Table Of ContentSOCIOLOGICAL
DILEMMAS
Toward a Dialectic Paradigm
PIOTR SZTOMPKA
Department of Sociology
Jagiellonian University
Krakow, Poland
ACADEMIC PRESS
A Subsidiary of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers
New York London Toronto Sydney San Francisco
COPYRIGHT © 1979, BY ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
NO PART OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE REPRODUCED OR
TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS, ELECTRONIC
OR MECHANICAL, INCLUDING PHOTOCOPY, RECORDING, OR ANY
INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM, WITHOUT
PERMISSION IN WRITING FROM THE PUBLISHER.
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
Ill Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10003
United Kingdom Edition published by
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC. (LONDON) LTD.
24/28 Oval Road, London NW1 7DX
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Sztompka, Piotr.
Sociological dilemmas.
Bibliography: p.
Includes indexes.
1. Sociology. 2. Sociology—Philosophy.
3. Sociology — Methodology. 4. Sociology—Histori
ography. 5. Knowledge, Sociology of. I. Title.
HM24.S953 301 79-51686
ISBN 0-12-681860-6
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
79 80 81 82 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
I dedicate this book to my students—
Polish and American
The clash of doctrines is not a disaster
but an opportunity.
—Alfred N. Whitehead
The task is to make us aware of Marxist method\
to throw light on it as an unendingly fertile
source of solutions to otherwise intractable dilemmas.
—Georg Lukacs
Preface
What are the shortcomings of sociological theory? The only way to an
swer this question is to study sociological theory analytically and critically.
In conducting this type of study, I confronted several perennial dilemmas
faced by sociological theorists since the beginning of scientific sociology.
My attempt to overcome those dilemmas resulted in the clarification and
reformulation of traditional assumptions. Then it occurred to me that the
new dialectic "paradigm" produced as a synthesis of positivistic and subjec-
tivistic approaches is, after all, not so new; it was already implicitly present
in the theoretical works of Karl Marx. The further reading of Marx con
vinced me that there is still a lot to be learned from the author of Capital,
especially if he is treated as a scientific theorist rather than a political
prophet.
In this book I argue against the nihilistic rejection of sociological tradi
tion, and for the creative reformulation of earlier theories; against oppor
tunistic eclecticism, and for a clear theoretical commitment; against narrow
empiricism, and for theoretically informed research; against closed, dog
matic "schools," and for the mutual cross-fertilization of theories. My case
for dialectic sociology, and against both positivistic and subjectivistic
sociology, is only as strong as these arguments. Only if they are found valid
Xlll
xiv Preface
will the final message make sense. There is a way out of the theoretical
crisis, and the way can be spotted by taking full stock of the sociological
heritage, with due recognition given to Marx and Marxism.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In the process of producing this book I have become seriously indebted
to several persons. Listing my debts here is certainly not enough to repay
them, but my creditors will perhaps find some consolation in the fact that I
do remember.
To begin with, I am grateful to the large number of students who have
attended my courses in the history of sociology, contemporary sociological
theories, Marxian historical materialism, and philosophy of the social sci
ences, and by their critical, skeptical, and sometimes slightly aggressive
attitude, made me strive hard for clarity of thought and exposition. Some of
those students are Polish, since I usually teach at the Institute of Sociology
of the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland. But some are also Ameri
can, since every summer since 1974 I have had the opportunity to teach at
the Sociology Department of Columbia University. All of them have given
some intangible contribution to the final intellectual result, and this explains
why this book is dedicated to them.
I wish also to mention Robert K. Merton and Bernard Barber—two
scholars who gave me invaluable encouragement in the struggle with con
cepts, ideas, and theories. I hesitate to call them my friends, because of the
great reverence I feel for their scientific achievement and academic stand
ing, but both of them are generous enough to treat me as a friend. This is a
gift for which no gratitude is sufficient.
Finally, I have a great appreciation for the editorial staff of Academic
Press—for their expert skills, friendly attitude, and most efficient arrange
ment of all practical matters, made more difficult than usual by the geo
graphical distance separating the author from the publisher.
QUOTATION CREDITS
The author gratefully acknowledges permission to reprint excerpts from
the following works.
Abel, T., The Foundation of Sociological Theory. New York: Random House,
Inc., 1970. Copyright © 1970 by Random House, Inc.
Preface xv
Andreski, S., Social Sciences as Sorcery. New York: St. Martin's Press, In
corporated, 1972. Copyright © 1972 by St. Martin's Press, In
corporated.
Barton, A., Empirical methods and radical sociology: A liberal critique. In
Radical Sociology, edited by J. David Colfax and Jack L. Roach. New
York: Basic Books, Inc., 1971. © 1971 by Basic Books, Inc.,
Publishers.
