History of the Human Sciences 1997 Layder 117 20

8/13/2019 History of the Human Sciences 1997 Layder 117 20

1/5

http://hhs.sagepub.com/History ofthe HumanSciences

http://hhs.sagepub.com/content/10/4/117Theonline version of this article can be foundat:

DOI: 10.1177/095269519701000411

1997 10: 117History of the Human SciencesDerek Layder

220 ppReviews : Hans Joas, The Creativity of Action. Oxford: Polity Press, 1996.

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:History of the Human SciencesAdditional services and information for

http://hhs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://hhs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://hhs.sagepub.com/content/10/4/117.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Nov 1, 1997Version of Record>>

by Daniel Soto on October 30, 2013hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Soto on October 30, 2013hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Soto on October 30, 2013hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Soto on October 30, 2013hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Soto on October 30, 2013hhs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://hhs.sagepub.com/http://hhs.sagepub.com/http://hhs.sagepub.com/content/10/4/117http://hhs.sagepub.com/content/10/4/117http://hhs.sagepub.com/content/10/4/117http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://hhs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://hhs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hhs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://hhs.sagepub.com/content/10/4/117.refs.htmlhttp://hhs.sagepub.com/content/10/4/117.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://hhs.sagepub.com/content/10/4/117.full.pdfhttp://hhs.sagepub.com/content/10/4/117.full.pdfhttp://hhs.sagepub.com/http://hhs.sagepub.com/http://hhs.sagepub.com/http://hhs.sagepub.com/http://hhs.sagepub.com/http://hhs.sagepub.com/http://hhs.sagepub.com/http://hhs.sagepub.com/http://hhs.sagepub.com/http://hhs.sagepub.com/http://hhs.sagepub.com/http://hhs.sagepub.com/http://hhs.sagepub.com/http://hhs.sagepub.com/http://hhs.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://hhs.sagepub.com/content/10/4/117.full.pdfhttp://hhs.sagepub.com/content/10/4/117.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://hhs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hhs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://hhs.sagepub.com/content/10/4/117http://hhs.sagepub.com/


2/5

117

upon a theoretical atheism, which characterizes todays social construction-ism as much as it did Marx or Durkheim.According to social construction-

ists, meaning is produced by social interaction between humans.

Nevertheless, manyof these

humans,but not social

constructionists,cite

gods as actors in their accounts of the origins of meaning.A social science,which was not sceptical about such claims, but which was sceptical about thesocial constructionists routine scepticism, would look very different fromthat which is now the conventional orthodoxy.

Constructing Identities might be a small book. In terms of style, it has anice author, to match those nice animals and nice environments, of whichhe writes. But do not be deceived by the engaging modesty.A conceptualnetwork is being redrawn; social scientists are being invited to rewrite theiridentities. We do not know where this will

lead,but the

journeyis sure to be

exciting.

Michael BilligLoughborough University, UK

Hans Joas, The Creativity of Action. Oxford: Polity Press, 1996. 220 pp.

Although Joas states that this book is not meant to provide an encyclopedicview of its primary subject-matter and instead seeks to advance a particularapproach to a theory of action (3) he nonetheless covers an immense amountof ground in his review of the pertinent literature. Joas is undoubtedlycorrect in saying that he advances a particular approach to action theoryalthough this approach and the specific ramifications it has for sociological

theoryin

generalsometimes tend to become lost or at least

disguisedin

the welter of argumentative themes and issues. In this respect I think Joassarguments can be split up in terms of two broad claims, which can be evalu-ated separately. The first claim is that there is a creative dimension to allhuman action and that this overarches the two other models of action which

have stressed its rational and normatively oriented aspects. Joass argumentsin this respect are quite convincing and the book both demonstrates this

proposition and at the same time succeeds in centralizing the notion of cre-

ativity in sociological theory in general. This is no small accomplishment -

especially consideringthe

marginal placethat

many approacheshave

assigned to it.The second claim, however, is much more in the way of an attempt to

reconfigure social theory along the lines that Joas prefers. This involves the


3/5

118

assertion that Joass specific version of action theory provides a means ofdealing with collective social phenomena which goes beyond functionalismand some of the postmodern diagnoses of modernity. This is a far more diffi-cult claim to evaluate not

only because it is muchmore

contentious andcon-

testable, but also because the contours and substance of the argument that

Joas sets out are less easily discernible and convincing than those concernedwith the assertion that all action possesses a creative component. Chapter 1concentrates on documenting the claim that the creative dimension of actionhas been marginalized in sociological theory. In particular Parsons is criti-cized for neglecting the work of Simmel, and the philosophical schools ofpragmatism and the philosophy of life. Partly on the basis of this, Joas alsoquestions Parsonss claim about a convergence in classical sociological

thought (reflectedin

the perceivedsimilarities

between Webers theory ofcharisma and Durkheims theory of the sacred [44-65]).Chapter 2 examines other currents of thought since the mid-18th century

which have given a more central role to the idea of creativity. Joas discussesthese partly by focusing on metaphors of creativity and the authors who wereprincipally influenced by them. Thus Gottfried Herders notion of expres-sion and Karl Marxs ideas about production and revolution are examinedwith reference to what they have to offer concerning the subject of creativity.However, according to Joas it was not until the latter half of the 19th centurythat

attemptswere made to define

creativityin a more

profound way (71).The philosophy of life in Europe (indebted to the work of Schopenhauer)with its concept of life, and pragmatism in the United States with its conceptof intelligence: these are two different and competing ways of trying tograsp creativity.As far as the philosophy of life is concerned both Schopen-hauer and Nietzsche fail to deal with creativity properly because they treat itin isolation from the intersubjective and objective contexts of human action(125). On the other hand the work of the pragmatists provides us with atheory of situated creativity (133) which is much more nuanced in this

respectand can be discerned in the

writingsof

Dewey, James, Mead andso

on.

