國立中山大學社會學研究所 99學年度上學期 社會學理論 Sociological Theory Instructor: Poe Yu-ze Wan（萬毓澤） Course Description: Put at its simplest, sociological theorizing is an attempt to specify as clearly as possible a set of ideas that describe, represent, or explain, if possible, a particular social phenomenon or a set of social phenomena. This course provides an intensive introduction to the central issues in sociological theory, covering both the classical period as well as the contemporary developments of sociology. The following figures and ideas of sociological theory will be closely examined in their historical context: Karl Marx (1818-83), his conception of historical materialism and critique of political economy, and their continuing relevance to understanding the world we live in; Émile Durkheim (1858-1917) and his classic discussion of social change and collective representation; Max Weber (1864-1920), his deeply influential methodology of social science, and his scrutiny of such crucial aspects of the modern world as capitalism and domination; Georg Simmel (1858-1918) and his perceptive observations on modernity; Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002), his reflexive sociology, and his use of such concepts as field (champ), habitus, symbolic power (pouvoir symbolique), and so on. In addition, this course will also include a cursory discussion of the ideas of such contemporary social theorists as Erving Goffman (1922-82), Michel Foucault (1926-84), Jürgen Habermas (1929-), Norbert Elias (1897-1990), and Anthony Giddens (1938-). Finally, the recent “analytical turn” in sociology will be briefly discussed to familiarize the students with the latest developments in sociological thinking and theorizing. The selection of theorists and theoretical approaches discussed in this course is admittedly limited for lack of sufficient time. The students are therefore strongly encouraged to explore theoretical developments not discussed in this class through self-study. They are also welcome to consult the instructor for guidance. Course Objectives: ‧ Students should further their critical understanding of the ways in which the canonical texts inform and inspire subsequent sociological theorizing. ‧ Students demonstrate their ability to apply the concepts and ideas learned in this course to their own empirical enquiries to the social world that surrounds them, and thereby to assess their contemporary relevance. ‧ Students further their oral communication skills through intensive seminar interaction. ‧ Students further their writing and analytical skills by way of preparing a written interrogation of the readings every week. Assignments and Grades: The final mark for this course will be determined by a combination of grades from essays, written homework assignments, class participation and attendance: 1. There will be three short essay papers (more than five pages each), where students will be asked to summarize specific arguments from course texts, and to analyze specific quotes. These essays will require careful thinking and disciplined writing. 2. Each week students are required to write a summary of and reaction to assigned readings, and pose focused questions that will serve as the basis for the seminar discussion. These memos (2-4 pages) should be emailed to me the day before the seminar. I will read your memos, write brief comments on them, and distill the seminar agenda from them. 3. Participation will be evaluated based on the content and frequency of contributions to class discussion, and the frequency of attendance. Books Recommended for All: Baert, Patrick and Filipe Carreira da Silva. 2010. Social Theory in the Twentieth Century and Beyond. Cambridge, UK: Polity.（舊版中譯可參考：《二十世 紀社會理論導讀》，林翰譯，台北：風雲論壇。） Benton, Ted. 1977. Philosophical Foundations of the Three Sociologies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Benton, Ted and Ian Craib. 2001. Philosophy of Social Science: The Philosophical Foundations of Social Thought. New York: Palgrave. Callinicos, Alex. 2007. Social Theory: A Historical Introduction. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.（舊版中譯可參考：《社會理論思想史導論》，簡守邦譯，台 北：韋伯文化。） Collins, Randall and Michael Makowsky，2006，《發現社會之旅：西方社會學思想述 評》，李霞譯，北京：中華書局。 Dillon, Michele. 2009. Introduction to Sociological Theory: Theorists, Concepts, and Their Applicability to the Twenty-First Century. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Dodd, Nigel，2003，《社會理論與現代性》，張君玫譯，台北：巨流。 Durand, Jean-Pierre and Robert Weil編，1996，《當代社會學》，蔡筱穎、郭光予譯 ，台北：遠流。 Elliott, Anthony. 2009. Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction. London: Routledge. Elster, Jon. 2007. Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hedström, Peter. 2005. Dissecting the Social: On the Principles of Analytical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hedström, Peter and Richard Swedberg (eds) 1998. Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hedström, Peter and Björn Wittrock (eds) 2009. Frontiers of Sociology. Leiden: Brill Joas, Hans. 1996. The Creativity of Action. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Joas, Hans and Wolfgang Knöbl. 2009. Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures. New York: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, Doyle Paul. 2008. Contemporary Sociological Theory: An Integrated Multi-Level Approach. New York: Springer. Kincaid, Harold. 