Merton, la riflessività e la scienza sociale impossibile
This paper stresses the relevance accorded in Robert K. Merton’s sociology to self-referential circular processes, a thematic attention that gives his sociological analyses and theoretical constructs a peculiar ironic and paradoxical tone.The characteristics of this thematic attention for self-refer...
Gorde:
| Argitaratua izan da: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/qds, |
|---|---|
| Egile nagusia: | |
| Formatua: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Hizkuntza: | Italien |
| Argitaratua: |
Quaderni di Sociologia
2016
|
| Sarrera elektronikoa: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Gaia: | This paper stresses the relevance accorded in Robert K. Merton’s sociology to self-referential circular processes, a thematic attention that gives his sociological analyses and theoretical constructs a peculiar ironic and paradoxical tone.The characteristics of this thematic attention for self-referential schemes are shown by analysing the self-exemplifying nature of two essays, On the Shoulders of Giants (1965) and Travels and Adventures of Serendipity (Merton e Barber, 2002), that are commonly considered as standing aside in Merton’s production for their entirely paradoxical, humoristic style.It points out the genesis of this self-referential theme in early Merton’s works of the ’30s, showing its close connection with the theme of the unintended consequences of intentional action, considered by Merton as essential for the very existence of sociology as an independent theoretical discipline.It then proceeds to discuss the important role played by self-referential circular scheme — highlighting its connections with Merton’s conception of social science, of the relation between individual intentional action and social, structural conditions, and of sociological reflexivity — throughout his sociological work: from the study of sociological ambivalence to the critique of functionalist postulates, and from the self-fulfilling prophecy to the sociology of science. |
|---|