This article comes from the official account: Political Theory
Since Comte proposed the term "sociology", the development of sociology has gone through more than 180 years, and one of the main threads running through it is sociological theory. Different from other disciplines, sociological theories are known for their "pluralistic paradigms", but is the integration between different paradigms possible, and by what path?
Zhou Xiaohong, senior professor of liberal arts at Nanjing University and Changjiang Scholar of the Ministry of Education, is the author of "Western Sociology: History and System" and other books, and her research interests include sociological theory, social psychology, middle class, "cultural feedback" and "Chinese experience".
In the more than 160-year history of sociology, countless sociologists have put forward countless hypotheses about human nature and social order. It is on the basis of these assumptions that a wide variety of opposing and conflicting theories have been formed. We can even say that the history of sociology is, at least, what J. Szaki calls the history of sociological thought (Szacki, 1979), itself a history of theorists. This situation in the field of sociological theory makes the basic problems of sociology and the way of thinking about them confusing, and also makes it more difficult for us to grasp the essence of society. In order to improve the theoretical quality of sociology and understand the historical heritage and future trend of sociological theories, it is necessary to classify and summarize these theories to different degrees, understand the basic assumptions and characteristics of different theories, compare their similarities and differences, and explore the possibility of theoretical integration.
01 Sociological Theory and Its Pluralistic Paradigm
In order to better grasp various sociological theories with different assumptions and different views, people have long tried to divide these different and even opposing views and theories in different ways. Looking at the various sociological theories or historical works published in the past, we can find the following three popular basic patterns of dividing sociological theories.
The first and earlier classification method that became popular in the field of sociology is the "school induction" method. Its classification is based on the similarity of sociologists' views in interpreting human nature and social order and related issues. As early as 1928, the Russian-American sociologist P. Sorokin, in his book Contemporary Sociological Theories, divided the various sociological theories that were popular at that time into "mechanistic school", "geographical school", "biological school", "bio-sociological school", "bio-psychological school", "sociological school", "psychological school" and "psycho-sociological school" (Sorokin, 1928). In 1960, in his book The Nature and Types of Sociological Theories, Martindale divided all the previously popular sociological theories into five schools: positivist organicism, conflict theory, formal school, social behaviorism, and sociological functionalism (Martindale, 1960). Until the 80s of the 20th century, because it was convinced that in the field of sociology "no theory is sufficiently rigorous, precise and certain in rigor and precision to construct a paradigm of abstract concepts and laws...... If this concept had to be used, sociology would be at best in the pre-paradigm stage" (Turner, 1987:37). H. Turner also continued to adopt what we call "school induction", dividing the theoretical schools in the field of sociology into functional theory, conflict theory, exchange theory, interaction theory, and structural theory. Contrary to Turner's view that sociological theories are not highly abstract, Robert Merton argues that the biggest problem with previous sociological theories is that all sociologists are pursuing grand narratives, and if every "sociologist with a Chrissma temperament" seeks to develop a grand theory, "then this practice can only Balkanize sociology, with each territory having its own theoretical system" (Merton, 1968: 51), for which Merton famously proposed the "middle theory." (Theories of the Middle Range), according to which he also summarized the sociological theories of the time.
The second method we might call "ideal type". The use of this division of existing sociological theories is directly attributable to Max Weber and his concept of the "ideal type". However, as Weber has already noted, the fact that this type is "ideal" means that it represents only an ideal state that does not exist in reality; As a result, most sociologists who use this classification are well aware that "in reality there is no such extreme type" (Poloma, 1979: 2) and that it is only an abstraction made by us to conveniently grasp the different theories and their differences.
Guided by this "ideal type" approach, different sociologists try to make their own divisions of various sociological theories. In 1966, Willian Catton divided sociological theories into two categories: "animistic sociology" and "naturalistic sociology" (Catton, 1966). In 1974, Martindale further summarized the five sociological theories he proposed in 1960 as "humanist sociology" and "sociology of science" (Martindale, 1974). In 1976, Giddens proposed that sociological theory could be divided into "positivist sociology" and "explanatory sociology" (Giddens, 1976). Only a few years later, Marguerite Poloma brought together these views, arguing that sociology and its theories can be divided into "naturalistic" or "positivist" sociology and "humanist" or "interpretive" sociology (Poloma, 1979). In fact, it is also very common to use the "ideal type" or similar method to divide sociology and its theories into macro and micro types. In 1971, Fred Katz divided sociology into two types, macro and micro, and discussed sociological theories from three levels: structure, model, and concretization (F. Katz, 1971).
The third method we might call "theoretical paradigms". The emergence of this method is directly related to the publication of the book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by the American historian of science Thomas Kuhn. According to Kuhn, science did not evolve in an evolutionary way, but through a series of revolutions. In explaining the process of this revolution, Kuhn uses the concept of "paradigm," "which refers to the collection of beliefs, values, technologies, etc., shared by members of a community" (Kuhn, 1970: 175). For example, the worldview implicit in Newtonian physics constitutes one paradigm, while the worldview implicit in Einstein's physics belongs to another. From this, Kuhn divided the development of science into two phases: the period of conventional science and the period of scientific revolution. In the previous period, scientific coherence was high, and all members of the community of scientists regarded the prevailing paradigms of their own disciplines as real and legitimate; In the latter period, such as the transition from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics, the consistency of the old paradigm disappears, but after the revolution, the consistency of the new paradigm is soon established again.
