2 research outputs found

    Irony as a Method of Neoclassical Sociology : Toward a Reconstruction of IvĂĄn SzelĂ©nyi’s Methodology

    Get PDF
    IvĂĄn SzelĂ©nyi is one of the most successful and accomplished contemporary sociologists originating from Central and Eastern Europe. His oeuvre – reflexive sociology of intellectuals – is based on what he together with his students calls ‘Irony as a Method of Neoclassical Sociology’. Although this methodological approach has attracted some attention, it is still little understood. To overcome this limitation, one needs to inspect SzelĂ©nyi’s approach to inquiry, including the different aspects of his mental model such as his take on ontology, epistemology, methodology, training, qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis, rhetoric, nature of knowledge, knowledge accumulation, goodness and quality criteria, hegemony, control, axiology, call to action, inquirer posture, ethics, reflexivity, accommodation, and commensurability. Analyses of these methodological foundations, which Bourdieu and his co-workers in their book from 1991, The Craft of Sociology, have also called the “system of intellectual habits”, form the sub-sections of my thesis that aims at a reconstruction of SzelĂ©nyi’s method of ironic inquiry. The thesis is organized into three main chapters. It starts with an overview of how ‘irony’ has been (ab)used in humanities and social sciences and provides the reader with a conceptual background and a comparative context. The overview ends with a brief introduction to how SzelĂ©nyi together with his co-authors has explained the nature of irony as a method of neoclassical sociology. The second chapter presents the materials and methods of my research. After arguing how the “new rules of sociological method”, as put forward by Giddens in 1976, are applicable in my study, I offer an overview of its underlying assumptions. This will be followed by explanations of the specifics of the theoretical research tradition followed in this research, arguments about why I flirt with rational ‘reconstruction’ as a research approach, how it, in turn, relates to ‘ethnomethodological indifference’ and to the ‘sociology of sociology’ as a sub-category of sociology of knowledge and science studies. I suggest that my research comes closest to the ‘deviant case study’ in terms of empirical research design. I will provide explanations on the selection of study material following the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) standard for meta-analysis on data collection (in terms of selected texts and conducted interviews) and analysis techniques (applying sociological discourse analysis for the ‘suspicious’ interpretation and objective hermeneutics for the ‘empathic’ one). The second chapter will also point out some methodological limitations of my research. The longest part of the dissertation, presented in the third chapter, is devoted to a comprehensive analysis of the methodological foundations of Ivan SzelĂ©nyi’s scholarship. More specifically, in order to understand and explain irony as a method of neoclassical sociology, I will classify and discuss critically his take on the above-mentioned methodological aspects from ontology to accommodation and commensurability. I call these elements collectively his metaphysical pathos – a term coined by Arthur O. Lovejoy in 1936. Although Lovejoy was reluctant to give it a precise definition, preferring to identify five principal types instead, the concept has come to signify ‘unconscious mental habits’ – the implicit and explicit assumptions of an individual, a generation, or an era. The term was made more widely known outside the history of ideas by Alvin Gouldner, who reformulated it as “a set of sentiments which those subscribing to the theory could only dimly sense”. The concept has a more specific meaning in this thesis – I interpret it as the ‘mental model’ of an author of sociological and theoretical texts. In other words, I do not see the metaphysical pathos as any broader constellation of inquirer presuppositions – most of which have been covered in detail by the four dimensions of Ritzer’s metatheoretical frame – but rather as the (un)conscious mental habits brought about by methodological choices, assumptions, and foundations of scholarship. In the concluding chapter, I will reflect on my efforts to reconstruct SzelĂ©nyi’s metaphysical pathos, which should allow us to improve our understanding of irony as a method of neoclassical sociology. The research puzzle I wish to solve is how SzelĂ©nyi’s thought-provoking sociological research has benefited from an ironic edge, even if such an approach has seldom been taken seriously as a method. At a more general level, SzelĂ©nyi’s way of using irony as anticipated thought provocation and/or intellectual intrigue that combines effectively critical theory and post-positivism, on the one hand, and elements of human and social sciences, on the other, shows that arts with its subjective qualitative analysis and sciences with its objective quantitative analysis are inseparable.IvĂĄn SzelĂ©nyi Ă€r en av de mest framgĂ„ngsrika och etablerade samtida sociologerna med ursprung i Central- och Östeuropa. Hans verk – en reflexiv sociologi om de intellektuella – bygger pĂ„ vad han tillsammans med sina elever kallar ironi som metod för neoklassisk sociologi. Även om detta metodologiska tillvĂ€gagĂ„ngssĂ€tt har vĂ€ckt viss uppmĂ€rksamhet Ă€r dess egentliga innebörd relativt okĂ€nd. För att