SOCI 333 - Contemporary Sociological Theory - Metatheorizing PDF

SOCI 333 –Contemporary Sociological Theory– METATHEORIZING Dr. Gbenga Adejare General Recap We started our discussions in this course from module 1 by unpacking the context of contemporary theorizing We examined some elements of a good theory We attempted a definition of Theorizing and examined Krau...

SOCI 333 –Contemporary Sociological Theory– METATHEORIZING Dr. Gbenga Adejare General Recap We started our discussions in this course from module 1 by unpacking the context of contemporary theorizing We examined some elements of a good theory We attempted a definition of Theorizing and examined Krause’s model of theorizing In the second module, treated last week, we examined how paradigms shift We focused on the contributions of Talcott Parsons, Robert K. Merton, C. Right Mills, Ralf Dahrendorf, and Niklas Luhmann Lesson Focus Today, we shall examine another dimension to contemporary theory: METATHEORIZING We will focus on the contribution of George Ritzer But first, we will attempt a deconstruction of the concept of metatheorizing What is Metatheorizing? Metatheorizing is relatively new is sociology, its originators are usually contested It assumes a position of systematic synthesizing of varying typologies and paradigms in sociological theorizing Fusion of social action and social structure, for instance. Combination of empirical evidencing and non-empiricism What is Metatheorizing? Some thematic constructs deployed in metatheorizing include "control" (Gibbs 1989); "individual actors," "corporate actors," "interests," and "rights" (Coleman 1990); "rational action," "nonrational action," "individualist order," and "collectivist order" (Alexander 1982); "social and cultural structures," "spatial and temporal regularities," "instinct," "enculture," "physiology," "nurture," "demography," "psychical contagion," "ecology," and "artifacts" (Wallace 1983, 1988); and general causal images like "convergence," "amplification," "fusion," "fission," "tension," "cross-pressure," "dialectic," and "cybernetic" (Wallace 1983, 1988). Some underlying constituents of nonempirical analytic metatheorizing have been tagged "moral implication," "moral commitments," and "moral preferences" (Alexander 1982). George Ritzer (1940 – date) Raised from an average Jewish American family Lived in a working-class neighborhood with multiple ethnicity Had combined degrees in sociology, psychology and business His experience as an employee at the Ford Motor Company marked a turning point in his career Among others, his popular works include Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm (1975, 1980), Metatheorizing in Sociology (1991) and The McDonaldization of Society (1993) Contribution of Ritzer to Metatheorizing Metatheorizing, according to Ritzer, is concerned about the nature of the end products of theorizing. He developed a tripartite typology of metatheorizing: 1. Means of Understanding (MU): Theories are not in themselves the ultimate end, but a means to attaining deeper ones 2. Prelude/Means to Theory Development (MP): Extant theories are to be properly studied to produce new ones 3. Means of Overarching Sociological Perspectives (MO): All theories in sociology can be subsumed under metatheorizing James Coleman (1926 – 1995) With his primary base at the University of Chicago, taught sociology for many years and held important positions, including serving as the president of the American Sociological Association. He synthesizes ideas from economics, mathematics, philosophy, psychology, and other related fields in his theoretical treatise. In his popular work, Foundation of Social Theory (1990), he borrowed umpteenth ideas from the works of Adam Smith (1776) to explain system rationality. He endorses the concept of “methodological individualism” He contributed to theorizing social capital His major contribution centered on macro-micro-macro analysis. His principal foci included social norms, institutional design or corporate behaviour, internalization Main Ideas The problem of explanation: explaining behavior from micro to macro levels Exogenous-endogenous compounding Focusing on the system, not individuals, to understand group norms that propel the entire social behaviour: E.g., Germany under Hitler is sharing some similarity with Russia under Russia under Stalin. Or the kibbutz sharing some characteristics with Charles Manson’s and Jim Jone’s communes Critiquing Weber, Coleman saw beyond a simple transition of the Protestantism to global capitalism. Social norms are critical to explaining social behaviour Trust is based on cost-benefit analysis "individuals will rationally place trust if the ratio of the probability that the trustee will keep the trust to the probability that he will not is greater than the ratio of the potential loss to the potential gain” (Coleman, 1990:104) Coleman’s Boat Theorizing Social Capital “Credit slip” – Mr. B feels obligated to Mrs. A simply because the former has received a favour from the latter. A direct analogy of financial capital can be drawn if Mrs. A has many people in her relational networks having the same obligational responsibility as Mr. B. Building social capital depends on the level of trustworthiness. E.g., people engaging in rotational contributions Individual actors defer in terms of their credit slips that they can rely on. E.g., in a capitalist economy, the haves tend to posse greater access to social capital because of their affluent network. Information is the basis for making informed decision when building social capital. Information is often sourced from social relations that can be used for other purposes Theorizing Social Capital cont'd Existence of a system of sanctions: an effective system can constitute a powerful form of social capital in how it reinforces acceptable behaviours and frowns at dissident actions. A system of authority. As social capital builds, authority can be transferred from one person to another. E.g., Mrs. B can transfer her credit slip to another actor. Social organization exists Theorizing Purposive Action Coleman described some extant sociological theories (e.g., functionalism) as teleological, lacking adequate explanation of cost-effect relationships. In place of these, he proposed the use of purposive action theory. In theorizing, the image of man must be projected as someone with the intellectual capability to actively decide their course of action in a social system – politics, economy, etc. Humans do not always act rationally, perhaps for selfish reasons. This does not depict humans as non-purposive. The Problem of Internalization Coleman believed that internalization of norms and values is accomplished through parental training Parents benefit if they can train their children Children benefit from receiving parental training because they fit in very well into the social system Criticism: The proximate motive for teaching and receiving values taught is probably to become a good citizen, according to Coleman’s analysis, what about the material values or cognitive processes that go into such internalization process? On Collective Behaviour Coleman’s idea on collective behaviour has been praised as his most important contribution to sociological theorizing. According to … (…1992), Coleman’s description of crowd behavior and kindred phenomenon indicates is very instructive in how they punctuate what is "excitable," "emotional," or "suggestive"; how behavior can exhibit "contagion“ that are subject to "hypnotic effects of the crowd." People are usually spontaneous unpredictable and mostly irrational: Think of people that are experience deprivation or marginalization, what happens when they gain power? Revolutions do not just occur; they happen to replace the status quo with another one. Frustration is epiphenomenal – something that is of consequence for the opposing force, making others believe in your own capability On Social Choice Choices are based on ordinal ranking of alternatives according to Coleman E.g., whereas votes based on actual wealth holdings can be shown to produce Pareto-optimal allocations, votes based on arbitrary point allocations will in general leave room for mutually beneficial gains from exchange Specificity: what is meant by ‘purposive action’ must be known Simplicity: It is important to simplify options so that individuals can make purposive choices. There must be room for trade-offs, especially when there is minimal psychological complexities. Conclusion ❑Both Ritzer and Coleman were fascinated by the idea of explaining the integral interactions that sustain both social systems and the people. ❑Metatheorizing is both reconciliatory and transcendent. It can also become superfluous due because of its ambitious tendency to merge perspectives. Reflection Questions In what practical ways can emerging theorists like yourself make sense of extant sociological theories to explain contemporary social issues? Examine some of the strengths and weaknesses observed in any metatheory of your choice. In what ways are the propositions of Coleman applicable today? Attempt a critique of Coleman’s theorizing