burrel y morgan sociological paradigms

8/11/2019 Burrel y Morgan Sociological Paradigms

1/19

r'

(

: ; f -

.. .

--'

.-'

xi i lntroduction

w hich rhe y so ug htto ern ulatc. 11 allcwed us to identify e m bryoni c

.hcorics and anucipa tc putelltiallincs of devcloprncnt. I t a ll ow c d

us lo w rit c t his book.

In rhe fu llowing chaptcr s we scek to present our analytical

sc he rn e an d

[Q

use it to negotiare a way thr ough the litera ture on

social th eo r y and orgnnisational analysis. \V e have a irned to pre-

,. se n t i l a s clearly and direc tly as we can whilst avoiding the pitfalls

of o ve rs ir np li fi ca ti o n. BU I the concepts o f o ne p ara dig rn cannot

easily be interpreted in term s of (hose of another. To understand

a ncw paradigrn one has lO explore il from ihe inside , in terrns of

ir, own distinctive problematic. Thus , whilst w e have m ade every

erfort

ro prcscnt our accouru as plainly as possibJe as far

35

the use

of the English Ianguage is concerned , w e have nccessarily had lO

draw upon concepts which rnay al lim es be unfarn iliar.

T he rernain ing chapter s in Part I define the nature of our two kcy

dimensions of analysis and the paradigrns which arise with in their

bounds. In th is analysrs we polarise a number of issues and m ake

rnuch use of rough dichorornisuuons as a means of presenting our

case . W e do so not mereJy for the purposes of c lassification , but to

forge a w orking tool. \VI advccare our schcmc as a :1 e ur is ti c d ev ic e

ra ther th an as a set of rigid definition s.

In P ar

1[

we put our analy tica l frarnework into operation. Fo r

each of our four parad igrns wc conduct an unalys is of rc levant

socia l thcory and then procccd to re la te theories of organisa tion to

th is w idcr background. Each of the parad igrns is tr e a te d in tcrrns

consisten:

with its own distinc tive frarne of rcfcrenee . No auernpt

is made to critic ise and evalate from a p ersp ec tive outside the

parudigrn . Such critic ism is a ll toa easy but sc lf-dcfcaung ,

since

it

is usually d irectcd at the foundations of the paradigrn itsc lf.

1 \ 1 1

four parudigm s can succcssfu lly be dcm olishcd in thcs e tcrm s.

W hat we seek [O do is to dcvelop the perspcc tive chuructcristic of

the parad igrn nnd draw out sornc of its im plications for soc ia l

analys is. In so doing we have Iound tha t w e are frequenrly able ro

s trcngihen the conceptua lisn tions w hich each parad igrn generales

as far as the study of organisa tions is concerned. Our guiding ru le

has been [O seek to offer sorne th ing to each parad igrn w ilhin the

terrn s of its o wn pro ble rn au c. The chapiers in Part 11 . thercfore.

a re essentia lly expository in nature . They seek to provide a

detaiied Ir arnework upon which fu ture debate m ight fru iuu ily be

based .

Par 1 1 1 prcscnts a short conchlsion whidl tOCtJsc~ upon sume of

the principa l issucs which Clllcrge from OUI analysis,

1 / ~

9

. . /

r

1. /

4

~U/'e I 0,0,-


2/19

.

-4--- -..... ..---~----:-----_

_ wm

e

/

. ./

_ /~


3/19

~,.

4 Sociological

Parudigms

an d Organisationa Analysis

In Ih is brief ske tch of various onrological, cp istcrnological.

human

and merhodo logical srandpoints w hich

charnct)ri~c

approachcs rosocial scicnccs , wc h av e so ug ht

lo

illustratc \V O

broad and sornewhat polarised perspectives. Figure 1.1 secks lO

d ep ic t th cs c in a more r igorous fashion in tcrm s of w hat w e shall

d escrib e as the s ub je ctiv c-o bje cti ve d im en si on . 1 1 id cn tifie s t hc

\. four sets o f a s su r npuons re levan: to our undcrs tanding o f s oc ia l

science,

ch arac terisin g ea ch b y th e

descriptive

la be ls u nd er w hic h

they have been debated in the litcrature o n s oc ia l philosophy . In

( h e f o Jl owing

section

o f t hi s

chapier we

willreview

each o f

( he f ou r

debates in ncc essarily b rief bu t m ore sy ste rnatic term s.

The Strands of Debate

Nominalism-realism: the

ont ological

debate

I

These terms have been (he subject of rnuch discussion in the

[itera ture and thcrc are grcat ur e as of controve'rsy surrounding

thcrn. The nom inalist posiiion revo lves around t li e a s su r npt ion

that

( he s oc ia l

world

externa to indiv idual

cognition is

rn ad e IIp o f

nothing m ore than narnes , concepts an d la be ls w h ic h are used to

structure reality. The no rn in al i st docs no t admit 10 there bcing nny

'real' structure lo the world which thcse conccpts are uscd ro

describe. The 'narnes ' uscd are regardcd as a rt if ic ia l c re at io n s

w hose utility is based upon thcir convenicnce as

rools

f o r d c sc r ib -

in g, rn ak in g sen se ofan cJ ne go tiatin g th e cx ternal w orld. Nominal -

is m i s o ft cn cquatcd wi t h convcn ti onnl is rn , and wc will make no

d is ti nc ti on b etw e en

thern.?

Rcalisrn . on the orher hand, postu latcs .11at thc social w orld

external t o i nd i vi d ua l cognition is a real world mude up of hard,

ta ng ib le a nd re la tiv el y i rn mu ta hle sI r uc tu re s. W hcthcr or not we

lah el an d p crceivc thesc stru ctu rcs , th e rcalists m aiu tain ,

thcy

still

ex ist as ernpirical en tities . W e m ny no t evcn he awar e of the

exisrence

o f certain cru cial siru ctu res

and

thercfore

have

no

'nam es' or concepts to articulate thern. F or the rcalist , th e soc ial

world exists independently of an individua ls nppreciation of it.

The indiv idual is secn as beinp horn inro und liv in g w ith in a so cia

w orld w hich has < 1 rc ali ty o f i is 0 \\ 1 1. It is not sorncthing w hich the

individual crcates=-it cxists 'o ut i hc r c ': o nt ol og ic al ly it is prior tu

th e ex isle ncc n d co n< ;c.:iollsn ess o f an y sin gle h um an r.C illg. F(lr

th e rea lis . th e so cial w orlL l h as ;In cx islcnce w hidl is as hard alld

con crele as Ihe n atu ral \V orld .'

~

J

Assumptio..: abou t 11 /('Na tur e o f

Social 5('il'I1('('

5

A nti-p osi tivlsm-positivism: the

cpist emological debate

It h as b ce n m ai nta in ed rhat 'the w ord positiv ist like rhe word

bourgcois has becorne more of a derogatory epithet than a

uscful descriptive concept .' W e intend to use it here in th e latter

sense , a s a descriptive concept w hich can be used to charac terise a

particu lar typ e of ep isterno log y. M ost of the descrip tions of

positivism in currcnt usage refer to one or m ore of the ontological,

e pis te mo lo gic al a nd

rne th odo log ic al dim en sio ns o f o ur sch ern e for

ana ly sing assurnptions w ith rcgard to social science . lt is a lso

so rn cti ru es rn is ta ke nly e qu ated w ith e mp iri ci srn . S uc h c on fla tio ns

clou d basic issues

an d

contribu te to th e

use of

th e

term in

a

d ero ga to ry s en se.

