Scholarlink

<p>Arguing with culture—that is, making claims with and about culture—seems to require one to assert something about what culture does. But I propose that such a requirement unduly limits sociologists to an invariant, positivist form of argument. By examining claims making with and about culture in terms of mereology, or part-whole relations, I distinguish two modes of arguing with culture: fragmentary and constitutive. The former revolves around claims wherein parts are potentially <i>autonomous</i> bearers of distinct <i>forces</i>; the latter revolves around claims wherein parts <i>mediate</i> one another, and their relations evince distinct <i>forms</i>. Moreover, these two modes of argument entail different ways of appealing to wholes. Fragmentary arguments treat wholes as analytically insignificant residuals. Constitutive arguments treat wholes as analytically crucial. Thus, attention to how people argue with culture opens the space for careful reflection on and debate about explanatory practices.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Two ways of arguing with culture

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月6日

查看全文
  • Tad Skotnicki

摘要

Arguing with culture—that is, making claims with and about culture—seems to require one to assert something about what culture does. But I propose that such a requirement unduly limits sociologists to an invariant, positivist form of argument. By examining claims making with and about culture in terms of mereology, or part-whole relations, I distinguish two modes of arguing with culture: fragmentary and constitutive. The former revolves around claims wherein parts are potentially autonomous bearers of distinct forces; the latter revolves around claims wherein parts mediate one another, and their relations evince distinct forms. Moreover, these two modes of argument entail different ways of appealing to wholes. Fragmentary arguments treat wholes as analytically insignificant residuals. Constitutive arguments treat wholes as analytically crucial. Thus, attention to how people argue with culture opens the space for careful reflection on and debate about explanatory practices.