Chapter 3 concentrates on developing the notion of the creativity of actionby drawing out three facets of action with a view to restructuring the prin-ciples underlying mainstream action theory (145). Thus Joas focuses on theintentional character of action, and suggests that the adoption of a non-teleological approach makes it become immediately obvious that it is notsufficient to consider human action as being contingent on the situation, butthat it should also be recognised that the situation is constitutive of action

(160). This is complemented byan

emphasison

the corporeality of actionbecause the role of the body in action should not be confined to the marginsof sociology (167).According to Joas, action theory must concern itself withthe emergence of the ability to control, as well as with easing control of the


4/5

119

body - in either case such control cannot be assumed. Finally the assumptionof the primary autonomy of the individual actor must be relinquished infavour of the idea of primary sociality.

This attemptto

offera

model of action which is suitedto

Joass aims ofdemonstrating the inherent creativity of action is well documented althoughin many ways it is also fairly uncontentious since much of the basis of thismodel already exists - most strongly in pragmatism, but also in other scat-tered elements of sociological thought. However, the second thematic of areconfiguring not only of action theory but also of sociological theory morewidely conceived also makes an appearance at this juncture and this aspect ofJoass argument seems less easily acceptable in a general sense. With referenceto Luhmanns work Joas states that our aim in the present context is the

opposite of Luhmanns, namely to realign the theory of action in order pre-cisely to avoid the necessity of resorting to instruments of systems theory inorder to solve the problem of social order (149). This strong aversion to

systems theory (and functionalism) is carried forward into Chapter 4 (thefinal chapter) where Joas deals with the problem of creativity and collectiveaction. It is necessary to point out that in dealing with this issue and theassociated ones of creative democracy, differentiation and democratizationand creativity in the postmodern age, Joas covers a whole wealth of materialsand authors including Giddens, Beck, Etzioni, Habermas, Luhmann,

Smelser, Castoriadis and Touraine, toname

but a few.However, although the chapter is densely argued the underpinning theor-

etical plot is clear. Joas wants to demonstrate the superiority of a theory ofthe creativity of action theory over other approaches (normative and rational-istic approaches in particular) and thus to legitimate a programme for a non-functionalist macrosociology based on action theory (198). In this respectwhile rejecting for the most part Luhmanns justification of functional analy-sis and systems theory (and Habermass use of it), Joas believes that bothGiddens and Habermas have shown that the critique of functionalism does

not necessarily lead to the adoption of methodological individualism. Thusthe common task is to develop a social theory which is based on actiontheory, does not conflate functional analysis and causal explanations, yet con-tains the benefits of a controlled use of systems models (222). Unfortunatelythis involves abandoning any fundamental ontological distinctions betweenagency and structure (or action and system) and adopting a position in whichsystems analysis is restricted to the real reciprocal effects of the interactionsbetween actors (222). Joas simply presses ahead with this idea assuming thata controlled use of systems models automatically means the wholesale adop-

tion of an interactionist ontology and the complete abandonment of thedefinitive ontological features associated with social systems and structures.However, it could be, and has been, argued (Archer, 1995; Layder, 1994;Layder, 1997) that this sort of position also creates greater problems than it


5/5

120

solves and has severe explanatory deficiencies. Not the least of these is thatsuch a position leads to a sort of dual reductionism in which structure andagency are dissolved into one another - thus preventing any real analytic pur-

chaseon

their respective and mutually constitutive roles in the formation ofaction or the reproduction of structure.

Derek LayderUniversity of Leicester

REFERENCES

Archer, Margaret (1995)Realist Social

Theory:the

MorphogeneticApproach

.

Cam-

bridge : Cambridge University Press.

Layder, Derek (1994) Understanding Social Theory. London: Sage Publications.Layder, Derek (1997) Modern Social Theory: Key Debates and New Directions

.London: University College Press.

Sallie Westwood and John Williams (eds) Imagining Cities: Scripts,

Signs, Memory. London: Routledge, 1997.x +

289 pp.

It is not just technology which appears to be accelerating towards meltdown,so are our cultural and sociological understandings of the world. This briefquotation from Gibson (235), rather than prosaic references to space-timecompression, more appropriately captures the excitement which accompa-nies the best of the contributions in this edited volume. The blurring of the

boundary between real and imagined allows various authorsto

explore thetheorization of the city in novel ways.The essays, which had their origin in a sociological conference, are logi-

cally grouped into five sections. If they were not, then the framework offeredin the first essay by Soja, as he summarizes six discourses on the post-metropolis, could have accommodated several of the subsequent contri-butions. Sojas piece, based on LosAngeles, that paradigmatic city where itall comes together, is a summary of six discourses in as many pages. It is arich condensing of the content of his forthcoming book. Despite a fondness

for coiningnew

words,some more

appropriate than others, the contentmerits careful reading and rereading.In a balanced review of the general challenge of telecommunications on the

future of cities, we do well to head several of Grahams realistic reminders.

Documents

History of the Human Sciences 1997 Layder 117 20