描述
开 本: 16开纸 张: 胶版纸包 装: 平装-胶订是否套装: 否国际标准书号ISBN: 9787559615671
◎经典名著
本书是乔治•瑞泽尔社会学理论系列教材中的一种。作为美国社会学会理论社会学分会主席，瑞泽尔的学术思想在我国社会学界具有广泛影响。本书在美国乃至全球被广泛使用，相比于一些充斥着冗长注释和艰涩概念的学术著作，更能有效地引导初学者一窥社会学的全貌。
◎编排合理
本书采用一卷本形式，将社会学理论家及其著作置于历史、社会与政治背景中，以轻松的写作风格，使枯燥的理论有趣、清晰，易于理解。全书分为四个部分，*部分概要性地介绍了社会学理论的历史，将其划分为以古典社会学为代表的早期阶段和以现代、当代社会学为代表的后期阶段；第二部分即“现代社会学理论之主要流派”为本书主体，占据了全书大约二分之一的篇幅；在第三及第四部分，瑞泽尔侧重强调自后工业社会以来社会学界整合宏观研究与微观研究分歧的努力、对现代性思潮的批判以及对全球化现象的特殊关注。
◎视野开阔
本书主要关注社会学家的重要现代理论著作，同时也关注那些与其他领域相关、被认为对社会学具有重要影响的理论家及其著作。瑞泽尔不但重视古典社会学思想对现代理论发展的滋养，强调社会学各理论在历史上的传承，而且每次在教材增订之际必然要相应补入*的内容，以便与时俱进地反映社会学理论领域的新发展。
◎原汁原味
本书以*英文第7版为底本，完整保留了原书面貌，并为章节标题配以中文。读者可以直接理解原著风格和理论精髓，从而对社会学理论形成综合性概览。
《现代社会学理论》是瑞泽尔社会学理论系列教材中的又一本佳作。该系列教材根据瑞泽尔多年丰富教学经验和研究成果著写而成，摆脱了枯燥理论的简单叙述，内容简明扼要且全面系统。全书被划分为四个部分，*部分概要性地介绍了社会学理论的历史，将其划分为以古典社会学为代表的早期阶段和以现代、当代社会学为代表的后期阶段；第二部分即“现代社会学理论之主要流派”占据了全书大约二分之一的篇幅，是本书的主体部分，着重介绍了自*次世界大战之后社会学研究中心由欧洲转向美国以来直至20世纪80年代涌现出的结构功能主义、新马克思主义、系统理论、符号互动论等核心理论。在第三及第四部分，瑞泽尔侧重强调了自进入后工业社会以来社会学界整合宏观研究与微观研究分歧的努力、对现代性思潮的批判以及对全球化现象的关注，等等。为更好地阐释理论，本书特别增加社会学史中*重要的思想家小传，便于读者理解其理论观点产生的社会和文化背景。
出版前言
关于作者
Biographical and Autobiographical Sketches社会学家生平传略
Preface前言
Part I Introduction to Sociological Theory第一部分 社会学理论入门
Chapter 1 A Historical Sketch of Sociological Theory: The Early Years
第一章 社会学理论历史概要：早期阶段
Chapter 2 A Historical Sketch of Sociological Theory: The Later Years
第二章 社会学理论的历史概要：后期阶段
Part II Modern Sociological Theory:The Major Schools第二部分 现代社会学理论：主要流派
Chapter 3 Structural Functionalism, Neofunctionalism, and Conflict Theory第三章 结构功能主义、新功能主义和冲突理论
Chapter 4 Varieties of Neo-Marxian Theory第四章 新马克思主义理论
Chapter 5 Systems Theory第五章 系统理论
Chapter 6 Symbolic Interactionism第六章 符号互动论
Chapter 7 Ethnomethodology第七章 民族方法学
Chapter 8 Exchange, Network, and Rational Choice Theories第八章 交换、网络和理性选择理论
Chapter 9 Modern Feminist Theory 第九章 女性主义理论
Part III Recent Integrative Developments in Sociological Theory第三部分 最新社会学理论中的整合发展
Chapter 10 Micro-Macro and Agency-Structure Integration第十章 微观—宏观和能动—结构整合
Part IV From Modern to Postmodern Social Theory (and Beyond)第四部分 从现代社会理论到后现代社会理论（及其之后）
Chapter 11 Contemporary Theories of Modernity第十一章 关于现代性的当代理论
Chapter 12 Globalization Theory第十二章 全球化理论
Chapter 13 Structuralism, Poststructuralism, and Postmodern Social Theory第十三章 结构主义、后结构主义和后现代社会理论
Chapter 14 Cutting-Edge Developments in Contemporary Theory第十四章 当代理论的前沿发展
Appendix : Sociological Metatheorizing and a Metatheoretical Schema for
Analyzing Sociological Theory附录：社会学的元理论化和分析社会学理论的元理论框架
