Explorations in Social Theory

From Metatheorizing to Rationalization

George Ritzer, Author

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2001
• Print ISBN: 9780761967736, 9780761967729
• eBook ISBN: 9781473946057
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

George Ritzer is one of the leading social and cultural commentators of the present day. In this essential new book he considers some of the main tendencies in contemporary social theory. Included here are Ritzer?s latest reflections on the uses and misuses of metatheory. According to Ritzer, sociology is a multiparadigm science. The differences and intensities of rivalries between paradigms are often very confusing for students and even for professional sociologists. This book seeks to find a way out of the confusion by sketching out the lineaments of a new integrated sociological paradigm and demonstrates how this paradigm can be applied. It shows the various ways in which Ritzer has developed rationalization theory to shed light on professional integration, the shape of consumer culture, hyperrationality and the state of sociology today.

PART ONE

METATHEORIZING

1

METATHEORIZING IN SOCIOLOGY

There is strong antipathy, at least on the surface, among many sociological theorists to abstract (Stinchcombe, 1986) and grand (Hirsch et al., 1987) theorizing. Opponents argue that the abstraction of sociological theory should be greatly circumscribed and that theories should be derived from, and remain close to, the social world. This hostility is surprising because sociological theory, by its very nature, must be abstract, at least to some degree. It is also surprising because it comes from theorists; one would expect empiricists and practitioners to be hostile to the abstraction of sociological theory, but not theorists. After all, there is a need for at least some portion of the sociological community to think abstractly: if not theorists, who will function at this level?

This hostility to abstraction is related to an even stronger animosity among theorists toward those who analyze other theories, either theoretically or empirically. Such work is seen as doubly abstract: the study of abstract theories yields even more abstract results. Most sociological theorists are quite willing to allow sociologists to turn their theoretical arsenal and empirical tools on social and ideational phenomena but not on sociological theory. Clearly, however, sociological theory is a social and intellectual phenomenon that is, in turn, affected by a wide range of other social and cognitive phenomena. Thus, sociological theory, like any other social and ideational entity, can and should be studied theoretically and empirically.

In spite of the criticisms, the vast majority of theorists do, in fact, spend a good deal of time studying sociological theory in various ways. Some do this quite self-consciously in systematic efforts to deepen their understanding of various aspects of sociological theory. Others reflect on extant theories as a way of laying the basis for their own theories. Still others reflect on theory in order to get at basic principles that transcend theory.

As an example, let us focus for the moment on those who study theory as a basis for developing their own theories. Most such theorists (and this is true of most empiricists as well) in sociology do not spend large portions of their time studying the social world directly. Relatively few theorists develop and refine their theories while they study assembly-line workers or other denizens of the ‘real’ world.¹ Some may develop their theories as they analyze empirical data they have collected themselves. Others theorize on the basis of data collected and reported by other sociologists. Some may develop their theories, at least in part, on the basis of a careful study of, and reaction to, the work of other theorists. Still others may develop their theories by utilizing theoretical ideas drawn from other fields: economics, philosophy, psychology, etc. I suppose there are even those who practice ‘cerebral hygiene’ (which we usually associate with Comte and Spencer²) and whose theories emerge out of a kind of immaculate conception. The fact is that it matters little where the theories come from; what counts is whether they make sense and whether they help us understand, explain, and make predictions about the social world. Close contact with the social world may yield such theory, but so may intense involvement with the ideas of our theoretical predecessors and contemporaries. Similarly, such involvement can yield a deeper understanding of sociological theory as well as useful perspectives that overarch sociological theory.

My goal in this chapter is to describe and make the case for metatheorizing,³ the systematic study of sociological theory, as an independent and significant endeavor, albeit one that is intimately involved in sound theoretical and empirical work. Most theorists (and other kinds of sociologists as well) do a great deal of metatheorizing. Thus, this chapter is not proposing something new, but rather is giving explicit recognition to a process that has been a reality in sociology since its inception.⁴ My secondary objective is to help metatheorists come ‘out of the closet’.⁵ Too often, those who metatheorize have been subjected to vitriolic attacks, especially by fellow theorists (who themselves are often unwitting practitioners of this traditional form of work in sociology). There is nothing reprehensible about metatheorizing; some of the most important classic thinkers (Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Parsons) were, and many key contemporary theorists (Habermas, Collins, Giddens, Alexander) are, avid metatheorists.

