Readings from: B (PP215-225): The Action-Theory of the Early Middle Period (from Volume 2 of Theory of Communicative Action, Habermas, 1987) Why was Cartesianism such a problem for Parsons? Continuing

Readings from: B (PP215-225): The Action-Theory of the Early Middle Period (from Volume 2 of Theory of Communicative Action, Habermas, 1987) As indicated in the previous post on this topic,

[this is the latest post in the series on Parsons and Habermas] Parsons, according to Habermas (TCA, vol 2, p205), develops his normativist theory of action by critiquing the well-established

(Current post follows on from this introductory post) In the introductory section to chapter seven (p203), Habermas lays out the basic argument that he is concerned with in section I

Having previously been under the impression that Talcott Parsons had become an irrelevance in late 20th century social theory (an easy impression to make if you browsed some of the major

Well in terms of modern social theory, quite a lot it seems. I made this point in my recent edited collection Social theory and education research, when talking about his