W e use 'positiv ist' here lO c ha ra cte ri se e pis te rn olo gi es w hi ch

scek to explain and predict what happens in the socia l world by

search ing Ior reg ula rities a nd ca usal relatio nsh ips b erw een its c on -

stituen t elcrn cnts. P ositiv ist ep istern olo gy is in essen ce h ased u po n

the rraditionn] approaches w hich dom inate the natural scicnces.

Positivists rnay differ in terrns of dc tailed upproach. Som e w ould

cl.urn, fo r cx arn ple ,

t h at hypot hes i se d

regularit ies

ca n

b e v e ri fi ed

by


4/19

/..J ('

. .

-~

~F' _

6 Sociologica Parn dig ms ami Organi sati onul Anaiy sis

Yoluntarism-det erminism: {he 'human nature'

debate

This debate rcvolves around the issue of what modcl of m an i ,

reflccted in uny given social-scientific theory. A t one ex trem e we

c an i de nti fy

a

detcrrninist vicw which regurds

rnan

and his

~ activ itics as bcing

cornpletcly dcterrnincd by ihe

situation or

'cnvironm ent' in which he is locatcd. A l anothcr ex trem e we can

identify the voluntarist view Ihat m an is com plctely autonom ous

an d frce-willcd. Iusofnr as social s c ic n cc t he o ri cs are concerncd 10

undcrstand hu man activi

l i e s .

thcy

rnust

i n cl i n e

ir np li ci t i

y or

explicitly to une ur other of thcse points of view , or adopt an

intcrm ediruc standpoint w hich al lows for the influcnce of both

s it uu ti on ul a nd v oi un ta ry [actor s in nccounting Ior thc activitie of

human bcings.

Sueh

assumpuons are cssen tial

clerncnts

in

social-

lhl.'ses in accon./;}nce w i th lhe canons 01 ' s ci en ti fi c r ig ol lr, 1 I is

rrcoccupicu \V ilh lhe cD lIstructiollof scicnlific tests anu the use o r

e

A.L, plioIlS

about the Naturc ni Social

050( //(1' tf

quantitative techniques for the analysis of data. Survcvs,

quest ionnai res. personality te sts and standard ised research

instrurnents of al kinds are prom inent arnong the tools which

cornprise

n om o th c ti c m e th o do lo g y. ?

Analysing A ssumptions about the N ature of

Social Science

Thcse fou r sc ts o f assurnptions w ith rcgard lo the n atu re o f s oc ia l

scicncc

provide

an

e xt re m el y p ow e rf ul

tool

Io r

the

analysi s

De

S

ocin 1 theory, In much of the literature thcre is a tendcney to

conll.ue the issues which are nvolvcd. W e w ish to argue here lhat

considerable advantages accrue frorn treaung these four strnnds of

s oc ia l- sc ie nti fi c d eb ate a s . analytically distinct, W hile in pructice

there i s o ft en a s tro ng re ln tio ns hip b etw ee n the p o si ti on s a d op te d

on each of thc fuur strands, assurnpuons about each can in Iact

vary q u it e c o ns i de ra b ly .

lt

is worth exurnining this point in m ore

detail .

Th e e xtre me p os itio ns o n e ac h of t he I ou r s tr an d s are rel1ectcJ in

the tw o rnajor intellectual traditions which huve dorninutcd social

science over the Iast two hundred years. The first of these is

usually descrihed as 'sociological positivisrn '. In essence this

r elccts thc attcm pt lo

apply

rnodels arul rncthods derivcd frorn llte

n atu ra l s ci cn ce s O the study of hurnnn afluirs . I t t re at s rh e social

w orld a s if i I wcre lti e natural w orld, aJllPling a 'reali st ' al'rrllach

to ontology. This is tacked up by a 'positivist epis tcm olog y ,

rclutively 'deterministic' vicws of hum an nature und the use of

'n or uo th ctic '

mclhmjo~)gics,

The secund

irucllecural

trudirion,

that of'Germ an idea/1sm ', stands in comptcrc o pp os iti on I lI lh is , /11

cssence il is bnscd upon (he prem ise thut the

u l r imarc

re:llil~ ' o f th c

universo lics in 'spirit or 'idea ' r.uhcr

than

in [he

uata

o f se nsc

perccption.

lt

i s e ss en ji all y 'n or ni na li xt ' in its appr ouch

l o s (l ci al

reulity. In cuntrust 10 the nutural sc ic nc cs , i t s lr es ., C' i rne

csscntially subjcctive nature

01 '

h um an Ifra irs , d en yi nu

rhe

uulit

y

.urd relevancc of the modcls and rnerhods of natural xcicncc lo

- studics in this realm .

[1

is

'urui-posit ivist '

i n c pi st vr no lo uy .

'voluntnris' \\i[1I rcgurd lo human n.uure and

ir.

Iavours id~'ll-

gruphic m cthods as l I ou ru la ti on I or s oc ia l ; l1 1a ly ~i s, S Ul :i ul (l i c /

Pll\itivislIl alld C Jl:rrnan itlcali,1I1 111IIS J dille the llbjC :C livc ;111

s ll hj ec li v~ e ,,


5/19

r r

1 \

SoC lIl(/g;('{/II'(/racl;gllls lilil Oru a nisntional ;1.1/111.1 .\;.\

c xp osu rc lo th c b asic tcncis o f G c rm a n idcalisrn . S oc ia l sc ic nc e fo r

Ihem

is

seen

as consonant

w ilh th e c on fig ura tio n o f as su rn ptio ns

w hich characrcrise rhe objcctivc ex trem e of our m odcl. H uwevcr ,

over the last seven ty ycars o r so there has bcen

an o

increusing

in rc rac tio n b ctw ccn th csc tw o trad itio ns. p artic ula rly nI l socio-

p hilo so ph ica l le ve l. A s a re su lt in te rrn cd iate p oin ts

0 1

v ie w h av c

erncrged , each w ith its own dis tinctive configu rarion of

assurnp tions abou t the nature of social scicnce. Thcy have all

spaw ned thco ries , ideas and approaches characteris tic of their

interrncdiate position , A s w c shall argue in latcr chapters ,

developrnen ts in phenomenology , cthnorncthodology and the

action frame of reference are to be understood in these tcrrns.

These perspectivcs , w hilst offering their wn special brand of

insight, have also often been uscd as launch ing pads for auacks on

so cio lo gic al p os itiv is m an o h av e g cn cra ted a c on sid era ble arn ou nt

of debate betw een rival schoo ls of thought. J'he natu re of th is

d ebate can o nly b e fu lly u nd erstood b y graspin g and app rcciatin g

the ifferent assum ptio ns w hich un derw rite the co rn petin g po ints

of

view, .

t

lt is our conten tion that the analy ticul scbcrnc o fc re d h ere

cnu bles un e 10

00

precise

y

this. 1l is

offcrcd

no t as a rncr c

class ificato ry dcvicc, but as an im porta nt

1001 Ior

ncgut int ing

social thco ry . 1

I

d ra ws a ttc ntio n lo k ey a ss um ptio us. 11 a ll ow s o nc

ro Iocus on precise isxucs which diffcrcuti.u c socio-scicnufic

approachcs .

