Explorations in General Theory: Essays in Honor of Talcott Parsons.

1977 ◽  
Vol 92 (2) ◽  
pp. 347
Author(s):  
Bernard Barber ◽  
Jan J. Loubser ◽  
Rainer C. Baum ◽  
Andrew Effrat ◽  
Victor Meyer Lidz
Keyword(s):  
General Theory ◽  
Talcott Parsons

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?

Extreme self-sacrifice beyond fusion: Moral expansiveness and the special case of allyship

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Crimston ◽  
Matthew J. Hornsey
Keyword(s):  
General Theory ◽  
Biological Markers ◽  
Natural Environment ◽  
Relevant Dimension ◽  
Special Case

AbstractAs a general theory of extreme self-sacrifice, Whitehouse's article misses one relevant dimension: people's willingness to fight and die in support of entities not bound by biological markers or ancestral kinship (allyship). We discuss research on moral expansiveness, which highlights individuals’ capacity to self-sacrifice for targets that lie outside traditional in-group markers, including racial out-groups, animals, and the natural environment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document