Premium
On the failure of social theory
Author(s) -
Abell Peter,
Reyniers Diane
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
the british journal of sociology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.826
H-Index - 92
eISSN - 1468-4446
pISSN - 0007-1315
DOI - 10.1080/00071310020015352
Subject(s) - citation , politics , schools of economic thought , sociology , library science , social science , political science , computer science , law , economics , neoclassical economics
Social theor y has failed intellectually, yet by most academic and popular standards it continues to attract all the trappings of success. Why should this be so? To furnish an answer one must examine the nature of social theory itself, explore the character of its failure and seek an understanding of how, nevertheless, it continues to attract approval. In the latter respect a sociological account of the functions which social theory plays in both intellectual and practical life is required. Rather than targeting social theory in the round we shall critically review aspects of Castells’ volume The Rise of the Network Society (Volume 1 only). Castells’ writings would be endorsed by most social scientists as an exemplar of what is usually termed social theory. That The Rise of the Network Society is successful is beyond all doubt; rst published in 1996 it has already been reprinted four times and attracted rave reviews from other social theorists. Cardoso (a political scientist) describes it as ‘A masterpiece . . . (which) will have an enormous impact on (the) social sciences.’ Giddens (a sociologist) opines that ‘. . . it is a very major work of social and economic theor y’ and nally, Touraine (another sociologist) writes: ‘Castells’ master book rediscovers the highest ambition of modern social science.’ Furthermore, Castells appears to have attracted much attention outside academic circles. He was appointed to the European Commission’s High level Expert Group on the Information Society and, was sought by the Russian political authorities to advise on similar matters. The applause of other social theorists is not perhaps unexpected, it being one of the appurtenances of the calling that much mutual appreciation (and citation) takes place. There is after all a shared interest in the promotion of the genre. If, however, the whole enterprise is shaky, the extra-academic appreciation is more dif cult to comprehend. Perhaps the European Commission and the Russian authorities were spellbound by the possibilities inherent to the following: