One Example Towards Theoretical Integration in Social Theory

The appearance of Sociology as a discipline is tied to solving the problem of demarcating it in relation to other disciplines. So one main concern in the realm of Social Theory - from Comte, Durkheim, Simmel, Weber until the early Parsons - is at this time: what are the criteria for such a new discipline?

In this context we can also observe an appearance of regulative one-sided ideas, that organize information as specific sociological information in a mono-theoretical way. By this I mean a theory-production that focuses its research efforts on one main category like ‘communication’, ‘rationality’, ‘behaviour’, ‘action’, ‘decision’, ‘conflict’, structure’, ‘role’, ‘risk’, ‘evolution’ etc. Such a main category works like an ‘emanating semantic’ explaining ‘everything’ from its center.

It is my contention, that the function of such a mono-theoretical procedure is first an external one: demarcating Sociology from other disciplines. But with the consolidation of Sociology as a discipline, one-sided theories become internally unproductive because of their polemical means. While at the beginning of the discipline they play a cohesive role, after the consolidation of that discipline they run internally against other one-sided theories.

What makes a discipline become theoretically mature? In my opinion, this occurs at the moment that a general problem is discovered within the discipline and focused upon. As soon as there is one important general problem for the scientific community, the discipline becomes in some way autonomous. It can now produce and reproduce it self out of the internal problem and not only out of external demands put on it.

The classical tradition in Sociology in Europe responds to the general problem: how is social order possible? Ironically enough, this problem is put forcefully forward by an American sociologist, namely by Talcott Parsons.

The classical tradition in Sociology in America responds to quite another problem, that is, to the problem: how is the self socially possible? Take as classical examples for instance, Cooley, Dewey, Mead, James.

After a main consolidation in European and American social theory, one-sided theories have become quite ineffective and have almost lost their legitimation. What we need in this situation are more cohesive theories that always reflect the other side of them selves. Theory-production must now focus on two-sided theories in the sense of observing what they can see, and at the same time trying to observe what they are keeping out of their scope when observing what they are trying to observe.

But this is not enough. In a constantly globalizing world we sooner or later become aware of the dominance of our own culture and of our blindness against other so-called ‘strange’ cultures. In this context we must become aware of at least one distinction between the European and the American classical tradition in sociology. Here we have a new general problem to be solved, namely how to integrate the problem of social order - peculiar to the European tradition - with the problem of explaining the self in a social manner - peculiar to the American tradition.

In other words, we need at first distinctional theories that tell us on the one side what we can observe with their help, and on the other side and at the same time what we are covering while observing with their help. Second, we need at least a theory that tries to integrate the European with the American general problem, which means integrating ‘how is social order possible’ with ‘how is the self socially possible’. In other words, in our theoretical efforts we have to be constantly aware of the macro-micro-problem.

Now to finish my presentation I want to offer you one example in a schematically form towards theoretical integration in Sociological Theory as put forward in my recent publications, ‘Logic of Distinctions. A Proto-Logic for a Theory of Society’ and ‘Societal Observations - from the Point of View of the Theory of Distinctions’:

The Form of Society



> communication > decision action >
(active)
> -------------------------------------------------------
intended/unintended consequences of com, dec, act...
< function < structure <
(passive)


< < evolution < <



communication = information/communication, understanding/interpretation
decision = secure/unsecure, advantage/disadvantage
action = means/ends, cause/effect

structure = experience/expectation
function = latent/manifest

evolution = variation/selection, stability/crisis, probable/improbable