Self-generation of Social Reality and the Critique of Critical Realism: Margaret Archer and Andrew Sayer

Document Type : Research Article

Author

Department of Science and Technology Studies, Science and Technology Research Institute, Institute for Cultural, Social and Civilization Studies

10.22059/jisr.2022.336933.1271

Abstract

This article tries to critique the ontological perspective of Margaret Archer and Andrew Sayer’s epistemology on social reality. To explain the social world dynamism, Archer introduces morphogenetic social theory. Accordingly, she explain the social world by interaction between culture, agency and structure. Also, Andrew Sayer besides paying attention to the existing complexities in the nature of social reality, struggles to introduce a specific model upon which one can come up with a new formulation of the process of social knowledge. His model is based on the dialectical relation between the researcher (subject), research topic (object) and other subjects who work in a common linguistic community. The article criticizes both approaches because they do not pay attention to the self-generation of social reality. Self-generation is refer to the role of social reality (object) in changing and reproduction of itself. Bothe Archer’s morphogenesis and Sayer’s epistemology neglect the effective role of social reality in self-reproduction.

This article tries to critique the ontological perspective of Margaret Archer and Andrew Sayer’s epistemology on social reality. To explain the social world dynamism, Archer introduces morphogenetic social theory. Accordingly, she explain the social world by interaction between culture, agency and structure. Also, Andrew Sayer besides paying attention to the existing complexities in the nature of social reality, struggles to introduce a specific model upon which one can come up with a new formulation of the process of social knowledge. His model is based on the dialectical relation between the researcher (subject), research topic (object) and other subjects who work in a common linguistic community. The article criticizes both approaches because they do not pay attention to the self-generation of social reality. Self-generation is refer to the role of social reality (object) in changing and reproduction of itself. Bothe Archer’s morphogenesis and Sayer’s epistemology neglect the effective role of social reality in self-reproduction.

This article tries to critique the ontological perspective of Margaret Archer and Andrew Sayer’s epistemology on social reality. To explain the social world dynamism, Archer introduces morphogenetic social theory. Accordingly, she explain the social world by interaction between culture, agency and structure. Also, Andrew Sayer besides paying attention to the existing complexities in the nature of social reality, struggles to introduce a specific model upon which one can come up with a new formulation of the process of social knowledge. His model is based on the dialectical relation between the researcher (subject), research topic (object) and other subjects who work in a common linguistic community. The article criticizes both approaches because they do not pay attention to the self-generation of social reality. Self-generation is refer to the role of social reality (object) in changing and reproduction of itself. Bothe Archer’s morphogenesis and Sayer’s epistemology neglect the effective role of social reality in self-reproduction.

Keywords

References

  • Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press.
  • Archer, M. S. (1996). Culture and agency: The place of culture in social theory. Cambridge University Press.
  • Archer, M. S. (2007). Making our way through the world: Human reflexivity and social mobility. Cambridge University Press.
  • Archer, M. S. (2012). The reflexive imperative in late modernity. Cambridge University Press.
  • Bayani, F. (2020). The Structure of Reality in Social Science; an Alternative for Social Ontology. Tehran: Institute for Social and Cultural Studies. (In Persian)
  • Benton, T., & Craib, I. (2015). Philosophy of social science: The philosophical foundations of social thought. Translated by: Sh. Mosammaparast & M. Mottahed. Tehran: Agah.
  • Berger, P., & Luckman, T. (2008). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Translated by: F. Majidi. Tehran: Elmi Farhangi. (In Persian)
  • Bhaskar, R. (2005). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences (3rd). Routledge.
  • Bhaskar, R. (2010). Contexts of interdisciplinarity: interdisciplinarity and climate change. In Interdisciplinarity and climate change: Transforming knowledge and practice for our global future. Edited by R. Bhaskar, 1-24. London: Taylor & Francis.
  • Carter, S. M., & Little, M. (2007). Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action: Epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1316-1328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307306927
  • Cruickshank, J. (2004). A tale of two ontologies: an immanent critique of critical realism. The Sociological Review, 52(4), 567-585. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2004.00496.x
  • Durkheim, E. (1982). The rules of sociological method and selected texts on sociology and its method. Ed. S. Lukes. Translated by: W. D. Halls. New York: The Free Press.
  • Ehrbar, H. G. (2007). The relation between Marxism and critical realism. Critical realism and the social sciences: Heterodox elaborations, 224-239.
  • Giddens, A., & Dallmayr, F. R. (1982). Profiles and critiques in social theory. University of California Press.
  • Gunn, R. (1989). Marxism and philosophy: a critique of critical realism. Capital & Class, 13(1), 87-116.
  • Hammersley, M. (2009). Why critical realism fails to justify critical social research. Methodological Innovations, 4(2), 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/205979910900400201
  • Hay, C. (2006). Political analysis: A Critical Introduction. Tehran: Ney Publication.
  • Johnson, P. D. (2008). Contemporary sociological theory: An integrated multi-level approach. Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Kilminster, R. (1989). The Limits of Transcendental Sociology. Theory, Culture and Society, 6, 655-663.
  • Kilminster, R. (1989). The Limits of Transcendental Sociology. Theory, Culture & Society, 6(4), 655-663.
  • Kilminster, R. (2013). Phenomenology. In Blackwell dictionary of twentieth-century social thought. Edited by: W. Outhwait & T. Bottomore. Tehran: Ney Publication.
  • King, A. (1999). Against Structure: a Critique of Morphogenetic Social Theory. The Sociological Review, 47(2), 199-227. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.00170
  • Magill, K. (1994). Against Critical Realism. Capital & Class, 18(3), 113-136.
  • Malikian, M. (2004). Pests of philosophizing in contemporary Iran. Speech at Tehran University Faculty of Literature and Humanities; in cooperation with the Scientific Association of Philosophy Students of Tehran and Shahid Beheshti Universities. (In Persian)
  • Mutch, A. (2002). Actors and Networks or Agents and Structures: Towards a Realist View of Information Systems. Organization, 9(3), 477-496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135050840293013
  • Parker, J. (2007). Structuration. Translated by: H. Qazyan. Tehran: Ney Publication.
  • Pharies, A. D. (1985). Charles S. Peirce and the linguistic sign. Vol. 9. John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Porpora, D. V. (2013). Morphogenesis and social change. In Social morphogenesis, 25-37. Springer.
  • Porpora, D. V. (2016). The recent methods debate in american sociology and how critical realism fits into it. Journal of Critical Realism, 15(4), 342-351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2016.1193674
  • Reinharz, S., & Davidman, L. (1992). Feminist Methods in Social Research. Oxford University Press.
  • Ritzer, G. (1994). Sociological Theories. Translated by: A. R. Ghoravizadeh. Tehran: Jihad Daneshgahi. (In Persian)
  • Rutzou, T. (2016). Re-Imagining Social Science. Journal of Critical Realism, 15(4), 327-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2016.1195569
  • Ryan, M. (2005). Agency-Structure Integration. Encyclopedia of Social Theory (5-6).
  • Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: a realist approach. 2nd New York: Routledge.
  • Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and social science. Sage.
  • Sayer, A. (2010). Method in social science. Revised 2nd ed. Routledge.
  • Soroush, A. (1993). Bigger than ideology. Kian Journal, 14, 2-20. (In Persian)

Steele, G. R. (2005). Critical Thoughts about Critical Realism. Critical Review, 17(1-2), 133-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913810508443632 

Quarterly of Social Studies and Research in Iran
Volume 12, Issue 3 - Serial Number 48
Autumn 2023
December 2023
Pages 349-368

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics