-B.]
"[S]uppose that A, B, and C are three sociologists, and they engage in a discussion about the question, 'how should theory be judged?' Now, when A speaks of 'theory' she mainly thinks of an ongoing dialogue with some classic texts. When B speaks of 'theory' she mainly thinks of the construction of propositions of the form 'if p then q.' And when C speaks of 'theory' she mainly thinks of the development of lexica and schemata with which to talk about the social world. Not surprisingly, A, B, and C find it impossible to come to an agreement about the question under discussion. Yet the most reasonable interpretation of this situation is not that A, B, and C have a substantive disagreement about how theory should be judged, but rather that they are talking about different things. That they are indeed talking about different things should not be obscured by the fact that they happen to use the same English word ...."
Abend then denotes seven different meanings of the word "theory" and tags each one with a subscript of "1," "2," or "3," etc. I'll use "theory[1]," "theory[2]," etc.
His definitions (with possible errors by me):
Theory[1]: "[A] general proposition, or logically-connected system of general propositions, which establishes a relationship between two or more variables." And: "[W]hen it is said that 'empirical investigations should make a theoretical contribution,' what is usually meant is that 'empirical investigations should make a theoretical[1] contribution.' For instance, suppose you write a paper about two social movements that arose during the May Revolution of 1810 in Buenos Aires. For it to be accepted for publication in a mainstream sociology journal, some conclusion about social movements in general must have been drawn. [...] If there is no such conclusion, the reviewers would probably point out that the paper is 'atheoretical' or, more benignly, that it is 'undertheorized.'"
Theory[2]: "[A]n explanation of a particular social phenomenon. In this sense, if you say that you have a 'theory about the demise of the Valois dynasty in late-sixteenth-century France, what you mean is that you can offer an explanation for it." And: "In this view ... one or more theories[1] logically entail a theory[2]."
Theory[3]: "Like theory[1] and theory[2], the main goal of theory[3] is to say something about empirical phenomena in the social world. The main questions that theory[3] sets out to answer are not of the type 'what x causes y?' Rather, given a certain phenomenon 'P' (or a certain fact, relation, process, trend), it asks: 'what does it mean that 'P'?,' 'is it significant that P?,' 'is it *really* the case that P?,' 'what is P all about?,' or 'how can we make sense of or shed light on P?' Thus, one can think of theory[3] as a hermeneutical task, even if theorists[3] interpret social reality rather than texts, and they do not necessarily share the philosophical inclinations of the hermeneutical tradition. To put it another way, what theories[3] offer is an original 'interpretation,' 'reading,' or 'way of making sense' of a certain slice of the empirical world. [...] Unlike theory[1], theory[3] does not view P as the value of a variable y, which in turn is related to other variables in such a way that be described as a function.... Unlike theory[2], theory[3] *may* or *may not* causally explain P."
Theory[4]: "[T]he study of and the students of the writings of authors such as Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Simmel, Parsons, Habermas, or Bourdieu. These 'studies' are variously described as 'interpretations,' 'analyses,' 'critiques,' 'hermeneutical reconstructions,' or 'exegeses.' [...] Most US departments of sociology have on their faculty one or more persons who are said to be 'theorists.' The graduate and undergraduate courses they teach are typically called 'sociological theory,' 'social theory,' 'classical theory,' 'contemporary theory,' or something like that. By saying 'theorists' and 'theory courses' in these contexts one generally means theorists[4] and theory[4] courses. Finally, note that you can say that you: 'are' a theorist[4]; 'do' theory[4]; work in the field of theory[4]; teach a theory[4] class; have written a theory[4] paper; or that one of your scholarly interests is theory[4]. [...] However, you cannot *have*, *have developed*, or *put forward* a theory[4]. If the expressions 'have a theory,' 'have developed a theory,' or 'put forward a theory,' occur in a sentence, the word 'theory' is not being used in the sense of theory[4]."
Theory[5]: "A theory[5] is a Weltanschauung, that is, an overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. Unlike theories[1], theories[2], and theories[3], theories[5] are not about the social world itself, but about how to look at, grasp, and represent it. [...] When one speaks of 'postmodern theory,' 'post structuralist theory,' 'feminist theory,' 'queer theory,' 'critical theory, 'Marxist theory,' 'structural-functionalist theory,' [...] one is often using the word 'theory' in this sense. Theory[5] can also occur as an adjective in expressions such as 'theoretical approach,' 'theoretical school,' 'theoretical framework,' ... 'theoretical paradigm.' This last one, of course, draws a parallel between the field of sociological theory and Kuhn's account of the history of science. Another common-example is 'theory-laden,' which is often predicated of 'observation' and 'perception.'"
Theory[6]: "[S]ome people use the word 'theory' to refer to accounts that have a fundamental normative component. This usage I identify as theory[6]. For example, the contemporary projects of 'critical theory,' 'feminist theory,' and 'postcolonial theory' are explicitly normative ones, which usually reject the fact/value dichotomy, and hence the supposedly value-neutral sociological theory. The same is true of a good deal of 'Marxist theory' and 'neo-Marxist theory,' which draw inspiration from Marx's eleventh thesis on Feuerbach. Indeed, the expression 'social theory' -- as opposed to 'sociological theory' -- can have similar connotations. As least, self-defined 'social theorists' are more likely to do theory[6] than, say, theory[1]. The basic point is for my purposes is that the word 'theory' can be used to refer to a normative, and indeed political, account - a far cry from other senses of it."
Theory[7]: "Theory[7] projects often include theory[4] elements (for instance, a reconstruction of what Marx, Weber, and Durkheim said about the problem under consideration, or what they would have said had they considered it). Moreover, as a matter of fact, theorists[7] are often theorists[4] as well. Yet, whatever its usefulness or reasonableness, this correlation is not necessary but contingent. Theory[7] and theory[4] remain two different projects. Similarly, while there can be relations between theory[5] and theory[7], occasionally even relations of necessity, the meaning of the two terms remains distinct. Theory[7] does not refer to a Weltanschauung, a way of looking at or representing the social world. Rather, it refers to the study of certain special problems that sociology has encountered. [...] They may be described as 'philosophical' problems, insofar as they call for reflection upon the nature of knowledge, language, and reality, and some sort of conceptual analysis. In fact, most of these problems have been taken up in philosophy as well... To conclude with a reflexive note, the present paper might be said to be a 'theory' paper mostly in the sense of theory[7]."
What follows after these excerpts is the bulk of a lengthy article where Abend gives examples of these different senses of the word "theory" as they are used in articles and texts, where definitions become conflated and muddled, etc. Writers can shift between the various senses of the word helter skelter without realizing it, Abend contends.
-B.
Miles Jackson wrote:
"Could you paraphrase? I'm curious."