The Necessity of Revising the Typology of Economic Sociology

علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

Article 10, Volume 16, Issue 1 - Serial Number 33, September 2019, Pages 289-321   

Document Type: Scientific-Research

DOI: 10.22067/jss.v16i1.77565

Author

Hamzeh Nozari^*

Kharazmi University

Abstract

Extended Abstract

Introduction

The concept of economic sociology and its development goes back to the late 19th century, when the social sciences were created as an academic discipline and the founders of social sciences such as Weber, Durkheim and Simmel developed the boundaries of this discipline. In the 1980s, Granovetter historically divided economic sociology into two periods in his article "Old and New Economic Sociology: A History and Agenda." Using this distinction in his various works, Swedberg divided economic sociology into two old and new histories and introduced Granovetter as the pioneer of the new economic sociology. This classification of economic sociology has become popular among economic sociology researchers. In this formulation, neo-Marxist economic sociologists and various fields of sociology are not considered in the formation and development of this field. In this paper, we have tried to extract concepts that exist in theories of neo-Marxist economic sociology and can be useful in analyzing economic behaviors and institutions and linking them to conventional economic sociology. The purpose of this article is to introduce neo-Marxist economic sociology as one of the theoretical traditions in the field of economic sociology.

Review of Literature

The analysis of the views of new economic sociologists shows that economic sociologists have been less concerned with analyzing the reproductive structures of the capitalist system, and most of all have been examining the economic practice of network, firm, and market analysis. In other words, economic sociologists have been active within the framework of the capitalist system and have failed to expand the critical sociology of capitalism. The analysis of the dynamics and reproduction of capitalism has been neglected. Neo-Marxist economic sociology has attempted to explain the relations of production, class relations, class status, and the deformation of economic institutions and, consequently, of exploitation in various forms of capitalism. Marxist economic sociologists have mostly analyzed the dynamics and reproduction of capitalism and examined the status of classes under monopoly capitalism.

Method

Documentary research has been used to answer the research question. The technique of gathering the data needed for analysis, themes and recurring concepts in the works of economic sociology.

Results and Discussion

The neo-Marxist economic sociology approach has made important strides in complementing the field of economic sociology in general and has provided new insights in this area, including:

The sociology of capitalist firm: The approach of neo-Marxist economic sociology calls into question the principle of complete competition. According to this approach, monopoly economics should be considered instead of competitive economics. In the new economy there is much less competition between capitalists and producers than in the past, and the type of competition is different. Competition is about selling, not price. Baran and Sweezy (1966) have called this kind of competition a growing rationality. 2. The Problem of Action and its Motives: The approach of the neo-Marxist economic sociology questions the principle of maximizing the profits of economics. Nineteenth-century individual capitalist action sought to maximize the profit in the short run, while corporate executives sought to sacrifice short-term profit for long-term profit. 3. Analyzing corporate economic management and the type of interaction with the workforce is an important part of the achievements of the neo-Marxist economic sociology approach. 4. Workflow: Analyzing the status of the workforce, including blue-collar workers and office workers (white-collar) in large corporations, and the labor and employment skills under the monopoly capitalist system is another important point to be analyzed in this approach. The discussion of skills in the new society is one of the most challenging issues that cannot be addressed without a neo-Marxist economic sociology approach. 5. The absorption of economic surplus by the social institutions governing society and its results is an important issue in the field of economic sociology that has been considered and analyzed in this approach and can be discussed in the field of economic sociology.
Conclusion

The revival of sociological Marxism in the 1970s has had a profound effect on American sociology. In some specialized fields of sociology, this revival has had more effects, including in the fields of economics and sociology. The effects of neo-Marxist economic sociology have not only been at the macro level but also at the micro level with the initiative of authors such as Elaine Wright and Elster (2000). A more useful analysis can be made by combining neo-Marxist economic sociology and economic sociology. By reinforcing market-oriented thinking and neoclassical economic theory, neo-Marxist economic sociologists and other economic sociology researchers who are influenced by Weber's, Durkheim's, and Simmel's views can achieve a common goal of criticizing market fundamentalism. Marxist economic sociology, with its critiques of various forms of capitalism and the neoclassical view of economics, can be a complement to theories of economic sociology. The neglect of neo-Marxist analyzes renders economic sociology reductive. Marxist analyzes of economics, especially those more closely linked to sociology, must be taken seriously in economic sociology because it is essential for economic sociology.

Keywords

Economic Sociology; Sociology Economic Neo-Marxist; Monopoly Capitalism; Economic Action; Economic Phenomena

References

1. ریتزر، ج. (1374). نظریة‌ جامعه‌شناسی در دوران معاصر (م. ثلاثی، مترجم). تهران: علمی فرهنگی.

2. بوراوی، م. (1393). مارکسیسم جامعه‌شناسانه: همگرایی آنتونیو گرامشی و کارل پولانی (م. مالجو، مترجم). تهران: نشر نی.

3. Abolafia, M. (1996). Making markets: Opportunism and restraint on Wall Street. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

4. Baran, P., & Sweezy, P. (1966). Monopoly capital. New York, NY: Monthly Review.

5. Beamish, T. D. (2007). Economic sociology in the next decade and beyond. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(8), 993-1014.