美国马里兰大学乔治·瑞泽尔教授对于中国读者尤其是社会学界早已不再陌生。《社会的麦当劳化》是作者最早被引入国内的著作之一，对人类正在走向以麦当劳化为代表的“理性牢笼”提出质疑。作为美国社会学会理论社会学分会主席（1989），瑞泽尔教授不但在后现代社会和应用性理论阐释以及元理论的基础研究等方面皆有杰出贡献，更撰写了一系列自面世以来即享有极佳口碑的社会学理论教材，它们先后被译成10多种语言，在世界各地广泛流传。
瑞泽尔社会学系列教材最大的特色在于内容全面、脉络清晰，且将一些艰深晦涩的理论概念解释得深入浅出，易于理解。相比于一些充斥着冗长注释和艰涩概念的学术著作，它们更能有效地引导初学者一窥社会学的全貌，使其寻门径而入，尤其适合作为高校社会学专业的参考书和向一般读者普及社会学知识的读物。理论阐发与思想史论述两条线索相结合的方式，外加简约准确的行文，令读者以点带面地建立对知识点的系统理解和记忆。上述特色在我们于2014年先后推出《古典社会学理论（第6版）》的影印版及中文版中已得到充分体现，近年来读者也给予了大量积极反馈，认为这两本书在奠定学科基础的阶段确是不可多得的参考读物。
《现代社会学理论（第7版）》是瑞泽尔社会学理论系列教材中的又一本佳作。从它的框架设计，我们不难看到这一系列教材素来为读者称道的权威性与全面性。瑞泽尔将本书划分为四个部分，第一部分概要性地介绍了社会学理论的历史，将其划分为以古典社会学为代表的早期阶段和以现代、当代社会学为代表的后期阶段；第二部分即“现代社会学理论之主要流派”占据了全书大约二分之一的篇幅，是本书的主体部分，着重介绍了自第一次世界大战之后社会学研究中心由欧洲转向美国以来直至20世纪80年代涌现出的结构功能主义、新马克思主义、系统理论、符号互动论等核心理论。瑞泽尔一直重视古典社会学思想对现代理论发展的滋养，因此，他在第一部分概要地介绍了社会学理论历史，将其划分为以古典社会学为代表的早期阶段和以现代、当代社会学为代表的后期阶段。在第三及第四部分，瑞泽尔侧重强调了自进入后工业社会以来社会学界整合宏观研究与微观研究分歧的努力、对现代性思潮的批判以及对全球化现象的关注，等等。瑞泽尔在每次教材增订之际必然会补入新的内容，以便与时俱进地反映社会学理论的新发展。为方便读者阅读，我们在英文章节标题处增加了相应的中文，以帮助读者更快速地了解全书架构。
除了本次推出的《现代社会学理论》及《当代社会学理论》的影印版，我们还将很快推出这两本著作的中文版，希望这一系列社会学理论著作的出版，有助于读者更全面地掌握社会学理论的精髓，进一步形成综合性概览。
服务热线：133-6631-2326 188-1142-1266
服务信箱：
后浪出版公司
2018年2月
Sociology and Modern Systems Theory
Gains from Systems Theory
A central issue addressed by Buckley is what sociology has to gain from systems theory. First, because systems theory is derived from the hard sciences and because it is, at least in the eyes of its proponents, applicable to all behavioral and social sciences, it promises a common vocabulary to unify those sciences. Second, systems theory is multileveled and can be applied equally well to the largest-scale and the smallest-scale, to the most objective and the most subjective, aspects of the social world. Third, systems theory is interested in the varied relationships of the many aspects of the social world and thus operates against piecemeal analyses of the social world. The argument of systems theory is that the intricate relationship of parts cannot be treated out of the context of the whole. Systems theorists reject the idea that society or other large-scale components of society should be treated as unified social facts. Instead, the focus is on relationships or processes at various levels within the social system. Buckley described the focus:
The kind of system we are interested in may be described generally as a complex of elements or components directly or indirectly related in a causal network, such that each component is related to at least some others in a more or less stable way within any particular period of time.
