Preface: The coming of age of sociological metatheorizing

Abstract

The publication of this symposium, as well as a series of other recent and imminent symposia and publications, marks the coming to maturity of sociological metatheorizing as we enter the 1990s. As is especially clear in the essays by Ritzer and Snizek and Fuhrman, there already exists a large and growing body of metatheoretical work. That corpus has roots in the writings of the masters of sociological theory who, as Ritzer shows, did an enormous amount of metatheorizing. There have been earlier efforts to codify and solidify metatheory, such as Furfey's work in the 1950s and attempts by Gouldner and Parsons in the 1970s. However, until now these remained isolated efforts that did not bring coherence to the seemingly disparate body of metatheoretical work. This symposium, along with recent and forthcoming developments, promises to do what previous efforts have failed to do, that is, bring coherence to, and a clear recognition of, metatheorizing in sociology. It might be asked, Why now? One answer lies in the fact that the 1980s witnessed a series of critiques of metatheory, critiques that seem to have had the unintended effects of bringing heightened attention, and more adherents, to metatheory, and goading its supporters to defend, articulate, and expand upon metatheory. Another answer lies in the widespread sense of a crisis in sociological theory, and the feeling that metatheorizing can be of great help in understanding and resolving theory's problems. Turning to the essays in this symposium, both Ritzer and Snizek and Fuhrman see much of merit in metatheory. Ritzer seeks to define metatheorizing and to a delineate its major types, as well as to deal with many of the criticisms of it. Fuhrman and Snizek defend metatheorizing from attacks by its positivistic critics, and make the case for a particular style of metatheoriz-