I1

UI'i1WS aucn tiun lo Ihe dcgrce

01 '

congrucncy

betw ecn the fou r scrs o ' axsum ptions about social science w hich

characicrisc

any givcn the orists po int o f v icw . W c offcr il herc as

the first prin cipal

dimensin

of our theoretical scherne fo r

a na ly sin g th co ry i n g en era l an d o rg an isa tio na l th eo ry in p artic ula r.

Fo r the sakc of convcn iencc w e shall nonnally refcr to il as the

'su bic cn ve= -o bjec uv e '

dimensin.

tw o < .k sc rip liv c la bels w hic h

perhaps captu re the po ints of comm onality betw ccn the fou r

a n al yt ic al s tr an d s.

Notes and References

1. For a fu rther d iscuss ion of thc nom inalism -realism debate ,

sce Kolakowski (1972),

rp. 15-16.

2 . K olako wsk i

(1972),

pp .

158-9.

In its most ex treme Io rrn

norn inalism does not rccogn ise thc cx is tcnce of nny w orld

ou tside Ihe realm of ind ividual consciousness. This is the

so lipsist po sition , w hich w c discuss in m ore dctu il in C hap tcr

6.

~

..2

. \

Assumpt, .. IJ about thr NO/11t, of Sociol Scil'I/('(' y

3. For a

cornprehensive

review

of

'realism, see Keat and

Urry

(1975).

pp .

27-45.

They make m uch of Ihe d istincrion

b et w ce n 'p ositiv ism ' a no 're alism ' bUI. as th ey adm it , th csc

term s are used in a so rnew hat unconventional w ay .

4. F or a fu rth cr d isc uss io n o f th e p os itiv is m= -a nti-p osi tiv isrn

debate , see , f or exam ple , G idd ens (1974) an d W alsh (1972).

5 . G iddens

(1974),

p . 1 .

6 . S ee , fo r ex am ple, P op per

(1963).

7 . F or a good il/ustra tion of an anti-positivist v iew of science,

s ee D ou gla s (1970b), pp . 3-44.

8. The hum an nature debate in its w idest sense involves rnany

oth er issues w hich w e h ave nO I r eferred to here. T he p recise

m odel of rnan to be em ployed in any analy tical schem e ,

how ever, is underw rinen by assurnp tions w hich reflect the

voluntarism -determ in ism issue in one w ay or ano ther. W e

have iso lared this elernent of the debate here as a way of

treating al its rn ost basic level a n eccssary assurnp tion of all

s oc ia l-s cien tific th eo rie s w hic h p urp ort to a cc ou nt

Ior

human

activiiies. D etailed p ro po sitio ns w ith regard lo (h e p recise

explanation of hum an activities elaborate in one w ay or

u no th er th is b asic th ern e.

9 . F or an exccllcnt iscu ssio n o f the n atu re of (he idcog rap hic

npproach to social scicnce , see B lurncr ( 19(9). ch . l.

10.

I1 is im portan t to

ernphasise hcre that both nornothet ic and

iden grap hic rncth od olog ies can h e ernp loy cd in a d edu ctive

a nd in du ctiv e se nse. W hilst th e in dn ctiv c= -d ed uc uv e d eb ate

in scicnce is a subjcct o f considerable irucrest and

im portance, w e do no t see

it

as b eing central

lo

th e fo ur

d im ensions suggested here as a m eans of distingu ish ing

b et w een th e nature o f so cial science theories. T hat

noiwith-

s tanding,

it

rem ains an irnportant m ethodo log ical issue, of

relevance lo both sociology and organisational analysis ,

within

the con tex t of the assurnp tions explo red hcre.

~

-,

~,~ l

J..___.

r\ .... \

,,~

..~c... '- .... Q '\ \.~

-'.~


6/19

r _

e

t

2. Assumptions about the Nature

of Society

Al approaches

10

the study of socie ty are located in n Irarn e o f

refercncc

0 1

o ne k in d o r a no th er. D i fT e re nt t he o ri cs

ren d

t o r cl lc c t

d iffc rc nt p ersp ectiv es , issu es a nd p ro blern s w orth y

0 1

stu uy . an d

are gene.nlly bascd upon a whole sct

o f a ss ur np ii on s w h ic h r ef le ct

a particular view

0 1

(h e nature of the subjcct under inveslir .nl ion.

Th e l as t t wc nr y

ycars ur

so have w itnes scd a num ber of uuernpts

on the par of sociolcgists to delineate the di ffercnccs which

se parar v ario us sc ho ols of th ou gh t an d th c m cta -so cio lo gic al

as sum ptions which thcy rcflcc t.

The Order=--Conflict Debate

Duhrendo rf (19 5 9 ) and Luck wond (195 (1). Ior

cxamplc.

hnvc

sought to d is ti ng ui sh b C I\ H: :: n those upproaclic lo sllc. : i\)I\ lgy

w h i ch c o nc c nt ra te d

upon

cx

p la i ni n g

ihe nuturc of

social

ordcr and

cquilibriurn un

thc

on e

hund,

an d

those

w hich w ere

more

con-

cerned wuh nroblcms of changc. conflict and cucrciun i n s \lc i;I

s tru cru rcs o n rhc othcr. T h is d i st in c ti o n ha s rcce iv cd a gr c ar u cal u f

attcnuon and

has com e

ro

be know n as

the

'order-i-conflict

debate. ' .

Thc 'ordcr thcor is ts ' havc grea tly

outnurnbered

thc

'con-

t li el t hc or is ts '.

and

as

Dawc

ha s

observcd. ' thc thes is th.u

soc io-

lo gy i s c en tra lly c un cc rn cd with the problcm al' so cia l o rd cr h as

hecorne

one of thc disciplines

few

or thodoxies . II is

cornmon

ac;

l

basic

prcrnisc

to

rnany accourus o f s o ci o lo g ic a l

thcory

which

o th erw ise d iffcr c on sid eru bly in

pUrp0SC

and perspcctiv e ' (D a w e ,

1970 . p.

207).\

Many sociologisls now rcgard this debate as dcad or as hav ing

bcen

J.

somewh.u spurious non-debate

in lile

tirsl

place (Cohcn,

196H: Silverman. IlJ70: va n den Berghc. 1% < )) . l nf lucnccd b

y

rh e

work o f wr it crs ~1I=h ae Coser ( IlJ5(1). who pointcd to

r h e f u n cr i on a l

asrecIs of social conflict . socifli llgisls huve bccn ablc lo incorpor-

ale

c on fli ct a s

a

variable

wuhiu

lh e b ou nu s (lf h co rie s w ilic h re

e

As sumptions about tire Nature IJ f Sudety

II

p rim ar ily g ea re d towards an explanat ion o f so cial o rd er. The

app roach advocated by C ohen, for ex arnple , c learly illustrates

th is. H e tak es his point of d epartu re from the w ork o f D a hrendorf

an d

elaborates some

of

the central

ideas in

the

order-conflicl

deba te

to present two

m od e/s of

society ,

w hic h are

characteriscd

in term s o f c o rn pe tin g se ts o f a ssu mp tio ns w hic h attr ib ute lo so cial

sy sre rn s th e ch arac teristics o f commitment, cohesion. solidari ty .

consensus, rcc iproci ty, ea-operaran, int egration, s tabi li ty an d

p

ersist enc e

on [he one hand, and the charac te ristics of

coercion,

division, hostilitv, dissensus, conflict, mali nt egration

an d

chang e

on

the other (Cohen, 1968,

pp .

