The neuro-cognitive turn in cultural sociology: from 1.0 to 2.0

Philip Smith
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41290-020-00096-w
2020-02-08
American Journal of Cultural Sociology
Abstract:It is an intellectual move with familiar talking points. Social theory is full of vague concepts. It has been going nowhere for a long time, replaying tired debates and reinventing the wheel. In empirical research and all too rare efforts at actual explanation, understandings about causality are hopelessly muddled. The model of the human actor we have been working with is just plain wrong. We need to get back to basics and build knowledge in a more coherent way from the ground up. In other disciplines they do things better than we do. They have found truths, not endless debates, because they are scientists not sophists. We are behind the times. If only our research community could look up from wordy foundational texts by long dead figures and see the leading edge was no longer the year 1900, or 1950 or even 1980—then we could all move on. Something like this spirit of renewal animated George Homans with his push for an atomized exchange theory and the identification of universal rules of social life. It was to replay in the 'nuts and bolts' rational choice theory of the 1980s, in analytic Marxism, and in attempts at formal, mathematical sociology by James Coleman and Harrison White. The savior discipline was typically economics, but there have also been nods towards evolutionary biology, ethology, primatology, network science, complex systems modeling and leading-edge statistics.
sociology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?