书评:危机中的晚期现代性。社会理论有什么作用?

IF 1 Q3 SOCIOLOGY Journal of Classical Sociology Pub Date : 2022-02-21 DOI:10.1177/1468795X221080547
Alan Scott
{"title":"书评:危机中的晚期现代性。社会理论有什么作用?","authors":"Alan Scott","doi":"10.1177/1468795X221080547","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With most jointly authored books the process of hammering out an agreement between the co-authors is intransparent, except perhaps to the attentive reader who might notice breaks in style or inconsistencies in the argument. Reckwitz and Rosa have chosen a different, and novel, approach: they each offer texts under their own name. The reader is not entirely left to their own devices in spotting the similarities and differences between the two authors as these are thematized in a discussion at the end – a further innovation – in which they are interviewed by the philosopher Martin Bauer. Two books, as it were, for the price of one. The basic motivation for this joint effort is set out in the Introduction. The authors note a problem of supply and demand. On the one hand, particularly since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008, there has been a demand, including among a wider public, for accounts that offer the big picture, a ‘view of the whole’ (p. 19). On the other hand, sociology has failed to meet this demand. In its absence, other disciplines have stepped in – for example, the best-selling work of economist Thomas Piketty. Since sociology in general, and social theory in particular, are uniquely placed to meet this demand, they have been failing in their duty. This failure is ascribed to two causes: (i) The pressures stemming from New Public Management (NPM) for the social sciences to emulate the natural sciences in which the gold standard is publication in A-rated peer-reviewed journals, devaluing the worth of books (a common complaint in the humanities in the German-speaking world); (ii) the lasting effects of the postmodern critique of grand narratives, which ‘plays into the hands’ of NPM (p. 18). This results in the marginalization of social theory, which in turn exacerbates the fragmentation of sociology as a discipline; the proliferation of ‘hyphenated sociologies’ (i.e. sociologies of x, y or z) (p. 17). It is this shortcoming that the authors seek to rectify. The first word goes to Andreas Reckwitz. He starts with a defence of social theory as an ‘ensemble of practices’ (p. 25) and then draws a distinction between sociological theory – that is Merton’s middle-range theory in which sociology is seen as a science of the real and theory’s role is to feed it with empirically testable hypotheses – and social theory (given in English). The latter he further breaks down into Sozialtheorie – that is a context-transcending ‘social ontology’ (e.g. the examination of the nature of the social) 1080547 JCS0010.1177/1468795X221080547Journal of Classical SociologyBook Review book-review2022","PeriodicalId":44864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Classical Sociology","volume":"22 1","pages":"367 - 374"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Book Review: Spätmoderne in der Krise. Was leistet die Gesellschaftstheorie?\",\"authors\":\"Alan Scott\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1468795X221080547\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"With most jointly authored books the process of hammering out an agreement between the co-authors is intransparent, except perhaps to the attentive reader who might notice breaks in style or inconsistencies in the argument. Reckwitz and Rosa have chosen a different, and novel, approach: they each offer texts under their own name. The reader is not entirely left to their own devices in spotting the similarities and differences between the two authors as these are thematized in a discussion at the end – a further innovation – in which they are interviewed by the philosopher Martin Bauer. Two books, as it were, for the price of one. The basic motivation for this joint effort is set out in the Introduction. The authors note a problem of supply and demand. On the one hand, particularly since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008, there has been a demand, including among a wider public, for accounts that offer the big picture, a ‘view of the whole’ (p. 19). On the other hand, sociology has failed to meet this demand. In its absence, other disciplines have stepped in – for example, the best-selling work of economist Thomas Piketty. Since sociology in general, and social theory in particular, are uniquely placed to meet this demand, they have been failing in their duty. This failure is ascribed to two causes: (i) The pressures stemming from New Public Management (NPM) for the social sciences to emulate the natural sciences in which the gold standard is publication in A-rated peer-reviewed journals, devaluing the worth of books (a common complaint in the humanities in the German-speaking world); (ii) the lasting effects of the postmodern critique of grand narratives, which ‘plays into the hands’ of NPM (p. 18). This results in the marginalization of social theory, which in turn exacerbates the fragmentation of sociology as a discipline; the proliferation of ‘hyphenated sociologies’ (i.e. sociologies of x, y or z) (p. 17). It is this shortcoming that the authors seek to rectify. The first word goes to Andreas Reckwitz. He starts with a defence of social theory as an ‘ensemble of practices’ (p. 25) and then draws a distinction between sociological theory – that is Merton’s middle-range theory in which sociology is seen as a science of the