| |||||||||||||||
 Trade In this Item for up to £9.60
Get an extra £5 when you trade in books worth £10 or more until June 30, 2012. Trade in Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach for an Amazon.co.uk gift card of up to £9.60, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. Trade-in values may vary (terms apply). Find more products eligible for trade-in.
|
Frequently Bought Together
Product details
|
More About the Author
Product Description
Product Description
Building on her seminal contribution to social theory in Culture and Agency, Margaret Archer develops here her morphogenetic approach, applying it to the problem of structure and agency. Since structure and agency constitute different levels of stratified social reality, each possesses distinctive emergent properties which are real and causally efficacious but irreducible to one another. The problem, therefore, is shown to be how to link the two rather than conflate them, as has been common theoretical practice. Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach not only rejects methodological individualism and holism, but argues that the debate between them has been replaced by a new one, between elisionary theorising and emergentist theories based on a realist ontology of the social world. The morphogenetic approach is the sociological complement of transcendental realism, and together they provide a basis for non-conflationary theorizing which is also of direct utility to the practising social analyst.
Book Description
Margaret Archer addresses the problem of structure and agency and how to link rather than conflate the two. Her morphogenetic approach is the sociological complement of transcendental realism and offers a new understanding of social change. It poses a direct challenge to Giddens' structuration theory.
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
First Sentence
Social reality is unlike any other because of its human constitution. Read the first page
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover
Social reality is unlike any other because of its human constitution. Read the first page
Explore More
Concordance
Browse Sample PagesConcordance
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product)
|
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
5 of 16 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
Realist social theory, like much modern social thought, is defined by Judeo-Christian anthropocentrism which was reconfigured as a secular model during the enlightenment. This model places humans at the centre of the universe. Archer's theorising in this text is an example of the modern social scientific version of monotheistic anthropocentrism. This may seem paradoxical as Archer promulgates the notion of social structures as real entities that restrict and shape human behaviour. However, with Judeo-Christian folklore man [sic] is created and constrained by a transcendental deity; in Archer's ontology the reified object replacing god is society.
In both cases humans would seemingly be all-powerful were it not for the constraining input of a reified entity. In the case of realist social theory it is claimed that we would live in a context-less world and be completely free omnipotent agents were it not for an overarching societal level keeping us in check. However, sociological theory is a biology-free domain: Archer is always searching for the constraints over and above the individual, but no mention is made of biological constraints which underpin human activity. Humans are not separate from the natural world, despite the claims of monotheistic religions and social science. Structured patterns and regularities of human activity are not evidence for the causal influence of social structures; they are an outcome of the fact that we are subject to the algorithms of nature like every other creature on the planet.
The image of social theory presented in this book suggests that this sub-discipline provides rigorous underpinnings for sociology and that it incrementally advances in symbiosis with sociology's evolution. The actual aim of social theory, however, is the attempt to define and defend an academic niche which is exclusive to sociology. Real social structures are required as otherwise there are no separable and distinct phenomena in the social world that provide exclusive items of enquiry for sociology. Without these referents, sociology cannot be separated from psychology, which in turn cannot be separated from biology. Therefore, if sociological theory is to progress, it needs to be reconciled with biological theories: however, protection of parochial disciplinary boundaries is perhaps of greater concern to sociologists than genuine intellectual advancement.
In both cases humans would seemingly be all-powerful were it not for the constraining input of a reified entity. In the case of realist social theory it is claimed that we would live in a context-less world and be completely free omnipotent agents were it not for an overarching societal level keeping us in check. However, sociological theory is a biology-free domain: Archer is always searching for the constraints over and above the individual, but no mention is made of biological constraints which underpin human activity. Humans are not separate from the natural world, despite the claims of monotheistic religions and social science. Structured patterns and regularities of human activity are not evidence for the causal influence of social structures; they are an outcome of the fact that we are subject to the algorithms of nature like every other creature on the planet.
The image of social theory presented in this book suggests that this sub-discipline provides rigorous underpinnings for sociology and that it incrementally advances in symbiosis with sociology's evolution. The actual aim of social theory, however, is the attempt to define and defend an academic niche which is exclusive to sociology. Real social structures are required as otherwise there are no separable and distinct phenomena in the social world that provide exclusive items of enquiry for sociology. Without these referents, sociology cannot be separated from psychology, which in turn cannot be separated from biology. Therefore, if sociological theory is to progress, it needs to be reconciled with biological theories: however, protection of parochial disciplinary boundaries is perhaps of greater concern to sociologists than genuine intellectual advancement.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
3 reviews
5 of 7 people found the following review helpful
Emergence is hard
5 Nov 2010
Format:Paperback
For those interested in SOCIAL theory, please ignore the other reviews on this page. The fundamental problem with their negative response is a failure to take seriously the central realist concept of emergence (or, for one review, to simply dislike the work because of all the big words; as a philosophy professor of mine once told me, before you criticize philosophy for being 'up in the clouds,' you first have to learn some philosophy).
Archer and other realist's are keen to emphasize that the world contains emergent strata (atomistic, biological, psychological, social, etc.) - i.e. entities which once produced through combinations of more fundamental parts cannot be explained solely by reference to those parts and in fact can act back upon them with causal effect (being raised in a family of racists - a social interaction - can alter ones psychology toward paranoia, fundamental attribution error, etc. - or even effect one's biological state if one decides to go on a hate-filled rant among a group of knife weilding members of the Other).
That's why the agent-structure problem is important, because throwing ones hands up and saying that everything can be reduced to individuals or the dictates of nature have been a dead-end repeated over and again; scientific work based on these premises continually fails to accomplish the goals it sets for itself. So emergence may be hard, and tackling the agent structure problem may seem like an impossible task, but it's the effort that counts so that people aren't led astray by nonsense that soon all will be explained by our 'natural' desire for pleasure, health, procreation or whatever. So to give an example, when the social structure of religion, which defined pleasure as bad unless it worked toward God's will, gives way to the social structure of the media-entertainment industry, our natural drive toward pleasure goes from something like abstaining from sex to seeking it out.
Archer and other realist's are keen to emphasize that the world contains emergent strata (atomistic, biological, psychological, social, etc.) - i.e. entities which once produced through combinations of more fundamental parts cannot be explained solely by reference to those parts and in fact can act back upon them with causal effect (being raised in a family of racists - a social interaction - can alter ones psychology toward paranoia, fundamental attribution error, etc. - or even effect one's biological state if one decides to go on a hate-filled rant among a group of knife weilding members of the Other).
That's why the agent-structure problem is important, because throwing ones hands up and saying that everything can be reduced to individuals or the dictates of nature have been a dead-end repeated over and again; scientific work based on these premises continually fails to accomplish the goals it sets for itself. So emergence may be hard, and tackling the agent structure problem may seem like an impossible task, but it's the effort that counts so that people aren't led astray by nonsense that soon all will be explained by our 'natural' desire for pleasure, health, procreation or whatever. So to give an example, when the social structure of religion, which defined pleasure as bad unless it worked toward God's will, gives way to the social structure of the media-entertainment industry, our natural drive toward pleasure goes from something like abstaining from sex to seeking it out.
3 of 21 people found the following review helpful
Judeo-Christian anthropocentrism
13 July 2005
Format:Hardcover
Realist social theory, like much modern social thought, is defined by Judeo-Christian anthropocentrism which was reconfigured as a secular model during the enlightenment. This model places humans at the centre of the universe. Archer's theorising in this text is an example of the modern social scientific version of monotheistic anthropocentrism. This may seem paradoxical as Archer promulgates the notion of social structures as real entities that shape human behaviour. However, with Judeo-Christian folklore man [sic] is created and constrained by a transcendental deity; in Archer's ontology the reified object replacing god is society.
In both cases humans would seemingly be all-powerful were it not for the constraining input of a reified entity. In the case of realist social theory it is claimed that we would live in a context-less world and be completely free omnipotent agents were it not for an overarching societal level keeping us in check. As a previous reviewer has noted, sociological theory is a biology-free domain. Archer is always searching for the constraints over and above the individual, but no mention is made of biological constraints which underpin human activity. Humans are not separate from the natural world, despite the claims of monotheistic religions and social science. Structured patterns and regularities of human activity are not evidence for the causal influence of social structures; they are an outcome of the fact that we are subject to the algorithms of nature like every other creature on the planet.
The image of social theory presented in this book suggests that this sub-discipline provides rigorous underpinnings for sociology and that it incrementally advances in symbiosis with sociology's evolution. The actual aim of social theory, however, is the attempt to define and defend an academic niche which is exclusive to sociology. Real social structures are required as otherwise there are no separable and distinct phenomena in the social world that provide exclusive items of enquiry for sociology. Without these referents, sociology cannot be separated from psychology, which in turn cannot be separated from biology. Therefore, if sociological theory is to progress, it needs to be reconciled with biological theories: however, protection of parochial disciplinary boundaries is perhaps of greater concern to sociologists than genuine intellectual progress.
In both cases humans would seemingly be all-powerful were it not for the constraining input of a reified entity. In the case of realist social theory it is claimed that we would live in a context-less world and be completely free omnipotent agents were it not for an overarching societal level keeping us in check. As a previous reviewer has noted, sociological theory is a biology-free domain. Archer is always searching for the constraints over and above the individual, but no mention is made of biological constraints which underpin human activity. Humans are not separate from the natural world, despite the claims of monotheistic religions and social science. Structured patterns and regularities of human activity are not evidence for the causal influence of social structures; they are an outcome of the fact that we are subject to the algorithms of nature like every other creature on the planet.
The image of social theory presented in this book suggests that this sub-discipline provides rigorous underpinnings for sociology and that it incrementally advances in symbiosis with sociology's evolution. The actual aim of social theory, however, is the attempt to define and defend an academic niche which is exclusive to sociology. Real social structures are required as otherwise there are no separable and distinct phenomena in the social world that provide exclusive items of enquiry for sociology. Without these referents, sociology cannot be separated from psychology, which in turn cannot be separated from biology. Therefore, if sociological theory is to progress, it needs to be reconciled with biological theories: however, protection of parochial disciplinary boundaries is perhaps of greater concern to sociologists than genuine intellectual progress.
3 of 24 people found the following review helpful
What's the point?
22 Dec 2004
Format:Paperback
I'm currently doing a Social Work degree: I studied a Policy Analysis module and decided to undertake an essay on social theory, which sounded interesting. By golly, was I wrong: Realist Social Theory is one of the books I got out from the library and I was I left thinking 'what's the point?' It's a classic case of academics quibbling over terms and dangling proverbial carrots for each other. If 'Agency/structure' has any applicability to the real world then it's been buried in a large mound of wordy bunkum. I can't see how it is of any use to people trying to understand or study the world. It's just a parochial, intra-disciplinary, conceptual and linguistic wrangle designed to keep academics in their offices. There's so much written on the topic - produce a theory, chop it up, put it back together again, then repeat the process.
With regard to understanding the social world: the sum-total of literature on agency/structure doesn't provide as much insight as spending half an hour in the pub.
With regard to understanding the social world: the sum-total of literature on agency/structure doesn't provide as much insight as spending half an hour in the pub.
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
|
|
Look for similar items by category
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Academic Philosophy
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Academic Sociology
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Government & Politics
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Philosophy
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Social Sciences > Sociology
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
