Against Grand Theories: A (Cautionary) Tale of Two Disciplines
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46938/tv.2020.470
Abstract
In this paper, I combine an exposition of the historical development of sociology and the philosophy of science from the era of grand theories onwards, with an explication as to why the grand theories have failed. First, I trace some parallels in the history of each of the disciplines. After presenting their chronological development, I scrutinize the metatheoretical findings about the disciplines and examine the main ontological and epistemic reasons why attempts at these general theories or frameworks have not succeeded. Among them are the lack of a universal methodology and of a theoretical core, together with the impossibility of achieving a common objective view. On this basis I conclude that general theories or frameworks are not achievable in principle. As it turns out, however, some contemporary social theorists and philosophers still harbor hopes that they can be successfully formulated, or at the least do not rule out such a possibility. Thus, in closing, I argue that the critical points can also be applied to these latest attempts, as the call for grand theories or frameworks has never ceased and returns regularly with each new generation of social theorists and philosophers of science.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Abbott, Andrew D. Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.
Archer, Margaret. Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge Universit Press, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511557675.
Barseghyan, Hakob. The Laws of Scientific Change. Cham: Springer, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17596-6.
Benthem, Johan van. “The Logic of Empirical Theories Revisited.” Synthese 186, no. 3 (2012): 775–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9916-6.
Berg, Axel van den. “Is Sociological Theory Too Grand for Social Mechanisms?” In Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, edited by Peter Hedström and Richard Swedberg, 204–37. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663901.009.
Bryant, Christopher G. A. “Review Article: Who Now Reads Parsons?” The Sociological Review 31, no. 2 (1983): 337–49.
Carnap, Rudolf. Der logische Aufbau der Welt. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1961. Cole, Stephen, ed. What’s Wrong with Sociology?? New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001.
Cole, Stephen. “Why Sociology Doesn’t Make Progress like the Natural Sciences.” Sociological Forum 9, no. 2 (1994): 133–54.
Collins, Randall. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2000.
Dépelteau, François, ed. The Palgrave Handbook of Relational Sociology. Cham: Springer, 2018.
Emirbayer, Mustafa. “Manifesto for a Relational Sociology.” The American Journal of Sociology 103, no. 2 (1997): 281–317. https://doi.org/10.1086/231209.
Fraassen, Bas C. van. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198244274.001.0001.
Friedman, Michael. Reconsidering Logical Positivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Galison, Peter. Image and Logic. A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.
Giddens, Anthony. The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Oxford: Polity Press, 1984.
Giere, Ronald N. “Philosophy of Science Naturalized.” Philosophy of Science 52, no. 3 (1985): 331–56. https://doi.org/10.1086/289255.
Giere, Ronald N. “Introduction.” In Cognitive Models of Science, Minnesota Studies in Philosophy of Science, vol. XV, edited by Ronald N. Giere, xv–xxviii. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992.
Giere, Ronald N., and Alan W. Richardson, eds. Origins of Logical Empiricism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
Hayek, Friedrich. The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason. Glencoe: Free Press, 1952.
Hedström, Peter, and Peter Bearman, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Holmwood, John, and Alexander Stewart. “Synthesis and Fragmentation in Social Theory: A Progressive Solution.” Sociological Theoryy 12, no. 1 (1994): 83–100. https://doi.org/10.2307/202037.
Hull, David. “Testing Philosophical Claims about Science.” In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992: Symposia and Invited Papers, no. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1992.2.192859.
Kisiel, Theodore, and Galen Johnson. “New Philosophies of Science in the USA: A Selective Survey.” Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie/Journal for General Philosophy of Science 5, no. 1 (1974): 138–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01809877.
Kitcher, Philip. “Toward a Pragmatist Philosophy of Science.” Theoria 77 (2013): 185–231. https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.7014.
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
Lakatos, Imre. “The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Philosophical Papers By Imre Lakatos, Volume I, edidted by John Worrall and Gregory Currie. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Laudan, Larry. Progress and Its Problems: Toward a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977.
Laudan, Larry. “Some Problems Facing Intuitionist Meta-Methodologies Source.” Synthese 67, no. 1 (1986): 115–29.
Levine, Donald N. Visions of the Sociological Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Lopreato, Joseph, and Timothy Crippen. Crisis in Sociology: The Need for Darwin. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1999.