166-7).

C oh en 's ce ntra l c riticism is th at D ah ren do rf is rn istak cn in

t rear-

in g th e o rd cr a nd c on flict

models

as bein g entire ly separate . H e in

e ff cc t s u gg es ts l h. al i t is possible fo r theories

10

involve elernents of

bo th rno dels and iat one necd nO I nccessarily inc line to o ne or th e

other. Frorn th is p oin t of view , the oruer and conflict v icws of

society ar e bu t

[WO

sides of th e s ar ne c oi n: they are not mutually

ex clu sivo and thus do not need lo be reconciled. T he f orc e of Ihi~

sort of argument has been very powerful in d iv er ti ng n tt en ti on

awuv

from

the

ordcr-c-conflict

debate. In rhe wake

0 1

iheso-callc. :

counter-cu ltu rc m ov ernent of the la te 19 60s and the fa ilure of the

1968 revolution

in

France , orthodox

sociolocisrs

have

becornc

rnuch m ore in terested in and concerncd w ith (he problcrns of the

'ind iv idua l' as opposed lo those o f th e 'x tructurc ' o f soc ic ty in

general . Th e influence of 'subjcctivist ' movemerus such ;


7/19

.~.

:~

. . -

e

12 Sociological Poradigms and Org anisiiiona Analysis

t

d ilferen ee betw een th e p crspectives and eon eerns o f l ead ing social

th eo rists o f th e n in cte en th a nd c arly tw en tie th

centurics.

Modern

so cio logy has do ne liu le m ore th an artic late and develop thc basic

r h eme s i n it ia te d by these pioncers of social analysis. To srare that

t he o rde r- confl i ct debate is 'dead' or a ' non-debate ' is thus 10

u nd erp la y, i f n ot i gn ore , s ub sta nr iu l diffcrences bet w ecn the w ork

of

Marx

a nd o f or

cxample,

Durkheirn,

Weber

an d

P ar et o. A ny on e

fam iliar w ith the work of

these thcorists and aware of the decp

d ivisin w hich cx is ts betw cen M ar x isrn an o sociolo gy is

Iorced

to

ad rnit that there are fundam en tal Jiffcrences, wh ich are far fr or n

b cin g rc co ncile d.t In th is

chapter thercforc ,

w e w is h ro re-evnluatc

the

onler-conflict

issue

with

a view

t o i Jc n ti fy i ng

a k

ey di

rnen-

s ion for analys ing the assurnptions abou t the nature o society

r efle cte d i n

different

social

theorics,

In

orucr

lodo

so.Ict

us

rcturn

10

the work of Dahrendorf'. who seeks

to set out

the opposing

issucs in th e followrng tcrms: .--

T he i nte gra ti on th co ry o f .


8/19

~ o .

0

~

14 Sociological Paradig

ms

(IIH Orponisational Analysis

p os sib ility th at c on se ns us rn a y be the p roduct o f the use n f so rne

fo rm of coercive fo rce. For ex arnple , as C . W righ t M ilis has

pointcd OUI, 'Wha t Parsons and othcr grand thcoris ts cal ' value

o rie nta tio ns a nd rio rru ativ c s tru ctu re h as rn ain ly 10 do w ith

m a ste r s yrn bo ls o f lc gi ti rn .u io n' (1959, p . 46).

A norrnative structurc here - what D ahrendorf wou ld v iew as

consensus - i~ trcatcd as a systcrn leg itim ising the power

siructu re . F rom M illss po i n t o f v iew , i

t

reflccts the fae t of

d ornina tio n. In o th cr w ords , s harcd v alu cs rn ay be r cgu rd cd n OI s o

m uch asan in dc x o f t he d eg rcc o f i ntegrario n w hich ch aractcrises a

socicty as one which r cflccts the succcss o f thc Io rces o f

d orn in atio n in a so cic ry p ro nc 10 d isintcg ra tio n. F ro m o nc p oin t o f

v iew , e xtant sh arcd id cus , v alu cs u nd n ornls are so meth in g 10 be

prese rved : from anothc r , the

y

represcn t ;\ m ud e o f d ornin.n io n

fro m w hich m an n ecd s lo b e relca sed . T he co nsen su s/co crcio n

d im ensin can thus be scen as (ocusing up on . th e issu e o f so cial

con tro l. Consensus - h ow cvcr it m a y ase - is iden tific c in

D ah rend orf's sch cm c a s som cth in g in dcp en dcn t o f coercin. This

w e believe to be ;1

mist ak

cn vi e w si nc e ,

aspsugpest ed

above ,

it

ig nores th e p ossibihty o f a Io rm o f co ercin w aich ariscs through

the co ntro l o l' v alu c s ys tc m s.

In d isti ng uis hi np b ct w cc n s t a b i li t an d c h a n g e a s r es p ec ti ve

Iea tu rcs of the o rd cr and co nflic t m od cls D uhrcn do rf is ag ain op cn

to rnisim crp rctation , ev cn th ou gh he cx plic itly s tu ics th at he do cs

no t in ie nd to irn ply rh at th c th co ry o f ard er assu rncs th at so cic tics

a re static . H is conccrn is

t

o show how functional thco rics are

esscn tiu lly conccrncd w ith thovc processes wh ich servc to

m ain tu in thc putrcrns o f thc S~ .': ,I


9/19

/.~~

#~f: . .:~ .

: . . ,#

e

~.

/6 Sociologicu

PumJi: /I IJ l I/ :J Ur};uJ/i.l'c.


10/19

8 Sociologicol Pora digms (11/(/ Orgnnisatiann

alysis

t

w hich thc ir overa ll form and nature is spelt out in dctail. W c d cla y

th is task until lat e r chaprcrs. H cre , w e w ish

lo

a dd rc ss o ur sc lv cs

lo

the br o ad relarionships which cx ist bcrwccn the sociclogies of

regulation and radical cliange. W e maintnin that thcy pr c scn t

fundamcnrully dill~1 cut vj r wx illld illl~rf1II'rillinllsof Ihe lIillll t' nI

liudt:I}-'.

Thl~)'

Icllcl'lltllld,llIll'lIlillly dinl'lelll flillllC~ ni I1'Il'Il'II1c.

'1IIc)'

tI

L:II;III 1 ;/lI:,~I\-'(. 1 '. / ,

1.:,il;'

, / 1 1 1 1 / / , / / / 1 ( 11111.11'1'./111

I 1 l ~

, II:I~ \lj bl~ in l I1I ' 111 , '::,

111111

. :, L .