1996. Philosophical Foundations of the Social Sciences: Analyzing Controversies in Social Research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Layder, Derek. 1998. Sociological Practice: Linking Theory and Social Research. London: SAGE.（中譯可參考：《最新社會科學研究的理論與方法》，簡守邦 譯，台北：韋伯文化。） Layder, Derek. 2006. Understanding Social Theory. 2nd ed. London: SAGE. Little, Daniel. 1998. Microfoundations, Method, and Causation: On the Philosophy of the Social Sciences. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Manicas, Peter T. 1987. A History and Philosophy of the Social Sciences. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Moessinger, Pierre. 2000. The Paradox of Social Order: Linking Psychology and Sociology. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Mouzelis, Nicos. 2008. Modern and Postmodern Social Theorizing: Bridging the Divide. New York: Cambridge University Press. Münch, Richard. 1993. Sociological Theory from the 1850s to the Present. 3 vols. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Outhwaite, William. 1987. New Philosophies of Social Science: Realism, Hermeneutics, and Critical Theory. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education. Outhwaite, William. 2006. The Future of Society. Oxford: Blackwell. Ritzer, George (ed.) 2003. The Blackwell Companion to Major Classical Social Theorists. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Ritzer, George (ed.) 2003. The Blackwell Companion to Major Contemporary Social Theorists. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Rosenberg, Alexander. 2008. Philosophy of Social Science. 3rd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Sayer, Andrew. 1992. Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Sayer, Andrew. 2000. Realism and Social Science. London: Sage. Sibeon, Roger. 2004. Rethinking Social Theory. London: Sage. Smith, Mark. 1998. Social Science in Question. London: Sage.（中譯可參考：《社 會科學概說》，吳翠松譯，台北：韋伯文化。） Turner, Jonathan H.，2005，《社會學理論的產生》，韋本譯，台北：洪葉文化。 Turner, Jonathan H. (ed.) 2006. Handbook of Sociological Theory. New York: Plenum. Wager, Peter. 2001. A History and Theory of the Social Sciences: Not All That Is Solid Melts into Air. London: SAGE. Important Journals: American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, Annual Review of Sociology, Social Forces, British Journal of Sociology, Journal of Classical Sociology, Sociological Theory, European Journal of Social Theory, Critical Sociology, Current Sociology, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Rationality and Society, Historical Materialism, Science and Society Useful Websites: UnderstandingSociety http://www.changingsociety.org/ChangingSociety/ (Website of Daniel Little, an important sociologist and philosopher of social science) Course Outline: (* = optional reading) 9/14 Week 1 Introduction to the Course ‧ ﹡Connell, R.W. 1997. “Why is Classical Theory Classical?”, American Journal of Sociology, 102 (6): 1511-57. ‧ ﹡Collins, Randall. 1997. “Sociological Guilt Trip: Comment on Connell,” American Journal of Sociology, 102(6): 1558-65. 9/21 Week 2 Sociological Theory and Social Research ‧ Calhoun, Craig. 1996. “What Passes for Theory in Sociology?”, Sociological Theory, 14: 1-2. ‧ Craib, Ian. 1992. Modern Social Theory: From Parsons to Habermas. 2nd ed. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, chapter 1. ‧ Ragin, Charles. 1994. Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Press, chapter 3. ‧ Little, Daniel. 2010. “’Social Theory and the Empirical Social World,” available at http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2010/05/social-theory-and- empirical-social.html ‧ ﹡Turner, Jonathan H.，2005，《社會學理論的產生》，韋本譯，台北：洪葉，第一 章。 ‧ ﹡Collins, Randall and Michael Makowsky，2006，《發現社會之旅：西方社會學思 想述評》，李霞譯，北京：中華書局，導論。 ‧ ﹡Hedström, Peter. 2005. Dissecting the Social: On the Principles of Analytical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 12-33. ‧ ﹡Turner, Jonathan. 2001. “Sociological Theory Today,” in Jonathan Turner (ed.) Handbook of Sociological Theory. New York: Kluwer/Plenum, pp. 1-17. ‧ ﹡Turner, Jonathan and David E. Boyns. 2001. “The Return of Grand Theory, ” in Jonathan Turner (ed.) Handbook of Sociological Theory. New York: Kluwer/Plenum, pp. 353-78. ‧ ﹡Calhoun, Craig. 2001. “The Critical Dimension in Sociological Theory,” in Jonathan Turner (ed.) Handbook of Sociological Theory. New York: Kluwer/Plenum, pp. 85-111. ‧ ﹡Baert, Patrick. 2006. “Social Theory and the Social Sciences,” in Gerard Delanty (ed.) Handbook of Contemporary European Social Theory. London: Routledge, pp. 14-24. ‧ ﹡Burawoy, Michael. 1989. “Two Methods in Search of Science: Skocpol vs. Trotsky,” Theory and Society, 18(6): 759-805. ‧ ﹡Layder, Derek. 1998. Sociological Practice: Linking Theory and Social Research. London: SAGE, chapter 1.（中譯可參考：《最新社會科學研究的理論與方法 》，簡守邦譯，台北：韋伯文化。） ‧ ﹡Little, Daniel. 2010. “’Theory’ in Sociology,” available at http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2010/02/theory-in-sociology.html ‧ ﹡Little, Daniel. 2009. “What Makes a Sociological Theory Compelling?”, available at http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-makes-sociological-theory.html 9/28 Week 3 Karl Marx and His Legacy: Historical Materialism ‧ 馬克思、恩格斯，1995，《共產黨宣言》，《馬克思恩格斯選集》，第一卷，中共中 央馬克思恩格斯列寧斯大林著作編譯局譯，北京：人民出版社，頁248-307。 ‧ 馬克思，1995，《路易‧波拿巴的霧月十八日》，《馬克思恩格斯選集》，第一卷， 中共中央馬克思恩格斯列寧斯大林著作編譯局譯，北京：人民出版社，頁579-689。 ‧ 馬克思，1995，〈《政治經濟學批判》序言〉，《馬克思恩格斯選集》，第二卷，中 共中央馬克思恩格斯列寧斯大林著作編譯局譯，北京：人民出版社，頁31-5。 ‧ 馬克思，1995，〈給《祖國紀事》雜誌編輯部的信〉，《馬克思恩格斯選集》，第三 卷，中共中央馬克思恩格斯列寧斯大林著作編譯局譯，北京：人民出版社，頁339-42。 ‧ 恩格斯，1995，〈致约‧布洛赫〉，《馬克思恩格斯選集》，第四卷，中共中央馬克 思恩格斯列寧斯大林著作編譯局譯，北京：人民出版社，頁695-8。 ‧ 恩格斯，1995，〈致康‧施米特〉，《馬克思恩格斯選集》，第四卷，中共中央馬克 思恩格斯列寧斯大林著作編譯局譯，北京：人民出版社，頁698-705。 ‧ Wood, Philip. 2005. “Historical Materialism,” in Georgina Blakeley and Valerie Bryson (eds) Marx and Other Four-Letter Words. London: Pluto, pp. 12-28. ‧ Barker, Colin. 2008. ”Class Struggle” (Klassenkampf), in Historisch-kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus, available at http://0rz.tw/jtdQc (德文版見 http://0rz.tw/9YC3g ). ‧ ﹡Collier, Andrew. 2004. Marx. Oxford: Oneworld Press, chapter 2. ‧ ﹡Callinicos, Alex，2007，《創造歷史：社會理論中的行動、結構與變遷》（ Making History: Agency, Structure, and Change in Social Theory），萬毓澤譯，台 北：群學，第二章。 ‧ ﹡Blackledge, Paul. 2006. Reflections on the Marxist Theory of History. Manchester: Manchester University Press, chapters 2-3. ‧ ﹡萬毓澤，2008，〈歷史唯物論中的結構與行動：資本主義起源論再探〉，《台灣社 會研究季刊》，71期，頁106-56。 ‧ ﹡Williams, Raymond. 2001. “Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory,” in John Higgins (ed.) The Raymond Williams Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 158-78. ‧ ﹡Carling, Alan. 1993. “Analytical Marxism and Historical Materialism: The Debate on Social Evolution,” Science and Society, 57(1): 31-65. ‧ ﹡Carling, Alan and Paul Nolan. 2000.“ Historical Materialism, Natural Selection, and World History,” Historical Materialism, 6: 215-64. ‧ ﹡Sherman, Howard J. 2000. “Class and Evolution: A Marxian View,” in Ron Baiman et al. (eds) Political Economy and Contemporary Capitalism: Radical Perspectives on Economic Theory and Policy. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 42-7. ‧ ﹡Callinicos, Alex. 1990. “The Limits of ‘Political Marxism’.” New Left Review, 184: 110-5. ‧ ﹡Blackledge, Paul. 2008. “Political Marxism.” In Jacques Bidet and Stathis Kouvelakis (eds.) Critical Companion to Contemporary Marxism. Leiden: Brill, pp. 267-84. ‧ ﹡Milonakis, Dimitris. 1997. “The Dynamics of History: Structure and Agency in Historical Evolution,” Science and Society, 61(3): 303-29. ‧ ﹡Laibman, David. 2006. “The End of History? The Problem of Agency and Change in Historical Materialist Theory,” Science and Society, 70(2): 180-204. ‧ ﹡Panayotakis, Costas. 2004. “A Marxist Critique of Marx’s Theory of History: Beyond the Dichotomy between Scientific and Critical Marxism,” Sociological Theory, 22(1): 123-39. ‧ ﹡Little, Daniel. 1986. The Scientific Marx. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, chapter 2. ‧ ﹡Wright, Erik Olin, Andrew Levine and Elliott Sober. 1992. Reconstructing Marxism: Essays on Explanation and the Theory of History. London: Verso, chapters 2-5. ‧ ﹡Creaven, Sean. 2007. Emergentist Marxism: Dialectical Philosophy and Social Theory. London: Routledge, chapter 3. 10/5 Week 4 Karl Marx and His Legacy: Critique of Political Economy ‧ 馬克思，1995，〈雇佣勞動與資本〉，《馬克思恩格斯選集》，第一卷，中共中央馬 克思恩格斯列寧斯大林著作編譯局譯，北京：人民出版社，頁331-63。 ‧ 馬克思，2004，《資本論》，第一卷，第二版，北京：人民出版社，第一篇至第四篇 。 ‧ 馬克思，1995，〈工資、價格和利潤〉，《馬克思恩格斯選集》，第二卷，中共中央 馬克思恩格斯列寧斯大林著作編譯局譯，北京：人民出版社，頁47-98。 ‧ Harman, Chris. 2009. Zombie Capitalism: Global Crisis and the Relevance of Marx. London: Bookmarks, chapter 1. ‧ ﹡馬克思，2004，〈第一版序言〉，《資本論》，第一卷，第二版，中共中央馬克思 恩格斯列寧斯大林著作編譯局譯，北京：人民出版社，頁7-13。 ‧ ﹡馬克思，2004，〈第二版跋〉，《資本論》，第一卷，第二版，中共中央馬克思恩 格斯列寧斯大林著作編譯局譯，北京：人民出版社，頁14-23。 ‧ ﹡Collier, Andrew. 2004. Marx. Oxford: Oneworld Press, chapters 5-6. ‧ ﹡Mandel, Ernest，1991，《《資本論》新英譯本導言》，仇啟華、杜章智譯，北京 ：中共中央黨校出版社，頁1-41. ‧ ﹡Mandel, Ernest，2009，《馬克思主義經濟學簡論》，張乃烈譯、劉宇凡校訂，香 港：馬克思主義研究促進會，頁16-65。 ‧ ﹡Callinicos, Alex. 2004. “Marx’s Method,” in The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx. 2nd ed. London: Bookmarks, pp. 65-80. ‧ ﹡Fine, Ben and Alfredo Saad-Filho. 2004. Marx’s Capital. 4th ed. London: Pluto, chapters 1-3. ‧ ﹡Saad-Filho, Alfredo. 2002. The Value of Marx: Political Economy for Contemporary Capitalism. London: Routledge, chapters 2-4. ‧ ﹡Foley, Duncan K. 1986. Understanding Capital: Marx’s Economic Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, chapters 1-5. ‧ ﹡Albritton, Robert. 2007. Economics Transformed: Discovering the Brilliance of Marx. London: Pluto, chapters 2-3. ‧ ﹡Harman, Chris. 2009. Zombie Capitalism: Global Crisis and the Relevance of Marx. London: Bookmarks, chapters 2-3. ‧ ﹡Rosdolsky, Roman，1992，〈附錄：對馬克思工資理論的評論〉，收於《馬克思《 資本論》的形成》，濟南：山東人民出版社，頁309-343。 ‧ ﹡Goldstein, Jonathan P. 2000. “The Global Relevance of Marxian Crisis Theory,” in Ron Baiman et al. (eds) Political Economy and Contemporary Capitalism: Radical Perspectives on Economic Theory and Policy. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 68-77. ‧ ﹡Leontief, Wassily. 1938. “The Significance of Marxian Economics for Present-Day Economic Theory,” The American Economic Review, 28(1): 1-9. ‧ ﹡Little, Daniel. 1986. The Scientific Marx. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, chapter 3. ‧ ﹡Lindenberg, Siegwart. 1992. “The Method of Decreasing Abstraction,” in James S. Coleman and Thomas J. Fararo (eds) Rational Choice Theory: Advocacy and Critique. Newbury Park: Sage, pp. 3-20. ‧ ﹡Faulks, Keith. 2005. “Capitalism,” in Georgina Blakeley and Valerie Bryson (eds) Marx and Other Four-Letter Words. London: Pluto, pp. 12-28. ‧ ﹡Mandel, Ernest，2002，《權力與貨幣：馬克思主義的官僚理論》，孟捷等譯，北 京：中央編譯出版社，第五章。 10/12 Week 5 Karl Marx and His Legacy: Sociological Marxism and Marxist Ecology ‧ Burawoy, Michael and Erik Olin Wright. 