[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 7 KB, 261x193, Émile & Max.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16751947 No.16751947 [Reply] [Original]

I am trying to find an alternative to this Durkheim/Weber dichotomy of sociological holism and sociological individualism

Is there anything other than the ... - Social fact - Social Action - ... cycle ?
Society makes behaviour make psychology
Psychology makes behaviour makes society

Who has tried to break out of this ?
Both of dualism and of the cyclic metaphor

(not what I'm asking but I was also thinking about using the sides of a coin instead of opposite poles as a metaphor, but it wrecks any kind of link between the two other than drastic opposition)

I've gone through divinity, dialectics, and vitalism, have I missed something obvious ?

I don't know if people read sociology on here I'll take just about any advice or opinion

thanks

>> No.16752018

I hate atheists for being so obsessed with analysis society like the asshole Hegel wanted to, and always end up with some form of chicken egg problem. Then they whine that meaning is killed and get depressed out of their murder.

>> No.16752053

>>16752018
Exactly ! I'm not trying to solve the chicken-egg problem as much as I'm trying to forget it by finding another problem.
This is what I meant by breaking out of the "cycle metaphor"
also forgot I went through the difference and repetition infinite line problem as well

>> No.16752069

>>16752018
Surprisingly, those guys don't seem to be too atheistic, more like obsessed with laicity I'd say (for Durkheim anyway, who was jewish)

>> No.16752110

>>16751947
I'm afraid anon this is your calling, good luck.

>> No.16752125

>>16752110
I wish it was something a little more heroic, or a little less nerdy lol
thanks, and you too, lord knows we all need a bit of luck nowadays

>> No.16753186
File: 5 KB, 200x200, hegel smile.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16753186

>>16751947
Reality is totally dialectically circular

>> No.16753204

How does methodological individualism necessarily contradict the holism of communities? Methodological individualism can apply at the level of community as well. Communities are groups of people that can be treated heuristically as having one "will" just as an individual is. They have their own collective representations and, if you add Heidegger, Werner Sombart, or Othmar Spann to the mix, they have their own destiny which it is their responsibility to cultivate as a function of their shared collective being. Individuals participate in the whole but are not simply parts of it, just as the whole participates in the will of individuals but is greater than them.

>> No.16753232

literally read bourdieu, because he tackles this specific problem in An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology

>> No.16753356

>>16753204
Thank you, this is a wonderful answer. I agree with you that they don't contradict themselves, only it seems to me this is more a way of analyzing this "whole" rather than social phenomena?

When thinking about our reality and our social environment, I believe you are right to say individuals and the whole have this sort of yin-yang relationship; but for social phenomena, how they are created, and how they are being interacted with, I find it a little harder to understand.

I've never really seen Heidegger applied to sociology, if you have more on that, I would love to know about it!

>> No.16753385

>>16753232
Really?! I have never heard of it! I'll have to look it up.
His writing style usually gives me quite a hard time but man was he intelligent

>> No.16753694

>>16751947
Haven't tackled sociology yet, but my impression is that the major writers used a top-down approach to social phenomena, whereas anthropology is the opposite.

Ultimately, reading archaeology and history deeply might be able to break you out of that problem. Sociology mostly applies to a "rational" explanation of man. But if you tweak the definition of man to include prehistory as well as the many ethnographic details, then the picture is more complete.

For example, Neumann establishes a psychology of modern consciousness in analogy with the whole etiology of man. His reasoning is spurious, but the breadth and scale of evidence and time considered warrants it a good read.

>> No.16753964

>>16753694
Very interesting, I would say sociology is the study of society, whereas anthropology is the study of Man in society.
I have yet to find works that link prehistory and modern/contemporary times in a coherent way, but that would be a great path of research. Without it going too much into sociology of history.

>> No.16754028

>>16753204
That is exactly what i got from one of Emerson's essays. I think it was called "History" or something like that.

>> No.16754459

>>16751947
Durkheim is so based. Love his corporatism. It's so obvious but no one believes in it for some reason. The 19th century German sociology wave ended too early.

>> No.16754506

>>16751947

I haven't read it yet but Habermas does a deep dive on Mead and Durkheim in chapter 5 of Theory of Communicative Action. Habermas' basic project is to explain how and why it is that humans communicate with each other, free of glaring philosophical problems, by. I'm preparing a thread on chapter 1 in the next few days, and will go chapter-by-chapter over the next few months. I don't know much about sociology desu but I would hazard that Habermas is one of the better answers that you're going to get for your question OP because he uses a blend of philosophical and sociological observations to try to construct his new thing which is effectively what you're asking for.

>> No.16755596

>>16754506
I'm looking forward to it anon