Gillian Rose and Social Theory
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11049100 |
|---|---|
| Authors | A B Latz, Anita Latz (corresponding author) |
| Year | 2015 |
| Volume | 2015 |
| Issue | 173 |
| Pages | 37-54 |
| Publication date | 2015-12-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Telos (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0090-6514 • E-ISSN: 1940-459X |
| Publisher | Telos Press (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.3817/1215173037 |
| OpenAlex | W2321727243 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
Introduction Running throughout Gillian Rose's work is the wish to sublate sociology into a Hegelian-Adornian approach to social philosophy,1 and thereby make explicit the logic of good sociological practice already evident in the tradition and, by making it explicit, help avoid the mistakes or infelicities that methodological error and self-misunderstanding cause. This goal, as well as her admiration for the classical sociological tradition, are articulated in a 1986 lecture at Sussex University entitled “Does Marx Have a Method?” I quote at length: The general statement of our rules always presupposes the results which are to be explained. They are an
Admiration · Epistemology · Hegelianism · Rose (mathematics · Sociology · Statement (logic · Wish · Anthropology · Mathematics · Philosophy · Political Economy and Marxism · Psychology · Social Psychology
| Citations per year | 0.38 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2018 - 2025 (8) |
| Highly cited | No |