2001. “Sociological Marxism,” in Jonathan Turner (ed), Handbook of Sociological Theory. New York: Plenum, pp. 459-84. ‧ Foster, John Bellamy. 1999. “Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundation for Environmental Sociology,” American Journal of Sociology, 105(2): 366-405. ‧ Devine, Pat. 2009. “The Continuing Relevance of Marxism,” in Sandra Moog and Rob Stones (eds) Nature, Social Relations and Human Needs: Essays in Honour of Ted Benton. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 83-98. ‧ ﹡Collier, Andrew. 2004. Marx. Oxford: Oneworld Press, chapter 10. ‧ ﹡Foster, John Bellamy. 2009. The Ecological Revolution: Making Peace with the Planet. New York: Monthly Review Press, chapters 8, 11. ‧ ﹡O’Connor, James. 1998. “The Second Contradiction of Capitalism,” in Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 158-77.（中譯可參考：《自然的理由：生態學馬克思主義研究》，唐正東、臧佩洪譯， 南京市：南京大學出版社。） ‧ ﹡Burkett, Paul. 2005. “Marx’s Vision of Sustainable Human Development,” Monthly Review, 57(5): 34-62. ‧ ﹡Clark, Brett and Richard York. 2005. “Dialectical Materialism and Nature: An Alternative to Economism and Deep Ecology,” Organization & Environment, 18(3): 318-37. ‧ ﹡Foster, John Bellamy. 2008. “The Dialectics of Nature and Marxist Ecology,” in Bertell Ollman and Tony Smith (eds) 2008. Dialectics for the New Century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 50-82. ‧ ﹡Burawoy, Michael. 2001. “For a Sociological Marxism: The Complementary Convergence of Antonio Gramsci and Karl Polanyi,” Politics & Society, 31(2): 193-261. ‧ ﹡Burawoy, Michael. 1990. “Marxism as Science: Historical Challenges and Theoretical Growth,” American Sociological Review, 55(6): 775-93. ‧ ﹡Paolucci, Paul. 2007. Marx’s Scientific Dialectics: A Methodological Treatise for a New Century. Boston: Brill, chapter 2. ☆ First Essay Assignment 10/19 Week 6 Émile Durkheim and His Legacy: Social Order and Social Change ‧ 涂爾幹，2000，《社會分工論》，渠東譯，北京：三聯書店，第一至七章。 ‧ 涂爾幹，2006，《職業倫理與公民道德》，渠東、付德根譯，上海：上海人民出版社 ，第一至三章。 ‧ ﹡孫中興，2008，《令我討厭的涂爾幹的社會分工論》，台北：群學。 ‧ ﹡Turner, Bryan S. 1999, “Emile Durkheim on Civil Society,” in Classical Sociology. London: SAGE, pp. 88-110. ‧ ﹡Dingley, James. 2008. “Durkheim: Change, Progress and Society,” in Nationalism, Social theory and Durkheim. New York: Palgrave Macmilan, pp. 105-32. ‧ ﹡Tiryakian, Edward A. 2009. ”Émile Durkheim and Social Change,” in For Durkheim: Essays in Historical and Cultural Sociology. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 63-8. ‧ ﹡Grusky, David B. and Gabriela Galescu. 2005. “Is Durkheim a Class Analyst?”, in Jeffrey C. Alexander and Philip Smith (eds) The Cambridge Companion to Durkheim. New York: Cambridge, pp. 322-59. ‧ ﹡Filloux, Jean-Claude. 1993. “Inequalities and Social Stratification in Durkheim’s Sociology,” in Stephen P. Turner (ed.) Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Moralist. London: Routledge, pp. 205-21. ‧ ﹡Joas, Hans. 1993. “Émile Durkheim’s Intellectual Development: The Problem of the Emergence of New Morality and New Institutions as a Leitmotif in Durkheim’s Oeuvre,” in Stephen P. Turner (ed.) Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Moralist. London: Routledge, pp. 223-38. ‧ ﹡Warfield, Rawls Anne. 2003. “Conflict as a Foundation for Consensus: Contradictions of Industrial Capitalism in Book III of Durkheim’s Division of Labor," Critical Sociology, 29(3): 295-335. 10/26 Week 7 Émile Durkheim and His Legacy: Symbolic Classification and Collective Representation ‧ 涂爾幹，1999，《宗教生活的基本形式》，渠東等譯，上海：上海人民出版社，導言 、第一章、第六章第一節、結論第三、四節。 ‧ 涂爾幹，2002，〈個體表現與集體表現〉，收於《社會學與哲學》，梁棟譯，上海： 上海人民出版社，頁1-36。 ‧ ﹡Schmaus, Warren. 2004. Rethinking Durkheim and His Tradition. New York: Cambridge University Press, chapter 1. ‧ ﹡Pickering, W. S. F. 2000. “Representations as Understood by Durkheim,” in W. S. F. Pickering (ed.) Durkheim and Representations. London: Routledge, pp. 11-23. ‧ ﹡Dingley, James. 2008. “Durkheim’s Sociology of Knowledge,” in Nationalism, Social theory and Durkheim. New York: Palgrave Macmilan, pp. 133-61. 11/2 Week 8 Émile Durkheim and His Legacy: Contemporary Resonances（或選擇 Goffman） ‧ Schilling, Chris. 2005. “Embodiment, Emotions, and the Foundations of Social Order: Durkheim’s Enduring Contribution,” in Jeffrey C. Alexander and Philip Smith (eds) The Cambridge Companion to Durkheim. New York: Cambridge, pp. 211-38. ‧ Emirbayer, Mustafa, 1996. “Useful Durkheim,” Sociological Theory, 14(2): 109-30. ‧ ﹡Gilbert, Margaret. 1994. “Durkheim and Social Facts,” in W.S.F. Pickering and Herminio Martins (eds) Debating Durkheim. London: Routledge, pp. 86-109. ‧ ﹡Sawyer, Keith R. 2001. “Emergence in Sociology: Contemporary Philosophy of Mind and Some Implications for Sociological Theory,” American Journal of Sociology, 107(3): 551-85. ‧ ﹡Sawyer, Keith R. 2002. “Durkheim’s Dilemma: Toward a Sociology of Emergence,” Sociological Theory, 20(2): 227-47. ‧ ﹡Cherkaoui, Mohamed. 2008. Durkheim and the Puzzle of Social Complexity. Oxford: The Bardwell Press. ‧ ﹡Boudon, Raymond. 1995. “Weber and Durkheim: Beyond the Differences, a Common Important Para-digm?”, Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 2(192): 221- 39. ‧ ﹡Ramp, William. 1999. “Durkheim and Foucault on the Genesis of the Disciplinary Society,” in Mark S. Cladis (ed.) Durkheim and Foucault: Perspectives on Education and Punishment. Oxford: Durkheim Press, pp. 71-103. ‧ ﹡Bauman, Zygmunt. 