Abstract
The monograph under review has been published in the series Routledge Advances in Sociology. The author is well known for his publications in the fields of sociological theory, history of ideas, societal transformation, and globalization. In the new book, he analyzes the present-day situation in sociology. The discipline is currently divided into numerous streams, currents, schools, and so on, on the basis of theoretical or methodological preferences, institutional affiliation, or territorial divisions. Such conceptual diversity is typical for a multi-paradigmatic scientific discipline. Genov underlines the relevance of this controversial theoretical and methodological situation. On the one side, it fosters creativity and intellectual freedom in sociology. On the other side, the multi-paradigmatic situation makes the cumulative development of sociological knowledge difficult. The author’s intention is to introduce a paradigmatic synthesis of several sociological paradigms into a broadly defined new paradigm. This is the guiding idea of the monograph The Paradigm of Social Interaction.
The monograph consists of nine chapters. In the first two chapters, the author addresses the difficult and increasingly urgent issues of the current paradigmatic status and the prospects of a paradigmatic synthesis in the sociological knowledge. Following the discussion initiated by Thomas S. Kuhn, Nikolai Genov asks whether sociology could ever become a ‘normal’ science according to Kuhn’s typology. The author’s answer is negative since the numerous sociological paradigms do not replace each other in scientific revolutions. Instead, sociological paradigms co-exist. Thus, the author argues that he is not against the multi-paradigmatic variety. Instead, he wants to reduce the extremes in the paradigmatic pluralism in sociology and presents a way to do that. The proposed approach for resolving the problem includes three steps. On the first step, the author compares paradigmatic models of social interaction already present in various studies. Then he introduces a fusion of paradigms developed by G. H. Mead, G. C. Homans, T. Parsons, and I. Wallerstein into the conceptual framework of the new multidimensional paradigm of social interaction. The major building blocks of the new paradigm are the conceptual frameworks of social actors, relations, and processes as well as the framework of environmental, technological, economic, political, and cultural determinants of the social interaction.
In order to prove the heuristic potential of the new conceptual framework, the author needs a third step. It consists in the testing of the explanatory capacities of studies on social innovations (Ch. 3–4), societal transformations (Ch. 5–6), and the interactions at the level of globality (Ch. 7). The tools of the analyses are the conceptual frameworks of social actors, relations, and processes, on the one side, and the framework consisting of the five determining factors of social interaction (Ch.7). The pioneering work on the specifics of COVID-19 opens the way to the coordination at the micro-, meso-, and macro-level of social interactions. Another line of analyses makes it clear that both the organizational and physiological substance of the globality is rather vulnerable. In order to make the analysis and argumentation truly multidimensional, the author adds one more conceptual framework as analytical tool. It is the product of previous analytical work and consists of four global trends, namely upgrading the rationality of organizations, individualization, spread of instrumental activism, and universalization of value-normative systems (Ch. 8).
There are several crucially important points well elaborated in the monograph. Focusing on the changing rationality of contemporary organizations, Genov makes it clear that the ongoing differentiation of social structures and processes might bring about both positive and destructive consequences. Another point deserving serious attention is the recent intensification of crisis situations at the global level. It is a paradoxical situation that the global organizational resources for coping with global crises are rather modest. The issues concerning the governance of global interactions are getting more and more relevant.
The analysis, arguments, and conclusions are efficiently guided in the monograph by the paradigmatic use of the concept of social interaction. The consistent and convincing argumentation about the heuristic capacities of the suggested paradigmatic concept is the major achievement of the author. The paradigm offers tools for acquiring new knowledge about social phenomena in all action spheres and at all structural levels of the social organization. The paradigm helps the systematic organization of the acquired sociological knowledge as well. The suggested sociological paradigm helps to rationally deal with crucial problems of today’s global society like the coronavirus pandemic. The author draws the conclusion that his analysis of the pandemic confirms the need of a high-quality level of the used analytical tools. In other words, the overcoming of crisis demands well-established knowledge as a basis for efficient anti-pandemic activities. However, without the proper global actions, the carefully developed theoretical knowledge might be useless.
There is one more reason for mentioning the contribution of Genov to the paradigmatic development of sociology and to the efforts to develop and test systematic explanations of the current situation. Using the paradigm of social interactions, he has developed one more conceptual framework for systematic description and explanation of global trends. The concept of four global trends to the COVID-19 crisis discovered lots of uncertainties, contradictions, constructive dynamics, and changing directions of development. Each global trend is internally controversial, but at the same time, it is a source of social dynamics, as well as the controversial interplay between the trends themselves. This means that the analytical concept of four global trends has a substantial heuristic capacity.
To summarize, the readers have to do with a thought-provoking book that gives persuasive arguments why current sociology badly needs a paradigmatic synthesis and how sociology may benefit from it – theoretically and practically. The author discovers forms and mechanisms of dynamic development of the discipline. He also defines perspectives for future move of sociology if a discipline wants to embrace all social levels of functioning social phenomena and gain the results for social actions. The book itself is a serious contribution to discussing an important theoretical problem of construction a new paradigmatic synthesis in sociology that enables a better understanding of all kinds of social interactions. It will be interesting for modern scholars and students in the fields of sociology and other social sciences.