Toward a General Theory of Action: Theoretical Foundations for the Social Sciences, by Talcott Parsons and Edward Shils , 3rd edn. Edison, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2007 [2001]. 265pp., Pb. $29.95, ISBN 9780765807182

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
William H. Swatos, Jr.
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
General Theory ◽  
Theory Of Action ◽  
Talcott Parsons ◽  
The Social ◽  
Edward Shils ◽  
Theoretical Foundations

The Invention of the Theory

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence A. Scaff
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Action ◽  
Historical Inquiry ◽  
Talcott Parsons ◽  
Substantial Body ◽  
Political Tradition ◽  
Action Awareness ◽  
Deep Appreciation ◽  
The Social ◽  
Spirit Of Capitalism

This chapter examines how Max Weber's work has been recast as canonical for the social sciences and central to its current agendas. It first considers the substantial body of translations that became the basis for the postwar permeation of Weber's work into the social sciences, and especially into the subfield specializations of sociology, including Talcott Parsons' The Protestant Ethic and the “Spirit” of Capitalism, before discussing the role played by the interwar émigrés in the struggle over the mastery of Weber. It then explains how Weber achieved an intellectual synthesis through a combination of structural and institutional analysis, notions of rationality, propositions about social action, awareness of cultural particularities, and a deep appreciation for historical inquiry and evidence. It also analyzes the expansion of the horizon for Weber's ideas beyond the boundaries of sociology to the Western philosophical and political tradition.

Edward Shils and Michael Polanyi: the terms of engagement

2019 ◽  
pp. 79-105
Author(s):  
Phil Mullins
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Michael Polanyi ◽  
University Of Chicago ◽  
Scholarly Writing ◽  
Philosophical Perspective ◽  
The Social ◽  
Edward Shils ◽  
The University

This essay examines the thirty-year personal and intellectual friendship of Edward Shils and Michael Polanyi. Shils identifies Polanyi as one of his three important mentors; he is aware of and often involved in many Polanyi projects after the mid-forties and absorbs elements of Polanyi’s developing post-critical philosophical perspective. Shils helped Polanyi better understand the social sciences and he was a trusted friend whose scholarly writing apparently inspired Polanyi; Shils was also a capable younger figure on whom Polanyi often relied to organize endeavours such as Polanyi’s long term affiliation with the University of Chicago.

Conceptual and Theoretical Foundations of Social Capital

2009 ◽  
pp. 18-42
Author(s):  
Ben Kei Daniel
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Capital ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Analytical Tool ◽  
The Social ◽  
Scientific Legitimacy ◽  
Basic Understanding ◽  
Work Done ◽  
Conceptual Foundations ◽  
Theoretical Foundations

Social capital is a complex multifaceted and litigious theory, discussed in the Social Sciences and the Humanities. It is a theory increasingly researchers questioned its scientific legitimacy and yet paradoxically many other researchers continuously use it as a conceptual and theoretical framework to explain the structural and functional operations of communities. This Chapter discusses work done on the theory. It covers some of the theoretical controversy with a goal of aligning its conceptualization and distinguishing it from other types of capitals. The Chapter is organized first the basic theoretical and conceptual foundations of social capital are described. The aim is to present the reader with a basic understanding of what constitutes social capital, by opening discussion about various forms of capital(s)—as discussed in the disciplines of Economics and Sociology. Second, the Chapter discusses the origin of the theory as well as the work of key scholars who have contributed to the development of the theory. Furthermore, in order to identify the strengths and the weaknesses of the theory, the Chapter provides the reader with analysis of benefits and shortcomings of social capital both as a theoretical and analytical tool for studying communities.

Value-Relations and General Theory: Parsons’ Critique of Weber

1980 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Lassman
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Sociological Theory ◽  
Max Weber ◽  
Value Relevance ◽  
Western Society ◽  
Talcott Parsons ◽  
The Social ◽  
Value Neutrality ◽  
Value Relations

AbstractTalcott Parsons and Max Weber, despite the complexities and uncertainties of the latter’s work, represent two competing approaches to the nature of sociological theory. Despite his reliance upon many aspects of the work of Weber, Parsons’ critical remarks on the problems of value-relevance and value-neutrality can be interpreted in this light. The methodological views of both theorists are tied to differing views of the development of western society and of the role of the Social Sciences. Both are haunted by the spectre of relativism.

scholarly journals Crafting analytical tools to study institutional change

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 317-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
ELINOR OSTROM ◽  
XAVIER BASURTO
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
General Theory ◽  
Institutional Change ◽  
Analytical Tool ◽  
Theory Of Change ◽  
Processes Of Change ◽  
Mechanistic Analysis ◽  
The Social ◽  
Predictive Theory ◽  
Analytical Tools

Abstract:Most powerful analytical tools used in the social sciences are well suited for studying static situations. Static and mechanistic analysis, however, is not adequate to understand the changing world in which we live. In order to adequately address the most pressing social and environmental challenges looming ahead, we need to develop analytical tools for analyzing dynamic situations – particularly institutional change. In this paper, we develop an analytical tool to study institutional change, more specifically, the evolution of rules and norms. We believe that in order for such an analytical tool to be useful to develop a general theory of institutional change, it needs to enable the analyst to concisely record the processes of change in multiple specific settings so that lessons from such settings can eventually be integrated into a more general predictive theory of change.

Victor Raskin on jokes

2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christie Davies
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
General Theory ◽  
The Social ◽  
Clear Delineation ◽  
Over Time

AbstractVictor Raskin's clear delineation of the differences between humorous and bone fide serious communication and his systematic formal account of how jokes work was not only a major contribution to linguistics but also made possible revolutionary advances in other areas of the social sciences of humor. It was Raskin's account of the fictional, conventional, and mythical scripts used in jokes that freed us from the earlier tendentious and misleading analyses of jokes in terms of “stereotypes.” The General Theory of Verbal Humor enables us more easily to explain, transform, unpack, and compare quite disparate kinds of jokes from elephant jokes to Polish jokes and to explain how and why jokes have evolved over time. Raskin's contribution to humor scholarship has been that of a master.

scholarly journals Contributos para o debate da epistemologia em Serviço Social

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 63-77
Author(s):  
Jorge Ferreira
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Work ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Common Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Field ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Epistemological Obstacles ◽  
Theoretical Foundations

«Contributos para o debate da Epistemologia do Serviço Social» enquanto área de saber autónomo no quadro das ciências sociais consiste num questionamento sobre o Serviço Social e a sua Epistemologia. Reflecte ainda sobre a construção da teoria do Serviço Social incorporando um método reflexivo na definição e clarificação do objecto de estudo e de intervenção desta área de saber. Desenvolvemos uma análise facilitadora da compreensão da distinção do conhecimento comum do conhecimento científico em Serviço Social. Identificamos ainda o conjunto de obstáculos epistemológicos no Serviço Social motivando um debate aprofundado sobre os princípios e fundamentos teóricos do Serviço Social como área científica do conhecimento contemporâneo. «Contributions to the discussion of Social Work Epistemology» as an autonomous area of knowledge within the Social Sciences is a question about Social Work and its epistemology. It reflects on the construction of the theory of Social Work incorporating a reflective method in defining and clarifying the subject of study and intervention in this area of ​​knowledge. We developed an analysis facilitates understanding of the distinction between common knowledge of scientific knowledge in social work. Has identified a set of epistemological obstacles in Social Work, motivating a discussion on the principles and theoretical foundations of social work as a scientific field of contemporary knowledge

Ideology and General Theory: The Case of Sociological Functionalism

1986 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A. Huaco
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
General Theory ◽  
Symbolic Interaction ◽  
Social Psychological ◽  
Talcott Parsons ◽  
World War ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
American Sociology ◽  
The Social ◽  
The 1960S

It is a commonplace of our recent past that functionalism and the second system of Talcott Parsons (a distinctive version of functionalism) rose to power or attained hegemony in American sociology shortly after the end of World War II, retained this hegemony through the 1950s and 1960s, and lost a near-exclusive hold in the early 1970s when many of the younger sociologists abandoned a holist or transindividual perspective in favor of an interpersonal face-to-face context (associated with the social psychological concerns of symbolic interaction and ethnomethodology). What accounts for this? Why did functionalism and the second system of Parsons capture the intellectual allegiance of so many intelligent men and women in American sociology precisely at the end of World War II? What explains the almost total hegemony of this persuasion of general theory for more than two decades? Finally, what accounts for the fact that many younger sociologists withdrew their allegiance to these views at the end of the 1960s or early 1970s?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document