Editorial: Writing (and righting) the ‘classics’: A symposium on Gurminder K. Bhambra and John Holmwood’s Colonialism and Modern Social Theory, Polity 2021

IF 1 Q3 SOCIOLOGY
Gurminder K. Bhambra, J. Holmwood
{"title":"Editorial: Writing (and righting) the ‘classics’: A symposium on Gurminder K. Bhambra and John Holmwood’s Colonialism and Modern Social Theory, Polity 2021","authors":"Gurminder K. Bhambra, J. Holmwood","doi":"10.1177/1468795X221105421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We are grateful to the editors of the Journal of Classical Sociology for inviting this symposium on our recently published book, Colonialism and Modern Social Theory. In it, we call for an engagement with the past of European social thought and its legacies in the present. It is in this spirit that the various contributors to this symposium were approached. They were asked to consider the overall approach, but also to respond to the arguments made in specific chapters. In this way, we sought to encourage a range of responses that would take debates into new areas. We were also conscious that the focus of our book – European social theory (within which we include that of North America), the established canon (with the exception until recently of W.E.B. Du Bois) – would be contentious even among those sympathetic to our general position. In this short introduction, we will set out some aspects of the context in which the book was written. We will respond separately to the contributions in an Afterword. Debates in contemporary sociology have long been conducted through critical engagement with the history of social thought. This has been lamented by many as an indication of immaturity and as a part of a failure of the discipline to ‘take off’ as a properly mature science. Writing in the 1960s, Robert Merton proposed a neat distinction between the ‘history’ and ‘systematics’ of sociological theory (Merton, 1967). The former involved a potentially expansive canon of writers representing main streams of thought, as well as smaller tributaries leading away from what came to be the consolidated consensus of ‘systematic theory’. 1105421 JCS0010.1177/1468795X221105421Journal of Classical SociologyEditorial editorial2022","PeriodicalId":44864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Classical Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Classical Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X221105421","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We are grateful to the editors of the Journal of Classical Sociology for inviting this symposium on our recently published book, Colonialism and Modern Social Theory. In it, we call for an engagement with the past of European social thought and its legacies in the present. It is in this spirit that the various contributors to this symposium were approached. They were asked to consider the overall approach, but also to respond to the arguments made in specific chapters. In this way, we sought to encourage a range of responses that would take debates into new areas. We were also conscious that the focus of our book – European social theory (within which we include that of North America), the established canon (with the exception until recently of W.E.B. Du Bois) – would be contentious even among those sympathetic to our general position. In this short introduction, we will set out some aspects of the context in which the book was written. We will respond separately to the contributions in an Afterword. Debates in contemporary sociology have long been conducted through critical engagement with the history of social thought. This has been lamented by many as an indication of immaturity and as a part of a failure of the discipline to ‘take off’ as a properly mature science. Writing in the 1960s, Robert Merton proposed a neat distinction between the ‘history’ and ‘systematics’ of sociological theory (Merton, 1967). The former involved a potentially expansive canon of writers representing main streams of thought, as well as smaller tributaries leading away from what came to be the consolidated consensus of ‘systematic theory’. 1105421 JCS0010.1177/1468795X221105421Journal of Classical SociologyEditorial editorial2022
社论:书写(和纠正)“经典”:Gurminder K.Bhambra和John Holmwood的殖民主义和现代社会理论研讨会,Polity 2021
我们感谢《古典社会学杂志》的编辑们邀请我们参加这次关于我们最近出版的《殖民主义与现代社会理论》一书的研讨会。在这篇文章中,我们呼吁关注欧洲社会思想的过去及其在当今的遗产。正是本着这种精神,我们与本次专题讨论会的各个贡献者进行了接触。他们被要求考虑整体方法,但也要对具体章节中提出的论点作出回应。通过这种方式,我们试图鼓励采取一系列对策,将辩论带入新的领域。我们也意识到,我们这本书的重点——欧洲社会理论(其中包括北美的社会理论),既定的经典(直到最近才有杜波依斯的例外)——即使在那些同情我们总体立场的人中也会引起争议。在这篇简短的引言中,我们将阐述这本书的写作背景的一些方面。我们将在后记中单独回应这些贡献。长期以来,当代社会学的辩论都是通过对社会思想史的批判性参与来进行的。许多人哀叹这是不成熟的表现,也是该学科未能作为一门成熟的科学“起飞”的一部分。罗伯特·默顿(Robert Merton)在20世纪60年代提出了社会学理论的“历史”和“系统学”之间的巧妙区分(默顿,1967)。前者涉及一个潜在的、代表主流思想的作家经典,以及从“系统理论”的统一共识中引出的较小支流。1105421 JCS0010.1177/1468795X221105421《古典社会学杂志》编辑部2022
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
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: The Journal of Classical Sociology publishes cutting-edge articles that will command general respect within the academic community. The aim of the Journal of Classical Sociology is to demonstrate scholarly excellence in the study of the sociological tradition. The journal elucidates the origins of sociology and also demonstrates how the classical tradition renews the sociological imagination in the present day. The journal is a critical but constructive reflection on the roots and formation of sociology from the Enlightenment to the 21st century. Journal of Classical Sociology promotes discussions of early social theory, such as Hobbesian contract theory, through the 19th- and early 20th- century classics associated with the thought of Comte, Marx, Durkheim, Weber, Simmel, Veblen.
×
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