        
|
For
Unger (1979), common to all social theories are the following 1) their burden of
the past (intellectual debt); 2) their assumptions of human nature; 3) their
method of explanation in terms of subject/object, structure/agency and
universalism/particularism dichotomies; 4) their assumptions of social order;
and 5) their assumptions of social change. We therefore argue that if Rizal�s
�theory of society� can be analyzed in terms of these elements/dichotomies
it can also be considered as a social theory. Crudely,
Unger�s (1979) framework can be explained in these terms: �
Intellectual
Debt. Discussion of
this element tries to explain the ideas that influenced a social theory; �
Assumptions
of Human Nature.
This is important in the sense that in order for a social theory to
�theorize� about order and change, it must have (in the first place) an
assumption of how human beings are like. �
Method.
This explains the theory�s thinking about how to give an account of social
life or facts. It comes with these three dichotomies or dualisms: o
Subjective/Objective
Knowledge. Deals
with the question of how a theory investigates the underlying structures of
social life. o
Structure/Agency.
Any social theory has to say something about human action, whether it be
individual or collective, and about social structure � the organization
of society (Craib, 1997:7). In other terms, this dichotomy deals with the
following questions: 1) is it the structure that is deterministic of social
actions? Or 2) is it the actions that are productive of the structure? And 3)
are human beings powerless to the constraints posed by society�s structure? o
Universalism/Particularism.
Deals with the question of whether the assumptions of any social theory can be
demonstrated across time and space. �
Assumptions
of Order. Deals
with the Consensus/Conflict dualism and poses the question� What holds
society together? �
Assumptions
of Social Change.
We think this is self explanatory.
|
|
Copyright 2005.
|