I/i

Iln ,

111 , '1., I li I It I;, Il 'l ,

l i t l t l l

1/

/1111111;1/1111111111,11/1

hll ~ IIlllt.1I I,,-,III.sI .i 11, 11' 1ItI'III'~ \\1111, 1'111 ~I IIj I', 111 IIldd

be

sllgge~ctllhal

Ihc

IWI/llHlcl~

urc

lile /t'd,,,ul'IIIs ul

c uc h o th cr

- nu more than 1 w o sities o f th e sa rn e co in . an d th at relatio nsh ip s

Tahle 2,2

The rcgulat ion-rai lical change djmension

,

It

\(l, ; I,, I' ,,/

/lEGU/.A

1/0N

; 1 concr rnrd w it h:

Thr

JI1C;O/O Y

01f.'AD/CAL CHANGE

is ~lIIc(,fI/~d with:

(;) The ~IJIII~quo

(h) Social or dcr

(e) Conscnsuv=

(d) Social inicgrauon and

cohcsion

(e) Solidariry

H J N ccd s atis fa ctio n

( ~) A ct ua li ty

(a) Radica; eh: .ngc

(b] Strucrur.u conflict

(e) Mudes of dominnuon

(d) Contradiction

(e) Emancipat ion

e r )

Dcprivat ion

(g) Porcnt iahty

Note s

*

By

' conscnsus '

w c

mea n

v olu nta ry a nd

'SpOIllJnCOllS' agrcc-

rncnt ll( oninion. -,

t T hc rcrrn 'nccd satisfnciion' is llSCU 10 rccr lo lile

Iocus

upon

sa tisfac tion of indiv idual or systcm 'nccds '. The sociology of

r cg uln ri on t cn ds lO presume that

various social

characrcrist ics can

be cxplaincd in rclnrion

I)

the se ne cds. It presumes Iha: it is

possible

lO

identify and satisfy human nccds w ithin thc corucx t of

cxisting

social

systems,

an d

Ihai socicty

rc flc cts th cse n cc ds. Th e

conccpt of 'dcprivauon '. un the other hand,

is

roo tcd in th c n otio n

th at th e social 'systcrn ' prevcnts hum an fulfilrnent: indccd tha:

'deprivation

is

creaied as the ICSUIt o f th c status qu o , T he s oc ia l

'systcm ' is not seen as sa tisfy ing needs bu t

as

eroding th e

possib ilitics for hurnan fulfilrncnt. It is rootcd in the notion lhal

socicty

h as r es ul te d

in

dcpriva tion rather than in gain .

-:

:J

~

\IIlP:;OIlJ

abou I},I' Nuturr

o

SO(';I .,

hctwccn thc sub-e lcmcuts of ench m odcl need not be

couumctu ,

thnt is , an analysis. m uy pay

uucurion

r o c le m cn ts

0 1

hnth.

The answ er lo borh criric ism s Iollow s

ou r

dcf'en cc o f

D ahrendorfs w ork , To conflarc the tw o rnodels and ncat thern as

v u r i u t i u n s u n n SillAk 11t('lIll' is ItI iJ\lI lllt' lIl' 111I'I\I 1tIIlIltl lpLI\' ti

I'IIIIIIIIII('IIIIII clilfcf('III'1'S whidll 'xlsl hl'lWl 'l'l Il ltl'll 1. \\'ll Il slll 11\;1\

111'lII:,..lhk 11111:,1::IIII IIlIlIkl illllllillllnllllllll illld film 11111,';111\

ill lh . ~ 111 1 1 r , ' lit/di. /111111111111'111111ItjllllHIIIIIIII'

I

d' il 111111'11 1 \

1111I1I ' lrlll il,;~tll lll l \ ~ I IIIII, , 1 I \ 1 i 1-1111 ,lif,li diij f 'PII':

I II I( 1I~1111I1I , il 'l I' 1 'I II~, 1111

VI'

11111' llll'lllillnl, ItI ,jl' I1~':

If

' Iunctiuns ' of wdnl t.:1I11/l1c1/slo cununit olll:,dlllllhr '1l1l'llIf I:Y

o f re gulatio n as o pp osc d io that of

radical

change. H ow cv cr clo sc

one 's position rn ight be to thc rn iddle grou nd,

il

wou ld

scern

that

on e must a lw a ys b e c om m itt ed lo one side more than another. T he

f un d am e n ta l d is ti n ct io n s

be tween

th e so cio lo gie s o f reg ula tio n an d

r ad ic al c ha ng e will b ec orne clca r

frorn our

ana lysis of the ir

in tellectu al d ev elo prn cn t an d

consiitueut

schools of rhought in

laicr chapters. W e conceptualise thcse tw o b road soc io logica l

pcrspectives

in

the

form

of a polarised

di

rnension.

r

ecognising

that

wnile

variat ions

w ithin the

coniext

of cach are possib le , the

pcrspect ives

are

nccessar i ly

separale

an d d i st in c t

frorn

e a ch o th c r.

N

ates

a nd R e fe re nc es

\. Arnong I he n u rn c ro u s t h co r is t s p r ir n ar il y conccrncd w ith the

problcrn

o f o r d c r , D a w e

cites

P a r s o n s

( 19 4 9) . N i sb ct

( 1 9 6 7 ) ,

Brarnson (I9(J 1), Cohcn (1%8), and Aren (1968).

2. For a d iscu ssion o f the

M a rx is rn v ers us

social

scicnce

d c b a t e , s c e S h a w ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Th e

divisin

be t

wccn

M a r x i s :

theorists and orthodox sociologists is now so decp

Iha Ih~;.

eithcr ignore cach other cornplctely, or indulge in an

exchunge of abuse and accusation regarding (he political

conservatisrn or subversiveness com monly assoc ia ted w ith

th eir resp ec tiv e p oin ts o f v iew . D eb ate ah ou t th e in tcllectu a:

st rengths

and w eaknesses of their opposing standpoim s

is

conspicuous b y it s a bs cn ce :

3

Later in

th is chapte r w e suggest

thal the de s crip tions of

'conccrn w ith the

status quo'

and 'concern for

radical

chang e' provid e m ore a cc urate v iew s

o f th e issu es in vo lv cd

here.

J


11/19

, .-./. .

,

.,.~#

~

. .

'

,

e

- . .. .

20 Soriologca P(lf(/Ji':IIIJ (11/(1 Orgontsationol Anulysis

D ahrendorf acknow lcdgcs M erto ri's dis tinction bctw een

larcn t and rnanifest functions but docs no t pursuc thc con-

sequcncc of

'dysfuncuons

Io r thc conccp t o f

intcgrurion

(D ah re nd orf. 1 95 9,

pp.

17 3

-9).

Othcr 'orucr ' thcori sis who havc addrcsxcd

rhcmsc lvc s lo

Dahrcndorf ' s rnodcl tcnd tu

follow

a sim ilar path in the

attcrn pt to e rn bra ce c on flic t rh co ry w ith in th cir p ers pc ctiv e.

See,

f o r c x a rn p le .

van den Bcrghe (1969),

5

~.

e

e

3. Two Dimensions:

Four Paradigms

1n the prcvious tw o chap ters w e have focused upon sorne of the

k ey a ssu mp tio ns w hic h c ha ra cte ri se d ffe re nt a pp ro ac he s to so ci al

theo ry . W e have argued that it is possib le to analyse these

approaches in terrns o f tw o

key

d im ensions o f analysis , each of

w hich su bsu rn es a series o f related them es. II h as b een su gge sted

that assum ptions abou t the natu re o f science can be though t o f in

rerrns of w hat w e cal/ the s ub je ct iv e- s- ob je cti ve d im e ns io n. a nd

assurnpt icns

abou t

th e

nature

of

society

in tcrm s of a

regulat ion-

rad ic al ch an ge d im en sion . In th is chapter w e w ish to d iscuss the

re la t ionships

betw een the tw o

d im en sio ns a nd

to

d eve lop a

coher-

en t

schem e for the

analysi s

o f s oc ia /

theory .

