INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB RD„ ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 8129065 M u r ph y, J o h n W illia m TOWARD A HUMANISTIC SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY The Ohio State University PH.D. 1981 University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, M I 48106 Copyright 1981 by Murphy, John William All Rights Reserved TOWARD A HUMANISTIC SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By John W. Murphy, B.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1981 Reading Committee: oved By Dr. Roscoe C. Hinkle Dr. Gisela Hinkle "^Adviser Dr. Joseph Pilotta Department of Sociology t ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of a few key individuals who facilitated the development of this dissertation. The author thanks the members of his committee for the contributions they made to this work: Dr. Roscoe Hinkle, Dr. Gisela Hinkle, and Dr. Joseph Pilotta. Special thanks, however, goes to Dr. Roscoe Hinkle for his painstak­ ing effort in preparing this dissertation. Of course, the author assumes all blame for any omissions in this text. The author also wants to express his gratitude to those persons who provided support during this work, especially to a friend and colleague, Karen Callaghan. This work, however, is dedicated to a special person — Sarah. ii VITA November 3, 1948 ......... Born - Youngstown, Ohio 1972 ...................... B.A., Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 1974 ...................... M.A., Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 1976-1979 ............... Director of Research, Community Action Against Addiction, Cleveland, Ohio 1979-1981 ............... Teaching Associate, Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Sociology Studies in Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory. Professor Roscoe C. Hinkle Studies in Social Psychology. Professor Gisela J. Hinkle Studies in Communication Theory. Professor Joseph J. Pilotta iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................... ii VITA ............................................... iii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION TO THE DISSERTATION PROBLEM 1 II. A SCHEME FOR ANALYSING THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF GENERAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY 12 III. THE EMERGING HUMANISTIC SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY ................................... 44 IV. BLUMERIAN SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM .... 80 V. SCHUTZEAN PHENOMENOLOGICAL SOCIOLOGY . Ill VI. CRITICAL T H E O R Y ............................. 154. VII. YOGOSLAVIAN (PRAXIS) MARXISM ........... 203 VIII. ANALYTIC AND INTERPRETIVE SUMMARY .... 245 LIST OF REFERENCES ..................................... 282 iv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE DISSERTATION PROBLEM Dissertation problems in sociological theory have frequently involved the analysis of some theorist, (a particular) theory, or even a body of theory — once the ideas have become more or less articulated and systematic­ ally developed and presented and after some lapse of time to gain perspective. But it is relatively uncommon and per­ haps even unique for a dissertation to take its problematic from a preliminarily articulated and still inchoately developed set of ideas of an emergent orientation and endeavor to elaborate therefrom a relatively extended, com­ plete, and systematic statement of the position. Indeed, such is the objective of this dissertation for the emerging humanistic sociological theory. Clearly, then, this dissertation falls within the domain of sociological theory and its major traditions. And if the problematic is to be grasped, what is to be under­ taken must be understood within the perspective of the historical development of the main polemics in the traditions of sociological theory. Humanistic sociology — sociological theory arose self-consciously in the United States in the 1 later 1970's and in opposition to many of the features of '!mainstream" American sociology and sociological theory. Consequently, it is important to examine preliminarily the main characteristics of the two opposing and contending notions and, indeed, traditions of sociological theory and theorizing. One of the two has tended to envisage theory in terms of a natural science model. The other has distinc­ tively rejected such a model. The former construes theory as assuming a deductive-nomological format and as providing (deductive) explanation. The latter more or less derives from a hermeneutic or hermeneutic-dialectical perspective and accepts interpretation (rather than explanation) as its intellectual objective. Manifestly, explanation and inter­ pretation assume very divergent stances and require further commentary. During the 1960's, the recurrent argument in European and American theory over explanation versus interpretation culminated in sharp exchanges between the protagonists of the respective positions. Theory as explanation views soci­ ology as part of the natural or biophysical sciences. Human phenomena are held to be fundamentally similar to, if not also continuous with the rest of biophysical nature. Social phenomena are thus construed to be natural objects or natural systems. Such a theory tends to assume a form characteristic of physics. At the core of such a theory is a series of invariant laws which are asserted to be deductively interrelated. Characteristically, its concepts are believed to be a priori in nature. Rigid experimental procedures are used to test the subsidiary principles in the deductively constructed hierarchy. Empiricism, which is grounded on sensory experience, is the predominant epistemology assoc­ iated with this view of theory. Objectivity and statistical procedures are considered to be the criteria for determining the level of truth contained in any hypothesis that might be tested. Validity is presumed automatically to be universal in character. Theory as interpretation, on the other hand, holds that sociology is part of the human or cultural sciences. By virtue of its creation of meanings which are embodied in cultures, humankind is believed to be fundamentally different from biophysical nature. The core of this type of theory is not a set of invariant laws, but rather cultural meanings which are thought to be more or less circumscribed by a particular tradition. These meanings are not discovered through experimentation based on a priori schemes. They arise rather through interpretation, i.e., by an attempt to understand social phenomena in the broader context of their location in a specific cultural tradition. The epistemology associated with this theory is not empiricism, which asserts that knowledge is gained from the passive reception of sense- data. It insists rather on the resort to consciousness and reason in order to discover knowledge in the context of tradition. The adequacy or truth of a statement, moreover, is not assessed in terms of objectivity or statistical probability. Instead all truths are judged by their experiential relevance in a particular setting. When a truthful or lawful relationship is discovered according to this view of theory, it is not automatically conceived to be universal in nature. It is, instead, initially regarded to be a contextually limited truth which may attain a more general acceptance. Out of this context of contending tradi­ tions in sociological theory a conscious and self-designating humanistic sociology-sociological theory arose in the later 1970's. Its initial formulations have been fragmentary and incomplete. Accordingly, the dissertation objective is to formulate