Kuhn's "paradigm" theory has not only influenced the study of the history of natural science, but also aroused positive responses in the sociological community. However, it is worth pointing out that sociologists have improved or deviated from Kuhn's theory borrowing. The most important improvements were: (1) For Kuhn, competing and opposing paradigms are irreconcilable, "here the scientific revolution is seen as an interlude in the discontinuous development of science, in which an old paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by a new paradigm that is incompatible with it", or that "Einstein's theory can only be accepted if it is admitted that Newton's theory is wrong" (Kuhn, 1970: 92, 98). However, sociologists generally agree that different sociological theoretical paradigms are not either/or. Johnson, for example, convincingly confirms that, in the face of different paradigms, "if we do not engage in such debates, we look at substantive analyses and their implications from the perspective of an onlooker, and find a much higher degree of agreement" (Johnson, 1988:68-69). (2) In order to make the concept of paradigm more flexible in sociology, Ritzel proposed that the concept of "paradigm" can be used at different levels. For example, "paradigms" can be used to distinguish communities of scientists or simply to distinguish between different disciplines, such as sociology and psychology; It can also be used to represent the different stages of development of a discipline, such as physics in the 18th century and physics in the early 20th century; It can also be used to represent a community of subscientists in the same period and in the same field, such as psychoanalysis in psychology, where there are different paradigms such as Freud, Jung, Adler, and in the same period. According to Ritzel, the last of these three paradigm shifts is the most prevalent and effective. Thus, "a paradigm is a basic intention about the object of study that exists in a scientific field." It can be used to define what should be studied, what questions should be asked, how questions should be questioned, and what rules should be followed in interpreting the answers we get. A paradigm is the unit of the broadest consensus in a field of science, and we can use it to distinguish between different communities of scientists or sub-communities. It is capable of generalizing, defining and relating the different paradigms, theories, methods and tools that exist in a given science" (Ritzer, 1975: 7).
Based on the above understanding, some sociologists have proposed that sociology is a multi-paradigm science along Kuhn's lines. In 1975, the American sociologist Ritzel clearly divided the various popular theories in sociology into three basic different paradigms in his book "Sociology: A Science of Multiple Paradigms": the paradigm of social facts, the paradigm of social interpretation, and the paradigm of social behavior. They differ in paradigms, thematic imagery, methods, and theories (Ritzer, 1975, 1996). Because this division is not only consistent with people's conventional understanding in academic theory, but also similar to the reality in sociology, it has gained a considerable degree of recognition after being proposed, and has become a new classification "paradigm" in sociological theoretical research for a period of time. However, a closer examination of this classification reveals that one of its weaknesses is that, although Reezel also included Marx in the discussion of classical sociologists, he ignores the fact that the critical theory of society, pioneered by Marx and later promoted by the Frankfurt School in Germany, also has the basic qualifications to become a sociological paradigm. It is true that Marx, like other sociological masters, made an excellent analysis of the nature of conflict in social life, and is therefore one of the pioneers of the "theory of social conflict" or the "paradigm of social facts" defined by Ritzel; However, it would be inappropriate to include the social critical orientation from Marx to the Frankfurt School and later Habermas into the theory of social conflict. This is because Ritzel's classification is based on differences in the basic assumptions of different theories about the nature of social reality, and it is precisely in this respect that the school of social criticism shows a difference from the three paradigms mentioned above: that is, it emphasizes the critique and negation of social reality. Influenced by Hegel, social theorists of this orientation or paradigm have argued that the essence of things lies in the negation or critique of reality. In Marcuse's words, "thought is essentially our negation of the present" (Marcuse, 1941:vii).
The conception of social critique as a sociological paradigm does not begin with what we have said above. In fact, long before Ritzel, Habermas proposed a sociological paradigm that was slightly different from Ritzel's in his book Knowledge and Human Interests (1968). From a practical point of view, Habermas argues that there are three basic constituent elements of the lifeworld of human society, namely labor, interaction (communication), and power (domination). Corresponding to this, the three basic purposes of technology, practice and emancipation are formed; Further, three types of knowledge were developed: empirical-analytic knowledge, historical-interpretive knowledge, and critical knowledge (J. Habermas, 1968). Obviously, here, empirical-analytic knowledge is similar to the social factual paradigm, historical-explanatory knowledge is analogous to the social interpretive paradigm, and critical knowledge is the social critical paradigm. Thus, the difference between Reezel and Habermas is not in the first two, but in the fact that Reezel emphasizes the paradigm of social behavior, while Habermas emphasizes the paradigm of social criticism. This difference, as well as the plausibility of the two paradigm types, Ritzel and Habermas, provides a basis for us to propose a new paradigm classification model.
