This working paper contains an intervention by Corentin Debailleul and an extended reply by Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan. The exchange was first posted on the Capital as Power Forum in January 2016. Debailleul's original questions are articulated at greater length here, while Bichler and Nitzan's reply is reproduced as is. ; http://www.capitalaspower.com/2016/02/no-201601-debailleul-bichler-and-nitzan-theory-and-praxis-theory-and-practice-practical-theory/ ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published
This paper explores the grounded theory method as one of the research strategies within a qualitative approach to research which is widely used in social sciences in areas such as sociology, education, political science as well as others. At the beginning we generally indicate what the essence of grounded theory method is. We analyze the steps that form integral parts of the method like data collection, creation of codes and concepts, hypotheses about connections and ultimately generation of the theory. We particularly highlight significant principles that characterize the grounded theory method such as theoretical sampling, method of constant comparison and application of theoretical saturation. Analyses served to comprehend the importance and role of all parts of the process of grounded theory method and requirements which it place upon researchers who want it use it successfully. Apart from detail analyses of every aspect of grounded theory method in possible application of the method, we deal with some criticism, complaints and doubts about how to use the method to realize possible shortcomings. They are related to the general qualitative approach but also to the requirements of methodological rigor that are placed in front of researchers and the specificities related to way of generating theory. Based on the above we discuss the reach of grounded theory method such as its possible applications. In conclusion, we stress the importance and highlight possible future perspective of the grounded theory method as a research strategy within a qualitative approach.
One of the leading debates in social sciences concerns research design. However, in comparative politics, the predominant way conducting research misses out crucial aspects that are central to social theory. This article shows how method and empirical research are highly dependent on the definition of theory. Arguing that theory should not only give an explanation of the social phenomena in question but should also show how this relationship is constructed, this article outlines the consequence of such a perspective, namely that the collection of data should reflect both macro and micro perspectives and the analyses of data should be carried out using mixed methods. In conclusion, such an integrated framework is the most appropriate way to give valuable theoretical feedback, either by examination and revision of already established theories or by a contribution to the construction of new theory in the social sciences. It is important, though, that such a framework is applied in a systematized way.
In: Baert , P , Morgan , M & Ushiyama , R 2022 , ' Existence theory: Outline for a theory of social behaviour ' , Journal of Classical Sociology , vol. 22 , no. 1 , pp. 7-29 . https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X21998247
This article introduces 'existence theory' as a new approach to sociological theory and research. Existence theory starts from the assumption that people organise their lives around a limited set of existential milestones. Cultural expectations are such that without the accomplishment of those milestones, individuals may experience their lives as incomplete. Examples of milestones can include the attainment of formal education, a lasting partnership and the creation of a family, but in general the milestones which are important to individuals and their precise articulation will depend on a variety of cultural and structural factors. The achievement of existential milestones often depends on that of other existential milestones, thereby producing what we call an 'existential ladder'. The article also elaborates on the significance of 'existential urgency' in that, due to a variety of factors (some biological, some cultural and structural), there are time limits on when certain existential milestones ought to be achieved by. In contemporary society, we note that individuals seem to have more choice about which milestones are important to them and when they can be achieved, although we emphasise that this flexibility is unevenly distributed. This then provides a steppingstone towards an elaboration of the power dynamics and inequalities underlying both the experience and the achievement of existential milestones. Finally, this paper shows how existence theory helps to reflect on a variety of social phenomena of contemporary significance: populism in politics, forced migration, and the coronavirus pandemic.
