post modernism on is sociology a science?

What is the post modernist contribution to the is sociology a science debate?

I figure it would say science is a metanarrative and not fully accepted anymore(as it was in modernity) and therefore sociology should not aspire to be a science.

And also is Anthony Giddens a post modernist? Or does he not fit neatly into a theoretical perspective? I was reading his structuration thesis yesterday and couldnt work it out.

Thanks a lot....and good luck to everyone taking either religion or theory and methods tomorrow.

Reply 1

Truman

Actually giddens cant be a post modernist can he because he is a strong critic of post modernism? Ahh i feel really stupid now.

Reply 2

Chris.Livesey

Well, Giddens is a funny chap (not as in "ha-ha", he's actually a miserable g!t) because he writes in a way that postmodernists write (if that makes sense) but refuses to call it postmodernism; he argues we now exist in a period of "late modernity", which is fair enough if you want to be different.

Since he's at such pains to say he's not postmodern I'd use him as a source of criticism.

Structuration theory is a sociological version of "the third way" - neither structure nor action supposedly (exepct when you actually get down to the nitty gritty there's an awful lot of structure and not much action in the theory).

On science, the usual suspects - metanarratives, discourses and naratives (the latter are like mini-stories that, in combination create discourses), truth and progress, anti-essentialism (whoops - essentialism is the idea that complex discourses have a fundamental root - eg. that males and females are inately different and that explains everything about them).

If you need any more I've got loads, going cheap because they'll be worthless after the exam :mad:

Reply 3

Truman

Thanks thats really helpful........also what comes under interactionist theory?

Is it basically any micro scale sociology- so labelling theory(Becker) moral panic/deviance amplification(Cohen) Homelessness/religion (Berger) and Ciscourel on crime? These are just studies ive come across during A2 Sociology which i consider interactionist.

And then any macro/structural sociology such as Marxism, Functionalism etc can be used to criticise interactionist theory?

Cheers.

Reply 4

LaurenFah

Chris explained the post-modernist view very well, but I'll type out a paragraph from my revision book on the section of PM's in the Sociology as a Science debate.

Post-modernists points out that science dominated the modern world as a 'big story' or meta-narrative. However, it is argued that in the post-modern world science no longer has the monopoly on truth because knowledge and information are characterised by diversity. For example, a range of ideas have appeared that are challenging science's view of the world - including 'new age' movements, environmental and 'green' social movements, alternative medicines, and fundamentalist 'back to tradition' beliefs. Moreover, the status of science is in decline as people increasingly distrust it in the light of environmental damage, pollution and anxieties about nuclear power

:smile:

Hope this helps.

Reply 5

Chris.Livesey

also what comes under interactionist theory?

Is it basically any micro scale sociology- so labelling theory(Becker) moral panic/deviance amplification(Cohen) Homelessness/religion (Berger) and Ciscourel on crime? These are just studies ive come across during A2 Sociology which i consider interactionist.

yes - just think of it as micro sociology (some people, well me, actually, suggest that postmodernism is a form of action theory that has strong links to interactionist writers and histories - but that's probably a step too far).

And then any macro/structural sociology such as Marxism, Functionalism etc can be used to criticise interactionist theory?

yes.

Reply 6

LaurenFah

Interactionist theory is basically a theory based upon human and social interaction. It promotes the idea that nothing in society is determined, and that people can break free of a label as individuals, which, as you say - is basically a micro-scale theory that promotes social action.

It can be criticised by structuralists as methods used by Interactionists do not produce reliable data. Also, the data produced may not be objective as it can include biased opinions (arguments from sociology being value-free).

Edit: My reply was too late :p:

Reply 7

Truman

Thanks Lauren and Chris.

Reply 8

maleiye

that's a wonderful explanation...very simplified. pls let us know from which book you got this. thx

Reply 9

Rhythmical

Original post by maleiye

that's a wonderful explanation...very simplified. pls let us know from which book you got this. thx

You bumped a nine year old thread and you are asking the OP which book they obtained their information from for all that? I don't think you'll get any response.