bĂ€ttre förstĂ„ SzelĂ©nyis metod mĂ„ste man undersöka den mentala modell som hans forskning utgĂ„r ifrĂ„n, dvs. hans uppfattning om ontologi, epistemologi, metodologi, utbildning, kvalitativ analys, kvantitativ analys, retorik, kunskapens natur, kunskapsackumulering, kriterierna för vetenskaplighet och kvalitet, hegemoni, kontroll, axiologi, forskningens politiska implikationer, forskarens roll, etik, reflexivitet samt förenligheten och jĂ€mförbarheten av olika vetenskapliga paradigm. Dessa metodologiska grundvalar har av Bourdieu och hans medarbetare i boken The Craft of Sociology frĂ„n 1991 Ă€ven kallats "systemet av intellektuella vanor". De analyseras i olika delar av min avhandling, som syftar till en rekonstruktion av SzelĂ©nyis metod för ironisk undersökning. Avhandlingen sönderfaller i tre huvudkapitel och inleds med en översikt över hur "ironi" har (miss)brukats inom humaniora och samhĂ€llsvetenskap, och förser lĂ€saren med en konceptuell bakgrund och ett jĂ€mförande sammanhang. Översikten avslutas med en kort inledning till hur SzelĂ©nyi och hans medförfattare har framstĂ€llt ironin som metod för neoklassisk sociologi. Det andra kapitlet presenterar materialet och metoderna för min undersökning. Efter att ha argumenterat för min tillĂ€mpning av "de nya reglerna för sociologisk metod", som Giddens lade fram 1976, redogör jag för min studies underliggande antaganden. DĂ€refter följer en nĂ€rmare presentation av den teoretiska forskningstradition som den anknyter sig till, en motivering till att övervĂ€ga en rationell "rekonstruktion" som forskningsmetod, en förklaring över hur den i sin tur relaterar sig till "etnometodologisk likgiltighet" och till "sociologins sociologi" som en underkategori av kunskapssociologi och veten-skapsstudier. Jag föreslĂ„r att min undersökning stĂ„r nĂ€rmast den "avvikande fallstudien" nĂ€r det gĂ€ller empirisk forskningsdesign. Dess empiriska material har valts enligt standarden QUOROM – kvalitet pĂ„ rapportering av meta-analyser (Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses) för metaanalys, pĂ„ data-insamling (nĂ€r det gĂ€ller utvalda texter och genomförda intervjuer) och pĂ„ analystekniker (dĂ€r sociologisk diskursanalys tillĂ€mpas för en "misstĂ€nksam" tolkning och objektiv hermeneutik för en "empatisk" tolkning). I det andra kapitlet pekas ocksĂ„ pĂ„ de metodologiska begrĂ€nsningarna av min studie. Avhandlingens lĂ€ngsta del, som upptar det tredje kapitlet, innehĂ„ller en analys av de metodologiska grunderna för Ivan SzelĂ©nyis forskargĂ€rning. För att förstĂ„ och förklara ironi som metod för neoklassisk sociologi klassificerar och diskuterar jag kritiskt hans syn pĂ„ ovannĂ€mnda metodologiska aspekter – frĂ„n ontologi till förenligheten och jĂ€mförbarheten av olika vetenskapliga paradigm. Jag kallar dessa element sammanfattningsvis hans "metafysiska patos" – en term som myntades av Arthur O. Lovejoy 1936. Även om Lovejoy var ovillig att ge den en exakt definition och föredrog att istĂ€llet identifiera fem huvudtyper, har begreppet kommit att hĂ€nvisa till "omedvetna mentala vanor" – de implicita och explicita antagandena som kĂ€nnetecknar en individ, en gene-ration eller en epok. Utanför idĂ©historien blev termen mer allmĂ€nt kĂ€nd nĂ€r Alvin Gouldner omformulerade den som "en uppsĂ€ttning böjelser (sentiments) som de som stödjer en teori bara svagt kunde förnimma". I denna avhandling anvĂ€nds begreppet i en mer specifik betydelse, dvs. med hĂ€nvisning till den "mentala modellen" av en författare av sociologiska och teoretiska texter. Med andra ord ser jag inte det metafysiska patoset som nĂ„gon bredare konstellation av frĂ„gestĂ€llningar – varav de flesta ingĂ„r i de fyra dimensionerna i Ritzers metateoretiska schema – utan snarare som de (o)medvetna mentala vanor som utmynnar i metodologiska val, antaganden och i utgĂ„ngspunkterna för forskningsarbete. I det avslutande kapitlet reflekterar jag över mitt försök att rekonstruera SzelĂ©nyis metafysiska patos i syfte att bĂ€ttre förstĂ„ ironi som metod inom neoklassisk sociologi. Jag vill visa hur SzelĂ©nyis tankevĂ€ckande sociologiska forskning gynnats av en ironisk udd, Ă€ven om ironin inte brukar tas pĂ„ allvar som metod. SzelĂ©nyi anvĂ€nder ironi som avsiktlig provokation och/eller intellektuell intrig som i praktiken kombinerar kritisk teori och postpositivism Ă„ ena sidan samt element i humaniora och samhĂ€llsvetenskap Ă„ den andra. PĂ„ detta sĂ€tt visar han att humaniora och vetenskap, med subjektiv och kvalitativ respektive objektiv och kvantitativ analys, Ă€r oskiljaktiga

    VR Storytelling

    Get PDF
    The question of cinematic VR production has been on the table for several years. This is due to the peculiarity of VR language which, even if it is de ned by an image that surrounds and immerses the viewer rather than placing them, as in the classic cinematic situation, in front of a screen, relies decisively on an audiovisual basis that cannot help but refer to cinematic practices of constructing visual and auditory experience. Despite this, it would be extremely reductive to consider VR as the mere transposition of elements of cinematic language. The VR medium is endowed with its own speci city, which inevitably impacts its forms of narration. We thus need to investigate the narrative forms it uses that are probably related to cinematic language, and draw their strength from the same basis, drink from the same well, but develop according to di erent trajectories, thus displaying di erent links and a nities
    corecore