The Paradigm of Social Interaction

Nikolai Genov

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000478501
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

The monograph The Paradigm of Social Interaction presents a paradigmatic synthesis in sociology. This is a reaction to the growing paradigmatic divisions in the discipline and an attempt at fostering the cumulative development of sociological knowledge.

The suggested conceptual fusion includes micro-sociological interaction theories, recent theories of organizational interactions and the experience from the study on global trends. The intention is to support the building and explanatory application of middle-range theories in all action spheres and at all micro-, mezzo- and macro-social structural levels. The paradigmatic synthesis is developed around five analytical concepts of the determinants of social interactions: environmental, technological, economic, political and cultural complexes. Another conceptual framework fostering explanations consists of social actors, relations and processes as key parameters of the social interaction paradigm.

The book also examines the COVID pandemic as a multidimensional crisis, applying the synthetic paradigm as a heuristic tool and knowledge-organizing framework. It is used in the studies on social innovations, societal transformations and global social trends as well. The book will be of interest to researchers, university teachers anddoctoral and master's students in the fields of sociology, social theory, critical sociology, philosophy of social sciences, innovation and societal transformation studies.

Chapter 1Multi-paradigmatic sociology

DOI: 10.4324/9781003215028-1

This chapter was previously published in 2019 under the title ‘Multi-paradigmatic Sociology: Debates Present and Perennial’. The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 22(1): 24–46, doi.org/10.31119/jssa.2019.22.1.2 and is adapted for this book with modifications.

The confusing situation

In 1984 Niklas Luhmann made public an alarming diagnosis about the critical situation in sociology. He stressed the negative effects of the absence of theoretical unification in the discipline (Luhmann [1984] 1995: xiv). Today the core of the problem is well identified. It is the lack of systematic efforts toward a paradigmatic synthesis of beliefs, values, techniques, etc. shared in national as well as international sociological communities (Kuhn [1962] 1970: 175). Instead, sociology shows an increasing number of paradigms and hardly any sign of theoretical integration. In 1969 Walter Wallace presented 11 sociological paradigms (1969: 17–44) under the heading of “viewpoints”. Some 50 years later, the articles included in Seth Abrutyn’s Handbook of Contemporary Sociological Theory (2017) feature a wider variety of sociological paradigms and their backgrounds.

Most of these paradigms have well-known labels: structural functionalism, conflict theory, symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, phenomenological sociology, neo-Marxism, modernization theory, structuralism, structuration theory, psychoanalytical theory, feminism, world systems theory, social exchange theory, social networks theory, relational sociology (Donati 2012), etc. The followers of various paradigms usually coexist peacefully. Still, intellectual clashes among communities keeping to incompatible paradigms are well known as well (Bryman 2008). The results of the application of diverse paradigms in the study of the same or similar subjects are often incompatible. Taking the proliferation of sociological paradigms into account, the prospects for an efficient response to this alarming situation are discouraging. Moreover, there are voices supporting unrestricted paradigmatic pluralism. The major argument is that pluralism fosters creativity and sound competition as well as intellectual freedom in sociology.

Obviously, a mono-paradigmatic sociology is not in sight. But the limitless acceptance of a radically multi-paradigmatic strategy for sociology is risky. Under the conditions of volatile disciplinary cohesion, all kinds of imitations of sociological discourse might aspire to the status of autonomous sociological paradigms. This possibility is realistic since there are few widely shared conventions in sociology about the content and functions of theory, methodology, intersubjective verification and falsification. The tolerated deficit of shared disciplinary standards allows for divergent approaches to sociological explanation and hinders the development of an intellectually coherent sociological tradition.

