Marx and Mead (RLE Social Theory) (Record no. 1869)

MARC details
000 -LEADER
fixed length control field 02101 a2200241 4500
001 - CONTROL NUMBER
control field 1317651537
005 - DATE AND TIME OF LATEST TRANSACTION
control field 20250317100407.0
008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION
fixed length control field 250312042014GB eng
020 ## - INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BOOK NUMBER
International Standard Book Number 9781317651536
037 ## - SOURCE OF ACQUISITION
Source of stock number/acquisition Taylor & Francis
Terms of availability GBP 45.99
Form of issue BB
040 ## - CATALOGING SOURCE
Original cataloging agency 01
041 ## - LANGUAGE CODE
Language code of text/sound track or separate title eng
072 7# - SUBJECT CATEGORY CODE
Subject category code JHBA
Source thema
072 7# - SUBJECT CATEGORY CODE
Subject category code JHBA
Source bic
072 7# - SUBJECT CATEGORY CODE
Subject category code SOC026000
Source bisac
072 7# - SUBJECT CATEGORY CODE
Subject category code 306.42
Source bisac
100 1# - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME
Personal name Tom Goff
245 10 - TITLE STATEMENT
Title Marx and Mead (RLE Social Theory)
Remainder of title Contributions to a Sociology of Knowledge
250 ## - EDITION STATEMENT
Edition statement 1
260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC.
Place of publication, distribution, etc. Oxford
Name of publisher, distributor, etc. Routledge
Date of publication, distribution, etc. 20140813
300 ## - PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Extent 176 p
520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC.
Expansion of summary note It has often been suggested that a resolution of issues generated by the sociological study of ideas might be reached through a synthesis of specific insights to be found in the works of Karl Marx and George Herbert Mead. The present study originated in an investigation of this hypothesis, particularly as it bears on the central issue of sociological relativism. The author began by delineating the specific problems such a synthesis might resolve, and in the process became aware that the nature and depth of differences separating the sociology of knowledge and its critics have never been fully analysed or understood. This volume therefore opens with a clarification of these differences, a clarification which leads to considerable redefinition of the problem as it has traditionally been understood by critics and proponents of the discipline alike. The author points out in particular that it is less a debate than a thorough-going contradiction which characterizes the literature dealing with the inadequacies of various formulations of the sociology of knowledge. In consequence, the study of Marx and Mead presented here is not simply yet another effort to discover a perspective which will satisfy the particular demands of the critics. Rather, it argues that an adequate perspective fully consistent with the central insight of the discipline – that knowledge is radically social in character – is to be found in a synthesis of elements in the perspectives of Marx and Mead.

No items available.