In: Baert , P , Morgan , M & Ushiyama , R 2021 , ' Existence theory: Outline for a theory of social behaviour ' , Journal of Classical Sociology , vol. 22 , no. 1 , pp. 7-29 . https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X21998247
This article introduces 'existence theory' as a new approach to sociological theory and research. Existence theory starts from the assumption that people organise their lives around a limited set of existential milestones. Cultural expectations are such that without the accomplishment of those milestones, individuals may experience their lives as incomplete. Examples of milestones can include the attainment of formal education, a lasting partnership and the creation of a family, but in general the milestones which are important to individuals and their precise articulation will depend on a variety of cultural and structural factors. The achievement of existential milestones often depends on that of other existential milestones, thereby producing what we call an 'existential ladder'. The article also elaborates on the significance of 'existential urgency' in that, due to a variety of factors (some biological, some cultural and structural), there are time limits on when certain existential milestones ought to be achieved by. In contemporary society, we note that individuals seem to have more choice about which milestones are important to them and when they can be achieved, although we emphasise that this flexibility is unevenly distributed. This then provides a steppingstone towards an elaboration of the power dynamics and inequalities underlying both the experience and the achievement of existential milestones. Finally, this paper shows how existence theory helps to reflect on a variety of social phenomena of contemporary significance: populism in politics, forced migration, and the coronavirus pandemic.
Regime theory is an approach within international relations theory, a sub-discipline of political science, which seeks to explain the occurrence of co-operation among States by focusing on the role that regimes play in mitigating international anarchy and overcoming various collective action problems among States (International Relations, Principal Theories; State; see also Co-operation, International Law of). Different schools of thought within international relations have emerged, and various analytical approaches exist within the regime theory itself (see Sec. F.3 below). However, typically regime theory is associated with neoliberal institutionalism that builds on a premise that regimes are central in facilitating international co-operation and constraining the behaviour of States. Thus, in international relations literature, regime theory is often used interchangeably with the terms 'institutionalism' or 'neoliberal institutionalism'.
The paper starts by acknowledging that most of what comes under the heading of 'theory', even feminist theory, is obscure, and that it can function as elitist exclusion. But it points out that readers too, as well as authors, have a responsibility to work to make texts comprehensible. It defines feminist theory as the process of trying to understand and explain the world of experience, and insists that it is the process of making sense of what has already happened, and not something which directs actions, which automatically supplies 'the right path'. The latter, I argue, is dogmatism, not theory. Social theory (of which feminism is one example) starts from, and is structured and informed by, a moral and political standpoint, whether that is acknowledged or not. Despite the unpopularity of the notion of truth, the paper argues that it is important that feminism make, and be seen to be making, claims to truth, in the sense of a correspondence between something that is said and what that statement refers to. It concludes with a discussion of the interrelationship of theory and experience.
Though the intersection of postcolonial theory and media studies might seem an obvious one due to their common focus on representation, the role of institutions and the transnational dimension, a critical assessment of their relationship and potential is to some extent under-theorized and long overdue. This has to do with the disciplinary entrenchment of the two fields: postcolonial theory originally emerged from comparative literary studies and initially focused strongly on textual criticism, whereas media studies developed more in connection with media objects, such as film and television, and focused on issues of production, reception and distribution. However, both fields can be considered relatively young with respect to more traditional disciplines. They emerged as a contestation of .
In A Theory of Justice John Rawls constructs a comprehensive social contract theory of justice to stand as a substantive alternative to utilitarianism. This work combines and develops the ideas of earlier essays, such as "Justice as Fairness" (1958), "The Sense of Justice" (1963), "Constitutional Liberty" (1963) and "Civil Disobedience" (1966), into a systematic moral and political philosophy of astonishing power and subtlety. I shall sketch its main principles, their derivation and justification, and then raise some questions about the supposed opposition between the standards of justice and utility.
This extract is taken from the author's original manuscript and has not been edited. The definitive, published, version of record is available here: http://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781137291172. Reproduced with permission of Palgrave Macmillan. ; Political behaviour always involves social groups, whether these take the form of concrete networks and gatherings of individuals such as pressure groups, demonstrations, governments, cadres or committees, or whether they are constituted as large-scale institutions or imagined communities (Anderson, 1991) such as polities, states, political parties, interest groups, publics, constituencies or electorates. In so far as social groups are central to politics, it follows that the psychology of groups should be relevant to our understanding of political psychology. Social Identity Theory and Self-Categorization Theory represent major theoretical attempts to clarify the social psychological processes associated with group membership and action, and should therefore be in a good position to provide a significant contribution to that understanding.
