Analysis of Munch's (1991) American and European Social Theory

Cultural backgrounds affect the social forms of theory production shaping traditions of social theory in the United States, Britain, France and Germany the changing contributions of which to world sociology can be summarized as revitalization of European social theory. As respective influences of American, Asian, and European culture rearrange to reflect the shifting international balance among the three regions, sociological discipline also participates in the process where European social thought undergoes revitalization vis-a-vis long period when American sociology prevailed. After World War II the United States has established significant presence in sociology for the reasons of having developed leading academic system, dominated the world in political affairs, expanded to commerically encompass the world economy, and forged major international organizations (Munch 1991: 314). The dominance of American sociology was based on the integration of research and teaching on the level of graduate school and on the institutionalized competition of academic instutitions on a national scale. The failure to introduce research-oriented graduate training, the lack of market competition among academic schools, and the isolation within and across national boundaries of scientific schools account for simultaneous decline of European universities (Munch 1991: 314).

In this context American sociology has established itself as professionalized discipline whereas European sociology, by contrast, has not had access to comparable organizational resources of large competitive departments. However, within economically, politically, and culturally policentric world, European Union reemerges on the basis of dramatically intensified "economic transactions, concerted political decision-making, communal ties, and cultural communication" (Munch 1991: 315) among its constituent nations that together engage in non-ideological competition with the United States and Southeast Asia in areas of economy, politics, association, and culture. As a consequence, the world dominance of American sociology will be replaced by a horizontally policentric system where European sociology becomes once again one of the three leading schools of the discipline. Rise to dominance of American sociology has been accompanied by the preeminance of structural functionalism paradigm (Parsons [1937] 1968. 1951, 1967, 1977, 1978; Merton [1949] 1968), positivistic quantitative methodology (Lazarsfeld and Rosenberg 1955), leading journals organizing scientific community - American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, and Social Forces -, unified academic market with controlling agency of the journals, and highly reputed academic institutions promoting them - Harvard and Columbia (Munch 1991: 315).

Synthesized out of British anthropology, Anglo Saxon empiricism, Italitan positivism, French positivism and organicism, and German historicism and idealism, structural functionalism (Merton [1948] 1968; Parsons [1937] 1968) has reflected American society of insitutionalized individualism, instrumental activism, intersecting voluntary associations, common citizenship, institutionalized political democracy, party competition, minor political cleavages, and capitalist mass production (Munch 1991: 315-316). While each European sociological tradition had only partial ability to account for historical variability of social phenomena, the complementary diversity of European social thought has been progressively homogenized into the structural functionalism as mainstream social theory that lost connection with intellectual contraditions of its European origins (Parsons 1937, 1951, 1966, 1967, 1969, 1971, 1977, 1978). As the empirical grasp of structural functionalism on the social reality it sought to describe slipped the voices of its critics raised in 1950s have led to its demise as leading theoretical paradigm in 1960s. To account for dynamic social change, links to diverse European traditions were reestablished by Munch (1991) with European sociology, by Coser (1956, 1967) and Dahrendorf (1958a, 1958b) with European conflict theory, by Homans (1961, 1974) with European neoclassical economics, by Blumer (1969) with German hermeneutics, by Garfinkel (1967) with German phenomenology, and by Gouldner (1971, 1980) and Wallerstein (1974, 1980, 1984, 1989) with German political economy.

Save for Gouldner and Wallerstein, the institutionalization of plurality of microsociological models (Ritzer 1985) has replaced the Parsons' attempt to build a unified theoretical framework with multiple adapations of European thought to the empirical concerns of American sociology that without recourse to broad comparative approach offered few alternatives to complexity of structural functionalism (Munch 1991: 317). In all its variety of conflict theory (Collins 1975), rational choice theory (Coleman 1990), symbolic interactionism (Blumer 1969; Strauss 1978), and ethnomethodology (Garfinkel 1967) American sociology spells out basic structures of the society it studies that is constituted of "the many activities of free, independent agents who realize their individual selves through competition, exchange, negotiation, and cooperation" (Munch 1991: 317). The globally dominant position of American sociology after World War II affects development of sociological theory around the world where its academic system exerts standardizng effect on European sociology (Munch 1986b) as the sociological peruiodicals of the United States impose through their editors and reviews the format and quality requirements upon their widely disseminated distribution network marked by uniform professionalizm not unlike other American franchizes (Ritzer 1983).

