Bakker 2016 4 The Neglected Marginal Man Thesis 4 (original) (raw)

The Marginalists’ Foundations of Modern Sociology

Edulight, 2018

Two names of social scientists are mentionable for the popularity of ‘Marginal’ concept in sociology. Both of them belong to America. The first one is Robert Ezra Park and the other is Everett V. Stonequist. Park is noted for his thought on ‘Urban Sociology’ and ‘Human Ecology’. In his concept ‘marginal position’ is the result of ‘social control’ and helps to establish social order. This idea has been differently extended by his student Stonequist. He saw the negative effects of cultural marginality in personality construction. ‘Alien’ identity clutches a marginal man, who ‘poised in psychological uncertainty between two or more social worlds’. Chicago School identified marginal personality as a condition of cultural composition. This positional aspect denotes a ‘time and space’ relationship, which is a crucial element of methodological foundation of modern sociology. This essay is an endeavour to trace the sociological link with marginalist foundations in a way of development of its modern forms, where marginal is overcast with relative weakness.

Current Sociological Theory - Hunter College - Spring 2015

No one knows what current social theory is. To begin with, there is no disciplinary consensus over what constitutes "sociological" or "social" "theory." Sociology has been heavily influenced by a disparate array of voices and disciplines. No good theorist knows where to draw the disciplinary line, and most think that such a task is (at best) counterproductive. There is also the question of timespan: Classical social/sociological theory syllabi tend to end in the 1920s, at the latest. This leaves around 100 years of social thought to cover in sixteen weeks of coursework. That is not possible. We are not going to bother trying to do that.

DS on Individual & Society 1 2002 .pdf

The opposition of individual and society lies at the foundation of theoretical thinking about the conditions for being human. Apparently views on social interaction fall prey to two opposing stances, that of sociological individualism and that of sociological universalism (these terms found a pronounced articulation in the thought of the German sociologist from the first half of the 20th century, Othmar Spann -compare his work from 1930). The dilemma entailed in this opposition is closely related to the distinction between differentiation and integration. When this distinction is added to the problem, the initial problem is translated into a related one, namely that of the relation between action and order. In order to get a hold on these issues, preliminary questions, such as those related to the nature of reality and those accounting for the status of (scientific) knowledge, are treated. The distinction between rationalism and irrationalism appears to hinge upon the account one gives for the relationship between universality and individuality. Taken that into account this in turn, serves to elucidate the complex nature of nominalism, both in its opposition to realism and with regard to the foundational role it plays in respect of methodological individualism in social theory. After the conceptions of three classical sociological thinkers are examined (Tönnies, Spencer and Durkheim), we proceed with the argument that organicism may be advocated both in an individualistic and a universalistic fashion. A brief orientation is then given regarding the nature of analogical concepts, which is followed up by a treatment of the connection between universalism and biotical analogies, with reference to Parsons and Münch. In conclusion a summary of the line of argumentation followed in this article is given with a view to the follow-up article which will attempt to commence with an approach possibly capable of transcending the impasse of individualism and universalism in sociological theory.