02 Four main theoretical paradigms and their evolution
Figure 1 is a diagram of the basic paradigm used to illustrate sociological theory, based on the above discussion. This paradigm is based on two intertwined pairs of ideal types: macro-micro; Naturalism – Humanism. However, unlike the average dualist, we do not view either of these two pairs of ideal types as opposing or rejecting each other. In other words, we can think of macro and micro, naturalism and humanism, as two pairs of "continuums" that are both distinct and at the same time transitioning from each other. Further, four theoretical paradigms can be obtained from these two pairs of ideal types.
Aspects related to macro-micro ideal types involve sociologists' basic views on human nature and social order and their interrelationships. Scholars who advocate that sociology should give priority to the study of macroscopic processes will consider social order as an emergent reality that restricts human nature or human behavior. Scholars who advocate that sociology should give priority to the study of micro-processes believe that social order or social structure is a "retelling" of human nature, or that it is constructed by human behavior. Aspects related to the ideal type of naturalism-humanism involve the basic strategies and research paths of sociologists when studying human nature and social order. Scholars who advocate a naturalistic approach regard social facts or human behavior as objects, so sociology is a science like a natural science in their eyes. For this reason, some naturalist sociologists regard physics or biology as their theoretical basis, while others strive to unify the natural sciences with the social sciences, including sociology, because they believe that social phenomena are governed by some objective law like natural phenomena. Finally, humanist scholars believe that there is an essential difference between man and everything in the natural world, and the biggest difference is that man is able to attach meaning or value to the things he encounters, so that we can think of social reality or social order as being constructed by people's meaningful actions.
Let's start with the paradigm of social facts. This paradigm includes structural functionalism and conflict theory, two of the most dominant theoretical schools in Western sociology. Obviously, although there are considerable differences between the two theories in explaining social structures, there is also considerable agreement between them: for example, contrary to the paradigm of social interpretation, they both emphasize the constraints and influences of social structures on individual behavior, except that the former focuses on the connection and order between social facts, while the latter focuses on the conflict and disorder between social facts.
The paradigm of social facts occupies a very important position in the development of sociology as a whole. Almost all sociologists admit that the paradigm of social facts, especially structural functionalism, has occupied a dominant position in the West, especially in American sociology, since the classical era of sociology, so that this paradigm has once become synonymous with "scientific" sociology. Collins, for example, called it "the central tradition of sociology" and "the first and most extraordinary integration of ideas in sociology" (Collins, 1994:181). Indeed, if other sociological paradigms can be called "low-development sociology", the social fact paradigm is "developed sociology", and this situation is mainly related to Comte's advocacy of positivism, Durkheim's promotion of positivist methodology in sociology, and the echo of later generations, especially the mainstream American sociologists Parsons and Merton. To a certain extent, it is also related to the fact that after the 1960s, the conflict theory of Marx and other classical theorists attracted the attention of British and American sociologists such as Mills, Darendorff, Cosse, and Collins.
Another issue that must be pointed out is that the structural functionalism in the paradigm of positivism or social facts, which is based on positivism, has a clear conservative tendency. Specifically, positivist sociology or structural functionalism derived from the French sociological tradition was inherited in the traditions of Montesquieu and Saint-Simon, especially under the influence of conservative thinkers Bernal and Mestre, and in the later years of the French Revolution, by the conservative Comte, it became a "detector" in the search for social order and the laws of social progress (Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, 1972:4). When it came to Durkheim, the French sociologist who put Comte's positivism into practice, he also emphasized social unity and integration; Parsons and Merton, the successors of empirical sociology in the United States, also used the natural sciences as models to try to understand, predict, and improve social reality by this means.
Let's move on to the paradigm of social behavior. Although this paradigm is not as prominent as the social fact paradigm, most sociological theorists acknowledge the reality of the existence of such a paradigm (Ritzer, 1975; Johnson, 1988:76). Some sociologists, although they do not use the language of the social behavior paradigm, recognize the independence of the utilitarian tradition of sociology that has developed along the lines of utilitarianism in economics and behaviorism in psychology: Collins calls this the "rationalist and utilitarian tradition" (Collins, 1994: 121-180), and Vorster directly refers to it as the "rationalist tradition" (Vorster, 2000: 62-69).
In common discourse, the paradigm of social behavior is equated with the rationalist tradition in sociology. This tradition began with utilitarian economists such as Smith, Bentham, and Marshall, through psychological behaviorism (especially Skinner's operant behaviorism), to Homans and Blau's theories of social exchange, and in the postmodern period, rational choice theory. However, in our division, this paradigm also includes a branch of irrationalism: from the mass psychology of the early French sociologists, to the psychoanalysis of Pareto and Freud, to the tradition of habitology. Although there is no obvious theoretical succession between these successive irrationalist theories, they all attribute the motivation of human behavior to instinct and instinctually derived desires. We believe that the paradigm of social behavior that is partly attributable to this can also be called the psychosocial paradigm, which can include both explicit behavioral events and implicit mental processes such as suggestion, imitation, desire, and even instinct.
The most important reason for juxtaposing irrationalism with rationalism is that they are both mentalistic in nature. In other words, they all start from the individual level, reduce social facts to the psychological or behavioral level of individuals, and seek explanations of social behavior and even social structures; In fact, this individualistic stance is not only the basic starting point of the social behavior paradigm, but also the basic difference between it and the social interpretation paradigm. Although the social interpretation paradigm also takes social behavior or social action as the object of study, it even believes that social structure is consciously constructed by people's social behavior. However, the basic explanatory element to which it appeals is not individual instinct or habit, but social interaction between individuals and groups. In fact, there are some obvious benefits to separating the social behavior (psychological) paradigm into two branches of rationalism and irrationalism. For example, it solves the problem of emphasizing the rationalist side of a psychologist and ignoring the irrational side of it. Pareto is a prime example of this. Looking back at Pareto's theory, it is true that he proposed the "Pareto optimality" that rationalists talk about, but he also discusses the "psychological residue" of irrationalism, and his sociological theory itself is composed of rationalist logical behavior and irrational illogical behavior (Pareto, 1935).
What follows is the paradigm of social criticism that Ritzel has overlooked. One of the reasons why the paradigm of social criticism has been neglected is that, although a large number of classical Western sociologists, including Weber, Durkheim, Pareto, Mosca, Michels, and Mannheim, were to varying degrees inspired by Marx's ideas (most of whom thought was a backlash from Marx's ideas) (Zeitlin, 1968: 321), However, it was very recent that Marx's theory, which was under the banner of social criticism and social conflict, really came into contact with orthodox sociology. There are several events that have contributed to the connection between Marx and social critical theory and sociology and the social sciences: (1) in mainstream sociology, first in a series of works by Mills (Mills, 1959) and then in the writings of Hughes (1977) and Zeitlin (1968), Marx's status as a sociologist was affirmed, The latter two even used Marx's theory and its influence as a clue to select, organize, and interpret the major European social theories of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. (2) Although during the Second World War, social critical theorists of the Frankfurt School such as Adorno not only emigrated to the United States, but even participated in empirical research in American sociology and social psychology, writing classics such as The Authoritative Personality (Adorno & Others, 1950); However, after returning to Europe, Adorno still expressed disdain and dissatisfaction with the empirical research of mainstream American sociology (Adorno, 1976: 68-86), demonstrating the independence of critical theory.
The real dialogue between critical theory and mainstream sociology began with Habermas. In 1964, at a symposium held in Heidelberg to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Weber's birth, Habermas had an extensive debate with Parsons, an American master of structural functionalism, on Weberian sociological propositions such as "understanding", "value association" and "value neutrality" (Habermas, 1971). Later, in his book The Logic of Social Sciences (1970), he conducted an extensive review of the major currents of thought in modern social sciences, including sociology. Habermas's sociologists and sociological theories, including Weber's sociology of interpretation, Schutz's phenomenological sociology, Garfunkel's folklore methodology, and structural functionalist theory (Cf. McCarthy, 1978: 137-193), also contributed to a considerable extent to the acceptance of social critical theory in mainstream sociology.
Finally, we would like to discuss the paradigm of social interpretation. Because of leading figures such as Weber and Zimmer, this paradigm is not as prominent in the development of Western sociology as the paradigm of social facts, but it is more widely recognized than the paradigm of social behavior and social criticism. There are two subtypes of this paradigm: the German historicist tradition and the American pragmatist tradition. The emergence of the former is closely related to the historical criticism and romantic traditions in German philosophy, and they are related to the contributions of German philosophers such as Hegel, Kant, and Goethe. Then, due to Dilthey's advocacy of a philosophy of life and Wendelban and Leekelt's neo-Kantianism, German historicism effectively hindered the positivism that prevailed in Britain and France, which paved the way for the emergence of the paradigm of social interpretation in German interpretive sociology. It is in this academic context that first Tennis, then Zimmer, and mainly Weber, based on the historicist division of the natural sciences and the humanities, argued that human social action and natural objects cannot be viewed indiscriminately. Because unlike natural objects, on the one hand, man lives in social reality, but on the other hand, he always actively constructs social reality. How people act and how they act in social reality is premised on their understanding of self-action and the meaning they give to their actions. "Therefore, the observer of sociology must give an interpretation of the meaning established by the participants, that is, give meaning" (Vorster, 2000: 8).
After Weber, the direct successor to Weber's and Zimmer's German interpretivist tradition, although there was only one Wiese who lacked creativity, this tradition still radiated with Husserl's phenomenology and influenced the American sociological community through Schutz's Phenomenology of the Social World (1932). The appearance of Schütz directly gave birth to phenomenological sociology and indirectly influenced Garfunkel's methodology of everyday life.