As I stated above, and explain in much greater detail in related works, metatheorizing lies at the base of much of sociological theory. If that is true, then what is the distinction between a metatheorist and a theorist? To put it (too) strongly, a metatheorist is one who studies sociological theories of the social world, while a theorist is one who studies the social world more directly in order to create (or apply) sociological theory. However, despite this seemingly neat distinction between metatheorist and theorist (and they are ideal types), the categories overlap to a great extent. For example, most of those we consider metatheorists also study the social world⁶ and most of those classified as theorists⁷ also study theoretical works. Furthermore, both theorists and metatheorists study documents. The theorist often examines documents derived from the social world while the metatheorist usually analyzes documents produced by theorists. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, substantial metatheorizing often precedes, and helps lead to, advances in social theory.

I must distinguish between those metatheorists who seek to lay down the prerequisites for doing theory before theory is developed, and those who take developed theories as their subject matter (Turner, 1991). In most other fields metatheorizing (and all forms of metaanalysis) is done after theories have been developed. Such metatheorizing may seek a better understanding of those theories, or it may seek to create new theory, or it may seek to create an overarching theoretical perspective. However, in Turner’s view⁸ most metatheorists in sociology do not study extant theory, but rather seek to create a metatheory (i.e. an overarching perspective) that in their view must be articulated before adequate theory can be developed. That is, ‘advocates of meta-theory usually emphasize that we cannot develop theory until we have resolved these more fundamental epistemological and metaphysical questions’ (1991: 9). Turner concludes, quite rightly in my opinion, that ‘such meta-theorizing has put the cart before the horse’ (1991: 9). Not only is such metatheorizing misplaced, but it leads us into an arena of substantial difficulty and irresolvable controversy. Because of these and other problems, metatheorizing, as the term is used here, is not a process that occurs before theory is developed in order to lay down its prerequisites. Rather, metatheorizing is a process that occurs after theory has been created and takes that theory itself as the object of study.

Paul Furfey (1953/1965: 8) in The Scope and Method of Sociology: A Metasociological Treatise claims to have introduced the term metasociology, of which metatheory is clearly a part. Furfey (1953/1965: 9) defines metasociology as a science distinct from sociology; that is, sociology takes as its subject matter the social world, ‘whereas the subject matter of metasociology is sociology itself’.⁹ This definition is in accord with the more specific approach to metatheory taken in this chapter. That is, theory focuses on the social world, while metatheory takes theory as its subject matter. However, it is useful to take a closer, critical look at the details of Furfey’s ideas because they will help us to clarify the meaning of metasociology and metatheory.

While he made an important beginning, Furfey has an orientation that involves a questionable approach to metasociology (and metatheory, in particular), an approach that has been attacked explicitly by Turner. Furfey is guilty of undertaking the kind of metasociology criticized by Turner.¹⁰ In spite of the way he defines the term, Furfey’s metasociology does not involve the study of sociology, but instead is a set of principles that is prior to, and presupposed by, sociology. He begins with the debatable assumption that sociology is a science and proceeds to argue that metasociology has three tasks to perform for the field. First, it is to develop criteria for distinguishing scientific from nonscientific sociological knowledge. Second, and reminiscent of Durkheim (but more than a half century later), metasociology is to differentiate between phenomena that are and are not relevant to the field of sociology. Third, ‘metasociology is to provide practical procedural rules for applying in actual sociological research the two sorts of criteria mentioned’ (1953/1965: 14).

Furfey’s (1953/1965: 17) work is dominated by his view that sociology is a science and metasociology is ‘an auxiliary science which furnishes the methodological principles presupposed by sociology’. In Turner’s terms, Furfey is here putting the cart before the horse. Metasociology should not provide a service to scientific sociology (or, for that matter, antiscientific sociology) but rather should take sociology as a subject of study.¹¹ Where I part company with Turner is over the type of metasociology, particularly metatheorizing, that takes sociology as its subject of study. Turner has more sympathy for this type of metasociology, but even here he concludes that metatheorizing bogs us down in unresolvable philosophical controversies. Turner’s criticisms here rest on practical grounds: metatheorizing prevents us from getting on with theorizing. While this may be the case, I will argue that a careful study of extant sociological theories can be a great aid in gaining a greater understanding of theory, creating transcendent perspectives, and creating and developing theories.¹² For instance, a number of examples come to mind of metatheorizing that proved highly useful in theory creation, including Marx’s study of Hegel, the young Hegelians, the French socialists, and the political economists; Parsons’s detailed analysis of Weber, Durkheim, and Pareto; and Alexander’s similar work on Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Parsons.

I also differ with Furfey over the idea that metasociology and implicitly metatheorizing are fields distinct from sociology. To my mind, metasociology in general, and metatheorizing in particular, are parts of sociology, subareas within the larger field (for a view – with which I am quite comfortable – that sees metatheorizing as an integral part of sociology, see the discussion of Bourdieu’s ‘socioanalysis’ later in the chapter).

