SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 41

THE EFFORTS OF OVERCOMING THE DICATHOMY BETWEEN FUNCTIONALIST AND ACTION THEORIES IN MODERN SOCIOLOGY

İsa KUYUCUOĞLU
Pages
243–270
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Furthermore I will discuss the assumptions of modern sociologists that the fundamental paradigms of the classical sociology is not enough for analysing the complex structure of modern society and hence the social process on micro-macrolevels must be refocused on the modern concepts and theories of actor vs. structure.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In contemporary sociology, the dualism or, in other words a contrast is regarded a serious issue between functionalism which views that every element forming the society has a specific function and each of them has a mutual function on one another, and action theory which gives an active role to individual.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this reason, in this article I will analyze Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002), Jürgen Habermas (1929-) and Anthony Giddens (1938-) with their new approaches which aim to overcome the duality between functionalism and action theory and consequently James S.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Furthermore I will discuss the assumptions of modern sociologists that the fundamental paradigms of the classical sociology is not enough for analysing the complex structure of modern society and hence the social process on micro-macrolevels must be refocused on the modern concepts and theories of actor vs. structure.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2002 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In contemporary sociology, the dualism or, in other words a contrast is regarded a serious issue between functionalism which views that every element forming the society has a specific function and each of them has a mutual function on one another, and action theory which gives an active role to individual. Sociological theories which are divided as functionalism and action theory have brought about other dualities such as structure vs. actor , subjectivism vs. objectivism, methodological holism vs. methodological individualism . In modern sociology, research on overcoming the dichotomy of classical sociology in new theoretical approaches stand out in contemporary sociology. For this reason, in this article I will analyze Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002), Jürgen Habermas (1929-) and Anthony Giddens (1938-) with their new approaches which aim to overcome the duality between functionalism and action theory and consequently James S. Coleman‟srational choice theory . Furthermore I will discuss the assumptions of modern sociologists that the fundamental paradigms of the classical sociology is not enough for analysing the complex structure of modern society and hence the social process on micro-macrolevels must be refocused on the modern concepts and theories of actor vs. structure.

🔖

Cite This Article

KUYUCUOĞLU, İ. (2022). THE EFFORTS OF OVERCOMING THE DICATHOMY BETWEEN FUNCTIONALIST AND ACTION THEORIES IN MODERN SOCIOLOGY. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 41, 243–270. https://ajindex.com/articles/490650

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (20)

  1. Adams, Bert N. and R. A. Sydie, Contemporary Sociological Theory, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, 2002.
  2. Andersen, Heine, “Individualisme og kollektivisme samfundsvidenskabelige traditioner”, Grus, Alborg 1991 bind 35, s. 7-29.
  3. Bourdieu, Pierre, Pratik Nedenler. çev. H. Tufan, Kesit Yayınları, İstanbul 2006.
  4. Bourdieu, Pierre Toplumbilim Sorunları. (çev. Işık Ergüden), Kesit Yayıncılık, İstanbul 1997.
  5. Bourdieu, Pierre, Distinksjonen: En sosiologisk kritikk av drömmekraften, (Oversatt, Annick Prieur), Pax, Oslo 1995.
  6. Bourdieu, Pierre and Wacquant, Loic J. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Chambridge 1992.
  7. Bourdieu, Pierre, “The forms of Capital”, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. (Ed. J.G. Richardson), Westport 1986.
  8. Bourdieu, Pierre, Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, 1984.
  9. Bourdieu, Pierre, “Structuralism and Theory of Sociological Knowledge”, Social Research: An International Quarterly, 1968, cilt, 35 sayı 4, s. 681:706. Brante, Thomas og Andersen Heine, Leksikon i Sociologi, Akademisk Forlag Kopenhag 2007.
  10. Broady, Donald, Sociologi og Epistemologi – om Pierre Bourdieus Författerskab och den historiska Epistemologin, HLS Förlag, Stokholm 1990.
  11. Brubaker, Rogers, “Social Theory as Habitus”. Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives. (Ed. Calhoun Craig, Edward Li Puma and Moishe Postone), Polity Press, Cambridge 1993. s. 212-234.
  12. Callewaert, Staf, Kultur, peadagogisk og videnskab. Om Pierre Bourdieus habitusbegreb og praktikteori, Akademisk Forlag, Kopenhag 1992.
  13. Coleman, James S., Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1990.
  14. Coleman, James S., “Microfoundation and Macrosocial Behaviour”, The MicroMacro Link (Ed. J.C. Alexander), University of California Press, Berkeley 1987, s. 153-173.
  15. Coleman, James S., “Social Theory, Social Research, and a Theory of Action”, American Journal of Sociology, The University of Chicago Press, 1986 vol. 91, nr.6. 1309-1335.
  16. Danielsen, Arild og Marianne Nordli Hansen, “Magt i Pierre Bourdieus sosiologi”, i Om magt: Teori og kritikk, redieret av Fredrik Engelstad, Gyldendal, 1999 Oslo, 43-78.
  17. Dawe, Alan, “The Two Sociologies”, British Journal of Sociology,, Free Press, London 1970, vol 21: 2, s. 207-218.
  18. Demir, Ömer ve Acar, Mustafa, Sosyal Bilimler Sözlüğü, Vadi Yayınları, Ankara 1997.
  19. Fibiger, Marianne Qvortrup og Smiht, Gina Gertrud, Gads Religionsleksikon, Gads Forlag, Kopenhag 1999.
  20. Furseth, Inger og Repstad, Pal, Innföring i Religionssoc