Bierstedt, R., Florian Znaniecki on Humanistic Sociology. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press. Copyright © 1969 by The University of
Chicago Press.
Bierstedt, R. The Social Order. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1963.
Birnbaum, N., The crisis in Marxist sociology. In Radical Sociology, edited
by J. David Colfax and Jack L. Roach. New York: Basic Books, Inc.,
1971. © 1971 by Basic Books, Inc., Publishers.
Blau, P., Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 1964. Copyright © 1964 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Blumer, H., Sociological implications of the thought of George Herbert
Mead. American Journal of Sociology 1, 1966. Copyright © 1966 by The
University of Chicago Press.
Boulding, K., The Impact of the Social Sciences. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rut
gers University Press, 1966. Copyright © 1966 by Rutgers, The State
University.
Coser, L. A., Masters of Sociological Thought. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, Inc., 1971.
Dahrendorf, R., Essays in the Theory of Society. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford
University Press, 1968.
DiRenzo, G. J. (Ed.), Concepts, Theory, and Explanation in the Behavioral
Sciences. New York: Random House, Inc., 1966. Copyright © 1966
by Random House, Inc.
Durkheim, E., The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Free Press,
1962. Copyright © 1962 by Free Press.
Eisenstadt, S. N. and M. Curelaru, The Form of Sociology: Paradigms and
Crises. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1976. Copyright © 1976
by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Fletcher, R., The Making of Sociology, Vols. 1 and 2. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1971.
XVI Preface
Homans, G. C, The Nature of Social Science. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, Inc., 1967.
Homans, G. C, Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1974.
Israel, J., The principle of methodological individualism in Marxian epis-
temology. In Acta Sociologica, Vol. 13. Oslo, Norway: Universitets
for läget.
Kuhn, T. S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1970. Copyright © 1970 by The Univer
sity of Chicago Press.
Martindale, D., The Nature and Types of Sociological Theory. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, I960.
Merton, R. K., Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press,
1957. Copyright © 1957 by Free Press.
Merton, R. K., The Sociology of Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1975. Copyright © 1975 by The University of Chicago Press.
Mills, J. S., The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1959.
Myrdal, G., An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy.
New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1964.
Myrdal, G., Objectivity in Social Research. New York: Pantheon Books,
1969. Copyright © 1969 by Pantheon Books, Division of Random
House, Inc.
Parsons, T., The Structure of Social Action. New York: Free Press, 1968.
Copyright © 1968 by Free Press.
Skidmore, W. L., Sociology's Models of Man. New York: Gordon and Breach
Science Publishers, Inc., 1975.
Skidmore, W. L., Theoretical Thinking in Sociology. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1975. Copyright © 1975 by Cambridge University
Press.
Sorokin, P., Sociological Theories of Today. New York: Harper & Row Pub
lishers, Inc., I960.
Staats, A. W., Social Behaviorism. Homewood, 111.: The Dorsey Press, 1975.
Swingewood, A., Marx and Modern Social Theory. London: The Macmillan
Press, Ltd., 1975. Copyright © 1975 by The Macmillan Press, Ltd.
U.S. distribution controlled by Halstead Press, a Division of John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
Preface xvii
Szymanski, A., Toward a radical sociology. In Radical Sociology, edited by
J. David Colfax and Jack L. Roach. New York: Basic Books, 1971.
Copyright © 1971 by Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New York.
Weber, M., The Methodology of the Social Sciences. New York: Free Press,
1949. Copyright © 1949 by Free Press.
Weber, M., The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York:
Free Press, 1947. Copyright © 1947 by Free Press.
1
CHAPTER
Critique of Sociology:
Traditions and Perspectives
CRITIQUE OF SOCIOLOGY:
TWO TRADITIONS
Judging by its level of critical self-consciousness, sociology is, indeed, the
most developed discipline. Perhaps no other science has paid so much
attention to its own deficiencies, no other science has spent so much of its
creative potential for self-destructive purposes, and no other science has
bred so many masochists who denounce their own jobs as "sorcery" (An-
dreski, 1972), "pseudo-science" (Kirk, 1961), or a bag of "fads and foibles"
(Sorokin, 1956).
To be sure, some measure of criticism is simply indispensable for the
development of science. As an eminent Polish sociologist has remarked,
"Science, together with other domains of culture, is such a peculiar sort of
reality, whose fate depends on the amount of thinking devoted to it [Os-
sowski, 1967, Vol. IV: 1021.]" But there are various kinds of thinking, by
no means equivalent in their potential impact oft the course and the fate of
science. Some thinking may be destructive, and some constructive; some
may be fruitless, and some fruitful; some may lead to pessimism, and some
3
