What is a theory?
Collection of interrelated concepts, assumptions and causal propositions to explain a specified set of phenomena
What is a meta-theory?
Theory of different theories –> abstract discussion of the nature of theories
Typical questions that concern meta-theoretical scholars
- What is the appropriate way to develop theory?
- What kind of theory is possible? Are we able to identify laws (of society, behavior, etc.)?
- What are critical problems sociological theory should concentrate on? (i.e. individual agency/structure, integration/conflict)
Example: Meta-theoretical statement
- Sociological theories operate on the micro, meso or macro levels
- Sociological theories are about sociological phenomena
Example: Theoretical statement
Toxic masculinity is due to socialization
Sociological approaches that use theories as basis of causal explanations:
Social science, explanatory sociology, analytical sociology
Theory 1:
General propositions about causal relationships
- General proposition or logically connected system of general propositions that establish a relationship between 2 or more variables
- Needs to be universally quantified - subject is no individual neither is it time-focus, this causal proposition is valid everywhere at any time, that’s why it is rather law-like
- Rational choice theories often of this kind, try more or less to be universally explicable
- Internal heterogeneity
- Example: the larger the social context/social field, the more people included, the stronger status differences will be aka more elite-building happens
Theory 2:
Explanation of a particular phenomena
- Does not aim at same level generality like theory 1 meaning it does not have the ambition to explain all phenomenons alike, just wants to explain one specific contexualized phenomenon
- Explanation should identify a number of ‘factors’ or ‘conditions,’ which individually should pass some sort of counterfactual test for causal relevance, and whose interaction effects should be somehow taken into account
Relationship between Theory 1 and Theory 2:
- The covering law/deductive-nomological or Hempel-Oppenheim-model: we can only explain specific stockmarket crash bc we know about the laws of stockmarket crashes (the specific under the general) –> Deducing the Explanandum from the Explanans
- Some researchers say we need to really have law like theories because they allow us to explain phenomena everywhere
What are scope conditions?
- define the circumstances in which a theory is applicable
- therefore, refer to the generalizability, or lack thereof, of a theory
- Specific conditions could be place, time, but also IF additions (-> for which subset does the theory hold true?)
Example: Across generations, immigrant minorities will become more similar to the majority population:
- Time: In the 20th century, across generations …
- Place: In Germany, across generations…
- Condition: Across generations - IF the state allows ( state-inforced discrimination = apartheid) - immigrant minorities …
How general can one become?
Does it pay to go all the way up to law-like theories?
Ambition to develop truly general theory comes at the price of abstraction/ detachment of actual empirical phenomenon -> finding the right balance is key
The quest for causal propositions
- When engaging in empirical research, we can generate/apply theory by making our statements more abstract -> what is your case a case of? (i.e. historical analysis of crash, is the case itself interesting for sociologists or is there a much broader question behind it?)
- Theories vary in their scope/generality and need to explicate the class of phenomena / set of cases to which they apply
- Scholars disagree as to how general theories should be: universal vs contextualized theory building = meta-theoretical debate par excellence -> produces different styles of research, cross country study:
Do we need laws or are middle-range theories enough?
There are different views on the necessity of laws (within analytical-empirical tradition)
Theory 3:
Interpretation of certain social phenomena
- Scholars are not always interested in causal links or consequences but pursue a more qualitative hermeneutic interpretative approach, they want to understand its deeper meaning
- main goal of a theory 3 is to say something about empirical phenomena in the social world but not of the type “what x causes y”, it asks: ‘what does it mean that P?,’ or ‘what is P all about?,’ or ‘how can we make sense of or shed light on P?’
- While they are rarer in U.S. sociology, theories 3 are a staple of some Latin American and European sociological traditions
Theory 3:
Examples
Graeber’s bullshit job “theory”:
- Argues that there are millions of people across the world — clerical workers, administrators, consultants, telemarketers, etc. — who are toiling away in meaningless, unnecessary jobs, and they know it. It didn’t have to be this way, Graeber says.Technology has advanced to the point where most of the difficult, labor-intensive jobs can be performed by machines. But instead of freeing ourselves from the suffocating 40-hour workweek, we’ve invented a whole universe of futile occupations that are professionally unsatisfying and spiritually empty
- BUT if you ask people if they have useful jobs, 95% will say yes, but this is very subjective
Zeitdiagnosen: interpretation of current times/ in which society do we live in? (i.e. capitalist, post-capitalist, class society?) BUT “just” opinion as intellectuals - not so much based on data
Theory 3:
Critique
- Difficult to establish a priori, codify, standardize
- May strike one as conceptually vague, methodologically problematic, or just unscientific
- So, why do we have such theories in social sciences?
1. Demand for easy, pleasant explanations, can be used for political agendas for someone, resonate with normative principle
2. You can find publishing house and avoid peer-review system, not everything is bullshit that is not published in journals, could be groundbreaking theory but there is no quality control
Theory 4:
The study of the writings of classic authors
- Such as Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Simmel, Parsons, Habermas, or Bourdieu
- Often described as ‘interpretations,’ ‘analyses,’ ‘critiques,’ etc. -> study of meaning
1. First, they may ask what the author of a text ‘really’ meant
2. Second, what the meaning of a certain text is in another sense, namely, what is its significance, relevance, usefulness, what was or is original about it - Critique: Sociology not so much concerned with its own history, should not only be about texts, should also include data
Theory 5:
Ways of looking at the world / Weltanschauung
- An overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world, not about the social world itself, but about how to look at, grasp, and represent it -> aka paradigms, theoretical approaches, traditions, etc. (ontological and epistemological positions)
- When one speaks of “system theory” or “methodological individualism” ‘postmodern theory,’ ‘poststructuralist theory,’ ‘feminist theory,’ ‘queer theory,’ ‘critical theory,’ ‘Marxist theory,’ ‘structural-functionalist theory,’ ‘network exchange theory,’ ‘game theory,’ and ‘rational choice theory,’ one is often using the word ‘theory’ in this sense
- Is always being used, whether we are aware of it or not
Why is the macro-micro-macro model not theory 1?
Just a tool to build theory 1
Theory 6:
Accounts that have a fundamental normative component
- meaning what society should look like
- For example, the contemporary projects of ‘critical theory,’ ‘feminist theory,’ and ‘postcolonial theory’ are explicitly normative ones, which usually reject the fact/value dichotomy, and hence the supposedly value-neutral sociological theory
Theory 7:
The study of fundamental theoretical problems
- Even though sociology has encountered these problems, they are not empirical problems themselves (for example, they cannot be resolved by means of empirical methods)
- may be described as ‘philosophical’ problems, insofar as they call for reflection upon the nature of knowledge, language, and reality, and some sort of conceptual analysis
- Examples: how to connect macro and micro level of society (i.e. Coleman) or determinism/probabilistic relationships, structure and agency, social constructivism, etc.
Exkurs: Macro-micro-macro model
Step 1: Bridge hypothesis - how does the situation affect relevant actors? (i.e. how do continued protests affect actors that have not yet participated?)
- links situational variables and proximate determinants of behavior
- how we conceptualize situational influences depends on our theorizing of step 2
Step 2: Action-formation mechanisms (staying at home or protesting or violently protesting? - how do actors choose those alternatives?)
- Theories of action or simpler assumptions
Step 3: Micro-Macro-Transition - what are the (unintended) collective consequences of purposeful action / actors‘ interaction? (i.e. revolution?)
- Sometimes really simple: Simple aggregation of individual choices (i.e. individual crimes computed to crime rate)
- As a complex process of interaction: Game theory, agent-based models (e.g., threshold models, dynamic network models), exchange models
