Advertisement

Margaret S. Archer und die Kultursoziologie

  • Rainer Schützeichel
Living reference work entry
Part of the Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften book series (SRS)

Zusammenfassung

In der Tradition des Kritischen Realismus vertritt Margaret S. Archer eine soziologische Kulturtheorie, die Kultur als eine gegenüber sozialen Strukturen und Beziehungen autonome Sphäre auffasst. Der Beitrag stellt die argumentativen Begründungen für diese Position dar und verortet diese im Kontext zeitgenössischer kultursoziologischer Forschung. Von besonderer Relevanz ist diesbezüglich die Kritik von Archer an solchen Theorien, die der Kultur die Funktion sozialer Integration zusprechen.

Schlüsselwörter

Kritischer Realismus Mythos kultureller Integration Emergenz und Autonomie von Kultur kultureller Wandel Morphogenese 

Literatur

  1. Archer, Margaret S. 1979. Social origins of educational systems. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Archer, Margaret S. 1985. The myth of cultural integration. British Journal of Sociology 36:333–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer, Margaret S. 1988. Culture and agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Archer, Margaret S. 1995. Realist social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Archer, Margaret S. 1996a. Social integration and system integration. Sociology 30:679–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Archer, Margaret S. 1996b. Morphogenesis versus structuration on combining structure and action. In Anthony giddens. Critical assessments, Hrsg. Christopher G. A. Bryant und David Jary, Bd. 2, 25–52. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Archer, Margaret S. 2000. For structure: Its reality, properties and powers. A reply to Anthony King. The Sociological Review 48:464–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Archer, Margaret S. 2005. Structure, culture and agency. In The Blackwell companion to the sociology of culture, Hrsg. Mark D. Jacobs und Nancy Weiss Hanrahan, 17–34. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Archer, Margaret S. 2007a. Making our way through the world. Human reflexivity and social mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Archer, Margaret S. 2007b. The ontological status of subjectivity: The missing link between structure and agency. In Contributions to social ontology, Hrsg. Clive Lawson et al., 17–31. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Archer, Margaret S. 2007c. The trajectory of the morphogenetic approach. An account in the first person. Sociologia, Problemas E Prácticas 54:35–47.Google Scholar
  12. Archer, Margaret S. 2011. Morphogenesis: Realism’s explanatory framework. In Sociological realism, Hrsg. Andrea M. Maccarini et al., 59–95. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Archer, Margaret S. 2012. The reflexive imperative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Archer, Margaret S., Hrsg. 2015a. Generative mechanisms transforming the social order. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Archer, Margaret S., Hrsg. 2015b. Social morphogenesis. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Archer, Margaret S., Hrsg. 2017. Morphogenesis and human flourishing. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Archer, Margaret S., und Dave Elder-Vass. 2012. Cultural system or norm cycles. European Journal of Social Theory 15(1): 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bhaskar, Roy. 1975. A realist theory of science. Hassocks: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  19. Bhaskar, Roy. 1979. The possibility of naturalism. Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  20. Buckley, Walter. 1967. Sociology and modern systems theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Donati, Pierpaolo, und Margaret S. Archer. 2015. The relational subject. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elder-Vass, Dave. 2007a. For emergence: refining Archer’s account of social structure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 37:25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elder-Vass, Dave. 2007b. Reconciling Archer and Bourdieu in an emergentist theory of action. Sociological Theory 25:325–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Elder-Vass, Dave. 2010. The casual power of social structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Elder-Vass, Dave. 2014. Social entitites and the basic of their powers. In Rethinking the individualism-holism-debate, Hrsg. Julie Zahle und Fion Colin, 39–53. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Frege, Gottlob. 1986. Der Gedanke. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  27. Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. King, Anthony. 1999. Against structure. A critique of morphogenetic social theory. The Sociological Review 47(2): 199–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. King, Anthony. 2010. The odd couple. Margaret Archer, Anthony Giddens and British social theory. The British Journal of Sociology 61:253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lawson, Tony, und Andrew Collier, Hrsg. 1998. Critical realism. Essential readings. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Lockwood, David. 1964. Social integration and system integration. In Explorations in social change, Hrsg. George K. Zollschan und Walter Hirsch, 244–257. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  32. Popper, Karl R. 1973. Objektive Erkenntnis. Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe.Google Scholar
  33. Zeuner, Lilli. 1999. Margaret Archer on structural and cultural morphogenesis. Acta Sociologica 42(1): 79–86.Google Scholar
  34. Zeuner, Lilli. 2001. Theory of culture. Margaret Archer versus classical sociology. Cultural Dynamics 13(1): 92–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität BielefeldBielefeldDeutschland

Personalised recommendations