The tradition of pragmatism in the paradigm of social interpretation is influenced both by pragmatism from Peirce, James, and Dewey, and by the German historicist tradition. The admiration of German thought by early American sociologists was related to the fashion of American philosophers and sociologists studying in Germany at that time. When sociology became popular in the United States, it was at a time when American universities were revolutionizing their educational systems and moving from small colleges to research universities, and it was imitating Germany as a model for universities. Still, as Collins puts it, "Despite the influence of these German traditions, American micro-interactionism has achieved far more than mere imitation." Indeed, in the continuation of this tradition, whether it was the early symbolic interactionism, or the later methodological and phenomenological sociology of everyday life, "while German philosophy was a stimulus, it was the Americans themselves who created purely sociological theories from this" (Collins, 1994:244).
03 Assumptions and characteristics of the four sociological theoretical paradigms
The above four theoretical paradigms qualify as "paradigms" because they are unique in terms of research objectives, main assumptions, and related theories and methods, and they have left examples of research that are still regarded as exemplary in the development of sociology over the past 160 years.
As one of the most important paradigms in sociology——— main purpose of the social fact paradigm is to understand the social facts mentioned by Durkheim, and to predict or control them through the understanding of social facts. Theorists of this paradigm often focus on the macro social structure and its changes, including social institutions, bureaucratic organizations, communities, and groups of varying sizes. In addition, given the implantation of social anthropology, theorists of the social fact paradigm often also deal with macro cultural aspects, such as kinship institutions or systems of exchange for the products of material production.
The main assumption of the paradigm of social facts is the assumption that human behavior is a derivative of the social structure, or as Marx put it, "existence determines consciousness". Theorists of the social fact paradigm generally do not deny the reality of the existence of individuals and their actions, but they believe that social facts cannot be explained at the level of individuals, because a group or society composed of individuals has a sudden nature that the individuals who make up it do not have.
Around the above aims and assumptions, the structure-functionalism and conflict theory that we have repeatedly mentioned have been formed within the paradigm of social facts over the past 100 years or so. The former is represented by Durkheim, Parsons, and Merton, as well as Alexander, in his day; The latter is represented by Marx, Mills, Dahrendorf and others. "Structure-function theory tends to view social facts as regular connections and order maintained by general consensus, while conflict theory emphasizes disorder and holds that order is maintained by coercive forces in social life" (Ritzer, 1996: 641). Because of its emphasis on the importance of external social facts or social existence, this paradigm, and especially structural functionalism in it, has developed a positivist approach based on the principles of the natural sciences. They hope to be able to obtain accurate and empirical information about social facts with a similar objective requirement as the natural sciences, and to process and analyze them quantitatively. Specifically, most of the proponents of this paradigm use questionnaire-interview methods and historical-comparative methods. The works of Durkheim, Parsons, and Marx have become examples of structural-functional and conflict-theorist studies, respectively.
Like the paradigm of social facts, the paradigm of social behavior has its naturalistic and objective aspect, except that its primary purpose is not to understand social structures or social facts, but to understand social behavior and the internal and external factors that determine or influence social behavior (the former such as instincts or needs, the latter such as stimuli such as rewards and punishments or environmental factors). The main assumptions are that social behavior is either subject to external stimuli such as rewards or punishments (rationalism), or to human instincts (e.g., libido, residuals), or to psychological factors such as suggestion, imitation, and infection (irrationalism). As nominalists, theorists of the social behavior paradigm focus on the individual in action, rather than on the group. In the words of social psychologist F. Allport, all theories that study groups and group psychology are a form of "the group fallacy" (Allport, 1924:6).
The main theories of the social behavior paradigm can be examined from two dimensions: the former is mainly Marshall's utilitarianism in the classical era and Pareto's "Pareto optimal" that fully embodies human logical behavior, and in modern times it is the theory of social exchange, and in the contemporary or postmodern form is the theory of rational choice; The latter is more complex, including the instinct theory of McDugu in the UK, the theory of mass psychology in France, the psychoanalytic theory of Freud in Austria, the theory of psychological evolution in the United States, and the sociobiological theory that emerged after the 1970s. The theories of irrationalism, although they vary in specific expressions, are basically based on instinct or impulse as the explanatory element of human behavior and even social structure. In terms of research methods, like the social fact paradigm, the social behavior paradigm, especially the rationalist branch, is greatly influenced by the positivist methodology, so the theorists of this school usually have an experimentalist orientation, advocating to understand the basic characteristics of human behavior or social behavior through laboratory experiments (Zhou Xiaohong, 1993a), which is particularly evident in the research of the social exchange theorist Homans.
The third paradigm we discuss is the paradigm of social criticism. Although this paradigm was eventually recognized by mainstream sociology, it also has all the substrates to become a sociological paradigm. Its main purpose, for Marx, was to arouse the collective action of the working class, to bring about social change through a large-scale class struggle. We have seen that Marx's social theory has a strong tendency to criticize and act on the real society. In other words, theoretical criticism coupled with revolutionary action is a distinctive feature of Marx's social critical theory. Consistent with this purpose, the main assumption of the social critical paradigm is the assumption that the essence of things resides in the negation of reality. Therefore, Marx focused on analyzing the contradictions of the existing society, denying the rationality of the existing world, and through this negation or criticism, he provided a certain action plan for transforming the world and promoting social change. After the 1950s, although the trend of social revolution in Europe and the United States slowed down, the character of social criticism remained with the Frankfurt School.
