Search results

1. Introduction: toward semiotic sociology and social theory -- 2. A synthesis of semiology, semiotics and phenomenological sociology -- 3. Economy and society in semiotic institutionalism -- 4. Power and signification in neostructuralism -- 5. Modernity and the intersemiotic condition -- 6. Modernity, postmodernity and reflexive modernization -- 7. Modernity and the articulation of the gender system -- 8. Gender as an institution -- 9. From Goffman to semiotic sociology -- 10. Conclusion and the next steps.

Intro -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- Notes on Contributors -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- 1: The EU: A Deepening, Enlarging or Collapsing Union? -- Bibliography -- 2: The Emergence of the European Union as a Very Incoherent Empire -- A Very Brief History of the EU -- Ideological Power and the EU -- Economic Power and the EU -- Military Power and the EU -- Political Power and the EU -- A Very Incoherent Empire? -- Bibliography -- 3: An Extending Empire of Governance: The EU in Comparison to Empires Past and Present -- Other Kinds of Empire -- Brexit -- Previous Kinds of Empire in the European World -- Transitions from Regime to Empire -- Consolidating Empire -- Conclusion -- Bibliography -- 4: A Promoter of Values or a Shopkeepers' Empire? Economy and Society in the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Trade Policy of the EU -- The EU: A Normative Power or a Promoter of Economic Interests? -- The EU's Second Ten-Year Plan and Analysis of Policy Documents -- The Europe 2020 Strategy as a Worldview -- Content Analysis and Category Analysis of 'Economy' -- Narrative Analysis of the Europe 2020 Document -- Translating the Strategy into Action: Trade Policy -- Conclusion and Discussion: The EU as an Ordoliberal Empire -- Bibliography -- 5: Eurostat: Making Europe Commensurate and Comparable -- Shaping the Statistical Space of Equivalence -- Eurostat: An Agency for Making Europe Commensurate -- Forging a Statistical Apparatus for Data Production -- Juridification and Indicatorisation of Statistics -- Balancing Between Professional Independence and Political Relevance -- Conclusions -- Bibliography -- 6: The Power of Indicators in Making European States Governable in the Europe 2020 Strategy -- Introduction -- The Europe 2020 Strategy and Its Implementation Process -- Interplay Between General Target Indicators and Specific Recommendations

What is social theory? This paper opens with a conception of social theory as an ontological approach explicating the nature of the worldview that we should adopt provided that the results of the most advanced empirical social science are true. After loosening the limitations of such a realist conception by introducing normative standards and dialogue with other provinces of meaning than science, it raises another question: How can we choose between various alternative conceptions in social theory? It seems that although the element of voluntaristic choice cannot be completely avoided, there are still many ways to limit the number of conceptions that can be taken seriously. In the final part of the paper, the ontologically oriented approach is put into dialogue with an understanding of social theory as a form of practical reason in the service of our ideas about a better society, and a synthetic view is outlined.

Departing from the common view according to which structuralist semiology (the Saussurean tradition), pragmatist semiotics (the Peircean tradition) and phenomenological sociology (Husserl, Schutz, Berger and Luckmann, Garfinkel) are seen as mutually exclusive alternatives, the article attempts to outline their synthesis. The net result of the synthesis is that a conception emerges wherein action theories (rational choice, Weber, etc.) are based on phenomenological sociology, and phenomenological sociology is based on neo-structuralist semiotics, which is a synthesis of the Saussurean and the Peircian traditions of understanding habits of interpretation and interaction. This provides us with a research programme for semiotic sociology.

English The great transformation to modernity made the economy the major organizing factor of the social synthesis, thus bringing forth the issue of the economy/society relationship as the central problem of modern social theory. This article deals with two broad approaches to this problem: Parsons's and Habermas's variants of structural-functionalism, on the one hand, and various currents of (neo)institutionalism, on the other. An attempt to synthesize the benefits of these conflicting approaches is made from the point of view of semiotic institutionalism. What emerges is a general theoretical framework, which is better equipped than the original structural-functionalist and institutionalist conceptions for the analysis of the economy/society relationship. French Les grandes transformations vers la modernité ont fait de l'économie le principal facteur organisateur de la synthèse sociale, portant sur le devant de la scène la question de la relation économie/société en tant que question centrale de la théorie sociale moderne. L'article s'intéresse à deux grandes approches de cette question: les variantes structuro-fonctionnalistes de Parsons et Habermas d'une part, et divers courants du (néo)institutionnalisme de l'autre. L'auteur s'efforce de faire la synthèse des points forts de ces deux approches conflictuelles du point de vue de l'institutionnalisme sémiotique. Il en émerge un cadre théorique général plus adapté que les conceptions structurofonctionnalistes et institutionnalistes à l'analyse de la relation économie/société.

The article is an attempt to develop a synthetic conception of power based on Weber's, Parsons's and Foucault's writings. The aim is, first, to build a bridge between the so-called resource theories of power (Weber, Parsons) and the structural approach (Foucault) and, second, to do this in the form of a conception which would be usable on both macro- and micro-levels at the same time. Four theories are discussed: (1) the distributive approach (Weber); (2) the collective approach (Parsons); (3) the structural approach (Foucault); and (4) the neostructuralist approach (this article). It is argued that these approaches can be ordered on a scale on which the complexity of analysis increases as one moves from (1) to (4), and that the selection of an appropriate level of analysis in an empirical study is a practical issue relative to the aim of the study. The types of analyses characteristic of the more complex levels are illustrated by a discussion of the problem posed by Big Case Comparison in historical sociology (level 3) and everyday conversation (level 4), including comments on phenomenological sociology and conversation analysis.