Luk, Robert W. P. “Understanding Scientific Study via Process Modeling.” Foundations of Science 15, no. 1 (2010): 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-009-9168-9.
Luk, Robert W. P. “A Theory of Scientific Study.” Foundations of Science 22, no. 1 (2017): 11–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-015-9435-x.
Machamer, Peter. “A Brief Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science.” In The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Science, edited by Peter K. Machamer and Michael Silberstein, 1–17. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756614.ch1.
Manzo, Gianluca, ed. Analytical Sociology: Actions and Networks. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118762707.
Mills, Wright C. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Mouzelis, Nicos. Sociological Theory: What Went Wrong? Diagnosis and Remedies. London: Routledge, 1995.
Parsons, Talcott, and Edward A. Shils, eds. Toward a General Theory of Action: Theoretical Foundations for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951.
Parsons, Talcott, and Neil J. Smelser. Economy and Society: A Study in the Integration of Economic and Social Theory. New York: Routledge, 1956.
Parsons, Talcott. The Structure of Social Action. New York: McGraw Hill, 1937.
Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. Glencoe: Free Press, 1951.
Parsons, Talcott. Action Theory and the Human Condition. New York: Free Press, 1978.
Passmore, John. “Logical Positivism.” In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. V, edited by Paul Edwards, 52–57. New York: MacMillan and the Free Press, 1967.
Popper, Karl R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson and Co.,1959.
Popper, Karl R. Poverty of Historicism. London: Routledge, 1957.
Psillos, Stathis. “What is General Philosophy of Science?” Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 43, no. 1 (2012): 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-012-9182-4.
Psillos, Stathis. “Having Science in View: General Philosophy of Science and its Significance.” In Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, edited by Paul Humphreys, 137–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199368815.013.7.
Psillos, Stathis, and Martin Curd. “Introduction.” In The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Science, edited by Stathis Psillos and Martin Curd, xix–xxvii. London: Routledge, 2008.
Quine, William V. O. “Main Trends in Recent Philosophy: Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” The Philosophical Review 60, no. 1 (1951): 20–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/2181906.
Radder, Hans. “What Prospects for a General Philosophy of Science?” Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 43, no. 1 (2012): 89–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-012-9180-6.
Richardson, Alan. “That Sort of Everyday Image of Logical Positivism: Thomas Kuhn and the Decline of Logical Empiricist Philosophy of Science.” In The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism, edited by Alan Richardson and Thomas Uebel, 346–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Ritzer, George. “Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science.” The American Sociologistt 10, no. 3 (1975): 156–67.
Ritzer, George. Explorations in Social Theory: From Metatheorizing to Rationalization. London: Sage Publications, 2001.
Robertson, Roland, and Bryan S. Turner. Talcott Parsons: Theorist of Modernity. London: Sage Publications, 1991.
Seidman, Steven. Contested Knowledge: Social Theory Today. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
Skinner, Quentin. “Introduction.” In The Return of Grand Theory in the Human Sciences, ed. Quentin Skinner, 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Sorokin, Pitirim A. Contemporary Sociological Theories. New York: Harper, 1928.
Toulmin, Stephen. Human Understanding. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
Turner, Jonathan H. “Sociological Theory Today.” In Handbook of Sociological Theory, ed. Jonathan H. Turner, 1–17. New York: Springer, 2001.
Turner, Jonathan H., and David E. Boyns. “The Return of Grand Theory.” In Handbook of Sociological Theory, edited by Jonathan H. Turner, 353–78. New York: Springer, 2001.
Vandenberghe, Frédéric. “The Relation as Magical Operator: Overcoming the Divide Between Relational and Processual Sociology.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Relational Sociology, edited by Francois Dépelteau, 35–57. Cham: Springer, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66005-9_2.
Worrall, John. “Philosophy of Science: Classic Debates, Standard Problems, Future Prospects.” In The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Science, edited by Peter K. Machamer and Michael Silberstein, 18–36. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.
Copyright (c) 2020 Petr Jedlička
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
TEORIE VĚDY / THEORY OF SCIENCE – journal for interdisciplinary studies of science is published twice a year by the Institute of Philosophy of the Czech Academy of Sciences (Centre for Science, Technology, and Society Studies). ISSN 1210-0250 (Print) ISSN 1804-6347 (Online) MK ČR E 18677 web: http://teorievedy.flu.cas.cz /// email: teorievedy@flu.cas.cz