The main theories of the social critical paradigm are historical materialism and dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels in the classical era, and the critical theory of the Frankfurt School in modern times. Of course, after Marx and Engels, Mannheim's critique of ideology, Lukács's revelation of false consciousness, and Gramsci's theory of cultural "hegemony" have paved the way for the transition between the two.
For Chinese intellectuals, the historical-social analysis method we are familiar with, especially the class analysis method, is the main method of the social criticism paradigm. In general, this approach, governed by the fundamental goal of emancipating humanity, is humanistic, and is in opposition to the positivism or scientism advocated by Comte. However, Marx's theory also has a certain tendency towards objectivism and positivism, and it does not exclude or even scientifically analyze many facts of capitalist society (such as the basic contradictions between the productive forces and production relations, and the laws of social change). As a result, many Western sociologists believe that Marx's social doctrine itself is an example of multiple paradigms. For example, Welmar listed in his book such chapter titles as "Positivism Latent in Marx's Philosophy of History" (Welmmer, 1971); Gouldner, on the other hand, simply argues that there are two kinds of Marxism: scientific Marxism and critical Marxism (Gouldner, 1980). In other words, in addition to the tendency to criticize, there are also objectivist and positivist overtones in Marx's doctrine.
As far as the last paradigm is concerned, the paradigm of social interpretation, it is both humanistic and microscopic. Correspondingly, the main purpose of the social interpretation paradigm is to understand the subjective meaning of individual actions as social actors, and the impact of this meaning on actors and social reality. Specifically, sociologists who adhere to this paradigm focus only on the human interactions in which individuals participate as conscious subjects. In their view, interaction is not a simple consequence of stimuli and reactions, it occurs within the realm of meaning rather than instinct or reflex, so that the subjective interpretation of actions or interactions directly affects the further actions of people in real society. From this, they conclude that social reality is constructed by people's meaningful social behavior, which becomes the main assumption of the social interpretation paradigm to understand society.
The main theories of the social interpretation paradigm are brilliant in form. In the classical period, it was Weber's own theory of social action, and in the modern period, there are various theories, such as the theory of symbolic interaction, phenomenological sociology, and the methodology of daily life. Moreover, a single symbolic interactionism also includes an umbrella structure composed of various subtheories that unfold around Mead's view, including social role theory, reference group theory, drama theory, and social label theory (Zhou Xiaohong, 1993b: 266).
Weber not only had a profound influence on the theoretical form of the social interpretation paradigm, but also influenced the methodological formation of this paradigm. We know that Weber spent his life opposing positivist methods and advocating for an understanding of social action. In Weber's view, understanding can only be limited to matters in the field of cultural sciences, or social behavior. This unique approach to research has heirs like Schütz in the German historicist tradition and endorsers like George Mead in the American pragmatist tradition. As one of Mead's followers, Brummer, once pointed out, "The path to empirical validity lies not in the figurative approach but in the examination of the empirical world." This cannot be achieved by establishing and explaining deceptive theories, by devised models, by catching up with the advanced procedures of the natural sciences, by adopting the latest mathematical or statistical schemes, or by creating new concepts, nor by developing sophisticated quantitative techniques or by adhering to some kind of investigative and statistical rule...... What is needed is a society moving towards experience" (Blumer, 1969:34). As a result, they advocate the use of life histories, autobiographies, case studies, diaries, letters, unstructured interviews, and especially observations.
04 Possibilities and challenges of integration
In the face of the phenomenon of paradigm plurality and theoretical schools in sociological theory, some people deliberately create the opposition between paradigms (Cf. Mennell, 1974: 3), and some people intend to integrate between different paradigms, or simply unify them into an integrated paradigm. On the one hand, this effort to integrate different paradigms and theories of sociology may be due to the need of some sociologists to study society, or the impulse of some of them to integrate different theoretical explorations and form a grand narrative that integrates the whole story. On the other hand, they are also forced by the pressure of the real society. In the case of the latter, it has been found that the excessive differentiation and specialization in sociology and other social sciences, and the coexistence of different and even relative schools of theory, not only do not contribute to people's understanding of society, but even interfere with and distort this understanding. During the "May Storm" in France in 1968, it was noted that the first student revolt centers were formed around university students in the Faculty of Sociology. Thus one would say that these rebellious students were not so much socially disgusted as they were first and foremost disgusted with the kind of sociology that deconstructed the image of society into fragments (Moran, 2001: 62).
