Guide to the vibrant and

Download 17.16 Mb.
Date conversion17.05.2016
Size17.16 Mb.
1   ...   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   ...   162

state investment in utilities, such as building

roads to stimulate the economy during depressions.

Both Karl Marx and Keynes rejected Say’s

Law in which a given level of supply necessarily

created a specific level of demand. The problem of

the capitalist economy was the tendency to underconsume.

In mature capitalist economies, unemployment

is caused by a deficiency in effective

demand because over-saving occurs as a result of

the relative abundance of capital. The correct anticyclical

government policies included the creation

of “cheap money” through interest rate manipulation

and the use of budget deficits through deficit


In a consumer society, desires are created by

advertising and capitalist goods are important,

not because they satisfy our primary needs for

food and shelter, but because they satisfy our desire

for social status. Contemporary culture does

not appear to require the Protestant Ethic of Max

Weber’s sociology of the ascetic spirit of economic

growth, namely abstaining from consumption in

order to save. The idea that in modern society

people struggle for control of symbolic goods has

scarcity scarcity


been developed by sociologists such as Pierre

Bourdieu in the theory of cultural capital.

Some social theorists such as Jean Baudrillard

have argued that modern society is based on

waste and excess rather than scarcity, and hence

the economy of an advanced capitalist society operates

on a different logic of production and


Whereas classical economics, including Marxian

economics, was based on the assumption of limited

natural resources (such as agricultural land), contemporary

sociological analysis has begun to raise

important questions about waste and non-renewable

resources that challenge conventional notions

about development and economic growth. N. Georgescu-

Roezen in The Entropy Law and the Economic

Process (1971), employing the second law of thermodynamics

(the so-called entropy law) and developing

the notion of “entropic depletion,” argued that

the exhaustion of the earth’s resources cannot be

ultimately overcome because waste is unavoidable.

To some extent, we can regard pessimistic assessments

of an environmental crisis, depletion, and

exhaustion as a neo-Malthusian vision of global

scarcity. BRYAN S. TURNER

scatter diagram

– see regression.

Scheff, Thomas J. (dates unknown)

An emeritus professor at the University of California,

Santa Barbara. Scheff obtained his PhD in

1960 from Berkeley. He has made substantial contibutions

to the sociology of mental illness and to

social psychology, and is a pioneering researcher

and the theorist in the sociology of emotions. His

contributions to sociological methodology are

also significant. His first book, Being Mentally Ill:

A Sociological Theory (1966), introduced an interactionist

frame to the study of mental illness, by

accounting for clinical symptoms in terms of

social role and proposing “societal reaction” as a

determinant of entry into that role. From the late

1980s, Scheff’s contribution to the then new sociology

of emotions was highly significant. A landmark

paper, “Shame and Conformity” (1988) in

the American Sociological Review, argued that shame

is the predominant social emotion, operating

below the threshold of awareness in determining

behavior. Practically all of Scheff’s work since is an

exploration of the nature and consequences of

shame in social systems, both theoretically and

historically. In Microsociology: Discourse, Emotion and

Social Structure (1990) the determining importance

of pride and shame for a range of social processes

is demonstrated. The application of Scheff’s approach

is later extended to the macroscopic level,

covering the historical orgins of World Wars I and

II in Bloody Revenge: Emotions, Nationalism, and War

(1994) and of destructive conflicts more generally

in Emotions and Violence (with Suzanne Retzinger,

1991). Among his other works are Catharsis in

Healing, Ritual and Drama (1979) and Emotions, the

Social Bond, and Human Reality (1997).


Schumpeter, Joseph Alois (1883–1950)

Born in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and educated

as an economist at the University of Vienna,

Schumpeter served as Finance Minister of Austria

in 1919–20. In 1932 Schumpeter left for the United

States, where he worked at Harvard University till

his death.

Joseph Schumpeter’s ideas about entrepreneurship

and his theory of democracy constitute his

two most important contributions to social science.

Schumpeter is also the author of two wellknown

works on business cycles and the history of

economic analysis.

Schumpeter’s most important work in economics

is The Theory of Economic Development (1911 [trans.

1934]), which contains his famous theory of entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship, Schumpeter suggests,

can be defined as the putting together of a

new combination of already existing elements.