\Ve have already no ted how sociological deba te since the la te

1960s

has tend ed to ig nore th e

dist inct ions betwecn the

t wo d ir ne n -

sions - in p artic ula r. h ow there h as b ee n a te nd en cy

lO

focus upon

i ss uc s c o nc er ne d wi th th essub j ec ti v c -e -ob jecuve d im en sio n an d lo

ignore those concerned w ith the regulaucn=-rad icn l

change

d im e ns i n. ln te re st in gly

,nough . th is focus o f

attention

ha s

c ha ra cte ris ed s oc io lo gic al t ho ug ht a ss oc ia te d w ith

both

regulation

an d r ad ic al c ha ng e. T he su bjectiv c--o bjectiv e d eb ate h as been

co nd ucted ind ep en den tly w ith in b oth soc iolog ic al carn ps.

Within t h e s o c io l eg y o f r .e g u /a li o n it has assum ed the fo rm of a

debate betw een interp retive socio logy and functionalism . In the

w ak e o f B erg er an d L uck man n 's treatise o n th e so ciolo gy o f k now -

l ed ge ( 19 6 6 ).

G arfin kel 's w ork o n

ethnomcthodology

(1967)

and a

g en era l re su rg en ce o f in tc re st i n p h en om en olo gy , th e q ue stio na ble

s tatus of the onto logical an d epistemological a ss urn ptie ns o f th e

fu nc ti on alist p ersp ec tiv e h av e b cc om e in cre as in gly e xp osc d.

The

d eba te h as

o ft cn le d

to

a

p oarisation b etw een th e tw o

schools

of

thought .

S ir nila rly , w ith in t he c on ic xt

of

t he s o ci ol o gy

o f ra di ca l c ha ng e

th ere h as b ee n l divis in b etw ee n th eo ri sts s ub sc rib in g lo ' subjec-

tiv e ' a mi 'o bje ctiv e ' v ie ws o f s o cie ty . T he d eb ate in rn an y rc sp ec ts

takes its lead from the publication in F rance in 19 66 and D rita in in

J


12/19

-

~i~':

('

t

22 Soc iological Paradigms and Orp anisas-onul Aualy sis

1969 of Louis A nhusse r's w ork For Marx . This

prescnted

[h e

nouon

of

an

'e pisternc lo gic al b re ak ' in M arx 's w ork

and

emphas -

scd thc polarisation of Marxist theorists into IWO carnps: those

e rn ph asisin g th e 'sub je ctive ' a spe cts o f M arx isrn (L ukcs nn d th e

F ra n kf ur t S c ho o l, for cxarnple) and those advocating more 'objec-

tiv e ' a ppro ac hes, suc h a s th at asso cia te d w ith A lth usse ran struc -

iuralisrn .

W ith in the contcx t o f the soc io logies bo th of rcgula tion and

radical change , the re fo re, th e rn iddle to la te 19605 w itnessed a

d is tin ct s witc h in [h e

f

oc us of

nucnuon.

T h e d eb ut e betwe en ihcsc

rw osoc io log ies w hich had chu rnc tcr ised th e carly 19 60 s disap -

peared and w ns rcp laccd by an in trovcrted Jialogue

within

[h e

con tcx t of each of the seprate 5d10015 of thought. In stead of

' speaking ' lo cach other they turucd inwards and addresscd their

re ma rks to th ernsc lv es. T hc c onc ern to

son

OUI t h ci r p o s it ic n

wi

th

rcgard 10 w hat w e ca ll the subjectiv& -objec liv e d im en sin . a

c om plica ted p ro cc ss in v ie w of a ll th e in terrc la tc d stra nd s , le d to a

n eg le ct o f th e re gu la tio n--r atlic al c ha ng e d irn er is io n.

A s a con sequence of rhesc Jeve lopm enls, recen t debate has

o ft cn b ec n c on fu sc d. S oc io lo gica l thought has tended to be charac-

te riscd by a narrow sec tar ian isrn , from w hich an overall p ers pe c-

tivc

and

g ra sp o f b as ic is su es r e c on sp ic uo us ly a bs cn t. T he tim e is

ripc Ior c on sid crau on o f the w a y n hc ad , a nd w e s ub rn i t th at th e t w o

k cy d ir nc ns io ns o fa n;y sic ; w hic h w e h av c id en tific d d efin e c ritic nl

p a rurncrc rs w ith in w hich th is can tukc p lace. \V e p rcsc ru ih cm as

THE SOCIOLOGY OF RADICAL CHANGE

r---------- ----------...,

I I

I I

I I

I 'Radical 'Radical I

: hurnanist structuralist' I

I

I

I I

SUBJECTIVE: IOBJECTIVE

I I

I I

I - I

I 'tnterpretive' 'Functicnolist' I

I I

I I

I I

I I

J

T H E SOCIOLOGY Qf REGULA nON

Fi gure 3, 1 Four paradigrns I or l.'le an:lI ysis of soci al

rheory

('

Tu'o Dimensions:

Four

Puradiems

e

tw o independen t d im en sions w hich rcsurrec t the soc io log ical

issu es o f the e ar ly 1 96 05 a nd plac e the rn alon gside th ose uf the la te

1960s and early 1970~. Taken together, th ey d ef in e fo ur d is tin ct

sociological parad igrns w hieh can be utilised fo r th e analysis of a

w ide range o f

social

th eo rics. T he

relauonship berween

these

parad igms ,

w hich w e la be l 'ra dica l h um anist, 'rad ic al

structural-

isr'. 'in tc rp re tiv e' a nd 'fu nc tio na lis t', is i llu stra te d in F ig ure 3,1.

It w ill b e c lea r from the d iagram tha t each of the parad igm s

shares a com mon ser of features w ith its n e ighbours on thc h ori-

zo ntal a nd ve rtic al a xe s in terrns o f o ne ofthe tw o d irn ensions b u t is

d iffe re ntia te d o n th e o th er d im en sin . For th is reason th ey should

be v iew ed as con tiguou s but separa te - coru iguous becau se of the

sha re d ch arac ter isu cs. b ut sep arate be cnuse the ditfc rc nria uon is ,

J.S

w e s ha ll d cm on str aie la te r , o f s utf ic ie nt im po rt.m ce tu w arr .u u

tr ca tr nc nt o f t he p ar ad ig rn s.a s f ou r d is ti nc t e nt it ie s. Th e o ur p ar a-

d ig ms d efin e tu nd arn en ta lly d iff er en t p er sp cc riv es fo r th e a ua l y vis

o f so cia l pheno rnena . T hey appro ach th is endeavou r Ir orn co n-

tra sting sta nd po in ts a nd ge ne ra te qu ite d iffcre nt c on cc pts ;'lIld

a n al yt ic a l t oo ls .

