Five Misunderstandings of Elias’s Thought
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 23577001 |
|---|---|
| Authors | N Heinich (0000-0002-1897-9160, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2013 |
| Pages | 31-39 |
| Publication date | 2013-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | CHAPTER |
| Venue | Norbert Elias and Social Theory (SOURCE_BOOK) |
| Publisher | Palgrave Macmillan US (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1057/9781137312112_3 |
| OpenAlex | W2346238719 |
| ISBN | 9781137312112 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 5 |
I n this chapter I will try to analyze why some of the criticisms leveled at Elias’s thought seem to proceed from a misunderstanding or misinterpretation. In doing so I do not intend to defend any orthodoxy, or to claim any supposed infallibility of his thought, which merits, as any other, to be discussed in some respects. For example, one could be critical regarding the status of his sources (since the difference between observation and prescription practices is not always clearly specified), his interpretation of prohibitions (which may indicate either the importance of a practice or its delegitimization), or the empirical falsifiability of such a very general model as his (Heinich 1997). These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Epistemology · Falsifiability · Infallibility · Interpretation (philosophy) · Orthodoxy · Contemporary Sociological Theory and Practice · Philosophy · Social and Cultural Dynamics · Sociology and Norbert Elias
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0.1 |
| Citation span | 2016 - 2016 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |