Human Studies

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 569–599 | Cite as

Ontogenesis Versus Morphogenesis Towards an Anti-realist Model of the Constitution of Society

Theoretical / Philosophical Paper
First Online:

Abstract

This article firstly criticizes Margaret Archer’s Morphogenetic Approach for being indecisive about the realist notion of emergence it proposes as well as for her inadequate account of structural conditioning. It is argued that critical realists’ conceptualizations of emergence cannot but lead to inconsistencies about the adequate placement of agents as parts of emergent entities. The inconsistencies to which these conceptualizations lead necessitate an anti-realist model of the constitution of societies which takes into account that social structures are existentially dependent upon ideational elaboration. This alternative anti-realist theoretical perspective is provided by Ontogenesis, within the framework of which the realists’ idea of the ‘necessary and internal relations’ give their place to the ontological pervasiveness of the culturally shared imaginary schemata. Archer’s denial of a collective synchronic impact to social forms is implied in her analysis of morphogenetic cycles, according to which, structural elaboration post-dates social interaction; and this denial is also expressed in this very idea of emergent structures. Instead, for Ontogenesis, social forms are synchronically dependent on the collective impact of the differently socially placed agents, who have different interests and material resources, and whose interaction only becomes meaningful when drawing on these culturally shared imaginary schemata.

Keywords

Ontogenesis Morphogenesis Margaret Archer Social anti-realism Social imaginary 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. Archer, M. S. (1982). Morphogenesis versus structuration: On combining structure and action. The British Journal of Sociology, 33(4), 455–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The Morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer, M. S. (1996). Culture and agency: The place of culture in social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archer, M. S. (2000). For structure: its reality, properties and powers: A reply to Anthony King. The Sociological Review, 48(3), 464–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Archer, M. S. (2013). Social morphogenesis and the prospects of the morphogenic society. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Social morphogenesis. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Archer, M. S., & Elder-Vass, D. (2012). Cultural system or norm circles? An exchange. European Journal of Social Theory, 15(1), 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bedau, M. A. (1997). Weak emergence. Noûs, 31(s11), 375–399.Google Scholar
  9. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London and New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  10. Bhaskar, R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. London and New York: Routlegde.Google Scholar
  11. Bhaskar, R. (2011). Reclaiming reality: A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Burns, T. R., & Engdahl, E. (1998a). The social construction of consciousness, Part 1: Collective consciousness and its socio-cultural foundations. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 5(1), 67–85.Google Scholar
  13. Burns, T. R., & Engdahl, E. (1998b). The social construction of consciousness, Part 2: Individual selves, self-awareness, and reflectivity. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 5(2), 166–184.Google Scholar
  14. Castoriadis, C. (1987). The imaginary institution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Castoriadis, C. (1997). World in fragments: Writing on politics, society, psychoanalysis, and the imagination. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Castoriadis, C. (2007). Figures of the thinkable. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Chalmers, D. J. (2009). Ontological anti-realism. In D. J. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics: New essays on the foundations of ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Elder-Vass, D. (2007). For emergence: Refining Archer’s account of social structure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 37(1), 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elder-Vass, D. (2010). The causal power of social structures: Emergence, structure and agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elder-Vass, D. (2012). The reality of social construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Falmagne, R. J. (2004). On the constitution of “Self” and “Mind”: The dialectic of the system and the person. Theory and Psychology, 14(6), 823–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harré, R. H. (1975). Images of the world and societal icons. In K. D. Knorr, H. Strasser, & H. G. Zilian (Eds.), Determinants and controls of scientific development. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  23. Harré, R. (2002). Social reality and the myth of social structure. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(1), 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harré, R., & Varela, C. R. (1996). Conflicting varieties of realism: Causal powers and the problems of social structure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 26(3), 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Joas, H. (1996). The creativity of action. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kaidesoja, T. (2009). Bhaskar and Bunge on social emergence. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 39(3), 300–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kemp, S. (2011). Interests and structure in dualist social theory: Acritical appraisal of archer’s theoretical and empirical arguments. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 42(4), 489–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. King, A. (1999a). The impossibility of naturalism: The antinomies of Bhaskar’s realism. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 29(3), 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. King, A. (1999b). Against structure: A critique of morphogenetic social theory. The Sociological Review, 47(2), 199–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lawson, T. (2013). Emergence and morphogenesis: Causal reduction and downward causation? In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Social morphogenesis. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Lewis, P. (2000). Realism, causality and the problem of social structure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(3), 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Porpora, D. V. (1993). Cultural rules and material relations. Sociological Theory, 11(2), 212–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sawyer, R. K. (2001). Emergence in sociology: Contemporary philosophy of mind and some implications for sociological theory. American Journal of Sociology, 107(3), 551–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sawyer, R. K. (2004). The mechanisms of emergence. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34(2), 260–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and social science. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taylor, C. (1995). The dialogical self. In R. F. Goodman & W. R. Fisher (Eds.), Rethinking knowledge: Reflections across the disciplines. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  37. Taylor, C. (2002). Modern social imaginaries. Public Culture, 14(1), 91–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taylor, C. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Durham, London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Winch, P. (1958). The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations