Emiliana Mangone

Beyond the Disciplinary Borders : A New Challenge

Present society needs a new approach to knowledge, mainly required by the fast succession of the transformation of society and by the multidimensionality of the daily life problems. It is necessary, therefore, a more and more transdisciplinary perspective, able to connect the efforts of all social sciences and humanities. Moreover, it is essential an approach to history which may create a sort of circle between knowledge of the past and attention to the present world. These considerations are particularly important about the Mediterranean, which today is affected by dramatic shifts and problems of historical significance.

Prologue: The Reasons for a Choice

This chapter describes the sequence of actions that led to the choice of writing this book. A choice based on the need to express idea about the role and functions of human and social sciences, and not just to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Sorokin’s death. Social sciences, in chasing the operationalization of social and human beings, have lost sight not only of their peculiar objects of study, but also of their purpose for humanity. To describe this, decided to journey through Sorokin’s works (man and scholar free in thought and action), sketching the various stages in his path of intellectual growth. Almost all of Sorokin’s works have represented a more or less lengthy stage of this journey. For the sake of simplicity, divided the evolution of his thought into two great moments: the Russian experiences that dramatically marked him since his childhood, and the American ones that first made him a world-renowned sociologist and then condemned him to oblivion.

Personality and Human Conduct

The three components of the personality (body, mind, and soul)—that in Sorokin’s theorizations represent the three means for knowledge (empirical-sensity, reason, and intuition)—constitute the very essence of personality itself (the subject of individual or collective interaction). In this dialectical process, there is a direct relation between the dominant social mentality and the conduct of the subject within it. However, this relation does not result in a one-to-one correspondence. It is very variable in some societies and more explicit in others, a condition erasing any doubts that individual development is connected with sociocultural organization. This has been largely documented by many sociological and psychological studies, which have drawn attention to some core features of personality (first part of the chapter). In the second part of the chapter, we suggest a more actual reading of the concepts used by Sorokin until the 1950s to address the theme of personality. Reflecting on contemporary society broadens our perspective, allowing us to sketch an overview of how the elements (personality, society, and culture) interconnect, how they are involved in the various processes, and their influence on the changes of a highly uncertain society.

Integral Theory of Knowledge

The need to reflect on the dyad knowledge/reality, as well as on the sociology of knowledge, highlights how knowledge is nothing but the construction of reality. A multidimensional and multifaceted reality. The first configuration of knowledge that individuals resort to in their everyday actions consists of the idea of constructing the lifeworld/s (social representations). Referring to Sorokin’s Integrality is important because many of the concepts he uses are still current or actualizable. The aim is to understand the ways and forms through which knowledge can influence the construction of reality. This influence also affects the development of societies, the relationship between individuals, and that between individuals, knowledge, and society. It is therefore desirable that an integral theory of knowledge develops and becomes reflexive knowledge capable of promoting the construction of relationships between living environments and individuals, as well as between the very individuals. This should be done acknowledging the autonomy of the individual disciplines of social sciences (sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc.) and, at the same time, abandoning the excess of self-referentiality that encloses them within their own frameworks and paradigms.

From Creative Altruistic Love to the Ethics of Responsibility

The end-point of Sorokin’s articulated work is represented by the fact that the present juncture of societal transformation is in need of “humanity”. The Russian-American sociologist had an “intuition” synthesizable in the following statement: the future of humanity and its development is in the hands of humanity itself. Neither law nor education, much less religion, economics, or science, is up to this task. According to Sorokin, change must start from the rediscovery of the positive values of man, and science acts as a guide, also by overcoming strictly sensuous knowledge models. His is not just a sociology of the crisis. It is a “critical sociology” not limited to the analysis of the degenerative processes of society, but that seeks their deep roots by denouncing the negative factors causing them. Applying these assumptions implies understanding the mechanisms through which human beings make their own decisions. These dynamics highlight the problems of the choice and of the ethics of responsibility, as well as the role of science and researchers.

Epilogue: Towards Integral Social Sciences

Sorokin’s thoughts on the integral method are very complex and it is very difficult to propose a synthesis, also because his scientific production consists of hundreds of pages over several books and articles. A core point in his theory of the integral method is that the latter is always directed at discussing the issue of knowledge and the means to reach it. For this reason, we will present a summary of these thoughts with the help of a graphic representation deriving from my personal interpretation. To do so, I adopted two premises: (1) Time and space are both constituent elements of social interaction processes; (2) The study of sociocultural phenomena must consider the three different levels of analysis of sociology and social sciences in general (macro, meso, and micro level). We do not end the discourse on Sorokin and the integral method, far from it. No theorization is concluded or coming to a close. Starting from the dialogue between different disciplines, we can imagine a propulsive push towards integrating knowledge systems from the less complex to the more complex ones, and vice versa.

The Boundaries of Sociology and Its Relation to Other Sciences

Sociological knowledge is essential for a concrete and effective reading of social phenomena. The issue, however, is to build and maintain meaningful relations between sociological thinking and autonomy from other sciences without downplaying the need for integration and disciplinary interdependence. The evolution of sociology was characterized not so much the object of study, but the need to make this science autonomous from the others, and especially from natural sciences. The aim of this chapter is to explain, in general terms: (a) the evolutionary phases of this discipline; (b) the debate on its autonomy, which has seen two opposing positions, one aiming at a discipline akin to natural sciences, through the use of quantitative methods and measurements (positive method), and the other supporting the absolute autonomy of sociology, without any procedural contamination in scientific investigation (interpretive method); (c) the definition of the object of study of sociology and its boundaries; (d) the relation with other natural and social sciences, particularly with psychology.

The Society and Its Paradoxes

Society results from human interactions that also produce cultural processes and relations. Therefore, to observe society it is necessary to study the system of interactions adopted and implemented by individuals. In this chapter, we will try to explain some core aspects of contemporary society, including its paradoxes, through the analysis of the interaction forms defined by Sorokin. Society cannot exist “beyond” individuals and “independently” from them, but only as a system of interacting units within the “world of everyday life”. The latter is the “place”, metaphorically speaking, in which to carry out the analysis of interactions and above all of social reality. Within it, the intentionality towards objects directs the individuals’ actions. These objects, in turn, through differentiation, appear to consciousness as constituents of different “spheres of reality”. In this societal development rationale, however, there are paradoxical aspects that scholars often overlook. To clarify them, we will describe here two paradoxes, those that most influence the elements of contemporary society: the first relates to the local appropriation of information versus global diffusion and the second concerns the principle of equity.

The Cultural System and the Social Problems

Culture is made up of both objective and subjective elements, and is one of the main factors for assessing people’s compliance (integration) with society. All activities and institutions are “cultural”, since their functioning requires meanings to be made explicit. In cultural processes, the two dimensions of time and space are paramount. And it is precisely along the temporal and spatial axis that Sorokin describes integrated cultural systems—in detail and with innumerable examples. Integrated cultural systems arise from the various successive cultural mentalities (Ideational, Sensate, and Idealistic) that have appeared in the course of history (theory of cyclical movements). Examining the characteristics of the Ideational and Sensate culture types and their Idealistic mixed version is clearly a different problem from investigating how these mentalities and their characteristics are distributed in cultural realities. And something else entirely is the actual behaviour of individuals and groups with respect to these mentalities. Our analysis ends with the attempt to outline a model, by adapting Griswold’s “cultural diamond”. Our model illustrates the connections that arise among the elements involved in the construction/production of superorganic phenomena (as cultural object) in their form as social problems.

I saperi del Mediterraneo per il futuro dell’Europa

Innovation starts from the “Mediterranean Knowledge”, and develops until it becomes common practice. These new ideas (products, services, and models) make it then possible to meet social needs (more effectively than their alternatives) and at the same time create new social relationships or new collaborations. Moreover, they enable to lay the foundations for the construction of a real and different European identity. The knowledge and cultural values of the Mediterranean “must” provide the driving force to overcome the impasse impeding the whole of Europe. They can become the fruitful stimulus for reviewing European policies (in particular integration ones) and provide a solid foundation for the protection and promotion of effective cultural heritage an knowledge matching up with our time, able to bring out a new future by the legacy of the different cultures.