burrel y morgan sociological paradigms
TRANSCRIPT
-
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,-
-
8/11/2019 Burrel y Morgan Sociological Paradigms
2/19
.
-4--- -..... ..---~----:-----_
_ wm
e
/
. ./
_ /~
-
8/11/2019 Burrel y Morgan Sociological Paradigms
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
-
8/11/2019 Burrel y Morgan Sociological Paradigms
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 ,,
-
8/11/2019 Burrel y Morgan Sociological Paradigms
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 '\ \.~
-'.~
-
8/11/2019 Burrel y Morgan Sociological Paradigms
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 ;
-
8/11/2019 Burrel y Morgan Sociological Paradigms
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 .
-
8/11/2019 Burrel y Morgan Sociological Paradigms
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
-
8/11/2019 Burrel y Morgan Sociological Paradigms
9/19
/.~~
#~f: . .:~ .
: . . ,#
e
~.
/6 Sociologicu
PumJi: /I IJ l I/ :J Ur};uJ/i.l'c.
-
8/11/2019 Burrel y Morgan Sociological Paradigms
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
-
8/11/2019 Burrel y Morgan Sociological Paradigms
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
-
8/11/2019 Burrel y Morgan Sociological Paradigms
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-
-
8/11/2019 Burrel y Morgan Sociological Paradigms
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
.-'.
-
.
--'
-
8/11/2019 Burrel y Morgan Sociological Paradigms
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 ,
-
8/11/2019 Burrel y Morgan Sociological Paradigms
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
_.=-,.,~
-
8/11/2019 Burrel y Morgan Sociological Paradigms
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 -