Society

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 207–213 | Cite as

Peter Berger and His Critics: The Significance of Emergence

Symposium: Peter Berger’s Achievement in Social Science

Abstract

Peter Berger has attempted to develop an account of the relationship between social structure and human agency that navigates a middle way between voluntarism and determinism. Berger’s approach has been criticised by social theorists for reproducing, rather than transcending, the very errors of voluntarism and determinism that he strives to avoid. However, the critics have focused on Berger’s explicit, meta-theoretical pronouncements about the nature or ontology of the social world, whilst ignoring the more sophisticated account of the structure agency relationship that is implicit in, and presupposed by, his substantive sociological research. The notions of ‘emergence’ and ‘emergent properties’ are used to develop an account of the structure-agency relationship that is consistent with Berger’s concrete sociological work, whilst avoiding the shortcomings of his explicit reflections about the nature of the social world.

Keywords

Berger Structure-agency relationship Ontology Emergence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper was prepared for the Atlas Economic Research Foundation’s Fund for the Study of Spontaneous Orders Conference in honour of Professor Peter Berger, held in Washington DC from September 7-11 2009. I am extremely grateful to the participants in the conference, in particular Virgil Storr, for enlightening discussions on the topic of this paper. The usual disclaimer applies.

Further Reading

  1. Archer, M. 1995. Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berger, P. 1966. Invitation to sociology. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, P. 1967. The sacred canopy. Garden City: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  4. Berger, P. 1980. Epilogue. In J. D. Hunter & S. C. Ainlay (Eds.), Making sense of modern times: Peter L. Berger and the vision of interpretive sociology. London: Routledge. New York: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  5. Berger, P., & Berger, B. 1978. Sociology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  6. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. 1966. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  7. Bhaskar, R. 1989. The possibility of naturalism. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  8. Ebeling, R. M. 1987. Cooperation in anonymity. Critical Review, 1, 50–61.Google Scholar
  9. Elder-Vass, D. 2007a. For emergence: Refining Archer’s account of social structure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 37, 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elder-Vass, D. 2007b. Reconciling Archer and Bourdieu in an emergentist theory of action. Sociological Theory, 25, 325–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hayek, F. A. 1948[1945]. The use of knowledge in society. In F. A. Hayek (Ed.), Individualism and economic order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hayek, F. A. 1952. The counter-revolution of science. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  13. Hayek, F. A. 1976. Law, legislation and liberty, volume II: The mirage of social justice. London: Routledge. Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Hodgson, G. M. 2007. Meanings of methodological individualism. Journal of Economic Methodology, 14, 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewis, P. A. 2010. Emergent properties in the work of Friedrich Hayek. Unpublished paper, King’s College London.Google Scholar
  16. Nozick, R. J. 1977. On Austrian methodology. Synthese, 36, 353–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sibeon, R. 2004. Rethinking social theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Storr, V. 2009. The social construction of the market. Mercatus Center Working paper No. 09-44. Arlington, VA.: George Mason University.Google Scholar
  19. Turner, B. S. 1992. Regulating bodies: Essays in medical sociology. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wisdom, J. O. 1973. The phenomenological approach to the sociology of knowledge. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 3, 257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wuthnow, R., Hunter, J. D., Bergessen, A., & Kurzweil, E. 1984. Cultural analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ManagementKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations