The Sociology of Philosophies

(Wang) #1

Notes


Introduction



  1. See the theory-group model developed by Mullins (1973), and Griffith and Mullins
    (1972), based on studies of molecular biologists and sociologists during the period
    1930–1970.

  2. Tibetan, by contrast, contains a natural distinction between existential and copula;
    the distinction is less clear in Sanskrit, and completely lacking in Greek (Halbfass,
    1992: 39). The pre-philosophical propensity of the language does not correlate
    well with the direction that thought took in each of these regions.

  3. Although I do not pursue the networks of philosophers up to the current genera-
    tion, Chapters 13 and 14 show the connections of many of their predecessors,
    including Durkheim, Freud, Wittgenstein, and Husserl.


1. Coalitions in the Mind



  1. Hence the well-established relationship between frequency of interaction and con-
    formity of belief (Homans, 1950). Scheff (1988) shows how tightly focused group
    interaction results in cognitive conformity by generating pride, the positive emotion
    of what I would call the ritual bond, or shame, the negative emotion of being
    excluded from the focus of interaction.

  2. Note that to negotiate the next in a chain of situations, using the symbolic capital
    accumulated in previous rituals, is not the same as following a set of meta-rules.
    Symbols, like rules, are idealized cognitive constructs which participants may focus
    on within situations and thereby impose a subjective interpretation of what is going
    on. But the cognitive meaning of the symbols is not what is guiding the interaction
    ritual; they are precipitates of the more basic coordination of action which deter-
    mines the ritual intensity of the encounter. Ritual practices do not happen because
    people are following rules on how to carry out IRs; the ingredients listed as 1–6
    are naturally occurring forms of social interaction.

  3. It has been calculated that 10 percent of all articles in some fields are never cited,
    perhaps never read (Price, 1986: 108; Hagstrom, 1965: 229). As we shall see, there
    is an enormous differential in intellectual exposure between the small numbers of
    publications with many readers and the large numbers with few.
    947

Free download pdf