Zugl.: Kassel, Univ., Diss., 2006

Universiẗat, Diss., 2006--Kassel. / Download lizenzpflichtig.

Chen Hon-fai. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 256-261). / Abstracts in English and Chinese. / ACKNOWLEDGMENTS --- p.iii / ABSTRACT --- p.iv / INTRODUCTION: PARSONIANISM IN CONTEXT / Chapter I. --- The Context: Parsons Revival and the Reading of Parsons --- p.1 / Chapter II. --- The Problem: Relationship between Parsons' Structural-Functionalism and Luhmann's Neo-Functionalism --- p.13 / Chapter III. --- "Interpretive Perspective: Theory, Methodology and Presupposition" --- p.31 / Chapter CHAPTER 1 --- ANALYTICAL REALISM AND VOLUNTARISM: PARSONS´ة ACTION THEORY IN THE STRUCTURE OF SOCIAL ACTION / Chapter 1.1 --- Analytical Realism --- p.49 / Chapter 1.2 --- Action Frame of Reference --- p.62 / Chapter CHAPTER 2 --- EMERGENCE AND FUNCTIONALISM: PARSONS´ة SYSTEM THEORY IN THE STRUCTURE OF SOCIAL ACTION --- p.90 / INTERLUDE PARSONS̐ơ THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT AFTER THE STRUCTURE OF SOCIAL ACTION / Chapter I. --- From Voluntarism to Structural-Functionalism --- p.116 / Chapter II. --- From Structural-Functionalism to Systems Functionalism --- p.131 / Chapter CHAPTER 3 --- SELF-REFERENCE AND FUNCTIONALISM: LUHMANN̐ơS SYSTEM THEORY IN SOCIAL SYSTEMS / Chapter 3.1 --- Introduction --- p.147 / Chapter 3.2 --- The Methodological Principle of Self-Reference --- p.150 / Chapter 3.3 --- Double Contingency and the Formation of Self-Referential Social System --- p.165 / Chapter CHAPTER 4 --- SELF-REFERENCE AND ANTI-HUMANISM: LUHMANN'S ACTION THEORY IN SOCIAL SYSTEMS / Chapter 4.1 --- Self-Reference of Communication and its Attribution to Voluntaristic Action --- p.195 / Chapter 4.2 --- Interpenetration and Anti-Humanism --- p.218 / CONCLUSION: LUHMANNIANISM ON TRIAL --- p.239 / BIBLIOGRAPHY --- p.256

Weber's contribution to the study of social action has been a major influence upon the development of modern sociology but aspects of his approach have been obscured by the process of translation, commentary and evaluation - and in this respect the work of Parsons and to a lesser extent Schutz has been significant. Hence this study aims (a) to clarify the nature of Webens Theory of Action and (b) to determine its contemporary value in comparison with the extension of his ideas by Parsons and Schutz. We examine the interpretation, advanced particularly by Parsons, that Weber's approach to the study of action changed as he became increasingly concerned with the nature of sociological inquiry, and, thereby, moved beyond the problems of historical method. On the basis of a detailed examination of Weber's theoretical and methodological arguments we reject the idea of a break in his thinking about historical and sociological research and this has important implications for some accepted views-on Weber's conception of objectivity, ideal type concepts and understanding. Parsons set out to extend Weber from the perspective of a natural science of society, but his claim to identify a convergence between Durkheim, Pareto and Weber into the Voluntaristic Theory of Action is rejected and the criticisms, which his development of some aspects of Weberts approach have experienced, are sufficient to cast doubts upon the-validity of his General Theory. Schutz formulated a phenomenological critique of Weber's categories of interpretive sociology and sought to establish a philosophically more secure basis for the study of action but, we suggest, his assumptions about the everyday world, allied to his evaluation of Weber's approach, led him to propose an impracticable methodology. Finally, we argue that the contemporary relevance of Weber's Theory of Action can be seen from the way many of the problems involved in the study of action, some of which were identified by the development of the phenomenological perspective, can be solved by recourse to his approach.