real and theory’s role is to feed it with empirically testable hypotheses – and social theory (given in English). The latter he further breaks down into Sozialtheorie – that is a context-transcending ‘social ontology’ (e.g. the examination of the nature of the social) 1080547 JCS0010.1177/1468795X221080547Journal of Classical SociologyBook Review book-review2022\",\"PeriodicalId\":44864,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Classical Sociology\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"367 - 374\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Classical Sociology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X221080547\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Classical Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X221080547","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

对于大多数合著的书来说,共同作者之间达成一致的过程是不透明的,细心的读者可能会注意到风格的中断或论点的不一致。雷克维茨和罗莎选择了一种不同的、新颖的方法:他们各自以自己的名义提供文本。读者不需要完全依靠自己的方法来发现两位作者之间的异同,因为在书的最后,他们接受了哲学家马丁·鲍尔(Martin Bauer)的采访,这是一个进一步的创新。两本书,就像用一本书的价钱买的一样。这一共同努力的基本动机载于引言部分。作者指出了一个供需问题。一方面,特别是自2008年全球金融危机(GFC)以来,包括在更广泛的公众中,一直有一种需求,要求提供大局,一种“整体观点”(第19页)。另一方面,社会学未能满足这一需求。在它缺席的情况下,其他学科介入了——例如,经济学家托马斯•皮凯蒂(Thomas Piketty)最畅销的著作。由于一般的社会学,特别是社会理论,是唯一能够满足这种需求的,它们一直没有尽到自己的职责。这种失败归因于两个原因:(i)新公共管理(NPM)对社会科学模仿自然科学的压力,自然科学的黄金标准是在a级同行评议期刊上发表,从而贬低了书籍的价值(德语世界的人文学科普遍抱怨);(ii)宏大叙事的后现代批判的持久影响,它“落入”了新资本主义的“手中”(第18页)。这导致了社会理论的边缘化,反过来又加剧了社会学作为一门学科的碎片化;“连字符社会学”(即x、y或z社会学)的泛滥(第17页)。作者试图纠正的正是这一缺点。第一个词是安德烈亚斯·雷克维茨。他首先为社会理论辩护,认为它是“实践的集合”(第25页),然后区分了社会学理论和社会理论(英文)。社会学理论是默顿的中庸理论,在这种中庸理论中,社会学被视为一门研究现实的科学,理论的作用是用经验可检验的假设来充实它。他进一步将后者分解为社会理论——这是一种超越语境的“社会本体论”(例如,对社会本质的考察)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Book Review: Spätmoderne in der Krise. Was leistet die Gesellschaftstheorie?
With most jointly authored books the process of hammering out an agreement between the co-authors is intransparent, except perhaps to the attentive reader who might notice breaks in style or inconsistencies in the argument. Reckwitz and Rosa have chosen a different, and novel, approach: they each offer texts under their own name. The reader is not entirely left to their own devices in spotting the similarities and differences between the two authors as these are thematized in a discussion at the end – a further innovation – in which they are interviewed by the philosopher Martin Bauer. Two books, as it were, for the price of one. The basic motivation for this joint effort is set out in the Introduction. The authors note a problem of supply and demand. On the one hand, particularly since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008, there has been a demand, including among a wider public, for accounts that offer the big picture, a ‘view of the whole’ (p. 19). On the other hand, sociology has failed to meet this demand. In its absence, other disciplines have stepped in – for example, the best-selling work of economist Thomas Piketty. Since sociology in general, and social theory in particular, are uniquely placed to meet this demand, they have been failing in their duty. This failure is ascribed to two causes: (i) The pressures stemming from New Public Management (NPM) for the social sciences to emulate the natural sciences in which the gold standard is publication in A-rated peer-reviewed journals, devaluing the worth of books (a common complaint in the humanities in the German-speaking world); (ii) the lasting effects of the postmodern critique of grand narratives, which ‘plays into the hands’ of NPM (p. 18). This results in the marginalization of social theory, which in turn exacerbates the fragmentation of sociology as a discipline; the proliferation of ‘hyphenated sociologies’ (i.e. sociologies of x, y or z) (p. 17). It is this shortcoming that the authors seek to rectify. The first word goes to Andreas Reckwitz. He starts with a defence of social theory as an ‘ensemble of practices’ (p. 25) and then draws a distinction between sociological theory – that is Merton’s middle-range theory in which sociology is seen as a science of the real and theory’s role is to feed it with empirically testable hypotheses – and social theory (given in English). The latter he further breaks down into Sozialtheorie – that is a context-transcending ‘social ontology’ (e.g. the examination of the nature of the social) 1080547 JCS0010.1177/1468795X221080547Journal of Classical SociologyBook Review book-review2022
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: The Journal of Classical Sociology publishes cutting-edge articles that will command general respect within the academic community. The aim of the Journal of Classical Sociology is to demonstrate scholarly excellence in the study of the sociological tradition. The journal elucidates the origins of sociology and also demonstrates how the classical tradition renews the sociological imagination in the present day. The journal is a critical but constructive reflection on the roots and formation of sociology from the Enlightenment to the 21st century. Journal of Classical Sociology promotes discussions of early social theory, such as Hobbesian contract theory, through the 19th- and early 20th- century classics associated with the thought of Comte, Marx, Durkheim, Weber, Simmel, Veblen.
期刊最新文献
Introduction: Social theorists and the First World War. Book Review: Concealed Silences and Inaudible Voices in Political Thinking Dewey’s Peircean aesthetics: An exegesis and its upshot for sociology Simmel on the war for national spirit and cosmopolitan culture Mead on international mindedness and the war to end war
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1