In spite of Furfey’s position, and Turner’s critique of his orientation, the overwhelming majority of metasociological and metatheoretical efforts have not sought to predefine the field, but instead have studied what actually transpires in the field. Gouldner (1970) labels this kind of work the ‘sociology of sociology’, or, more specifically, ‘reflexive sociology’.¹³ Without getting into the ‘radical’ rhetoric¹⁴ that characterizes (and badly dates) The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology (1970) and Gouldner’s specific thoughts on reflexive sociology, I am quite satisfied with his position that ‘first and foremost, a reflexive sociology is concerned with what sociologists want to do and with what, in fact, they actually do in the world’ (1970: 489). More specific to the narrower aims of this chapter, Gouldner (1970: 46) is interested in getting at the ‘sub-theoretical level, the “infrastructure” of theory’. He is quite clear about the relationship between metatheory and metasociology: ‘My concern with a theory of social theories is only part of a larger commitment to a “sociology of sociology”’ (1970: 488). Gouldner’s sociology of sociology, and more particularly his ‘theory of social theories’, is much closer to the approach taken in this chapter than Furfey’s metasociology. However, as we will see, metatheorizing does not merely involve theorizing about theory; it also includes empirical studies of theories and theorists.¹⁵

Indeed, Gouldner had earlier done such an empirical study in Enter Plato: Classical Greece and the Origins of Social Theory (1965). Gouldner traced the roots of Plato’s theory to the social structure and culture of Athens. In addition, he offered ‘a critical case study of Plato as a social theorist’ (1965: 168). He was interested not only in gaining a deeper understanding of Plato’s theory, but also in deriving lessons from such an analysis relevant to contemporary theory. In the context of his discussion of Plato, Gouldner offered a good description of his meta-theoretical approach: ‘Some social scientists are interested in studying industrial workers; some study physicians; and still others, drug addicts and prostitutes. I happen to be curious about social theorists, as part of a sociology of social science’ (1965: 170–1).

Sociologists in general, and sociological theorists in particular, are not the only ones to do metaanalysis, that is, to reflexively study various aspects of their own discipline. Others who do such work include philosophers (Radnitzky, 1973), psychologists (Gergen, 1973; 1986; Schmitt et al., 1984), political scientists (Connolly, 1973), other social scientists (see the various essays in Fiske and Shweder, 1986), and historians (White, 1973). Some of these efforts are quite similar to at least some types of metaanalysis in sociology, while others differ considerably from the types of work done in sociology. The key point is that the reflexive study of one’s own discipline is not the exclusive province of sociology.

Beyond the fact that metaanalysis is found in other fields, it is also true that various kinds of sociologists, not just metatheorists, do such analyses. We can group the various types of metaanalysis in sociology under the broad heading of metasociology, which we can define as the systematic study of sociology in general and of its various components: substantive areas (e.g. Hall’s 1983 overview of occupational sociology), concepts (Porpora’s 1989 analysis of the concept of ‘structure’), methods (metamethods: e.g. analyses by Coleman, 1986 and Bailey, 1987 of the micro–macro problem in social research; Brewer and Hunter’s 1989 effort to synthesize methods; Noblit and Hare’s 1988 work synthesizing qualitative methods), data (meta-data-analysis:¹⁶ e.g. Hunter et al., 1982; Fendrich, 1984; Wolf, 1986; Polit and Falbo, 1987; Hunter and Schmidt, 1989), and theories. It is the last, meta-theorizing, or the systematic study of sociological theory, that will concern us in this chapter.

Types of Metatheorizing

A wide variety of work can be included under the heading of sociological metatheorizing. What distinguishes work in this area is not so much the process of metatheorizing (it may vary greatly in a variety of ways),¹⁷ but rather the nature of the end products. In my view, there are three varieties of metatheorizing, with each largely defined by differences in its end product. The first type, metatheorizing as a means of attaining a deeper understanding of theory (M_u), involves the study of theory in order to produce a better, a more profound understanding of extant theory (Ritzer, 1987; 1988a). M_u is concerned, more specifically, with the study of theories, theorists, and communities of theorists, as well as with the larger intellectual and social contexts of theories and theorists. The second type, metatheorizing as a prelude to theory development (M_p), entails the study of extant theory in order to produce new sociological theory (Ritzer, 1989a). The third type, metatheorizing as a source of overarching theoretical perspectives (M_o), is oriented to the goal of producing a perspective, one could say a metatheory, that overarches some part or all of sociological theory. All three types involve the systematic study of sociologica...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part One Metatheorizing
• Part Two Rationalization Theory
• References
• Index