American system of sociological education in its dedication to professional standards has led to greatly narrowing the range of deviation from the average scholarly quality which is not the case in Europe where exceptional diversity of its sociological tradition has made it possible to produce works of much higher level of excellence (Munch 1991: 318). Correspondingly, as the economic paradigm is increasingly ascendant in American sociology (Coleman 1990) claiming to represent as definining direction of theoretical development as did structural functionalism (Parsons 1937) the major source of inspiration for the current economic turn is neoclassical economics exclusively built around rational choice theory, which excludes multiple other aspects of social phenomena that are not only no less important than but also excercise reciprocal impact on economic calculation (Munch 1992). Economic sociology, in common with conflict theory, social interactionism, and ethnomethodology, puts transactions between free individuals at the center of its construction of social reality the theoretical parsimony, empirical applicability, and basis in common sense of American economy of which have contributed to its dominant position in social theory, which puts at a disadvantage other directions of theoretical development should American sociology retain its centrality in the world (Munch 1991: 319).

As "the most exactly and precisely formulated theory" (Munch 1991: 319), the rational choice theory enjoys the brand-name success that exact reproducibility, wide applicability, and high quality ensure for it around the world with minimal instruction on its cultural, theoretical, or philosophical underpinnings finding instead its reflection in the global expansion of Westrern capitalism. However, the rational choice paradigm represents a reductive synthesis of other sociological theories that encompass the diverse aspects of social life that go far beyond the common denominator of economic perspective (Munch 1991: 320). Rebalancing of the relations that intellectual traditions of America, Europe and Southeast Asia have in the world creates necessity to cover wider range of social phenomena that European sociology with its diverse traditions continues to have major theoretical relevance for (Munch 1991: 320). Coming from a richly interdisciplinary tradition, European sociology encompasses different national traditions where multiple theoretical schools have coexisted that "based on their own philosophical principles and methodological rules" (Munch 1991: 320) neither put any single paradigm at the center of their sociological traditions nor professionalize themselves as a discipline.

A concerted effort is required to mobilize European theoretical traditions to achieve account of reality that would be sociologically comprehensive in its dealing with diversity of social phenomena. The more important contributions to social theory come from British, French, and German traditions (Munch 1986a, 1986b, 1986c, 1989). As British sociology displaced Spencer's (1897-1906] 1975) liberalism, utilitarianism, and evolutionism, after World War II it has developed its own school of Marxist class-conflict theory by scholars like Rex (1961, 1981), Lockwood (1958), Goldthorpe (1968, 1980), Miliband (1982), and Giddens (1984) not showing philosophical influence of Hegel as did German Marxism. In Britain Marxist sociologists act in alliance with established power structures to apply class-conflict theory to labor politics, extension of rigths and welfare services, and regulation of industrial production without giving mich weight to theory development (Munch 1991: 321). The British labor politics of compromise secures the existing class hierarchy by utilizing power of mobilization through organizations and unions to bring improvements in social conditions of working classes by emphasizing solidarity and community.

Workers' struggle in Britain takes place within the structure of solidarity among classes where "tutelage from above and deference from below" (Munch 1991: 322) ensured acceptance of existing class structure that has consequently inhibited technology-related productivity increases, individual achievement, and job requirements change. Thatcherist policy of curbing union power and appealing to individualism has weakened solidarity both within and among classes that while allowing change and innovation to promote economic development of British society has made necessary to restore inter-class consensus to the establishment of which the vibrancy of Marxist sociology in Britain has made important contribution. In contrast, French sociologists belong to flourishing intellectual elite with wide audience that appreciates their works within rapidly changing cycles of intellectual fashion (Munch 1991: 323). Works of Saint-Simon (1865-1878), Comte ([1830-1842] 1969), and Durkheim ([1893] 1973) exert a definitive impact on French sociology that envisions society as an organic whole governed from the top of its hierarchic organization where every class has specialized functions that in their sum promote the development of society, liberation of individual, and general well-being.

After World War II, the impetus to the development of French sociology given by structuralism (Levi-Strauss 1947, 1962) and Marxism (Althusser and Balibar [1968] 1970) that highlighted constitutive role of autonomous structures was carried over to poststructuralism (Foucault 1969, 1971, 1975), deconstructionism (Derrida 1967), and postmodernism (Lyotard 1979, 1983; Baudrillard 1986) that interpreted social domination in terms of relations between power and discourse, of mutual implication of social structures and texts, and of "plurality of aesthetic projects" (Munch 1991: 324). Beginning with Descartes ([1637] 1963), power in French thought is perceived abstractly so that access to its manifestation lies in textual structures that only intellectuals can contest as they struggle for the achievement of universal freedom that actionist sociology (Touraine 1973, 1978) explicitly pursues. French sociology of Crozier (1964a), Bourricaud (1976), Bourdieu (1979), and Boudon (1977) combines standardized empirical approach of American rational choice theories with emphasis on social structures, which continues positivistic tradition of Durkheim and Parsons. Not without precedent in Tocqueville ([1856] 1968), for the French sociologists the social structure is represented by positional power of individuals within bureaucracies (Crozier 1964a), capital cities (Bourricaud 1976), and economic, social, and cultural capital structures (Bourdieu 1979, 1984b, 1985) that serves the mobilization of "appropriate resources in the power struggle" (Munch 1991: 325).

