scholarly journals Understanding Institutions without Collective Acceptance?

2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 608-629 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pekka Mäkelä ◽  
Raul Hakli ◽  
S. M. Amadae
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Social World ◽  
Collective Intentionality ◽  
The Social ◽  
Collective Acceptance

Francesco Guala has written an important book proposing a new account of social institutions and criticizing existing ones. We focus on Guala’s critique of collective acceptance theories of institutions, widely discussed in the literature of collective intentionality. Guala argues that at least some of the collective acceptance theories commit their proponents to antinaturalist methodology of social science. What is at stake here is what kind of philosophizing is relevant for the social sciences. We argue that a Searlean version of collective acceptance theory can be defended against Guala’s critique and question the sufficiency of Guala’s account of the ontology of the social world.

scholarly journals A Dialogue on Social Inquiry: Expanding Our Understanding of Sociological Thinking

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Rebat Kumar Dhakal
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Social Transformation ◽  
Social World ◽  
Sociological Perspective ◽  
Philosophy Of Social Science ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
The Core ◽  
Social Inquiry ◽  
The Social

Highlights Social inquiry is much more than the study of society. It further excavates historical facts, critically reflects on everyday happenings, and envisions the future we wish to create. The intent of initiating this dialogue on social inquiry is two-fold: a) to offer a sociological perspective (i.e. ‘thinking sociologically’), and b) to expand our understanding of sociological thinking. Sociological thinking can be developed by examining the periphery of the core. Context matters in understanding any phenomenon under the sociological microscope. Sociological thinking allows many different viewpoints to coexist within a larger structure and that it respects pluralism. Sociological thinking is about developing or providing a perspective to examine social nuances. Sociological thinking should act as a means for social transformation.  Social inquiry serves as a methodology for the social sciences and humanities. It deals with the philosophy of social science and the workings of the social world – giving a way for understanding both the biosphere and the sociosphere.

Predictive Success and Non-Individualist Models in Social Science

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Lauer
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Theory Of The Firm ◽  
Social World ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Predictive Success ◽  
The Social ◽  
Recent Diagnosis ◽  
Resource Based Theory

The predictive inadequacy of the social sciences is well documented, and philosophers have sought to diagnose it. This paper examines Brian Epstein’s recent diagnosis. He argues that the social sciences treat the social world as entirely composed of individual people. Instead, social scientists should recognize that material, non-individualistic entities determine the social world, as well. First, I argue that Epstein’s argument both begs the question against his opponents and is not sufficiently charitable. Second, I present doubts that his proposal will improve predictive success for the social sciences, which I support with Edith Penrose’s resource-based theory of the firm.

scholarly journals Top-down causation and social structures

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dave Elder-Vass
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Level Structure ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Social World ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Critical Realist ◽  
Social Events ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Entity ◽  
Social Entities

Top-down causation has been implicit in many sociological accounts of social structure and its influence on social events, but the social sciences have struggled to provide a coherent account of top-down causation itself. This paper summarizes a critical realist view of causation and emergence, shows how it supports a plausible account of top-down causation and then applies this account to the social world. The argument is illustrated by an examination of the concept of a norm circle , a kind of social entity that, it is argued, is causally responsible for the influence of normative social institutions. Nevertheless, social entities are structured rather differently from ordinary material ones, with the result that the compositional level structure of reality implicit in the concept of top-down causation has some limitations in the social world. The paper closes by considering what might be involved in examining how top-down causation can be shown to be at work in the social domain.

scholarly journals Précis of The Ant Trap

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Epstein
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Ontology ◽  
Social World ◽  
Collective Intentionality ◽  
New Model ◽  
The Social ◽  
Basic Facts ◽  
Traditional Approaches

AbstractThis article summarizes The Ant Trap: Rebuilding the Foundations of the Social Sciences. The book develops a new model for social ontology, applies it to groups and collective intentionality, and criticizes various forms of individualism. Part One of the book presents two traditional approaches to social ontology and unifies them into the “grounding–anchoring model” for the building of the social world. Part Two shows that individualism is mistaken even for basic facts about groups of people, challenges prevailing views of group intention and action, and illustrates how to approach facts about groups in general.

Instrumentalizing and Naturalizing Social Ontology: Replies to Lohse and Little

2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-39
Author(s):  
Richard Lauer
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Social Ontology ◽  
Social World ◽  
Scientific Methodology ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
Science Methodology ◽  
Social Science Methodology ◽  
Made In

This article addresses Simon Lohse’s and Daniel Little’s responses to my article “Is Social Ontology Prior to Social Scientific Methodology?.” In that article, I present a pragmatic and deflationary view of the priority of social ontology to social science methodology where social ontology is valued for its ability to promote empirical success and not because it yields knowledge of what furnishes the social world. First, in response to Lohse, I argue that my view is compatible with a role for ontological theorizing in the social sciences. However, the view that results instrumentalizes social ontology. Second, in my response to Little, I argue that the same considerations I made in my article apply to naturalistic attempts to motivate a non-deflationary view, repeating some of the central issues of that article.