,

,

I

1

.1

t

f

,

f

~

t

The Nature and Uses of the Four Paradigrns

-

Ilc fo re g ong u n lo discu ss th e substaru ive na tu re of cach u f ih c

p ar ad ig rn s ,

il

w ill b s

t io no f 'p ar ad ig rn ' [O be u scd .' \V e rcg :m J

o ur f ou r p ar ad ig rn s a s b ei ng d ef in ed b y v cr y b ns ic r ne ta -th eo rc ri ca l

assum ptions w hich unqerw rite th e fra rn e o f referen ce . m ode 01

t he or is i n g a nd modus operandi o f th e s oc ia l th co ris ts w ho o pe ra te

w ith in them . It is a te rm w hich is in tcndcd to ernphasise th e

com monality o f p erspec tive w hich bind s [he w ork of a group of

th corists to ge th er in suc h a w ay tha t they c an b e u se fu ll y r eg ar dc d

as approaching soci .d theory w ith in the bounds of rhe sum e

problemat ic.

T his defin ition does no t im ply com ple te uniry of though t. II

allow s for the fact th at w ith in the con tex t o f any given parad igrn

thc re w ill b e m uch deba te be tw een thcorists w ho adop t .Iiffc ren t

standpoints. The

parad igrn

does,

ho wc ve r. h ave

'an underlying

unity

in te rm s of its b asic

and

o ften 'ta ke n for g ra nted ' assu rnp -

[iO IlS , w hie h sep arate a g rou p of the orists in a ve ry fu nd am enta l

w ay fro m th co rists loc ate d in o th er pa ra dig rns. T he 'un itv ' o f [he

p arad ig rn th us de rive s from re fe re nc e to a lte rna tiv e view s o f rea l-


13/19

/'

'

.

24 Sociolauica Paradigms und Organisuti onal Analysis

ity w hich lie ou tsidc its boun darics and w hich m uy not nccessarily

evcn be rccogniscd as existing. ,

In id cn ufy in g Io ur paradigrns in social thco ry w c are in esscnce

suggesting that

it i s rn ea ni ng u l lO e xa mi ne

work

in

the subjcct arca

in tcrrns of four sets of basic assurnptions. Each sct idcntifies a

l. Q u it e s ep r at e s oc ia l- sc ie ru if ic r ea li ty , Tu be Iocaicd in a particular

. paradigrn is 10 view the world in a particular way. Th e four para-

digms

thus

d efi ne fo ur

views

of

the

social

world based upon diff' er -

en l meta-theoretical assumptions with regard to th e nature of

scicnce and of society ,

lt

i s o u r c or ue nt io n

that

all so cia l th eo rists ca n b e lo ca ted

within

the comext of these four paradigrns according to the meta-

thcorctical assurnpt ions

rcflcctcd

in th cir w ork . T hc four r

ar a

-

digrns iaken iogcther providc a map fo r n cgo tiaring the su bjcct

area , wh ich offers a convcn ien t m eans o f idcntifying the basic

sirnilaritics and diffcrcnccs bct wccn thc work

9 f

various ihcorists

and, i n pa r ti cu la r , t he u n de rl yi n g f rame of refercncc wh ich thcy

adopt. lt a l s o provid cs a co nv cnient way of locating ones

OWI1

p ers on al f ra me o f re fe re nc c

with

r cgard lo social theory. ano

thus n

m eu ns o f u nd ers ta nd in g w hy c crta in th co ri es a r1 'tl p crs pc cti ve s

rnay havc m ore perso nal appcal than others. L ik c a ny o th er-m ap , il

provides a

1001

fo r

establishing where

you are, w here

you havc

b ce n a nd

where

it

is possible

ro

go in the

Iuture.

11provides

a 1001

fo r ma p pi n g i n tc ll cc tu al jo urn cy s in so cia l thco ry - OIlC' ow n an o

Ihose of (he ihcor i sts who have contributed lo the subjcct aren.

In this work we intcnd 10

rnukc rnuch

u se o f th e rn ap -lik c

qual-

ities of th e

Iour

p aru dig rn s. E ac h

defines

a ra ng c o f in tc llc ctu al

ICTTlory. G iven the ov crall m cta-theorctical assu rn ptions w hich

d istin gu ish o ne p ara dig m I rom another, thcrc is room I or rn uc h

variation w ith in them . W ithin (h e contex t .o f th c 'function alist'

p arad igrn . for exam ple , c erta in thcorists ado pt m ore ex trem e po si-

tions in term s of one or both o f the tw o d imcnsions than othcrs.

Such differcnces ofren accoun i for the in ternal debate wh ich goes

on bctw cen th eo rists cn gag ed in the activ ities of 'n orm al scicncc '

w ithin th e con iex t o f thc sarnc pn radigrn.? T he rcrn ain ing chaptcrs

o f t his w ork e xa min e e ach o f th e [o ur p ;, r:lU ig l1 1l;in so rn e d eta il a nd

attem pt lo Illcale thcir prin cip ai Iheuris ls in th ese Icrrm .

O ur rc se arc h su gg e ;ls Ih at w hilsllh :: aC liv ily w ilh in tlle c on lc xl

n f each paradigm is oflen considerab le. inler-paradigm alic

'journeys' are m l/ch rarer. Th is is in I,ceping \V ilh K uhn 's

(197l')

n lio n ( .1 f're vo lu ti on ary s ci em :e '. For a Iheo risl lO sw itch para-

d igm s calls for'l change in m ela-Iheorelical assum plions . SO nlC -

Ih in g w llic h, allh ou gh m an ik ~lly rO $ > ib le, is n ot u ften a ch icv ct in

~ J

II

11'0

Dimcnsions: Four Paradi gms 25

p racticc. A s Keat and U rry pu t it , 'For ind ividual scien tists , thc

chan gc of allegian ce from one paradig rn 10 another is often a

conversion cxperience , akin

10

Gesfalt-swilches or changos of

rcl igious Iai th ' (1975, p. 55). W hcn a theorist does s hi fl h is position

in this w ay, it stands ou t very c1early as a m ajo r break with hi s

n tcllcctu al tradition and is heralded as bcing so in th e lite ra tu rc, in

tha:

Ihe theorist is usuaJly w elcorned by

thosc

w ho rn h e h as jo in ed

and ofren disowned b y h is fo rm er

'paradigrn

col leagues '. Thus we

w itn ess w ha t is k no wn a s Ih e 'e pistc mo lo gica l

break

b erw een the

work of th e yo un g M arx and the rnature M arx - what w e would

idcntify as a shit fro m th e ra dic al h um an ist p arad ig m tu the radical

stru ctu ralist paradigrn. A t the lev e of organisationu l analysis , a

distinct

parad igrn shift can be

detectcd

in

the work

of

Silverrnan -

;1 shifl frorn the fun ctio nalis t paradig m lo thc i nt er pr et i . ... para-

digrn. W e \V iII analyse such in tellectual jo urn ey s in m ore

detail

in

l ar er c ha pr er s.

B cfo re w e p rog ress lo a revicw of th e four parudigm s , o nc poin t

is w orthy o f fu rth cr e rn ph as is . T hi s r ela te s lo thc Iact that th e four

paradigrns a re m utu ully e xc lu si ve . T he y o ff er altcrnative v icw s o f

social reality, ano lo understand the nature of all four is lo undcr-

stand four diffcrent v icw s of society. They uffcr diffcreru w ays of

sceing. A sy nth esis Is

nO I

possiblc , sincc in their pure form s Ihey

ar e

cont radicrory, bcing based

on al

leas: one set of opposing

r nc ta -t he o r et ic a l assumptions. They ar e aliernatives , in thc sense

that

u ne ( '( , o pc ra tc i n d if fe re nl p ar ad ig ms

scquent ial ly

o vc r li me .

bU I rnu tually exclusivo. in thc scnsc thal une cunnor

opcraic

in

m ore than u ne paradig ru al any g iv cn p oint in lim e. since in accep t-

ing the assurnptions of one. we dcfy the assurnpuons o f all thc

others.