2005. “Durkheim's Society Revisited,” in Jeffrey C. Alexander and Philip Smith (eds) The Cambridge companion to Durkheim. New York: Cambridge, pp. 360-82. ‧ ﹡Schilling, Chris. 2005. “Beyond Solidarity? Durkheim and Twenty-First Century,” in Jeffrey C. Alexander and Philip Smith (eds) The Cambridge Companion to Durkheim. New York: Cambridge, pp. 383-409. ‧ ﹡Tiryakian, Edward A. 2009. ”Neither Marx nor Durkheim…Perhaps Weber,” in For Durkheim: Essays in Historical and Cultural Sociology. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 281-312. 11/9 Week 9 Max Weber and His Legacy: Methodology, Rationality and Social Action ‧ 韋伯，1993，《社會學的基本概念》，顧忠華譯，台北：遠流，頁17-56。 ‧ 韋伯，2004，〈經濟行動〉，收於《韋伯作品集》，第四卷，康樂、簡惠美譯，桂林 ：廣西師範大學出版社，頁3-21。 ‧ 韋伯，1991，〈學術作為一種志業〉，收於錢永祥編譯，《學術與政治》，台北：遠 流，頁131-67。 ‧ Allen, Kieran. 2004. “Methodology,” in Max Weber: A Critical Introduction. London: Pluto, pp. 68-80. ‧ ﹡韋伯，1998，〈社會科學認識和社會政策認識中的「客觀性」〉，收於《社會科學 方法論》，韓水法、莫茜譯，北京：中央編譯出版社，頁1-61。 ‧ ﹡韋伯，1998，〈社會科學和經濟科學「價值無涉」的意義〉，收於《社會科學方法 論》，韓水法、莫茜譯，北京：中央編譯出版社，頁136-82。 ‧ ﹡Turner, Jonathan H. and Leonard Beeghley，2005，〈韋伯的社會科學方法論〉 ，收於蘇國勛、劉小楓編，《社會理論的開端與終結》，上海：上海三聯書店，頁379-88 。 ‧ ﹡Manicas, Peter T. 1987. “From Ranke to Max Weber,” in A History and Philosophy of the Social Sciences. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 117-40. ‧ ﹡Boudon, Raymond. 1986. Theories of Social Change: A Critical Appraisal. Trans. by J.C. Whitehouse. Berkeley: University of California Press, chapter 2. ‧ ﹡Eliaeson, Sven. 2000. “Max Weber’s Methodology: An Ideal-Type,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 36(3): 241-63. ‧ ﹡Boudon, Raymond. 2006. “Utility or Rationality? Restricted or General Rationality?”, in Richard Arena and Agnès Festré (eds) Knowledge, Beliefs and Economics. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 155-78. ‧ ﹡Allen, Kieran. 2010. “Weber,” in Timothy O'Connor and Constantine Sandis (eds) A Companion to the Philosophy of Action. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 546-53. ‧ ﹡Emirbayer, Mustafa. 2005. “Beyond Weberian Action Theory,” in Charles Camic, Philip S. Gorski, and David M. Trubeck (eds) Max Weber’s Economy and Society: A Critical Companion. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 185-203. ‧ ﹡Joas, Hans and Jens Beckert. 2001. “Action Theory,” in Jonathan Turner (ed.) Handbook of Sociological Theory. New York: Kluwer/Plenum, pp. 269-85. ‧ ﹡Drysdale, John, “Weber on Objectivity: Advocate or Critic?”, in Laurence McFalls (ed.) Max Weber’s “Objectivity” Reconsidered. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 31-57. ‧ ﹡Bunge, Mario. 2007. “Did Weber Practise the Objectivity He Preached?”, in Laurence McFalls (ed.) Max Weber’s “Objectivity” Reconsidered. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 117-34. ‧ ﹡Colliot-Thélène, Catherine. 2007. “Speaking Past One Another: Durkheim, Weber, and Varying Modes of Sociological Explanation” in Laurence McFalls (ed.) Max Weber’s “Objectivity” Reconsidered. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 137-64. ‧ ﹡Fishman, Robert M. 2007. “On Being a Weberian (after Spain's 11-14 March): Notes on the Continuing Relevance of the Methodological Perspective Proposed by Weber,” in Laurence McFalls (ed.) Max Weber's “Objectivity” Reconsidered. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 261-89. ‧ ﹡Sztompka, Piotr. 2009. “The Return to Values in Recent Sociological Theory,” in Peter Hedström and Björn Wittrock (eds) Frontiers of Sociology. Leiden: Brill, pp. 39-58. ‧ ﹡張維安，1989，〈韋伯論社會科學之「價值中立」〉，收於翟本瑞、張維安、陳介 玄，《社會實體與方法：韋伯社會學方法論》，台北：巨流，頁7-39。 ‧ ﹡陳介玄，1989，〈「理念類型」：韋伯與馬克思的比較分析〉，收於翟本瑞、張維 安、陳介玄，《社會實體與方法：韋伯社會學方法論》，台北：巨流，頁135-58。 11/16 Week 10 Max Weber and His Legacy: The Rise of the West ‧ 韋伯，2008，〈前言〉、〈上篇〉，收於《新教倫理與資本主義精神》，于曉等譯， 台北：左岸，頁20-116。 ‧ 韋伯，2004，〈近代資本主義的概念與先決條件〉，收於《韋伯作品集》，第二卷， 康樂等譯，桂林：廣西師範大學出版社，頁151-4。 ‧ 韋伯，2004，〈資本主義精神的發展〉，收於《韋伯作品集》，第二卷，康樂等譯， 桂林：廣西師範大學出版社，頁179-94。 ‧ 韋伯，1997，〈計算精神與近代資本主義企業的興起〉，收於《經濟、社會、宗教： 馬克斯‧韋伯文選》，鄭樂平編譯，上海：上海社會科學院出版社，頁137-45。 ‧ Allen, Kieran. 2004. “The Spirit of Capitalism,” in Max Weber: A Critical Introduction. London: Pluto, pp. 32-46. ‧ Allen, Kieran. 2004. “The Fall and Rise of the West,” in Max Weber: A Critical Introduction. London: Pluto, pp. 117-33. ‧ ﹡Giddens, Anthony. 1995. “Marx, Weber and the Development of Sociology,” in Politics, Sociology, and Social Theory: Encounters with Classical and Contemporary Social Thought. Cambridge: Polity, pp. 57-77. ‧ ﹡Löwy, Michael. 1989. “Weber against Marx? The Polemic with Historical Materialism in the Protestant Ethic,” Science and Society, 53(1): 71-83. ‧ ﹡Campbell, Colin. 2006. “Do Today’s Sociologists Really Appreciate Weber ’s Essay The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism?”, Sociological Review, 54(2): 207-23. ‧ ﹡McKinnon, Andrew. 2010. “Elective Affinities of the Protestant Ethic: Weber and the Chemistry of Capitalism,” Sociological Theory, 28(1): 108-26. ‧ ﹡Swedberg, Richard，2007，〈韋伯經濟社會學的基本概念〉，收於《馬克斯‧韋伯 與經濟社會學思想》（Max Weber and The Idea of Economic Sociology），何蓉譯，北 京：商務印書館，頁34-74。 11/23 Week 11 Max Weber and His Legacy: Legitimacy, Status and Domination ‧ 韋伯，2004，〈正當性的基礎〉、〈具有官僚制管理幹部的法制型支配〉、〈傳統型 支配〉、〈卡理斯瑪支配〉、〈卡理斯瑪的例行化〉，收於《韋伯作品集》，第二卷，康 樂等譯，桂林：廣西師範大學出版社，頁297-379。 ‧ 韋伯，2004，〈支配的結構及其功能形態〉，收於《韋伯作品集》，第三卷，康樂、 簡惠美譯，桂林：廣西師範大學出版社，頁1-20。 ‧ Weber, Max. 1994. “The Distribution of Power within the Political Community: Classes, Status Groups, Political Parties,” in Wolf Heydebrand (ed.) Sociological Writings. New York: Continuum, pp. 107-22.