6. Beckert J. (2007). The great transformation of embeddedness: Karl Polanyi and the new economic sociology. In H. Chris & K. Hart (eds.). Market and society: The great transformation today (pp. 38-55). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

7. Beckert, J. (1996). What is sociological about economic sociology? Uncertainty and the embeddedness of economic action. Theory and Society, 25(6), 803-840.

8. Beckert, J. (1999). Economic action and embeddedness: The problem of the structure of action. Berlin, Germany: Free University of Berlin.

9. Biernacki, R. (1995). The fabrication of labor: Germany and Britain, 1640-1914. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

10. Block, F. (1981). The fiscal crisis of the capitalist state. Annual Review of Sociology, 7, 1-27.

11. Block, F. (1994). The roles of the state in the economy, In N. Smelser, & R. Swedberg (eds.) The handbook of economic sociology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

12. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of teste (R. Nice, Trans.). Routled & Keagan Paul.

13. Bourdieu, P. (2005). Principles of an economic anthropology. In N. Smelser, & R. Swedberg (eds), The handbook of economic sociology (pp. 75–89.) Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

14. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital. New York, NY: Monthly review press.

15. Burawoy M. (1982). Introduction: The resurgence of Marxism in American sociology. American Sociological Review, 88, 1–30.

16. Burawoy, M. (1979). Manupacturing consent: Changes in the labor process under monoplay capitalism. Chicago, CH: the University of Chicago press.

17. Burawoy, M., & Wright, E. O. (2002). Sociological marxism. In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory. (pp.459-486). New York: Plenum

18. Burt, RS. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

19. Convert, B., & Heilbron, J. (2007). Where did the new economic sociology come from?, Theory and Sociology ,36(1), 31–54.

20. Daoud, A., & Larsson, B. (2011). Economic sociology - old and new. International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, 2(3), 255-269.

21. DiMaggio P., & Hugh, L. (1998). Socially embedded consumer transactions: For what kinds of purchases do people most often use networks?. American Sociological Review, 63, 19-37.

22. DiMaggio, P. (1994). Culture and economy. In N. Smelser & R. Swedberg (eds.), Handbook of economic sociology (pp. 27-57). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

23. Dobbin, F. (2005). Comparative and historical approaches of economic sociology. In N. Smelser, & R. Swedberg (eds.), The handbook of economic sociology (pp. 26-48). New York, NY: Sage.

24. Fevre, R. (2003). The new sociology of economic behaviour. London, England: SAGE.

25. Fligstein N. (1996). Markets as politics: A political cultural approach to market institutions. American Sociological Review, 61, 656-730.

26. Fligstein, N. (1990). The transformation of corporate control. Cambridge, CA: Harvard University Press.

27. Fligstein, N. (2001). The architecture of markets: The economic sociology of twenty-first-century capitalist societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

28. Foster, J. B. (2006). Monopoly-finance capital. Monthly Review, 58(7). Retrieved from https:// monthlyreview. org/ 2006/ 12/ 01/ monopoly – finance - capital/

29. Foster, J. B. (2010). The age of monopoly-finance capital. Monthly review. 61(9). Retrieved from https:// monthlyreview. org/ 2010/ 02/ 01/ the- age- of-monopoly - finance-capital/

30. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.

31. Granovetter, M., & Swedberg, R. (eds). (1992). The sociology of economic life. Boulder, CO: Westview.

32. Guillen, M., Collins, R., England, P., & Meyer, M. (2005). The new economic sociology developments in an emerging field. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

33. Habermas, J. (1984). Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, Mass: Beacon.

34. Manza, J., & McCarthy, M. A. (2011). The neo-Marxist legacy in American sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 155-183.

35. Perrow, C. (2002). Organizing America: Wealth, power, and the origins of corporate capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

36. Petrov, A. (2013). Labour culture in the trap of economic globalization: View of contemporary economic sociology. Journal of Economic Sociology, 1(1), 116-129.

37. Roy, W. G. (1997). Socializing capital: The rise of the large industrial corporation in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

38. Smelser, N., Swedberg, R. (eds). (2005). Hand book of economic sociology. Princeton, PJ: Princeton University Press.

39. Staples, C. L., & Staples, W. G. (2000). Reading Harry Braverman's labor and monopoly capital after twenty years. Social Thought and Research, 3, 182-193.

40. Swedberg, R. (2003). Principles of Economic Sociology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

41. Swedberg, R. (2004). What has been accomplished in New Economic Sociology and where is it Heading? European Journal of Sociology, 45(3), 317-330

42. Talmud I. (2013). Economic sociology. Sociopedia. DOI: 10.1177/ 205684 6013121.

43. White, H. (1981). Where do markets come from? The American Journal of Sociology, 87(3) 517–47.

44. Zafirovski, M. & Levine, B. (1997). Economic Sociology Reformulated: The Interface between Economics and Sociology. Economics and Sociology 56(3), 265-285.

45. Zelizer, V. (1989). The social meaning of money: Special monies. American Journal of Sociology, 95(2), 342–77.

46. Zukin, S., & Dimaggio, P. (1990). Introduction. S. Zukin, & P. Dimaggio. (Eds.), Structure of caoital (pp. 1-36). New York: Cambridge University Press