Innovations include the creation of a new market,

a new product, and the like. What drives the

entrepreneur is not so much money as the desire

to be creative, to outdo one’s competitors, and to

create one’s own empire.

Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942) contains

a famous analysis of “creative destruction”

and the United States economy. It is most famous,

however, for its critique of the existing theory of

democracy and for Schumpeter’s related attempt

to create an alternative theory. According to the

old theory, democracy is about realizing the will

of the people. The new theory, in contrast, views

democracy as a competition among leaders for the

vote of the masses.

At the time of his death Schumpeter was

working on a massive history of economics that

was published posthumously as History of Economic

Analysis (1954). This work is remarkable in many

respects, including the fact that it is rare that a

major figure in social science writes the history

of his own discipline; Schumpeter’s work also

contains a full vision of what he terms “social

economics,” consisting of economic theory,

scatter diagram Schumpeter, Joseph Alois (1883–1950)


economic history, economic sociology, and economic


Schutz, Alfred (1899–1959)

Born in Austria, Schutz emigrated to the United

States in 1939. He was instrumental in the development

of phenomenological sociology, and

his academic work was devoted to improving the

sociological understanding of the lifeworld.

He used the resources of the phenomenology of

the German philosopher Edmund Husserl (1895–

1938) to provide a better understanding of the

philosophical underpinnings of the social sciences.

He was critical of Max Weber’s theory of

social action and interpretation, and he sought to

understand how a theory of action could become

scientific. His central argument was that sociology

must understand how social actors use typification

to organize their commonsense knowledge

of the lifeworld and to grasp the basic differences

between everyday and scientific knowledge. This

phenomenological research involves the study of

the relevance of different forms of knowledge to

social action.

His principal publications were posthumously

collected in four volumes as Collected Papers (1971).

These were The Problem of Social Reality (1962, vol. I),

Studies in Social Theory (1964, vol. II), Studies in

the Phenomenology of Philosophy (1966, vol. III), and

Collected Papers (1996, vol. IV). His other publications

include The Structures of the Life World (1973

and 1989, 2 vols.) and Reflections on the Problem of

Relevance (1970).

Schutz served at the New School for Social Research

in New York from 1944 to 1951 as Visiting

Professor, and from 1952 as Professor until his

death in 1959. Despite his involvement in the

New School, Schutz was marginal to professional

sociology in the United States, partly because his

commitment to European phenomenology was increasingly

incompatible with the growth of


He has had a profound influence on the theory

of action, for example in his debate with Talcott

Parsons in The Theory of Social Action: The Correspondence

of Alfred Schutz and Talcott Parsons (1978) and

Philosophers in Exile: The Correspondence of Alfred

Schutz and Aron Gurwitsch 1939–1959 (1989). He was

also influential in the development of the sociology

of knowledge in the work of Peter L. Berger

and Thomas Luckmann. BRYAN S. TURNER

Science and Technology Studies

This title names a heterogeneous body of research,

scholars, journals, professional associations, and

academic programs that focus on the history,

social organization, and culture of science and

technology. Begun in the 1960s in response to

the recognizable growth in science in the contemporary

world and to the educational and economic

policy implications of this explosion of

scientific research and development, Science and

Technology Studies (STS) also responded to issues

of public responsibility that seemed to be engendered

by technological innovation.

Significant accounts of the work of scientists,

the accumulation of scientific knowledge, and the

impact of technological innovation had been produced

in each of the social sciences from their

distinctive disciplinary perspectives by the 1960s,

generating a “focused confluence” begging for integration,

according to David Edge in “Reinventing

the Wheel” (Handbook of Science and Technology

Studies, 1995: 3–24). Across the diverse research

traditions, there seemed to be, however, a shared

or received view of science as the work of great

minds, usually male, discovering nature’s hidden

patterns and mechanisms. This is often viewed as

a bounded activity in which science impacts society,

technology – as applied science – develops

linearly from (basic) science, and the entire process

is regarded as a value-free, amoral enterprise

that is legitimated by the claims both that its

truths exist independent of, and prior to, any

social authority and that it provides the grounds

of human progress. This “internalist” account describes

an essentially autonomous and asocial process

consistent with positivistic philosophies of

science as a self-regulated search for timeless, universal,

irrefutable facts. Facts are themselves

understood, in this received or traditional conception

of science, to exist independent of the procedures

for making or discovering them. Sal Restivo

in Science, Technology and Society (2005) has argued

that “Scientific facts were considered to exist in a

realm outside of the blood, sweat and tears of our

everyday sensual and material world, outside of

history, outside of society and culture.”