Efforts to integrate different paradigms in sociology emerged in the mid-70s of the 20th century. In his essay "Structural Analysis in Sociology", Merton mentioned that the two most important paradigms in sociology, namely the social fact paradigm and the social interpretation paradigm, have the possibility of mutual enrichment. He even figuratively said, "Their opposition to each other is, in a sense, like the opposition of ham and egg: they are superficially different, but they enrich each other" (Merton, 1975:30). The same perception comes from the social interpretation paradigm. Maihan and Wood also admit that, as a theoretical form of the social interpretation paradigm, the methodology of everyday life at least accepts the basic tenets of the social fact paradigm: that there is a "reality of an external and coercive world" (Mehan &Wood, 1975: 180).
The most systematic efforts to integrate different paradigms of sociology were made by Ritzel and Johnson. In 1981, Ritzel proposed the original idea of integrating different paradigms of sociology (Ritzer, 1981), based on the fact that sociology is a multi-paradigm science (Ritzer, 1975). According to Ritzel's view, different sociological paradigms in the past analyzed society at different levels, but in reality the social world is not divided into different levels. Therefore, the key to integrative sociology is to establish a conception of a complete continuum of social realities.
Influenced by Gurwich, Riezel proposed that the basic dimensions of social reality could be constructed through two continuums. The first is the micro-macro continuum, in which individuals, interactions, groups, organizations, societies, and world systems are in order. The second is the subjective-objective continuum, in which on the subjective end is the social construction of reality, norms, values, etc., and on the objective end, there are actors, actions, interactions, bureaucratic structures, laws, etc.; In between are a mix of subjective and objective elements, including the state, the family, the world of work, and religion. From these two pairs of continuums, four quadrants can be developed, each containing a variety of elements that can be studied (Ritzer, 1996:648).
After delineating the four levels of social reality, Ritzel proposes that an integrated sociological paradigm should be able to explain both these four basic levels of social analysis and their relationship to each other (Ritzer, 1996: 649). However, a careful reading of Ritzel's claims reveals that he has not succeeded in solving the problem of integrating sociological paradigms. According to his subsequent practice of corresponding these four levels to the three paradigms (the original paradigm of social facts deals with the macro-objective level and the macro-subjective level, the social interpretation paradigm deals with the micro-subjective level, and the social behavior paradigm deals with the micro-objective level), it can be confirmed that Ritzel divides the different levels of social reality at most, and points out that the different paradigms are facts formed by focusing on the study of a certain level. It remains unimaginative as to how it is possible to develop an integrated paradigm that can deal with four different levels of social reality simultaneously, and what the basic logical starting point of this paradigm is.
Johnson's quest was influenced by Riezel, but he took Riezel's vision one step further. Similar to Ritzel, he proposes that social reality can be divided into four levels: individual, interpersonal, social structure, and culture, and that the three paradigms of sociology focus on different aspects of each of them. Unlike Ritzel, he not only envisions the integration of these opposing views "into a larger, more comprehensive theoretical model or perspective," but further proposes that this integration can be based on general systems theory. Johnson firmly believed that "the general systems theory view is relevant to any level of social organization, whether micro or macro" (Johnson, 1988: 650). Johnson's difficulty, however, is that he tries to incorporate all the factors that influence human behavior into a larger system than the social system – one that includes, at the very least, and is determined by the biological system, because "the social and cultural system must function within the parameters dictated by the biological characteristics of our human beings." Reading through Johnson's writings, it's hard to believe that there could be an integrated paradigm that brings together a variety of sociological theories that are inherently ambiguous, along with new sociobiological and even biological theories. Johnson himself admits that "while many sociologists are keen to argue that one particular paradigm is superior to another, presumably no sociologist dares to say that there is a theory that can properly describe and explain the full complexity of people's social behaviour or social structure" (Johnson, 1988: 72).
Almost simultaneously with the integration efforts of Ritzel and Johnson, the rise of postmodern sociology poses a serious challenge to this integration. We are not going to search for a "postmodern" background (see S. Best & D. Kellner, 1991) for those who are interested, but we need to point out that the first person to use the term in sociology was the sharp-edged Mills. In The Sociological Imagination, Mills challenged the modernist tradition of the Enlightenment, which believed in the inevitable connection between reason and human freedom (Mills, 1959: 165-167). After him, Bell, in his book The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (1976), responded to this challenge by bluntly stating that "we are already facing the end of modernist creativity and the domination of ideas" (Bell, 1976:7). Under the guidance of these ideas, especially in the context of the student rebellions in Paris and the western United States in 1968, various postmodern currents of thought, including sociology, emerged first in France and then in Europe and the United States. French thinkers such as Foucault, Lyotard, Busia, and Bourdieu were the first to become the leading critics of postmodernist sociology.
Although it is still debated whether postmodernist sociology has become a new paradigm, it does constitute a fundamental tendency that is very different from all Western sociology from the classical period to the modern period (Zhang Shiping, 1995). These tendencies not only nullify efforts to integrate different paradigms of sociology, but also further challenge the legitimacy of sociology itself.
