Abstract
The previous chapter partly revolved around a discussion of the system/social-integration distinction in relation to Giddens’ structuration theory.1 It was argued that Giddens’ attempt to link system integration with macro, and social integration with micro (defining the micro-macro distinction in terms of the respective difference between ‘social interaction where others are present and social interaction with others who are absent’2) has not been very successful. This is hardly surprising, since identifying micro with ‘presence-availability’ in social interaction is not only unhelpful but downright misleading.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See A. Giddens, ‘Agency, institution and time-space analysis’, in K. Knorr-Cetina and A. V. Cicourel (eds), Advances in Social Theory and Methodology, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981, p. 173.
D. Lockwood, ‘Social integration and system integration’, in G. K. Zollschan and W. Hirsch (eds), Explorations in Social Change, London: Routledge, 1964.
Parsonian functionalism is the most representative example of the latter approach (despite its misleading labelling as action theory); and various conflict theories, as well as certain aspects of Marxism, of the former. For a discussion of the division in sociology along similar lines see A. Dawe, ‘the two sociologies’, British Journal of Sociology, vol. 21, no. 2, 1970, pp. 207–18; and
A. Gouldner, The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, London: Heinemann, 1970.
On these two fundamental aspects of rules see A. Giddens, The Constitution of Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984, pp. 17 ff.
See P. Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. See also Chapter 5, Section 3A.
M. Crozier, Le Phénomène Bureaucratique, Paris: Seuil, 1963.
See T. Parsons, ‘Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organisations’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 1, nos. 1 and 2, 1956, pp. 63–85 and 227–39; ‘Some ingredients of a general theory of formal organisation’, in A. W. Halpin (ed.), Administrative Theory in Education, Midwest Administrative Centre: University of Chicago, 1958; and ‘The mental hospital as a type of organisation’ in
M. Greenblatt, D. Levinson and R. H. Williams (eds), The Patient and the Mental Hospital, Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1957.
For an analysis of industrial social structure in terms of roles see E. V. Schneider, Industrial Sociology: The Social Relations of Industry and the Community, London and New York: McGraw-Hill, 1957, pp. 75 ff.
See W. F. Whyte, Man and Organisation, Homewood, Ill.: Richard Irwin, 1959, pp. 40–41.
See T. Parsons, The Social System, Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1951. For Parsons, institutions ‘are made up of a number of interdependent role patterns or components of them’, Ibid., p. 39.
See N. Smelser and M. S. Lipset (eds), Social Structures and Mobility in Economic Development, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966, p. 47.
See N. Smelser, Social Change in the Industrial Revolution, London: Routledge, 1963, pp. 104–5. For Smelser’s comments on the subcontracting system see Ibid., pp. 84 ff.
For a criticism of functionalism along such lines see A. V. Cicourel, ‘Basic and normative rules in the negotiation of status and role’, in H. P. Dreitzel, Recent Sociology, no. 2, London: Coller-Macmillan, 1970, pp. 4–48;
also P. Filmer et al., New Directions in Sociological Theory, London: Collier-Macmillan, 1972, pp. 57–76.
For an early formulation of the fundamental point that social causation always entails actors see R. M. McIver, Social Causation, New York: Harper, 1942. For the distinction between causal and logical relations, and its connection with the concepts of social and system integration,
see M. S. Archer, Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
It is precisely for this reason that Giddens has been accused of bringing in functionalism by the back door, both in his structuration theory and in his more empirically-oriented analysis. See L. Dellmayr’s critique of structuration theory in A. Giddens, Profites and Critiques of Social Theory, London: Macmillan, 1982, ch. 2.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1991 Nicos P. Mouzelis
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mouzelis, N.P. (1991). Social and System Integration: Back to Lockwood. In: Back to Sociological Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21760-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21760-1_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-21762-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-21760-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)