Advertisement

Qualitative Sociology

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 106–120 | Cite as

Responsibility and sociological discourse

  • Michael A. Overington
Article

Abstract

This article reads Chaim Perelman's theory of argumentation in order to formulate the task of social theorizing as responsible discourse. Taking rationality as sound argument which proceeds in terms of a link between speaker's intentions (the audience) and the public, the first part examines Perelman's notions about the relativity of facts to particular traditions of communication which link speakers, argumentation, and publics. Accepting that this view, shared by many sociologists, allows for no general criterion of rationality to be used as a principle for responsible speaking, the second part discusses how a choice for one or another tradition of reasoning in sociology might responsibly be made. This criterion for choosing is presented in terms of the relative generality and breadth of intended audiences and the relative openness to criticism of traditions of discourse.

Keywords

Relative Generality Social Psychology Social Issue Relative Openness Social Theorize 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barnes, S.B. 1974 Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  2. —— 1976 “Natural rationality: A neglected concept in the social sciences.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 6: 115–126.Google Scholar
  3. Collins, H.M. 1975 “The seven sexes: A study in the sociology of a phenomenon.” Sociology 9: 205–224.Google Scholar
  4. Davis, Murray S. 1971 “That's interesting: Toward a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 1: 309–344.Google Scholar
  5. Gilbert, C. Nigel 1976 “The transformation of research findings into scientific knowledge.” Social Studies of Science 6: 281–306.Google Scholar
  6. Karon, Louise 1976 “Presence in the new rhetoric.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 9: 96–111.Google Scholar
  7. Law, John 1975 “Is epistomology redundant? A sociological view.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 5: 317–337.Google Scholar
  8. Leff, Michael C. 1978 “In search of Ariadne's thread: A review of the recent literature in rhetorical theory.” Central States Speech Journal 29: 73–91.Google Scholar
  9. Mendelsohn, Everett, Peter Weingart and Richard Whitley 1977 The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge. Boston: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  10. Mulkay, Michael J., G.N. Gilbert and S. Woolgar 1975 “Problem areas and research networks in science.” Sociology 9: 187–203.Google Scholar
  11. Overington, Michael A. 1977 “The scientific community as audience: Toward a rhetorical analysis of science.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 10: 143–164.Google Scholar
  12. —— 1979a “Doing what comes rationally: Some developments in metatheory.” The American Sociologist 14: 2–12.Google Scholar
  13. —— 1979b “I'm right and you're wrong; my mummy said so!” The American Sociologist 14: 31–34.Google Scholar
  14. --Forthcoming “A rhetorical appreciation of a sociological classic: Durkheim's Suicide.” Canadian Journal of Sociology.Google Scholar
  15. Perelman, Chaim and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca 1969 The New Rhetoric. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  16. Popper, Sir Karl 1970 “Normal science and its dangers.” Pp. 51–58 in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Ray, John W. 1978 “Perelman's universal audience.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 64: 361–375.Google Scholar
  18. Settle, Tom, Ian Jarvie and Joseph Agassi 1974 “Towards a theory of openness to criticism.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 4: 83–90.Google Scholar
  19. Wander, Philip C. 1976 “The rhetoric of science.” Western Speech Communication 40: 226–235.Google Scholar
  20. Weimer, Walter B. 1977 “Science as a rhetorical transaction: Toward a non-justificational conception of rhetoric.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 10: 1–29.Google Scholar
  21. Whyte, William F. 1979 “On making the most of participant observation.” The American Sociologist 14: 56–66.Google Scholar
  22. Ziman, John 1968 Public Knowledge: The Social Dimension of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Zollschan, George K. and Michael A. Overington 1976 “Reasons for conduct and the conduct of reason.” Pp.270–317 in George K. Zollschan and Walter Hirsch (eds.) Social Change: Explorations, Diagnoses, and Conjectures. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael A. Overington
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.St. Mary's UniversityHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.University of BathUK

Personalised recommendations