SOCJOLOGIA NA ROZSTAJU DRÓG. ZNACZENIE TEORII MARGARET S. ARCHER

Krzysztof Wielecki

Published: 2015-03-31

Vol. 10 No. 1 (2015)

Sociology at a crossroads: The significance of Margaret S. Archer’s Theory

Krzysztof Wielecki

Abstract

The author presentshis own concept oftypology ofparadigmsin contemporarysociologyand interpretation ofparadigmaticchangesin its history.He showsthe importanceof sociology inthe early days ofits history andtoday.Articledevelopsthe thesis ofcivilizationalcrisisof our times andlosingsociologyin these circumstances.In this context,MargaretS.Archer’stheorycan be understoodas anattempt to create asociologythatdoes not avoid theproblems ofthe present.Itrefersto them andaccompanies them. Similarly asother theoriesof this paradigm which areclassifiedby the authorto the paradigm ofdialecticalsynthesis.However,the Britishsociologistmanages toovercomemanyof the barriers, contradictions, antinomiesandaporiasencountered byother theories. Thiseffectauthorunderstandsas a result ofthe backresttheoryMargaretArcheronthebasis ofdeepphilosophicalandmeta methodologicalreflection, and especially on the groundsof critical realism, whichis, moreover,co-founded by Archer.

Keywords:

paradigmatic dissection, paradigma of dialectic synthesis, civilisational crisis, Margaret Archer

Download files

PDF (Język Polski)

Citation rules

Wielecki, K. (2015). Sociology at a crossroads: The significance of Margaret S. Archer’s Theory. Academic Journal of Sociology, 10(1). Retrieved from https://czasopisma.uksw.edu.pl/index.php/ucs/article/view/2910

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Archer M. S. (1995), Realist Social Theory: the Morphogenetic Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Google Scholar

Archer M. S. (2004), Emotions as Commentaries on Human Concerns, w: Turner J. H. (ed.), Theory and Research on Human Emotions, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Google Scholar

Archer M. S. (2006), Persons and Ultimate Concernes: Who We Are Is What We Care About, w: Conceptualization of the Person in Social Sciences Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, Eleventh Plenary Session, 18-22 November 2005, Acta 11, E. Malinvaud and M. A. Glendon eds, Vatican City, www.pass.va/content/dam/scienzesociali/pdf/acta11/ acta11-archer.pdf.
Google Scholar

Bourdieu P. (1990), Reprodukcja. Elementy teorii systemu nauczania, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Braudel F. (1999), Historia i trwanie, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Burrell G., Morgan G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis, London
Google Scholar

Cameron R. (1997), Historia gospodarcza świata. Od paleolitu do czasów najnowszych, Warszawa
Google Scholar

Comte A., (1951), Systeme de politique positive, L. Mathias, vol. II, p. 181, Paris.
Google Scholar

Cooley Ch. H. (1964), Human Nature and the Social Order, New York.
Google Scholar

Davies N. (1998), Europa. Rozprawa Historyka z historią, Kraków.
Google Scholar

Delouche F. red., (1995), Historia Europy, (1995), Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Giddens A. (1984), The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Berkeley, Los Angeles.
Google Scholar

Oxford Dictionaries (2015), Conflation, Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com.
Google Scholar

Serwański M.(2008), Historia powszechna. Wiek XVI-XVIII, Poznań.
Google Scholar

Wielecki K. (2003), Podmiotowość w dobie kryzysu postindustrialnego. Między indywidualizmem a kolektywizmem, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Wielecki K. (2012), Kryzys i socjologia, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Wielecki K. (2013a), Podmiotowość w czasie kryzysu, w: Sprawstwo. Teorie, metody, badania empiryczne w naukach społecznych, A. Mrozowicki, O. Nowaczyk, I. Szlachcicowa red., Kraków.
Google Scholar

Wielecki K. (2013b), Cudowny „odczarowany” świat, czyli o powrocie w nieznane, w: Co po postindustrializmie?, K. Wielecki, S. Sowiński red., Warszawa.
Google Scholar