Although Talcott Parsons’s sick role theory, as described in 1951 in The Social System, has been severely criticized for its inapplicability to chronic illnesses, a portion of the theory is still a relevant and necessary factor in terms of understanding and treating chronic illness today. Using data from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey, this study looks at the individual effects of sex, age, race, cohabitation, education and region of residence on the likelihood of chronically ill patients considering themselves limited in their amount or kind of work as an indicator of sick role adaptation. Results show statistically significant relationships between work limitation and sex, age, cohabitation, education and region of residence, when controlling for the duration of the respondents’ condition. Further evaluation of these results is provided.

Thèse (de maîtrise)--Université Laval, 2003. / Titre de l'écran-titre (visionné le 29 novembre 2004). Bibliogr. Présenté aussi en version papier.

Tableau d’honneur de la Faculté des études supérieures et postdoctorales, 2014-2015 / Ce travail de maîtrise a pour but de confronter les théories sociales de Niklas Luhmann et de Jürgen Habermas, afin d’éclairer les défis que le monde contemporain pose à la pensée philosophique. À la suite d’un examen approfondi, qui nous mènera à revisiter les traditions classique (Weber et Durkheim) et moderne (Parsons) de la sociologie, il sera possible de mettre en évidence les implications qui s’ensuivent pour les concepts de société, de rationalité et de normativité. Plutôt que de prendre parti pour l’une des théories en question, nous décèlerons leur signification philosophique en exposant la manière dont elles abordent le phénomène de la complexité. Nous discutons enfin de la place qu’occupe l’humanisme au sein de la théorie sociale contemporaine. / This M.A. thesis compares the social theories of Niklas Luhmann and Jürgen Habermas. Its main goal is to cast light upon the problems that philosophical thinking encounters in its attempt to understand modern society. The Luhmann-Habermas debate is presented from a comparative perspective, which will then lead into key problems of both classical (Weber and Durkheim) and modern (Parsons) traditions of sociology. It is our contention that this debate reveals two alternative standpoints from which the concepts of society, rationality, and normativity can be conceived. Instead of endorsing one theory or the other, this thesis would rather display their philosophical significance by addressing the manner in which they deal with complexity. Finally, the place of humanism within contemporary social theory is examined.

Ce mémoire étudie comment Condorcet, Hegel, Durkheim, Parsons, Bourdieu et Passeron conçoivent les fonctions respectives de la famille et de l’école en matière d’éducation. Depuis la Révolution française, les idées modernes sur ce partage ont beaucoup évoluées. C’est à titre de témoins éminents de cette évolution que ces auteurs sont interrogés. Toutes héritières des principes issus du siècle des Lumières, les conceptions étudiées varient selon le rapport à l’ordre social et selon l’intention qui les guide ; le bonheur universel qui fait autorité sur la liberté de l’individu en formation devient de moins en moins abstrait. En tant que finalité, cet idéal se fait supplanter, presque, par la question du bonheur individuel, pourtant soumise aujourd’hui à l’exigence de la réussite scolaire. La responsabilité individuelle s’en trouve accrue, puisque, depuis que les structures sociales inégalitaires ont été sévèrement critiquées, l’ordre social ne doit plus reposer sur des déterminations de classe. / This study examines how Condorcet, Hegel, Durkheim, Parsons, Bourdieu and Passeron perceive the roles of both the family and the school with regard to upbringing. Since the French Revolution, these perceptions have greatly evolved. We refer to these authors since they clearly represent the context of this evolution. Although these perceptions have inherited principles originating from the Enlightenment, they vary according to the relationship with society and the intentions by which they are guided. Universal happiness, which has an impact on the freedom of the growing individual, becomes less and less abstract. In the end, this ideal is almost surpassed by the freedom of personal happiness, which still depends today on success in school, as it is a generally accepted requirement. The responsibility of each individual is amplified, because, ever since unequal social structures have been highly criticized, social order shall no longer be based upon class determination.