Merton's Ambivalence Towards Autonomous Theory -- and Ours

Using the term ambivalence in the title of a talk honoring the life and work of Robert K. Merton seems perfectly plausible. For one thing, the man himself was the object of considerable ambivalence. Evoking the (expectable) negative sentiment customarily directed against outstanding public figures, Merton was resented for ways in which he appeared to deploy an interest in others in manipulative ways and to pursue a seemingly insatiable agenda of self-aggrandizement. On the other hand, there were those, myself included, who were awestruck by the depth of his collegial goodwill and of his proactive generosity toward younger colleagues and students. In this regard, David Caplovitz's review of a Merton Festschrift (1977) sets a high bar: Caplovitz not only extols Merton's brilliance as a lecturer and his talents as a poet, but also highlights the boundless energy and wit with which he tackled the prose of all hapless texts that came his way. Again, there are those who now blame Bob Merton (along with Talcott Parsons) for having narrowed theoretic discourse in sociology and thereby derailed the project of robust advances American sociology to the extent that it has faltered irreversibly since his death (Turner 2004). And again, however, there are those, myself included, who regard Merton's lifework on behalf of [End Page 235] sociology in general, and sociological theory in particular, as arguably the greatest single intellectual boost that the discipline received in more than half a century. On those controversial issues I shall comment no further here. Rather, I want to take note of the fact that Merton was practically alone among sociologists of his time in theorizing about the phenomenon of ambivalence itself. In that vein he distinguished insightfully between psychological ambivalence and what he called ambivalence at the social level. The latter notion enabled him to conceptualize patterns of action in terms of socially structured alternatives presented in the form of binary oppositions. For example, he argued that scientists feel obliged [both] to publish quickly and to avoid rushing into print, to value humility as well as take pride in originality; physicians are socialized [both] to show sympathy as well as detachment; business leaders are expected [both] to project a sharply defined vision of their firm's future and to avoid narrow commitments which distance their subordinates, to provide special facilitates so departments can perform well, and to subordinate departmental goals to those of the whole organization. (Levine 1978, 1278) For Merton, then, this meant that social roles should no longer be analyzed as coherent sets of normative expectations, but as clusters of norms and counter-norms that alternatively govern role-behavior. To be sure, the notion of socially structured alternatives appears in Parsons's conception of the pattern variables and elsewhere. However, Parsons wants to characterize social relations in terms of the dominant pattern alternative they embody. Merton stresses the significance of continuously operative counter-norms that alternate with dominant norms in defining social roles. This slight difference is big with theoretical implications. It means that opposition to a dominant norm need not be construed as deviant behavior, expressing some sort of alienative disposition, but rather as normatively valorized conduct. It thereby normalizes ostensible deviance. It intensifies the compulsivity of behavior that veers to one of the normative poles. It produces more openings for the identification of social conflict. It more readily leverages tendencies toward social change. With but few exceptions,2 this highly important theoretical position has been ignored in subsequent theorizing. Sociologists continue to find it difficult to tolerate the ambiguity involved in such formations (Levine 1985). Nevertheless, my responsibility here today is to comment on Robert K. Merton as a modern master of sociology. This leads me to broach a still broader topic, which has to do with Merton's role in shaping the dominant perspective regarding the nature and scope of sociological theory in our time. Cutting now to the quick about [End...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.