The Meaning of ‘Theory’*

Northwestern University
Sociological Theory (Impact Factor: 0.97). 05/2008; 26(2):173 - 199. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9558.2008.00324.x

ABSTRACT ‘Theory’ is one of the most important words in the lexicon of contemporary sociology. Yet, their ubiquity notwithstanding, it is quite unclear what sociologists mean by the words ‘theory,’‘theoretical,’ and ‘theorize.’ I argue that confusions about the meaning of ‘theory’ have brought about undesirable consequences, including conceptual muddles and even downright miscommunication. In this paper I tackle two questions: (a) what does ‘theory’ mean in the sociological language?; and (b) what ought ‘theory’ to mean in the sociological language? I proceed in five stages. First, I explain why one should ask a semantic question about ‘theory.’ Second, I lexicographically identify seven different senses of the word, which I distinguish by means of subscripts. Third, I show some difficulties that the current lack of semantic clarity has led sociology to. Fourth, I articulate the question, ‘what ought “theory” to mean?,’ which I dub the ‘semantic predicament’ (SP), and I consider what one can learn about it from the theory literature. Fifth, I recommend a ‘semantic therapy’ for sociology, and advance two arguments about SP: (a) the principle of practical reason—SP is to a large extent a political issue, which should be addressed with the help of political mechanisms; and (b) the principle of ontological and epistemological pluralism—the solution to SP should not be too ontologically and epistemologically demanding.

Download full-text


Available from: Gabriel Abend, Nov 15, 2014
  • Source
    • "From a sociological perspective , there is a great deal of dispute and confusion as to what " theory " actually means. Abend provides an extended discussion, suggesting that the problem is in part semantic—that the problem is that people are talking about very different things when they mean " theory, " due to the polysemic (multiple) meanings of the word (Abend 2008). There are, of course, other valuable discussions on how to categorize types of theory (Mjøset 2001), but Abend's discussion has the strength of being comprehensive, lucid, and self-contained. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article integrates key theories and concepts associated with the Capability Approach to community informatics (CI), a domain of sociotechnical theory and practice concerned to improve the lives of people in need. While the social value propositions for com munity informatics are useful for orienting pragmatic research and practice, they are currently not well considered theoretically. Sociological theory is therefore explored to provide a stronger an chor to community informatics as compared to the narrower the oretical agenda of information systems. Within this framework, the Capability Approach is identified as one example of a strong social theory with potential for adaptation into community infor matics. This would have several effects, including strengthening internal theory, and building capacity to engage in stronger dia logue with other disciplines, including sociology and information systems. This new approach to CI theory via sociological theory also allows for the adaptation and testing of other bodies of theory.
    The Information Society 05/2014; 30(3):200-211. · 1.24 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "(paper abstract, np) The present article takes issue with regard to the use of literary materials as source texts for sociologists to generate new theories (Erasga, 2010). Literary materials, it argues, should no longer be judged exclusively in terms of truth claims as this stance has epistemological problems (Denzin, 1990; Mouzelis, 1995; Charmaz, 2000; Norton, 2006 Abend, 2008), but in terms of the meanings and insights they convey through imaginative reconstructions of social experience. Imagination via storytelling is a form of narrative thinking and not just an aimless gallivanting of the mind, which Gardner (1980, p. xxii) likened " to the works of those peerless poets who[se minds] range freely within the zodiac of their own wits. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sociological imagination is an open invitation to theorize from the stories we tell about ourselves and others. More than self-expression, the sociological ethos of auto/biographical narration is to extend the reality of a solipsistic and exclusive existence into a common and public experience. In order to achieve this, the narrator must convert biographies into scribed realities. The narrating process, however, has unique epistemic anchorage (memory-based) and stylistic requirement (literary) that encage lived lives in a fictional genre, giving this mode of writing a unique interpretive lens that projects new visions of the social. Consequently for theorizing purposes, auto/biographies are meaning-claims that should no longer be read exclusively in terms of their dramatic and documentary values, but more in terms of their theoretical affordances. This paper explores the implications and utility of fictionalized auto/biographical narratives in expanding the ambit of sociological theorizing.
  • Source
    • "Rather, it is to see identity as emerging in response to, and making sense within, a particular and peculiar cultural and historical context in U.S. society (but it is interesting to see how our analysis of the historical and cultural context in U.S. society can shed light on the discourse on identity elsewhere). In this sense, our theorizing is of the nature of an approach to theory common in the European tradition in which, " given a certain phenomenon P (or a certain fact, relation, process, trend)… 'what does it mean that P?,' 'is it significant that P?,' 'is it really the case that P?,' 'what is P all about?,' or 'how can we make sense of or shed light on P?' " (Abend 2008, p. 178). Our goal is thus to provoke discussion rather than to report on solid findings (as we discuss before our questions in the next section). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We consider identity as a historically emerging discourse that requires genealogical analysis - not to discover the roots of our identity but to commit [ourselves] to its dissipation (Foucault 1977, p. 162). We suggest analyzing identity through the history of socio-economic classes, their life struggles, ambitions, development, and reproduction. We see learning not as a project of transformation of identity, but rather as developing access to socially valuable practices and developing one's own voice within these practices (through addressing and responding to other voices). The access and voice projects free agents from unnecessary finalization and objectivization by oneself and others (Bakhtin 1999; Bakhtin 1990). In education, we should develop indigenous discourses of learning and develop a conceptual framework that makes analysis of diverse discourses possible. We argue that learning, as transformation of participation in a sociocultural practice to gain more access, is a better conceptual framework than learning as transformation of identity.
    Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science 02/2012; 46(3):274-95. DOI:10.1007/s12124-012-9192-0 · 1.11 Impact Factor
Show more