By the 1960s, however, few realms of human

action were immune from acknowledgment of

their historicity, including science. Within each

of the traditional social science disciplines (history,

philosophy, sociology, economics, anthropology,

and political science), germs of a more

complex understanding of science and technology

were developing. Despite diverse theoretical, pragmatic,

and disciplinary sources, science and technology

studies seemed to force an orienting

consensus that science is a social institution. Although

it had long been clear that science and

Schutz, Alfred (1899–1959) Science and Technology Studies


technology impact society, an impact that was

already documented in historical scholarship

and economic development, science and technology

studies began by exploring the ways in which

social forces constitute not only the context of

science (for example the organization and dissemination

of science) but also the content and substance

of scientific knowledge itself.

Importantly, science and technology studies developed

not only a more complex but also a more

critical stance towards science and technology,

emerging simultaneously with periods of intense

public skepticism towards the roles of science and

technology as an aspect of the growth of antimilitary

sentiments against American involvement

in the Vietnam War in the United States in

the 1960s and 1970s, and the growing anti-nuclear

and environmental movements in the United

Kingdom and Europe in the 1980s. The constructivist

position that social forces constitute not only

the context but also the content of science developed

first in Europe and spread from there.

Alongside this more socially engaged scholarship

(for example in Donald MacKenzie’s “Tacit Knowledge,

Weapons Design and the Uninvention of

Nuclear Weapons,” American Journal of Sociology,

1995: 44–99), research moved away from the

more traditional periodization and research foci

(for example the scientific revolution, Darwinian

revolution, or Quantum Revolution) that occupied

historians of European science. As STS develops,

scholars become interested in science outside of

Europe and also more interested in activities not

heretofore categorized as science by contemporary

scientists, such as the alchemical interests of

both Newton and Boyle, and the relationship of

these to the works that are taken to have made the

scientific revolution, or the ways in which mathematical

equations are understood in some African

cultures (Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, The Foundations

of Newton’s Alchemy, 1975; Lawrence Principe, The

Aspiring Adept: Robert Boyle and His Alchemical Quest,

1998; Helen Verran, Science and an African Logic,

2001). No longer do scholars regard it as appropriate

to isolate the elements of scientists’ work that

have over time proven useful and scientifically

productive, discarding what modern science has

rejected as aberrational or simply wrong. STS attempt

to produce fuller, more comprehensive and

complex accounts of science, its methods, and its

subject matter.

By the 1980s, it was well understood, and in

some scholarly networks taken for granted, that

science is in this regard the same as all other

human activities, a socially constructed phenomenon:

the product of collectively organized human

labor and decisionmaking.

Facts do not fall out of the sky, they are not “given”

to us directly, we do not come to them by means of

revelation . . . [W]ork is embodied in the fact, just as

the collective toil of the multitude of workers in

Rodin’s workshop is embodied in The Thinker. This

is what it means to say that a fact is socially constructed.

(Restivo, 2005: xiii).

This does not mean that any statement can secure

the status of scientific fact; social construction is

not a recipe for cognitive solipsism or moral relativism.

Nor does it mean that scientific facts are

completely arbitrary accidents. It means only that

scientific facts are contingent: the ways in which a

fact is produced – the choice of topic, location of

research, the constraints of resources, the accumulation

of empirical evidence, the transparency

of methods – are part of the constitution or construction

of the fact. Scientific facts are produced

under constraints that vary historically and culturally;

thus scientific inquiry is both enabled and

constrained by what is already known, by technological

capacity and the material resources that

are available, and human capacity for work, imagination,

collaboration, and communication.

Those constraints shape the content of the science

as well as the process of producing that content.

Considerations of organization, resources, and

human capacity seemed obvious with respect to

technological innovation, but in the traditional

disciplines were usually relegated to the boundaries

of science or the social conditions of its

making. STS rejected the notion of a natural or

fixed boundary between science and its context.