The efforts of Talcott Parsons ([1937]1967), George Ritzer ([1981] 2001), Niklas Luhmann ([1997] 2012) and others to overcome this handicap have brought about modest results. The consequence is theoretical and methodological uncertainty, which negatively affects trust in the discipline’s relevance for both cognitive development and efficient participation in the management of social processes. This has become obvious in the ways of dealing with the crisis caused by massive cross-border migration or by the coronavirus. The problems regarding the quality of sociology’s contribution to the advancement of scientific knowledge and to the guiding of practical activities are even more complex. For instance, many open questions concern the migration of paradigms and their reappearance in modified versions under rather specific circumstances (Sapiro, Santoro and Baert 2020).

This situation invites correction, but the task is complicated. The variety of sociological paradigms is largely due to the high complexity of social reality. Resistance on the part of the followers of sociological paradigms against any paradigmatic synthesis is understandable. The motivation for resistance comes from deeply rooted differences in the meta-theoretical views about the character of social reality and the specifics of sociological studies. The confusing situation provokes numerous questions: What is, what can or what should be the major target of sociological research interests – the individual, with his/her status/role/characteristics, or society, with its functionally differentiated subsystems? Should priority in research be given to the actions of individuals, groups and organizations or to social structures as the objective outcomes of actions and their conditions? Should the process of theory construction in sociology focus on the integration of social systems or on their change?

Before beginning the search for proper reaction to the dilemmas, some key issues should be made explicit. The first concerns the very meaning of the term “paradigm”. A working definition could be helpful: “The paradigm guides observation by shaping the questions that are posed and the semantics through which a world can be described” (Gilbert 2019: 8). The second important issue concerns the cumulative development of sociological knowledge. This is the ideal of continuity between prior and newly acquired knowledge. The cumulative knowledge development is substantially disturbed in sociology because of diverging assumptions and incompatible patterns of explanation characterizing the numerous streams, schools, paradigms, etc. in the discipline. On the third place, the dilemmas which accompany the building, contents and use of paradigms are often the background of misunderstandings and controversies. The dilemmas might bolster both conceptual stability and creative uncertainty in the search for advancement in the sociological theorizing and research. In the fourth place, there is a perennial issue facing sociologists: Should the sociological studies focus on the meanings developed and used by acting individuals or on economic, political and cultural structures in the efforts to explain stability and change of social situations? Finally, should the sociological theorizing and research be satisfied with the attainment of good quality knowledge, or, special attention should be paid to issues of knowledge-based management of social processes?

Similar dilemmas challenge everyday activities too. However, the practical tasks’ resolution typically requires coordination and cooperation among individuals and collectives interested in the solving of problems. Optimistically seen, the different strategies for theory building and empirical research in sociology could follow the same pattern. This positive result might be achieved by comparing the efficiency of selected research approaches to the resolution of selected cognitive problems. This option for paradigmatic coordination, comparison and integration deserves to be taken seriously. But efforts to materialize it have regularly clashed with diverging institutional or personal interests in the discipline. Contrary to the regularly expressed support of integration projects, the rule reads that outstanding sociologists are quite often not interested in the intellectual integration of the discipline. The idea to establish and apply procedures to intersubjectively prove the efficiency of paradigms typically meets counterarguments and counteractions. Considerations concerning the establishment and maintenance of professional profiles, institutional impact, market realization and professional prestige take the lead in the debates. Paradigmatic differences are used for cutting rational discussions short or as an argument for the entrenchment of a given paradigm’s followers in isolation from that of others. Anyway, Douglas Porpora (2015: 5) has good reasons for his biting diagnosis of the current situation in sociology:

in contrast with physics, sociology cannot at all be described as a mature science. In Kuhnian terms, sociology is not even a science. It is instead what Kuhn called pre-science. The appropriate activity in pre-science situations, Kuhn suggested, was not normal science but continued work toward paradigmatic consensus.

Under these conditions, “doing sociology” is and will remain guided by a proclivity to develop and use diverging and conflicting paradigms. The specifics of sociological knowledge may play their role in supporting the reproduction of these contradictions. This is the explanation why reports about consequently and systematically carried out verifications and falsifications of paradigmatic propositions are rarities in sociology. One may identify cases of intersubjective evidence from the results of theoretical and empirical sociological studies. However, even such procedures are applied with substantial difficulties. The arguments “for” and “against” theoretical and methodological paradigmatic preferences, research techniques and procedures, results and conclusions refer to repeated and verifiable research results by exception only (Hassard and Cox 2013).