First, postmodernist sociology rejects the tendency towards holism in sociology and the social sciences as a whole. We have seen that, although different sociological paradigms differ greatly in many ways, they all have a tendency to look for macro-historical laws and patterned relationships in the interpretation of social phenomena. Lyotard calls this grand narrative of the story of human progress based on rationalization "meta-narratives" and postmodern as "questioning meta-narratives" (Lyotard, 1994:27). Due to the shortness of life experience, the limited knowledge of researchers, and the complexity of society, people can only tell short stories "based on events" (Seidman, 1994:128), and it is difficult to discover the fundamental laws of human society or human behavior. Therefore, it is impossible to establish a sociological paradigm that is integrated, single-perspective, and capable of telling the general laws of human society. In this way, Foucault wanted to establish a genealogy that focuses on "partial" and "discontinuous" knowledge, "so that they can resist the oppression of theorized, unified, and formalized scientific discourse" (Foucault, 1994: 44).
Second, postmodernist sociology opposes the search for so-called "universal" characteristics or "truths" in its own field of study, and advocates the discursive analysis of everyday life. According to postmodern theorists, we cannot find the so-called "universal" characteristics in our field of study. Thus, "the reinvigoration of sociology requires us to abandon scientism, the increasingly absurd assertion that we are telling the truth, that we have epistemological privileges" (Seidman, 1994: 119), and to discover the power relations behind the discourse of everyday life through an analysis of it. Returning to our topic, since the characteristics of "universality" do not exist, the possibility of establishing a unified theoretical paradigm for describing universal features is highly questionable.
Thirdly, postmodernist sociology denies the possibility of establishing a sociological and social science that seeks objective laws. Postmodernists believe that any social science knowledge, including sociology, is a product of a specific historical and cultural environment, which reflects the values and attitudes of knowledge makers and represents their specific interests, so it cannot reflect any objective social laws. And the fact is that "social science research over the past 50 years has not significantly improved our predictive power." But even if it succeeds in providing predictions, that doesn't mean it's useful in deciding how to act" (Rorty, 1994:52). It is for this reason that sociologists should get rid of the traditional notions of "objectivity" and "scientific method", and the dream of constructing a unified sociological paradigm, and learn to listen to the rich and colorful life stories of different people in different ways, rather than discovering universal truths.
Although postmodernist sociology has many biases, it should be admitted that its basic purpose does destroy to a certain extent the illusion that we can establish a sociology that integrates and at the same time discovers objective social laws. In fact, as far as the emergence of postmodern sociology itself is concerned, corresponding to classical and modern sociology, it may also be a new paradigm. In other words, it presents theorists who are committed to integrating different paradigms of sociology with a new challenge: how to integrate classical, modern and postmodern sociology? In this sense, if anyone has the intention of integration, there will be no end to his work.
However, this is not to say that sociology has since been unable to develop further, but only to adhere to the existing basic paradigms and follow the existing theoretical framework. In fact, in terms of sociological integration, we think the most realistic way is to engage in further communication between different paradigms, or even within the same paradigm. Collins found that although sociology can be divided into different traditions (or paradigms), if each tradition is viewed as a great river, "in the last decade of the twentieth century, four great rivers have overflowed each other's borders in many parts of their riverbeds" (Collins, 1994:294). For example, the game theory of Marxism in rational choice theory has recently increasingly absorbed the views of Marxists and materialists on social conflicts. And in the course of their debate with the various paradoxes of rationalism, they are getting closer and closer to the classic anti-utilitarian principles of the Durkheimists. Even in Giddens's structured theory, we can find traces of the interaction between the paradigm of social facts and the paradigm of social interpretation, because it seeks to show a certain correlation between explanatory action and the emergent reality of large-scale social systems.
In fact, if we can regard the interpenetration of different theories and paradigms as integration, then we will find that the integration resources and possibilities in sociological theory are very rich. In fact, since the 80s of the 20th century, the possibility of generating new theories from this interpenetration has been highlighted. If we look closely at Giddens's structuralism, Bourdieu's generative structuralism, neo-functionalism, and Habermas's critical theory, we can see that "they all seek to integrate opposing philosophical and theoretical traditions." For example, they seek to fuse structuralist ideas with inspiration from interpretive sociology in an attempt to transcend the opposition between determinism and voluntarism" (Baert, 1998: 3-4). Although this integration is difficult, sometimes leading to "dead ends" (Baert, 1998: 201), as Patrick Beltt puts it, it at least keeps us acutely aware of the possible connections between different theories. We believe that, just as a single individual constitutes a society, the interpenetration and integration of individual theories will also produce emergent properties that previous theories do not have, and this is also one of the basic driving forces for sociological theories to continue to move forward. In fact, the various modern sociological theories that emerged in the first half of the 20th century are the result of the integration of the sociological theories of the classical era. The various postmodern sociological theories that emerged in the second half of the 20th century are the result of the integration of previous classical and modern theories. "Integration" in this sense, while not necessarily producing an all-encompassing paradigm of interpretation, will certainly make the problems we face and the answers to them more accurate.
Source: Sociological Research, No. 5, 2002. In order to adapt to the WeChat typesetting, the notes and references have been deleted, please forgive me.