Why Luhmann Chile became one of the leading theorists? (A thing to review programs for example, Ph.D., to observe their influence.) In the final analysis, it is not true universally extremely influential.
What makes the issue even stranger is that his theory has not, to my knowledge, any "success" relevant explanatory or descriptive. In almost all other theorists can say that illuminated an aspect of social life or who gave an interesting answer to a problem, which allowed us to advance our understanding of the social.
the functional, we can say that-all-wrong ideas of Merton on anomie and the sociology of science allowed us to understand better certain aspects of social life. Even Habermas can raise their disquisitions allowed progress in understanding the public sphere. For Bourdieu, even when it is declared obsolete, it would be difficult to deny that the distinction was a contribution to the whole field of sociology of culture and consumption. And so one could continue with other theoretical and traditional.
But for Luhmann, what part of the analysis of social life has received a substantial contribution to that theory? Sometimes I have the impression that the matter be reduced to a simple (well, complex) redescription of themes and sizes.
0 comments:
Post a Comment