Drawing upon the cumulative development of philosophy and social thought since the German Enlightenment of late 18th and early 19th century, German sociology operates under the conditions of academic authonomy where theories, concepts and ideas provide its exclusive environment that has made possible its "conceptual sharpness, theoretical consistency, and logical conclusiveness" (Munch 1991: 326). In contrast to the French sociology, academic consistency of German social theory lacks innovation and spontaneity which leads to its theoretical development by way of either reinterpretation of classical and contemporary works (Habermas 1984, 1986, 1988) or return to classical problems and solutions whenever radical break with tradition is attempted (Luhmann 1984, 1986, 1988). Impact of philosophical idealism on German social thought expresses itself in rendering modern society understandable via dynamics of dialectical contradictions that are located in culture and institutions. For Kant (1964) moral universalism and moral particularism tend to converge while never coinciding whereas for Hegel (1964-1971) the freedom of reason and necessity of reality can merge by gradual resolution of contradictions between them that in the ideal sense the state is the embodimetn of as its rulings are guided by philosophical thinkers acting under autonomous academic conditions that are in stark contrast to engaged proletariat that Marx ([1843] 1956, [1867] 1962, [1885] 1964) expected to perform homologous function as agents of historical change within capitalist economy.

With tragic consequences, Nazism and Stalinism represent totalitarian extremisms that German idealism could not contain within its synthetic logic as the Nazi state sought to exterminate social contradictions of capitalism while the Soviet state pursued eradication of economic contradictions of communism both of which led to total domination by party elite for the suffering that these two totalitarian regimes inflicted in the 20th century the German social theory carries responsibility for because of lending to them intellectual legitimation, however minor it should be (Munch 1991: 327). However, contradictions of modernity have nowhere found their as deep and as sharp elucidations as in works of such German social theorists as Simmel (1890, 1900, 1908, [1914] 1926) and Weber ([1920-1921a] 1972a, [1920-1921b] 1972b. [1920-1921c] 1971, [1922] 1972c) that have made unparalleled contribution to the sociology of institutions (Schluchter 1971, 1972) and are growing in theoretical importance (Schluchter 1979, 1988) even though after a long period of narrow political reception (Mommsen [1959] 1974; Hennis 1987). In German critical theory instrumental reason prevents Enlightenment-based modernity from realizing its claims for full realization of human potential (Horkheimer 1967; Horkheimer and Adorno 1947) that either objectification of conceptual thought (Adorno [1966] 1973a) or regulatory colonization of communicative life-worlds (Habermas 1971, 1973b, 1981) are held responsible for with aesthetic criticism and communicative rationality as respectively proposed remedies.

Though Habermas argues that discursive procedures should be institutionalized connective links among specialized social areas, only together with "procedures of negotiation, compromise, and conflict settlement" (Munch 1991: 329) can they contribute to managing the complexity of modern societies composed of autopoietic systems (Luhmann 1984, 1986, 1988) that should be approached as institutionalized functional areas that contingently interpenetrate each other to leave room for action (Munch 1991) and for critical reflection (Beck 1986, 1988; Willke 1983, 1989). To manintain the relevance of distinct contributions of European social thought to the discipline of sociology it is necessary to integrate its perspectives and its variety into American sociological theory. That, however, should be achieved not via the path of standardization of sociology towards its professionalized as a discipline but via the preservation of its interrelated diversity (Munch 1991: 329). Comparative advantage of American sociology in empirical research should be combined with strengths of European theoretical achievements in order to integrate distinct contributions of diverse national traditions to world sociology.

Though exchange, cooperation, and migration have always contributed to creating areas of overlap between these traditions as did wave of refugees from Nazi Germany in 1930s, movement of British Marxist and class conflict theorists like Moore (1966), Skocpol (1979), and Wallerstein (1974, 1980, 1984), and reception of European sociology by Alexander (1982-1983, 1987), the need for integration between American and European sociology remains. No less is necessary the mutual integration of European theoretical traditions that have more developed communication and exchange with American sociology than with each other, should their interrelated diversity exert long lasting theoretical influence (Munch 1991: 330).