Sociology
Tahere Lotfi Khachaki; Ali Yousofi
Abstract
The present study seeks to introduce and critique Pierre Bourdieu's theory of distinction with a metatheory approach. The distinctive metatheory analysis is based on the four factors of the theoretical and social contexts of the theorist, basic assumptions, content concepts, logical relations of propositions ...
Read More
The present study seeks to introduce and critique Pierre Bourdieu's theory of distinction with a metatheory approach. The distinctive metatheory analysis is based on the four factors of the theoretical and social contexts of the theorist, basic assumptions, content concepts, logical relations of propositions and explanatory processes of theory, and finally a critique of theory based on the views of one of Bourdieu's key critics. The results of the transnational analysis show that Bourdieu's social world is full of unpleasant distribution of position and resources, and this has highlighted the theoretical concern of differentiation. The conflicting influences of Marxist, existentialism, structuralism, and activism have also created an interest in fusion theory in Bourdieu. In combining agency and structure, he considers the agency of individuals in a way that affects both the mind and the structure. He sees society as an interconnected set of fields (structures), capitals, and habitus. In his view, differences in habituation, capital, and position in the field lead to differences and distinctions in lifestyles. However, insufficient attention to the moral aspects of action, ignoring the role of emotions in the process of reasoning and prioritizing interests as the basis for social competition have been considered as the most important criticisms of Bourdieu's theory of distinction.
Sociology
Masoud Zare Mehrjardy; Ali Yousofi; Saeideh Mirabi
Abstract
Foucault’s theoretical foundations have often undergone significant rotations. Foucault’s commentators usually divide his scientific period into the duality of archeology-genealogy or the triad of archeology-genealogy-ethics. In this paper, Foucault’s archeology was analyzed through ...
Read More
Foucault’s theoretical foundations have often undergone significant rotations. Foucault’s commentators usually divide his scientific period into the duality of archeology-genealogy or the triad of archeology-genealogy-ethics. In this paper, Foucault’s archeology was analyzed through a meta-theoretical approach based on a combined model. This model is a selection of Ritzer’s meta-theoretical logic (including four external-social, internal-social, external-intellectual, and internal-intellectual approaches) and Chalabi’s conceptual package (including four analytical elements of theory including theory-building equipment, theoretical claims range, theoretical functions, and Theoretical construction). The results show that although archeology is less important to researchers than genealogy; however, in addition to being an efficient theoretical approach to historical, sociological research, it provides a different perspective on society, history, knowledge, and knowledge; It is also a methodological approach with separate guidelines and with a fluid and flexible structure that can be used effectively in dynamic sociological, historical research and make it dynamic. The most important criticisms of archaeology are the neglect of political and historical complexities, the failure of the archaeology of knowledge as the subject of succession to epistemology, and philosophical vacuum and refusal to search for a meaningful source for restoring the scattered historical determination of human.