The Future of the Social Sciences: Between Empiricism and Normativity

2016 ◽  
Vol 71 (03) ◽  
pp. 343-360
Author(s):  
Andrew Abbott
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Social Process ◽  
Rapid Change ◽  
Social World ◽  
Moral Judgments ◽  
The Social ◽  
The World ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Many

This article takes a processualist position to identify the current forces conducive to rapid change in the social sciences, of which the most important is the divergence between their empirical and normative dimensions. It argues that this gap between the many and various empirical ontologies we typically use and the much more restricted normative ontology on which we base our moral judgments is problematic. In fact, the majority of social science depends on a “normative contractarianism.” While this ontology is the most widely used basis for normative judgments in the social sciences, it is not really effective when it comes to capturing the normative problems raised by the particularity and historicity of the social process, nor the astonishing diversity of values in the world. The article closes with a call to establish a truly processual foundation for our analysis of the social world, which must move away from contractualism and imagine new ways of founding the human normative project.

Social sciences in the field of power – the case of Danish social science

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 425-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristoffer Kropp
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Multiple Correspondence Analysis ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
The Social ◽  
Epistemological Position ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
Societal Interests ◽  
Science Disciplines

The social science disciplines are strongly differentiated both on an epistemological level and in problem choice. It can be argued that they are characterized by a number of different epistemological ways of position-taking or ways of legitimizing social scientific knowledge production. Furthermore, different scientific problems and social institutions are allocated as research objects to different social science disciplines. This article looks into how these different epistemological styles and choice of scientific problems not only are internal principles of differentiation but also constitute important relations to other powerful social interests and institutions in the field of power. I argue that we can understand the social sciences as a field of force and struggle, where different disciplines compete in producing legitimate representations of the social that also represent specific societal interests. Using the language of Bourdieu, I construct a space of social scientific epistemological position-taking using Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA). Into this space I project a number of supplementary variables representing social science disciplines, position-taking towards non-academic institutions, interests and research subjects, and thus show how different epistemological position-taking is connected to specific societal interests, problems and institutions. The article draws on data from a survey conducted among Danish social scientists in autumn 2009.

scholarly journals Teoría de la socialidad como interacción: hacia un análisis social naturalista, universal e interaccional

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Jiménez-Albornoz
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
General Theory ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Social World ◽  
Social Processes ◽  
General Analysis ◽  
Universal Theory ◽  
Third Place ◽  
The Social

This paper develops three basic statements we think are needed for the growth of social science. In the first place, that there is no opposition between society and nature, and that the social sciences study a kind of sociality (entailed on culture and consciousness) that is part of a more general analysis of the social world. In second place, that a universal theory of social processes is possible and it is not in opposition, but actually explains traits of social life usually thought as incompatible with the possibility of a general theory. In third place, that the space in which to build that theory, and one that allows to dissolve some traditional antinomies of social thought, is interaction.

Sociological metatheorizing in the 1980s and 1990s: Philosophical aspects of some alternatives to the positivist specification

2019 ◽  
pp. 121-142
Author(s):  
Valerii Pylypenko
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Cognitive Styles ◽  
Social World ◽  
Philosophy Of Social Science ◽  
The Social

The paper provides a retrospective overview of metatheoretical research unfolding in the 1980s and 1990s. Philosophical aspects of some alternatives to the positivist specification have been analysed. Particular attention has been given to the interpretation of sociological metatheorising as the philosophy of social science (B.Fay). The next step is identification of characteristics related to the conception of metasociology as a dialogue with other social sciences, as well as with political and moral conversations about the social world. This conception was put forward by E.Fuhrman and W.Snizek. The author has also summarised S. Fuchs’s works that describe, compare and analyse cognitive styles of metatheorising in sociology.

“We Speak the Truth!”

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-80
Author(s):  
Sari Hanafi
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Content Analysis ◽  
Social Science ◽  
The Political ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Social Phenomena ◽  
The Social ◽  
Academic Qualifications

This study investigates the preachers and their Friday sermons in Lebanon, raising the following questions: What are the profiles of preachers in Lebanon and their academic qualifications? What are the topics evoked in their sermons? In instances where they diagnosis and analyze the political and the social, what kind of arguments are used to persuade their audiences? What kind of contact do they have with the social sciences? It draws on forty-two semi-structured interviews with preachers and content analysis of 210 preachers’ Friday sermons, all conducted between 2012 and 2015 among Sunni and Shia mosques. Drawing from Max Weber’s typology, the analysis of Friday sermons shows that most of the preachers represent both the saint and the traditional, but rarely the scholar. While they are dealing extensively with political and social phenomena, rarely do they have knowledge of social science

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document