durkheim in this manner, the dynamics of this case make it an interesting study of how theorists read other theorists.

This paper analyzes recent developments in neo-Marxist theory from a metatheoretical viewpoint. Specifically, the focal concern is with post-Marxism, including analytic, empirically oriented, and postmodern Marxism. The goal is to gain a better understanding of post-Marxism by utilizing the four dimensions (internal-social, internal-intellectual, external-intellectual, external-social) of the subtype of metatheorizing oriented toward such a greater understanding. Three conclusions are derived from this analysis. First, the classic schools of neo-Marxist theory are declining in significance. Second, Marx's own ideas are also of decreasing importance. Third, the post-Marxists are drawing increasingly less on Marx's ideas and neo-Marxist theories and more on other intellectual traditions. This is seen as a healthy set of developments and as part of the larger movement towards greater theoretical synthesis. The paper closes with a discussion of alternative perspectives on the development of post-Marxism.

This paper examines recent developments in meta-study in sociology which involves metatheory, metamethod, and meta-data-analysis. It argues that the three branches of meta-study, though previously unrelated, are now rapidly converging, signaling, among other things, the existence of a sustained crisis in the discipline. It concludes that meta-study will continue to grow in sociology for some time to come.