Advertisement

The Boundaries of Sociology and Its Relation to Other Sciences

  • Emiliana Mangone
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Psychology book series (BRIEFSPSYCHOL)

Abstract

Sociological knowledge is essential for a concrete and effective reading of social phenomena. The issue, however, is to build and maintain meaningful relations between sociological thinking and autonomy from other sciences without downplaying the need for integration and disciplinary interdependence. The evolution of sociology was characterized not so much the object of study, but the need to make this science autonomous from the others, and especially from natural sciences. The aim of this chapter is to explain, in general terms: (a) the evolutionary phases of this discipline; (b) the debate on its autonomy, which has seen two opposing positions, one aiming at a discipline akin to natural sciences, through the use of quantitative methods and measurements (positive method), and the other supporting the absolute autonomy of sociology, without any procedural contamination in scientific investigation (interpretive method); (c) the definition of the object of study of sociology and its boundaries; (d) the relation with other natural and social sciences, particularly with psychology.

Keywords

Method Psychology Research Sociology Transdisciplinarity 

References

  1. Alexander, J. C. (1982). Theoretical logic in sociology. Volume 1: Positivism, presuppositions and current controversies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  2. Allport, G. W. (1968). The person in psychology: Selected essays. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  3. Collins, R. (1988). Theoretical sociology. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  4. Comte, A. (1830). Cours de philosophie positive (Vol. 6). Paris: Bachelier.Google Scholar
  5. Coser, L. A. (1971). Masters of sociological thought. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  6. D’Angelo, G., & Mangone, E. (2016). Beyond the disciplinary borders: A new challenge. Journal of Mediterranean Knowledge, 1(1), 3–9.Google Scholar
  7. De Giacinto, S. (1965). In occasione della traduzione italiana di fads and foibles in modern sociology di P.A. Sorokin. Studi di Sociologia, 3(4), 342–350.Google Scholar
  8. Durkheim, É. (1893). De la division du travail social. Paris: Alcan.Google Scholar
  9. Durkheim, É. (1895). Les règles de la méthode sociologique. Paris: Alcan.Google Scholar
  10. Durkheim, É. (1897). Le Suicide: Étude de sociologie. Paris: Alcan.Google Scholar
  11. Durkheim, É. (1898). Représentations individuelles et représentations collectives. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, VI, 273–302.Google Scholar
  12. Ellwood, C. A. (1907). Sociology: Its problems and its relation. American Journal of Sociology, 13(3), 300–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ellwood, C. A. (1931). Scientific method in sociology. Social Forces, 10, 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. London: McMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldthorpe, J. H. (2000). On sociology. Numbers, narrative, and the integration of research and theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gouldner, A. W. (1970). The coming crisis of western sociology. New York: Basic Book.Google Scholar
  17. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Volume 1: Reason and rationalization of society. Boston: Bacon.Google Scholar
  18. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Volume 2: Lifeworld and system: a critique of rationalism reason. Boston: Bacon.Google Scholar
  19. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Levinson, D. J. (1964). Toward a new social psychology: The convergence of sociology and psychology. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 10(1), 77–88.Google Scholar
  21. LoConto, D. G. (2011). Charles A. Ellwood and the end of sociology. The American Sociologist, 42, 112–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Manicas, P. T. (1987). A history and philosophy of the social sciences. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Marturano, A. (2013). A theory of everything—Ervin Laszlo and Antonio Marturano. Integral Leadership Review, 13, 1. Retrieved June 20, 2015, from http://integralleadershipreview.com/8020-fresh-perspective-a-theory-of-everything-%C2%AD-ervin-laszlo-and-antonio-marturano/.Google Scholar
  24. Marsico, G. (2015). Striving for the new: Cultural psychology as a developmental science. Culture & Psychology, 21(4), 445–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  26. Morin, E. (1984). Sociologie. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
  27. Moscovici, S. (1961). La Psychanalyse: Son image et son public. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  28. Nicolescu, B. (1985). Nous, la particule et le monde. Paris: Le Mail.Google Scholar
  29. Nisbet, R. A. (1977). The sociological tradition. New York: Basic Book.Google Scholar
  30. Parsons, T. (1937). The structure of social action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  31. Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. New York: Glencoe.Google Scholar
  32. Parsons, T. (1954). Psychology and sociology. In J. Gillin (Ed.), For a science of social man: Convergences in anthropology, psychology, and sociology (pp. 67–101). New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Parsons, T. (1964). Social structure and personality. New York: Glencoe.Google Scholar
  34. Piaget, J. (1972). L’épistémologie des relations interdisciplinaires. In OCDE (ed.), L’interdisciplinarité: problèmes d’enseignement et de recherche dans les universités. Paris: OCDE. Retrieved June 20, 2015, from http://www.fondationjeanpiaget.ch/fjp/site/textes/VE/jp72_epist_relat_interdis.pdf.
  35. Shweder, R. A. (1990). Cultural psychology—What is it? In J. W. Stigler, R. A. Shweder, & G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology (pp. 1–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Small, A. E. (1906). The relation between sociology and other sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 12(1), 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sorokin, P.A. (n.d.). The nature of sociology and its relation to other sciences. University of Saskatchewan: University Archives & Special Collections, P.A. Sorokin funds, MG449, I, A, 3.Google Scholar
  38. Sorokin, P. A. (1931). Sociology as a science. Social Forces, 10(1), 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sorokin, P. A. (1937). Social & cultural dynamics: Vol. I: Fluctuation of forms of art. New York: American Book.Google Scholar
  40. Sorokin, P. A. (1941). Declaration of independence of the social sciences. Social Sciences, 16(3), 221–229.Google Scholar
  41. Sorokin, P. A. (1955). Testomania. Harvard Educational Review, XXV(4), 199–213.Google Scholar
  42. Sorokin, P. A. (1956). Fads and foibles in modern sociology and related sciences. Chicago: Henry Regnery.Google Scholar
  43. Sorokin, P. A. (1962). Society, culture, and personality: Their structure and dynamics, a system of general sociology. New York: Cooper Square.Google Scholar
  44. Sorokin, P. A. (1966). Sociological theories of today. New York/London: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  45. Sorokin, P. A. (1998). The boundaries and subject matter of sociology. In B. V. Johnston (Ed.), On the practice of sociology (pp. 59–70). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Thoits, P. A. (1995). Social psychology: The interplay between sociology and psychology source. Social Forces, 73(4), 1231–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Valsiner, J. (2014). An invitation to cultural psychology. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wallace, R. A., & Wolf, A. (1991). Contemporary sociological theory: Continuing the classical tradition. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  49. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. London: Collier-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  50. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  51. Zoll, R. (2000). Was ist solidarität heute? Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emiliana Mangone
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Human, Philosophic and Education Sciences (DISUFF)University of SalernoSalernoItaly

Personalised recommendations