Why We Need Neurosociology as Well as Social Neuroscience: Or—Why Role-Taking and Theory of Mind Are Different Concepts

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

Abstract

In Chap. 3, David Franks demonstrates why neurosociology and social neuroscience can be seen as complimentary to each other. Once again, neurosociology diverges from time-honored academic traditions, in this case shedding what T. D. Kemper referred to as our fortress mentality. Ironically to some, this complimentarity can only be achieved efficiently by being very clear about the units of analysis that distinguish the disciplines. This would be an interactional unit of analysis in sociology and an individual one in psychology. G. H. Mead’s role-taking and his four-staged theory of the act exemplifies the more voluntaristic sociological unit of analysis while learning theory, applicable to all mammals, distinguishes the psychological one. Suggestions are made to what kind of cross-disciplinary research could be conducted that would contribute to both fields.

Keywords

Mirror Neuron Inanimate Object Mind Reading Sociological Concept Social Neuroscience 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bogan, J. E., Dezure, R., TenHouten, W. D., & Marsh, J. F. (1972). The other side of the brain IV: The A/P ratio. Bulletin of the Los Angeles Neurological Societies, 37, 49–61.Google Scholar
  2. Cacioppo, J. T., & Bernston, C. C. (1992). Social psychological contributions to the decade of the brain: Doctrine of multilevel analysis. American Psychologist, 47, 1019–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cacioppo, J. T., Visser, P. S., & Pickett, C. L. (2006). Social Neuroscoence: People thinking about other people. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Franks, D. D. (1989). Role-taking, social power and imperceptiveness: The analysis of rape. In Denzin Norman (Ed.), Studies in symbolic interaction (pp. 229–259). Stamford: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  5. Franks, D. D. (2010). Neurosociology: The nexus between neuroscience and social psychology. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Iacoboni, M. (2008). Mirroring people: The new science of how we connect with others. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  7. Mead, G. H. (1934). In C. Morris (Ed.). Mind, self and society. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Mitchell, J. P., Mason, M. F., Macrea, C. M., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). Thinking about others: The neural substrates of social cognition. In J. Cacioppo, P. S. Visser, & C. L. Pickett (Eds.), Social neuroscience: People thinking about people (pp. 63–82). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Montague, P. R., Burns, G. S., Cohen, J. D., et al. (2002). Hyperscanning: Simultaneous fMRI during linked social interactions. NeuroImage, 16(4), 1159–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Montague, P. R., King-Casas, B., & Cohen, J. D. (2006). Imaging valuation models in human choice. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 29, 417–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Stone, V. (2006). Theory of mind and the evolution of social intelligence. In J. T. Cacioppo, P. S. Visser, & C. L. Pickett (Eds.), Social neuroscience: People thinking about people (pp. 103–130). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Thomas, D. L., Franks, D. D., & Calonico, J. M. (1972). Role-taking and power in social psychology. American Sociological Review, 37, 605–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations