Main trends of research in the social and human ... - unesdoc - Unesco

Sociology I 17
3. L'ambiguite'dialectique. Many examples of mutual interaction are again taken
up here, but under a new aspect. An individual or a group which lives at the
intersection of two or more social systems often has considerable difficulty
in finding its own social identity. Literature on reference groups might be
relevant here (see especially p. 206).
4. La polarisation dialectique. As one would expect there is also always the
possibility of an antagonistic development. This is probably the procedure
which comes closest to the more conventional notion of dialectics. Obvious
examples come from the antagonism between classes, revolution and war.
5. La mise en re'ciprocite' de perspectives. This dialectic procedure consists in
bringing out the elements which are neither identification nor separation
but where the reciprocity has become so intense that it leads to an observable
parallelism. His examples are more easily understood than the concept it-
self. Bureaucratic organizations create as well as attract certain personalities.
Public opinion is an aggregate of individual opinions at one time but in turn
induces change in individual opinions. Inventions are due to individual
creation but are more likely to occur under certain historical conditions.
Gurvitch is explicit as to the rule which his dialectic procedures are to play in
sociological work. 'They do not give us an explanation, they lead to the thresh-
old. Dialectic prepares the frame for explanatory work' (p. 218 f.).
For two reasons, it seemed justified to draw attention to Gurvitch's ideas.
For one, any effort which tries to explicate concretely such vague terms like
dialectics should be applauded.IoO Second, there is a salient parallel here between
Gurvitch's dialectical operations and Parsons' pattern variables. In both cases
the point is being made that a number of basic orientations should be taken
into account in any sociological investigation. It is true that Parsons mainly
thinks of the orientation of an acting individual or a group, while Gurvitch
thinks more in terms of the analysing sociologists, but the two perspectives
can easily be translated into each other. Only a more detailed scrutiny could
decide whether there are additional parallels between the five dimensions which
each author develops.
Finally a comparative remark. There is hardly any other idea which leads such
a different life in various countries. In the 16 volumes of the new International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences there is no entry for the term 'dialectic'. On
the other hand, a simple introductory manual on Me'thodesdes Sciences Sociales
written for their students by two professors of law states as a matter of
course that the dialectical method 'is the fullest, the richest, and obviously the
most advanced method of explanation in sociology'1o1. The standard American
reader on the philosophy of social science contains no paper on dialectics.lOa
The corresponding German reader edited by Topitsch, which we have repeatedly
quoted, contains three papers on this topic.
This last discussion has already moved us from Germany to France. We
cannot leave this country without at least a brief reference to its most recent
interest.