（中譯可參考：韋 伯，1997，〈共同體內部的權力分配：階級、等級、政黨〉，收於《經濟與社會》，第二 冊，林榮遠譯，北京：商務印書館，頁246-62。） ‧ Allen, Kieran. 2004. “Class, Status and Party,” in Max Weber: A Critical Introduction. London: Pluto, pp. 81-96. ‧ ﹡Bendix, Reinhard. 1974. “Inequality and Social Structure: A Comparison of Marx and Weber,” American Sociological Review, 39(2): 149-61. ‧ ﹡Kellner, Douglas. 1985. “Critical Theory, Max Weber, and the Dialectics of Domination,” in Robert J. Antonio and Ronald M. Glassman (eds.) A Weber-Marx Dialogue. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, pp. 89-116. ‧ ﹡Wright, Erik Olin. 2002. “The Shadow of Exploitation in Weber’s Class Analysis,” American Sociological Review, 67(6): 832-53. ‧ ﹡Löwy, Michael. 1996. “Figures of Weberian Marxism,” Theory and Society, 25(3): 431-46. ☆ Second Essay Assignment 11/30 Week 12 Georg Simmel and His Legacy: Modernity, Self and Society ‧ Frisby, David. 2002. Georg Simmel. Rev. ed. London: Routledge, chapters 1-2. ‧ Simmel, Georg. 1971[1908]. “How is Society Possible?”, in Donald N. Levine (ed.) Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 6-22. （中譯參考：〈社會如何是可能的？〉，收 於林榮遠編譯，《社會是如何可能的：齊美爾社會學文選》，桂林：廣西師範大學出版社 ，頁358-76。） ‧ Simmel, Georg. 1971[1908]. “The Stranger,” in Donald N. Levine (ed.) Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 143-9.（中譯參考：〈陌生人〉，收於《時尚的哲學》，費勇等譯 ，北京：文化藝術出版社，頁110-5。） ‧ Simmel, Georg. 1971[1908]. “The Metropolis and Mental Life,” in Donald N. Levine (ed.) Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 324-39.（中譯參考：〈大都會與精神生活〉，收於 《時尚的哲學》，費勇等譯，北京：文化藝術出版社，頁186-99。） ‧ Simmel, Georg. 1971[1908]. “Sociability,” in Donald N. Levine (ed.) Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 127-40.（中譯參考：〈交際社會學〉，收於《時尚的哲學》，費勇 等譯，北京：文化藝術出版社，頁15-28。） ‧ ﹡Simmel, Georg. 1971[1908]. “Conflict,” in Donald N. Levine (ed.) Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 70-95. ‧ ﹡Simmel, Georg. 1971[1908]. “Domination,” in Donald N. Levine (ed.) Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 96-120. ‧ ﹡Vandenberghe, Frédéric. 1999. “Simmel and Weber as Ideal-Typical Founders of Sociology,” Philosophy and Social Criticism, 25:4 (July), 57-80. ‧ ﹡Vandenberghe, Frédéric. 2009. “Georg Simmel: Between Marx and Weber. The Dialectics of Modernity,” in A Philosophical History of German Sociology. London: Routledge, pp. 69-97. ‧ ﹡Levine, Donald N. 1998. “Simmel Reappraised: Old Images, New Scholarship,” in Charles Camic (ed.) Reclaiming the Sociological Classics: The State of the Scholarship. Malden: Blackwell, pp. 173-207. ‧ ﹡Deem, Mathieu. 2003. “The Sociology of the Sociology of Money: Simmel and the Contemporary Battle of the Classics,” Journal of Classical Sociology, 3(1): 67-96. 11/30 Week 12 Erving Goffman’s Dramaturgical Analysis of Social Encounters （或選擇Durkheim的第三週） ‧ Goffman, Erving. 1997. “Self-Presentation,” in Charles Lemert and Ann Branaman (eds) The Goffman Reader. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, pp. 21-5.（中譯可 參考：《日常生活中的自我表演》，徐江敏、李姚軍譯，台北：桂冠。） ‧ Goffman, Erving. 1997. “Social Life as Drama,” in Charles Lemert and Ann Branaman (eds) The Goffman Reader. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, pp. 95-108.（中譯 可參考：《日常生活中的自我表演》，徐江敏、李姚軍譯，台北：桂冠。） ‧ Goffman, Erving. 1997. “Social Life as Game,” in Charles Lemert and Ann Branaman (eds) The Goffman Reader. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, pp. 129-46. ‧ Goffman, Erving. 1997. “The Stigmatized Self,” in Charles Lemert and Ann Branaman (eds) The Goffman Reader. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, pp. 73-9.（中譯可 參考：《污名：管理受損身份的筆記》，曾凡慈譯，台北：群學。） ‧ Zerubavel, Eviatar，2008，《沉默串謀者：日常生活中的緘默與縱容》（The Elephant in the Room: Silence and Denial in Everyday Life），黃佳瑜譯，台北： 早安財經，1-4章。 ‧ ﹡孫中興，1992，〈高夫曼《日常生活中的自我表演》導讀〉，收於Erving Goffman ，《日常生活中的自我表演》，徐江敏、李姚軍譯，台北：桂冠，頁1-26。 ‧ ﹡Fine, Gary Alan and Philip Manning. 2003. “Erving Goffman,” in George Ritzer (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Major Contemporary Social Theorists. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 34-62. ‧ ﹡Fernandez, Ronald. 2003. “Erving Goffman,” in Mappers of Society: The Lives, Times, and Legacies of Great Sociologists. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, pp. 203-32. ‧ ﹡Treviño, A. Javier. 2003. “Introduction: Erving Goffman and the Interaction Order,” in A. Javier Treviño (ed.) Goffman’s Legacy. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 1-49. ‧ ﹡Rogers, Mary F. 2003. “The Personal Is Dramaturgical (and Political): The Legacy of Erving Goffman,” in A. Javier Treviño (ed.) Goffman’s Legacy. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 86-126. ‧ ﹡Branaman, Ann. 2003. “Interaction and Hierarchy in Everyday Life: Goffman and Beyond,” in A. Javier Treviño (ed.) Goffman’s Legacy. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 127-42. ‧ ﹡Baert, Patrick and Filipe Carreira da Silva. 2010. Social Theory in the Twentieth Century and Beyond. Cambridge, UK: Polity, pp. 101-7. ‧ ﹡Turner, Jonathan H. 1999. A Theory of Social Interaction. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, pp. 90-5. 12/7 Week 13 Pierre Bourdieu and His Legacy (I) ‧ Bourdieu, Pierre，2008，《布赫迪厄社會學面面觀》，李康、李猛譯，台北：麥田 ，頁107-320。 ‧ Swartz, David. 2006，《文化與權力：布爾迪厄的社會學》，陶東風譯，上海：上海 譯文出版社，1-3章。 ‧ Fowler, Bridget. 