What became known as “boundary work” – the

discourses and practices of institutional legitimacy

and exclusion – became a central focus of

STS research tracking the human transactions –

symbolic and material – that shaped scientific

facts and membership in scientific communities

(for example in Thomas Gieryn, The Cultural Boundaries

of Science, 1999). Similarly, any hard and

fast distinction between basic science and applied

technology became difficult to sustain, once

the work of scientists and engineers is closely

observed. The advance of modern physics, for

example, is described as a productive collaboration

between theory, instrumentation, and experiment

in Peter Galison, Image and Logic (1997).

Finally, any hard and fixed division between the

disciplinary approaches to the production or reception

of science began to merge in important

Science and Technology Studies Science and Technology Studies


studies. Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer’s influential

book, Leviathan and the Air-Pump (1985), encouraged

scholars to move among the historical,

anthropological, and sociological approaches to

the study of science and technology.

Yet this social constructivist orientation probably

claims more than some in the field would

admit, and has been the source of shared interests

as well as extended controversy among science

and technology scholars and between the field

and the practitioners they study: scientists, engineers,

and policymakers. As in any other field of

cultural production, as described by Pierre Bourdieu,

STS is constituted more by its oppositions

and debates than by any shared theoretical paradigm,

set of research questions, or canon of readings.

However, STS may be more fractious than

many other scholarly fields or interdisciplinary

engagements. Because STS scholarship takes the

creation of knowledge as its subject of study, it

has been hyper-reflexive about its own knowledge

production practices, leading to extended yet insightful

debate. Sometimes referred to as the science

wars, these scholarly disputes suffused much

of academia in the 1990s where they went by a

more generic label as culture wars. One line of

cleavage developed about the strength and depth

of the constructivist position and the sufficiency

of internalist histories of science. Another derives

from the conjunction of science and technology

within the same intellectual rubric, and yet other

lines of cleavage develop from epistemological

debates and professional competitions among

the constituent disciplines. This self-reflexive critique

in a heterogeneous joining of topics and

disciplines has produced an abundance of shorthand

expressions and acronyms to describe the

distinctive camps and orientations. For example,

some observers distinguish the scholarship of

STS from the subject being studied, the latter a

subject that can be studied via STS or through

any traditional discipline such as history, sociology,

or philosophy without adopting any particular

epistemological position with regard to

the social construction of science. Those who

focus on the sociology of scientific knowledge

(SSK) distinguish themselves from those who

examine the social construction of technology

(SCOT) or the social history of technology (SHOT).

The STS coalition probably bespeaks more about

the marginality of science and technology to the

central concerns of the constituent disciplines

than to any necessary or comfortable marriage

between the study of science and of technology

or across the disciplinary perspectives. Because

the history, social organization, and logic of science

has been a topic of minor interest for each of

the disciplines – in comparison, for example, to

concerns about state development, inequality,

freedom – scholarly communities addressing science

and/or technology in each discipline were

relatively small and perhaps particularly guarded.

Nonetheless, the divergent perspectives and

heated debates have energized the field, producing

an abundant literature in books and academic

journals (for example Social Studies of

Science for science studies generally, Isis for the

history of science, Science, Technology and Human

Values covering contemporary science, policy, and

culture, History and Technology, Science in Context,

Minerva, Osiris, Technology and Culture, Studies in History

and Philosophy of Science, and a wide range of

specialized and regional publications such as

Metascience, Science Studies, Knowledge and Technology

in Society, Public Understandings of Science, History of

Science, Philosophy of Science, British Journal of the

Philosophy of Science, British Journal of the History of

Science, Science for the People, and Science Technology

and Socie´te´); a substantial network of professional

associations (for example the Society for the Social

Studies of Science, Society for the History of Technology,

ICOHETEC [International Committee for

the History of Technology], HSS [History of Science

Society], IASTS [International Association for Science,

Technology and Society]); and dozens of departments

offering undergraduate and advanced

degrees in STS.

STS research covers an enormous array of topics,

most of which can be subsumed within two very

general rubrics: (1) the institutionalization, reception,

and appropriation of science and technology;

and (2) the production of science and technology.

With respect to the first aspect, interest in science

and technology policy animated some of the first

STS studies in the 1960s and led to a flourishing

1   ...   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   ...   162

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page