Therefore, it is not the complexity and changeability of social reality alone which make the paradigmatic integration and cumulative development of sociological knowledge so difficult. The acquisition, processing and use of sociological knowledge are deeply embedded in social reality, which is marked by divisions, confrontations and conflicts. Michel Wieviorka is certainly correct in arguing that “the grand paradigms on which researchers rely in social science can only be dissociated with difficulty from the context in which or for which they are worked out” (2012: 13–14). Perhaps he is also correct in raising the point that, in a long-term perspective, sociological knowledge cannot be strictly cumulative. The reason is linked to changes in the subject matter of sociological studies and related changes in the content, organization and style of sociological knowledge. But he continues his argumentation in the sense that there are no serious reasons to underestimate the possibility or the need to recognize the cumulative development of sociological knowledge in a relatively short-term perspective, for instance during the last half century (Wieviorka 2012: 14–15).

Are there prospects for a constructive solution?

The critical situation invites for search of alternatives to the continuing differentiation of sociological paradigms. The high complexity of the subject matter of sociological studies and the paradigmatic confrontations notwithstanding, a tendency toward a theoretical, methodological and institutional integration of sociology is manifest, as well (L’Abate 2012). The rapidly growing relevance of global processes and problems facilitates the tendency. Complex and complicated as they are, the global problems require concentration and integration of the knowledge needed for efficient problem management. This process is difficult and slow, but there are options for its acceleration. The building and use of an integrative conceptual framework in the foundations of sociological knowledge open prospects for the development of sociology as a cognitively and practically more relevant social science. This process is advancing in close connection with the building up and testing of explanatory models and middle-range theories. The conceptual developments are supported by the intensive search for commensurability among the approaches and outcomes of theoretical and empirical sociological studies.

The tasks in the development of an integrative sociological paradigm have to be approached and resolved at the level of general theory in sociology (Genov 1989; Porpora 2015). The high level of generalization therein opens up intellectual space for the analytical differentiation and integration of concepts, approaches and research methods. This is the condition for the balance between paradigmatic generalizations with explanatory models and middle-range theories. Under such conditions, the cumulative advancement of sociological knowledge could be possible and productive. This consolidation of knowledge can contribute to the enlightenment of broader audiences as well as to the effective use of sociological knowledge in the development and application of social technologies.

The strategy for resolving the problem consists of three steps.

First, rational decision is necessary about the conceptual core of the integrative sociological paradigm. On the basis of this decision, analytical concepts needed for the building of explanatory models are identified. In the optimal case, this cognitive development would come about with the formulation of hypotheses which could be tested at lower levels of abstraction. This is the stage of analytical description, mostly focused on the development and use of theoretical constructs. In the building of a fully-fledged theory of cross-border migration, the theoretical constructs could be combined with the descriptive scheme of push-pull migration factors. The first explanatory model developed on this paradigmatic basis would concern the system of push factors in the country of origin. Other explanatory models would concern the system of pull factors to the country of immigration. Finally, the explanatory model of stimuli and obstacles as factors should cover the two-way movements between the country of origin and country of destination of migrants (Genov 2018: 145–176).

Second, the analysis of the trajectories determining the stability and change of social structures provides the information needed for bringing abstract concepts closer to the study’s subject matter. This is the condition for the purposeful development and testing of hypotheses concerning explanatory models and their subject matter. This is the stage of categorical systematization in theory building.

Third, the coordinated functioning of the paradigmatic framework and the relevant explanatory models brings about middle-range sociological theories. This is the stage of theoretical concretization.

The outlined sequence of steps follows the usual procedures for building scientific theories (Gay and Weaver 2011). The process of theory building in the field of cross-border migration includes rational and nonrational elements in the context of dis...