2001. “Pierre Bourdieu,” in Bryan S. Turner and Anthony Elliott (eds) Profiles in Contemporary Social Theory. London: SAGE, pp. 315-26. ‧ ﹡Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. “Structures, Habitus, Practices,” in The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 52-79. ‧ ﹡Brubaker, Rogers. 2004. “Rethinking Classical Theory: The Sociological Vision of Pierre Bourdieu,” in David L. Swartz and Vera L. Zolberg (eds) After Bourdieu: Influence, Critique, Elaboration. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 25-64. ‧ ﹡Mahar, Cheleen, and Christopher Wilkes. 2004. “Pierre Bourdieu,” in Jon Simons (ed.) Contemporary Critical Theorists: From Lacan to Said. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 218-33. ‧ ﹡Baert, Patrick and Filipe Carreira da Silva. 2010. Social Theory in the Twentieth Century and Beyond. Cambridge, UK: Polity, pp. 34-41. ‧ ﹡Vandenberghe, Frédéric. 1999. “‘The Real is Relational’: An Epistemological Analysis of Pierre Bourdieu’s Generative Structuralism,” Sociological Theory, 17(1): 32-67. ‧ ﹡Mouzelis, Nicos. 2008. Modern and Postmodern Social Theorizing: Bridging the Divide. New York: Cambridge University Press, chapter 8. ‧ ﹡Lizardo, Omar. 2004. “The Cognitive Origins of Bourdieu’s Habitus,” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 34(4): 375-401. ‧ ﹡Potter, Garry. 2000. “For Bourdieu, Against Alexander: Reality and Reduction,” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(2): 229-46. ‧ ﹡Elder-Vass, Dave. 2007. “Reconciling Archer and Bourdieu in an Emergentist Theory of Action,” Sociological Theory, 25(4): 325-46. ‧ ﹡Collet, François. 2009. “Does Habitus Matter? A Comparative Review of Bourdieu’s Habitus and Simon’s Bounded Rationality with Some Implications for Economic Sociology,” Sociological Theory, 27(4): 419-34. ‧ ﹡Fuchs, Christian. 2003. “Some Implications of Pierre Bourdieu’s Works for a Theory of Social Self-Organization,” European Journal of Social Theory, 6(4): 387-408. 12/14 Week 14 Pierre Bourdieu and His Legacy (II) ‧ Bourdieu, Pierre，1993〈社會空間與象徵權力〉（Social Space and Symbolic Power），王志弘譯，收於夏鑄九、王志弘編，《空間的文化形式與社會理論讀本》，台 北：明文。（Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. In Other Words: Essays towards a Reflexive Sociology. Stanford: Stanford University Press, chapter 8.） ‧ Bourdieu, Pierre，2009，《實作理論綱要》，宋偉航譯，第二版，台北：麥田，第 二章。 ‧ Bourdieu, Pierre. 1998. “The Scholastic Point of View,” in Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 127-40. （中譯參 考：〈學院觀點〉，收於《實踐理性：關於行為理論》，譚立德譯，北京：三聯書店，頁 197-214。） ‧ Swartz, David. 2006，《文化與權力：布爾迪厄的社會學》（Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu），陶東風譯，上海：上海譯文出版社，4-6章。 ‧ ﹡Bourdieu, Pierre. 2000. Pascalian Meditations. Cambridge, MA: Polity, chapter 1. ‧ ﹡Weininger, Elliot B. 2005. “Foundations of Pierre Bourdieu’s Class Analysis,” in Erik Olin Wright (ed.) Approaches to Class Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 82-118. ‧ ﹡Weininger, Elliot B. 2002. “Class and Causation in Bourdieu,” in Jennifer M. Lehmann (ed.) Current Perspectives in Social Theory. Vol. 21. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 49-114. ‧ ﹡Bidet, Jacques. 2008. “Bourdieu and Historical Materialism,” in Jacques Bidet and Stathis Kouvelakis (eds) Critical Companion to Contemporary Marxism. London: Brill, pp. 587-603. ‧ ﹡Callinicos, Alex. 1999. “Social Theory Put to the Test of Politics: Pierre Bourdieu and Anthony Giddens,” New Left Review, 236: 77-102. ‧ ﹡Swartz, David L. 2004. “From Critical Sociology to Public Intellectual: Pierre Bourdieu and Politics,” in David L. Swartz and Vera L. Zolberg (eds) After Bourdieu: Influence, Critique, Elaboration. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 333-64. ‧ ﹡Joas, Hans and Wolfgang Knöbl. 2009. Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures. New York: Cambridge University Press, chapter 15. ‧ ﹡Sayer, Andrew，2008，《階級的道德意義》（The Moral Significance of Class ），萬毓澤、陳妙芬譯，台北：巨流，第2、5章。 ‧ ﹡Callinicos, Alex. 1999. “Social Theory Put to the Test of Politics: Pierre Bourdieu and Anthony Giddens,” New Left Review, 236: 77-102. ☆ Third Essay Assignment 12/21 Week 15 The Critical Project Continued: Michel Foucault and Jürgen Habermas ‧ Johnson, Doyle Paul. 2008. Contemporary Sociological Theory: An Integrated Multi-Level Approach. New York: Springer, pp. 409-22. ‧ Foucault, Michel. 2000. “Truth and Power,” in Essential Works of Foucault, 1954-1984. London: Penguin Books, pp. 111-33. ‧ Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2. Boston: Beacon Press, pp. 119-34. ‧ ﹡Dodd, Nigel，2003，《社會理論與現代性》，張君玫譯，台北：巨流，第四、五章 。 ‧ ﹡Baert, Patrick and Filipe Carreira da Silva. 2010. Social Theory in the Twentieth Century and Beyond. Cambridge, UK: Polity, chapters 6-7. ‧ ﹡Callinicos, Alex. 2007. Social Theory: A Historical Introduction. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 276-98. ‧ ﹡Layder, Derek. 2006. Understanding Social Theory. 2nd ed. London: SAGE, chapters 6 and 10. ‧ ﹡Joas, Hans and Wolfgang Knöbl. 2009. Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures. New York: Cambridge University Press, chapters 9-10, 14. ‧ ﹡Outhwaite, William. 2009. Habermas: A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, chapters 5-6. ‧ ﹡Brown, Richard Harvey and Douglas Goodman. 2001. “Jürgen Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action: An Incomplete Project,” in George Ritzer and Barry Smart (eds.) Handbook of Social Theory. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 201-16. ‧ ﹡Postone, Moishe. 