(Buckley, 1967:41)
Richard A. Ball (see also Bailey, 2005) offers a clear conception of the relational orientation of systems theory, or what he calls General Systems Theory (GST):
GST begins with a processual conception of reality as consisting fundamentally of relationships among relationships, as illustrated in the concept of “gravity” as used in modern physics. The term “gravity” does not describe an entity at all. There is no such “thing” as gravity. It is a set of relationships. To think of these relationships as entities is to fall into reification. . . . The GST approach demands that sociologists develop the logic of relationships and conceptualize social reality in relational terms.
(Ball, 1978:66)
Fourth, the systems approach tends to see all aspects of sociocultural systems in process terms, especially as networks of information and communication. Fifth, and perhaps most important, systems theory is inherently integrative. Buckley, in his definition of the perspective, saw it involving the integration of large-scale objective structures, symbol systems, action and interaction, and “consciousness and self- awareness.” Ball also accepted the idea of integration of levels: “The individual and society are treated equally, not as separate entities but as mutually constitutive fields, related through various ‘feedback’ processes”(1978:68). In fact, systems theory is so attuned to integration that Buckley criticized the tendency of other sociologists to make analytical distinctions among levels:
We note the tendency in much of sociology to insist on what is called an “analytical distinction” between “personality” (presumably intracranial), symbol systems (culture), and matrices of social relations (social systems), though the actual work of the proponents of the distinctions shows it to be misleading or often untenable in practice.
(Buckley, 1967:101)
(Buckley was somewhat unfair here, because he did much the same thing throughout his own work. Making analytical distinctions is apparently acceptable to systems theorists as long as one is making such distinctions in order to make better sense out of the interrelationships among the various aspects of social life.) Finally, systems theory tends to see the social world in dynamic terms, with an overriding concern for “sociocultural emergence and dynamics in general” (Buckley, 1967:39).
Some General Principles
Buckley discussed the relationship among sociocultural systems, mechanical systems, and organic systems. Buckley focused on delineating the essential differences among these systems. On a number of dimensions a continuum runs from mechanical systems to organic systems to sociocultural systems—going from least to most complexity of the parts, from least to most instability of the parts, and from lowest to highest degree to which the parts are attributable to the system as a whole. On other dimensions, the systems differ qualitatively rather than simply quantitatively. In mechanical systems, the interrelationships of the parts are based on transfers of energy. In organic systems, the interrelationships of the parts are based more on exchange of information than on exchange of energy. In sociocultural systems, the interrelationships are based even more on information exchange.
The three types of systems also differ in the degree to which they are open or closed—that is, in the degree of interchange with aspects of the larger environment. A more open system is better able to respond selectively to a greater range and detail of the endless variety of the environment. In these terms, mechanical systems tend to be closed, organic systems are more open, and sociocultural systems are the most open of the three (as we will see, Luhmann disagrees with the last point). The degree of openness of a system is related to two crucial concepts in systems theory: entropy, or the tendency of systems to run down, and negentropy, or the tendency of systems to elaborate structures (Bailey, 1990). Closed systems tend to be entropic, whereas open systems tend to be negentropic. Sociocultural systems also tend to have more tension built into them than do the other two. Finally, sociocultural systems can be purposive and goal-seeking because they receive feedback from the environment that
allows them to keep moving toward their goals.
Feedback is an essential aspect of the cybernetic approach that systems theorists take to the social system. This is in contrast to the equilibrium approach, which is characteristic of many sociologists (for instance, Parsons) who purportedly operate from a systems approach. Using feedback enables cybernetic systems theorists to deal with friction, growth, evolution, and sudden changes. The openness of a social system to its environment and the impact of environmental factors on the system
are important concerns to these systems theorists (Bailey, 2001).
A variety of internal processes also affect social systems. Two other concepts are critical here. Morphostasis refers to those processes that help the system maintain itself, whereas morphogenesis refers to those processes that help the system change and grow more elaborate. Social systems develop more and more complex “mediating systems” that intervene between external forces and the action of the system. Some of these mediating systems help the system maintain itself, and others help it change. These mediating systems grow more and more independent, autonomous, and determinative of the actions of the system. In other words, these mediating systems permit the social system to grow less dependent on the environment.
These complex mediating systems perform a variety of functions in the social system. For example, they allow the system to adjust itself temporarily to external conditions. They can direct the system from harsh to more congenial environments. They also can allow the system to reorganize its parts in order to deal with the environment more effectively.
评论
还没有评论。