This paper looks at the meaning of the word queer and develops an understanding that is associated with the link that it has with the theory. It also brings to a fore a different equation of gender and sex that is developed by the theorists in the recent past. Though Queer theory is comparatively new in the sphere of literary criticism still it brings a lot of speculations and contestation of ideas along with its theoretical framework. This paper is intended to bring the basics of this theory by refereeing to the key theorists who have evolved it as a subject of academia.
Europe (in Theory) is an innovative analysis of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century ideas about Europe that continue to inform thinking about culture, politics, and identity today. Drawing on insights from subaltern and postcolonial studies, Roberto M. Dainotto deconstructs imperialism not from the so-called periphery but from within Europe itself. He proposes a genealogy of Eurocentrism that accounts for the way modern theories of Europe have marginalized the continent's own southern region, portraying countries including Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal as irrational, corrupt, and clan-based in comparison to the rational, civic-minded nations of northern Europe. Dainotto argues that beginning with Montesquieu's The Spirit of Laws (1748), Europe not only defined itself against an "Orientalâ€_x009d_ other but also against elements within its own borders: its South.
As I recall, Professor Clark had more sense than to be my student at Columbia, but I heard a lot about him from admiring colleagues. Clearly he has fulfilled the promise they saw, and this remarkable Symposium is only one indicator of that. The article to which our attention is properly drawn, more than two and a quarter centuries into our nation's history, has an originalist base, tightly and persuasively focused on original understandings of the Supremacy Clause. Professor Clark lays out a cogent account of the Clause's politics and the centrality of its language to the most fundamental of constitutional compromises, that between the large states and the smaller states fearing domination in a world of simple democracy. It was not only, he argues, that the smaller states won Senate representation by state, not population, that could never be changed by amendment; it was also, and perhaps more importantly, that their own capacity to govern their populations, their obligations to place federal law above their own, could be affected only by measures in which the Senate participated – constitutional amendments, statutes, and treaties. Their equality in the Senate, then, had real bite. If the Senate did not participate in the measure, the Supremacy Clause would impose no obligation. The main point of the analysis presented here is captured by my tile: "The Perils of Theory." We'll start with the text. The words of the Constitution command us all, as the supreme legal document of our polity. But in my judgment, we cannot afford to have contemporary constitutional understandings of that text governed by the particular theoretical understandings that may have animated the choice of those words. So, after addressing the text, we will turn to other matters.
The article presents the theoretical basis for privatisation. The vast jumble of goods and services can be sortedand classified according to two characteristics: exclusion and consumption. Goods and services are subject toexclusion if the potential user of the goods can be denied the goods or excluded from using them unless he meets theconditions set by the potential suppliers. The other relevant characteristic of goods and services has to do withconsumption. Some goods may be used or consumed jointly and simultaneously by many customers without being diminished in quality or quantity, while other goods are available only for individual (rather then joint) consumption;that is, if they are used by one consumer, they are not available for consumption by other. Goods can beclassified according to the degree to which they possess these two properties. The result is four idealised kinds ofgoods: individual goods (characterised by exclusion and individual consumption), toll goods (exclusion and jointconsumption), common-pool goods (nonexclusion and individual consumption), and collective goods(nonexclusion and joint consumption).The resulting classification determines the roles of government and of the nongovernmental (private) institutionsof society in supplying the goods and services. It examines the basic goods and services that people want andneed and discusses the intrinsic characteristics that permit them to be categorised usefully as private, toll, common-pool, or collective goods. It clarifies the role of collective action in supplying each of these kinds of goods.