1993. “Habermas’s Critique of Marx,” in Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx's Critical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 226-60. ‧ ﹡陳榮灼，2007，〈理性、政治與歷史：論傅柯與哈伯瑪斯的爭論〉，萬毓澤譯，收 於蔡英文、張福建編，《現代性的政治反思》，台北：中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心，頁261-288。 ‧ ﹡Ingram, David. 2005. “Foucault and Habermas,” in Gary Gutting (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Foucault. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 240-83. ‧ ﹡Ashenden, Samantha and David Owen (eds) 1999. Foucault contra Habermas: Recasting the Dialogue between Genealogy and Critical Theory. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE. ‧ ﹡Kelly, Michael (ed.) 1994. Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 12/28 Week 16 Social Ontology Redux: Anthony Giddens, Norbert Elias and Sociological Realism ‧ Giddens, Anthony. 1993. “Problems of Action and Structure,” in Philip Cassell (ed.) The Giddens Reader. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 88-175.（部分內 容可參考：Giddens, Anthony，2002，《社會的構成：結構化理論大綱》，李康、李猛譯 ，台北：左岸；Giddens, Anthony，2005，〈結構化理論〉，收於蘇國勛、劉小楓編，《 社會理論的諸理論》，上海：上海三聯書店，頁127-45；Giddens, Anthony，2003，《社 會學方法的新規則：一種對解釋社會學的建設性批判》，田佑中、劉江濤譯，北京：社會 科學文獻出版社；Giddens, Anthony，2003，《社會理論與現代社會學》，文軍、趙勇譯 ，北京：社會科學文獻出版社。） ‧ Elias, Norbert，2007，《什麼是社會學？》，鄭義愷譯，台北：群學，導論、第四 章。 ‧ Bhaskar, Roy, 1998. The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. 3rd ed. London: Routlegde, pp. 27-59. ‧ ﹡Layder, Derek. 2006. Understanding Social Theory. 2nd ed. London: SAGE, chapter 7. ‧ ﹡Archer, Margaret. 1998. “Realism and Morphogenesis,” in Roy Bhaskar et al. (eds) Critical Realism: Essential Readings. London: Routledge, pp. 356-81. ‧ ﹡van Krieken, Robert. 2001. “Norbert Elias and Process Sociology,” in George Ritzer and Barry Smart (eds.) Handbook of Social Theory. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 353-67. ‧ ﹡Emirbayer, Mustafa. 1997, “Manifesto for a Relational Sociology,” American Journal of Sociology, 103(2): 281-317. ‧ ﹡Benton, Ted. 1998. “Realism and Social Science: Some Comments on Roy Bhaskar’s The Possibility of Naturalism,” in Roy Bhaskar et al. (eds) Critical Realism: Essential Readings. London: Routledge, pp. 297-312. ‧ ﹡Bhaskar, Roy and Rom Harré. 2001. “How to Change Reality: Story vs. Structure—A Debate between Rom Harré and Roy Bhaskar,” in José López and Garry Potter (eds) After Postmodernism: An Introduction to Critical Realism. New York: Athlone, pp. 22-39. ‧ ﹡Layder, Derek. 2006. Understanding Social Theory. 2nd ed. London: SAGE, chapter 8. ‧ ﹡Sewell, William H. 2005. Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, chapter 4. ‧ ﹡Loyal, Steven. 2003. The Sociology of Anthony Giddens. London: Pluto, chapters 3-4. ‧ ﹡Parker, John. 2000. Structuration. Phildelphia, Pa.: Open University Press. ‧ ﹡Parker, John. 2006. “Structuration’s Future?”, Journal of Critical Realism, 5(1): 122-38. ‧ ﹡Joas, Hans and Wolfgang Knöbl. 2009. Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures. New York: Cambridge University Press, chapter 12. ‧ ﹡Baert, Patrick and Filipe Carreira da Silva. 2010. Social Theory in the Twentieth Century and Beyond. Cambridge, UK: Polity, chapter 5. ‧ ﹡Mouzelis, Nicos. 2008. Modern and Postmodern Social Theorizing: Bridging the Divide. New York: Cambridge University Press, chapter 12. ‧ ﹡Little, Daniel. 2007. “Levels of the Social,” in Stephen P. Turner and Mark W. Risjord (eds) Philosophy of Anthropology and Sociology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 343-72. 1/4 Week 17 The Analytical Approach to Sociological Theorizing ‧ Coleman, James S. 1987. “Microfoundations and Macrosocial Behavior,” in Jeffrey C. Alexander et al. (eds) The Micro-Macro Link. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 153-73. ‧ Hedström, Peter. 2009. “The Analytical Turn in Sociology,” in Peter Hedström and Björn Wittrock (eds) Frontiers of Sociology. Leiden: Brill, pp. 331-42. ‧ Little, Daniel. 2009. “The Heterogeneous Social: New Thinking about the Foundations of the Social Sciences,” in Chrysostomos Mantzavinos (ed.) Philosophy of the Social Sciences: Philosophical Theory and Scientific Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 154-78. ‧ ﹡Coleman, James. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, chapter 1. ‧ ﹡Hedström, Peter and Peter Bearman. 2009. “What is Analytical Sociology All About? An Introductory Essay,” in Peter Hedström and Peter Bearman (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-24. 1/11 Week 18 Conclusion: The Task(s) of Sociological Theories Revisited ‧ Boudon, Raymond. 2002. “Sociology That Really Matters,” European Sociological Review, 18(3): 371-8. ‧ Goldthorpe, John H. 2004. “Sociology as Social Science and Cameral Sociology: Some Further Thoughts,” European Sociological Review, 20(2): 97-105. ‧ Abend, Gabriel. 2008. “The Meaning of ‘Theory’,” Sociological Theory, 26(2): 173-99. ‧ ﹡Little, Daniel. 2010. “Philosophy of Sociology,” in Fritz Allhoff (ed.) Philosophies of the Sciences: A Guide. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 293-323. ‧ ﹡Elster, Jon. 2007. “Conclusion: Is Social Science Possible?”, in Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 445-67. ‧ ﹡Baert, Patrick and Filipe Carreira da Silva. 2010, “Conclusion: Social Theory for the Twenty-First Century,” in Social Theory in the Twentieth Century and Beyond. Cambridge, UK: Polity, pp. 285-304. --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.64.108.26