W e o fT er the fo ur paradigm s for co nsideration in these tcrrns. in

the hope that knowlcdge of Ihe co rnpcting poin rs of vicw \V iII al

lcast m ake us aware o f the

boundaries

w ith in w hi ch WI approuch

our subject.

T he F un ctio nalist P arad ig m

T ll is p a ra d i l h:IS p ru vi d~ d I he u O lll in an r f ra rm '\ \' or k [11/ :11;; Ct1P-

Ul cr

o

academ ic sociologr nnu Ihe sllIoy of ()qwnisalions. II

reprcsents a rC lspcclivc w hich i~ firm ly roolcd in Ih e SOIio/ilJ Y of

r(' . IIIt1fiof/

am i ;'l'prcaches ils sllhj;;c t m aller frolll :\n

If,;rC ti,i.H

roin; al view . F u nc li on al is l t he or is ls have hcen llhe ford, \ln l of

J

.-'.

-

.

--'


14/19

./'

~~

. .

. :. . ,

e

~

2(, Sociological Pura dig ms and Or}:lIl1isllh_ol Annlvsis

t he o rd cr -c -c on fl ic t d eb a te ,


15/19

' -

28 sociologicat Paradig ms arul Orpanis ati ona a/rsis

.

Iu nc ti on alism is csscniial ly conscrvativc and unab le lo prov idc

ex planatio ns for social ch an gc. Thcse attcrnpts undcrw riie the

d eb ate exarnined in th e p rcv io us .ch ap ter as to w hcthcr a th co ry of

'conflict '

can be inco rporared w ith in the bounds o f a thcory of

'order' lo pro vid e ad cqu ate exp lan atio ns of so cial affa irs.

P ul very crud ely , therefo rc , th e fo rrn arion o f the fun ctio nalis t

paradig rn can be undcrstood in tcrm s of the intcraction of thrce

s ets o f in te llc ctu al fo rc es, .1S i llus truted in F igure 3 ,2. O f thcsc ,

so cio lo gic al p ositiv is m h as b ee n th e rn os t in flu cn ua l, T he c orn pc r-

ing trad itions have been sucked in and uscd w ithin the contex t of

th e fu nc ti on alist p ro ble rn atic , w hic h e rn ph as ise s Ih e e ss en tia lly

ob jectivist natu re of the social w orld and a eoncern for explana-

ti on s w h ic h e mp ha si se 'regulation' in so cia J a ffa irs. T he se c ro ss-

currents o f though t have givcn rise lo a n urn ber o f d istin ctiv e

schoo ls of though t w ith in the parad igm , w hich is

characier i sed

by

a w ide range of rhcory and in ternal debate . By w ay o f o vc rv ic w.

again sornew harcrudely . F igu res 3 ,3 arul 3 .1 4 illu stra te th e fo ur

p arad ig rn s in tcrm s of Ih e con stiru enr seh do ls o f socio lo gical an d

o rgan isatio nal theo ry w hich w e sh afl be cx plo ring latcr o n. A s w ill

be ap paren t, m ost o rgan isatio n theo rists, illdu stria l so ciolo gists ,

p sy ch olo gi sts a nd i nd us tr ia l r cla ti on s thcorists'approach t hc ir s ub -

ject from w ith in the bounds of thc functionalist parad ig rn.

The Interprctive Paradigrn

Theoris ts locatcd w ithin Ihe conrcx t of thc inicrprctivc paradigrn

adopt an approach consonan t w ith Ihe tcncts of what w c have

dcsc ribed as thc

sociologv

I~(t.' tltllilll/, though its

suhjcctivist

approach to the analysis of thc social w orld rnakes its iinks w ith

th is so cio lo gy o ftc n i mp lic it ra th er Ih an e xp lic it. T he i nte rp re tiv e

laradig m is in fo rm cd by a co nccrn ro u rlcle/'s lam l the w orld as il is,

10 understand the fundam ental natu rc o f thc social w orld al th e

le ve l o f su bje ctiv e c xp erie nc e. II sceks exp lanation w ith in the

rcalm of ind iv idual consciousness and sub jectiv ity, w ith in the

fram e of ref erence o f th c partic ip ant as op po sed

lo

lh e o bscrv er o f

action.

In i ts a pp ro ac h ro s oc ia l s ci en c c ; t cuds 111 he

nominalist .

anti-

positivist, voluntarist anJ

i dc ( lgrc lphi c .

1 1x ccs th e so cial w orld as

an cm ergcn t social proccss which is crc .ucd by t h c i n d iv i du a ls

co ncern ed. S ocial reali 1y, i Ilsofar a:; i I i s r c c o gni sc d lo lla ve an y

cx isicnce ou tsidc thc consciouxncxs of auy single ind ividual, i~ ;

reg ard ed as bcin g litrle m ore thuu a nciwork o f u s sump ti o ns ano

3

. .

.

_ - _ . -_._ _ .,- ---_ .

J

w ~c:.~ -

c . . ? ~ : 7

s 5 ~

>z oC: o - . 0 ] - -

:I

< :

u

.~:;~ ,::-

> -

z

[j

o :r e

.'

s . ~ . . . . . . . . . . -

o - .

t:I .-

...J U s :-::; ~L~y

: ; ;

~~ .

o

t= ~

o ..J

e

;~ .... ~ '';:,~ ..J

- ' ~

u :,

lO ,:

E g

,0-

. E . . . l. O

< .

;A.

:; :~

.c:.. e

11 >

s: . l

t;;

f .:~

_ '\ & e , . i

. . : : _ J

le, ~

' 6 . . ' '' \ . ~

1 f { ~

e -

n: : .. . (r ,,:: ~ t : . ~

a: .:

,I lf

t e

r:

a ~

;, o

~ -:

. ,

~

o

;

E

e '

: . ;

f

r.

e,

1

'. 1, In e - .- lo . - u

e

-.

.;.~._-,-

.

w

>

::

u

w

-,

Xl

~

VI

J

i

I

I

~ _ Cos

_.=-,.,~


16/19

0iIi i(s . - --_.--_ .

..t .'~

.. .

,::.-'

. . . . -

e

'-

< n

e

al

:.. T ~

E r

: :D ,~ ...~

-o( ~ ~ : t :ti .J :

rn

VI - <

7 ,

l > '

g.

el O .,'

g . :

C' en

X

e (') ..' ,,' ~ Ii ' o

~ '-0 . >()

. >

r:

'.1 , ;

0

: ~ _ ----~.... . I~~~ y, ,- -

o

-iO

l'

o ;;

1'1 . ' . ~

o

.....o :~

;;-~g I () -

o el... ~ ' :', J: O

.; s Z -< ,) ~ ; ;

j

:>

el

~ . : e () : Z -

burrel y morgan sociological paradigms

Documents