Max Weber and Harriet Martineau in physical education: Nuances of historical parallelism and gender bias in the sociological method

Fabricio Boscolo Del Vecchio, Erlene Pereira Barbosa, Rodrigo Cantu
{"title":"Max Weber and Harriet Martineau in physical education: Nuances of historical parallelism and gender bias in the sociological method","authors":"Fabricio Boscolo Del Vecchio, Erlene Pereira Barbosa, Rodrigo Cantu","doi":"10.36922/ghes.0992","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Physical education has been constituted in a complex scenario, and despite this epistemological debate, we can find the existence of a “sociology of sport,” a relatively recent field of study dominated by names such as Karl Marx, Norbert Elias, Pierre Bourdieu, and Michel Foucault, while the name of Max Weber and Harriet Martineau, the first woman sociologist, is absent of research in the “sociology of sport.” This article aims to explore two possible phenomena to explain this failure: Historical parallelism and gender bias. This research applies the bibliographic method with a descriptive approach, based on the works of Max Weber and Harriet Martineau, including supporting theoretical references. As the main result, Weber considered sociology as a science that seeks to interpretively understand social action and explain it causally in its course and effects. According to Weber, scientists must be skilled in separating judgments of reality (what is) and judgments of value (what ought to be) in scientific analysis, to pursue genuine knowledge, and he organized his sociological analysis method based on two main tools: (1) Ideal types and (2) types of social action. Temporarily before Weber, Martineau (1802 – 1876) pointed to aspects related to the observation process, and provided examples related to the different classifications of what Weber referred to as “social action.” She emphasized the need to engage with the people and groups from which one seeks to gather information, and two elements stand out: (1) The recommendation to study things, using people’s discourse as if it was a commentary on them and (2) the occasional need to distance oneself a little to have a more accurate view of the phenomenon. Martineau provided relevant indications regarding the recording of facts, previously to Weber. In conclusion, it is expected that researchers from different areas, including physical education, who employ research methods from the social sciences, field diary observations, and interviews, can appropriate what was previously produced before Max Weber, in this case, by Harriet Martineau.","PeriodicalId":193088,"journal":{"name":"Global Health Economics and Sustainability","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Health Economics and Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36922/ghes.0992","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Physical education has been constituted in a complex scenario, and despite this epistemological debate, we can find the existence of a “sociology of sport,” a relatively recent field of study dominated by names such as Karl Marx, Norbert Elias, Pierre Bourdieu, and Michel Foucault, while the name of Max Weber and Harriet Martineau, the first woman sociologist, is absent of research in the “sociology of sport.” This article aims to explore two possible phenomena to explain this failure: Historical parallelism and gender bias. This research applies the bibliographic method with a descriptive approach, based on the works of Max Weber and Harriet Martineau, including supporting theoretical references. As the main result, Weber considered sociology as a science that seeks to interpretively understand social action and explain it causally in its course and effects. According to Weber, scientists must be skilled in separating judgments of reality (what is) and judgments of value (what ought to be) in scientific analysis, to pursue genuine knowledge, and he organized his sociological analysis method based on two main tools: (1) Ideal types and (2) types of social action. Temporarily before Weber, Martineau (1802 – 1876) pointed to aspects related to the observation process, and provided examples related to the different classifications of what Weber referred to as “social action.” She emphasized the need to engage with the people and groups from which one seeks to gather information, and two elements stand out: (1) The recommendation to study things, using people’s discourse as if it was a commentary on them and (2) the occasional need to distance oneself a little to have a more accurate view of the phenomenon. Martineau provided relevant indications regarding the recording of facts, previously to Weber. In conclusion, it is expected that researchers from different areas, including physical education, who employ research methods from the social sciences, field diary observations, and interviews, can appropriate what was previously produced before Max Weber, in this case, by Harriet Martineau.
马克斯·韦伯和哈里特·马蒂诺在体育教育中的研究:社会学方法中历史平行和性别偏见的细微差别
体育教育是在一个复杂的情境中构成的,尽管存在这种认识论上的争论,但我们可以发现“体育社会学”的存在,这是一个相对较新的研究领域,由卡尔·马克思、诺伯特·埃利亚斯、皮埃尔·布迪厄和米歇尔·福柯等人主导,而马克斯·韦伯和第一位女性社会学家哈里特·马蒂诺的名字在“体育社会学”的研究中是缺席的。本文旨在探讨两种可能的现象来解释这种失败:历史平行和性别偏见。本研究以马克斯·韦伯和哈里特·马蒂诺的著作为基础,采用文献法和描述性方法,包括支持性的理论参考。作为主要结果,韦伯认为社会学是一门科学,旨在解释社会行为,并解释其过程和结果的因果关系。根据韦伯的观点,科学家必须善于在科学分析中区分对现实的判断(是什么)和对价值的判断(应该是什么),以追求真正的知识,他基于两种主要工具来组织他的社会学分析方法:(1)理想类型和(2)社会行动类型。在韦伯之前,马蒂诺(1802 - 1876)指出了与观察过程相关的方面,并提供了与韦伯所说的“社会行动”的不同分类相关的例子。她强调需要与人们和群体接触,从他们那里收集信息,有两个因素突出:(1)建议研究事物,把人们的话语当作对他们的评论;(2)偶尔需要与自己保持一点距离,以便更准确地观察现象。马蒂诺在韦伯之前就提供了有关记录事实的相关指示。总之,我们期望来自不同领域的研究者,包括体育教育,他们采用社会科学的研究方法,实地日记观察和访谈,可以采用在马克斯·韦伯之前的研究成果,在这种情况下,是哈里特·马蒂诺。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信