Skip to main content

Conclusion

  • Chapter
  • 48 Accesses

Abstract

The dimensions we have been focusing on can all be grasped by means of the concept of structure I considered in previous chapters. We can render the material constitution of social systems, their perspectives, their space-time configuration, their power relations, their dispositions and interests, their interactive inclinations, in terms of models or structures. The same is as true for their (de)centring and intentionality. To what degree do these elements influence the extent of the impact social systems exert in social life – that is how much do they contribute to what will be called hereafter their potency?1

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. R. Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1959) pp. 173–89.

    Google Scholar 

  2. G. Gurvitch, ‘Problème de sociologie generate’, in G. Gurvitch (ed.), Traité de sociologie, T. I (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1958) pp. 172ff.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Blumer has perceived this, but his debt to the sort of reactionary psychologism of Le Bon and others mars his discussion throughout. Cf. Herbert Blumer, ‘Collective Behavior’, in Alfred Clung Lee (ed.), Principles of Sociology (New York: Barnes & Noble, [1939] 1951).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Russell Hardin, Collective Action (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1982) pp. 41ff.

    Google Scholar 

  5. R. Bendix, Max Weber. An Intellectual Portrait (London: Heinemann, [1960] 1966) p. 87. See, however, Weber, Economy and Society, vol. 1, ch. 5; vol. 2, ch. 9.6.

    Google Scholar 

  6. David Zaret, The Heavenly Contract (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1985) p. 6. A partial exception to this is Wolfgang Schluchter, The Rise of Western Rationalism. Max Weber’s Developmental Perspective (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, [1979] 1981) pp. 166ff.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Avihu Zakai, Exile and Kingdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  8. R. C. Simmons, The American Colonies (London: Longman, 1976) pp. 209ff.

    Google Scholar 

  9. William G. McLoughlin, New England Dissent 1630–1833, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971) pp. xviii–xix. For Troeltsch, who conceptualised the dialectics of centring and decentring in religious life, the differences between Church and sect were ‘quite clear’: ‘The Church is that type of organization which is overwhelmingly conservative, which to a certain extent accepts the secular order, and dominates the masses; in principle, therefore, it is universal, i.e. it desires to cover the whole life of humanity. The sects … are comparatively small groups; they aspire after personal inward perfection, and they aim at a direct personal fellowship between the members of each group.’

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, vol. 1 (New York: Harper & Brothers, [1911] 1960) p. 331. It should be noted that, although much more centred, throughout its history the Catholic Church has also undergone internal movements of decentring, which are usually expressed in new orders, from the Franciscans to the Jesuits. Their role in the colonisation of America can hardly be overestimated.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Of course, this does not detract from the possibility that, at another level, a broader collective identity was necessary, and that the very idea of an American nation developed from the strain brought about by the fragmentation of sects which, having rejected the organicism of Anglicanism, needed some other form of (partial) ‘universalism’. This is suggested by Louis Hartz, The Founding of New Societies (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1964) p.11.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See R. Collins, Weberian Sociology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986) pp. 19ff.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 1995 José Maurício Domingues

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dọmingues, J.M. (1995). Conclusion. In: Sociological Theory and Collective Subjectivity. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230376342_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics