تلفیق عاطفه و عقلانیت و کاربست آن در تبیین وفاق اجتماعی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار، گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه پیام نور تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

عاطفه، عقلانیت و وفاق اجتماعی از مهم‌ترین مباحث نظری در حوزه‌های جامعه‌شناسی هست که به دلیل تأثیرگذاری در شکل‌گیری انواع نظریه‌های اجتماعی، همواره محور تفکر سایر اندیشمندان از حوزه‌های مختلف فکری بوده است. هر سه مفاهیم یادشده از منظر پارادایمی، دارای ویژگی‌های خاصی منحصربه‌فردی هستند که علاوه بر شکل‌دهی و شکل‌گیری پارادایم‌های حوزه نظم اجتماعی و انسجام اجتماعی، هریک به طرقی سعی در حفظ اصالت یکی و یا تلفیق مفاهیم در یک نظریه اجتماعی دارند. این مقاله با استفاده از روش مقایسه‌ای تدوین و سعی دارد، با تبیین بنیان‌های نظری و پارادایمی از منظر اندیشمندان مرتبط با موضوع، اشتراکات و تمایزات نظری و پارادایمی شناسایی و سپس با بهره‌گیری از وجوهات اشتراکی و عبور از دو سویه انگاری، به تلفیق سازه‌های عاطفه و عقلانیت جهت تبیین وفاق اجتماع گام گذاشت. نتیجه‌ای که از این مقایسه و تلفیق نظریات حاصل ‌شود این هست که اکثر اندیشمندان علوم اجتماعی و سیاسی در تلفیق مفاهیم جهت تبیین موضوعات اجتماعی دچار نوعی دو سویه انگاری شده‌اند و نتوانستند چارچوبی مشخص و معین از بعد نظری و پارادایمی جهت تلفیق مفاهیم ارائه نمایند.کاربست رویکرد سیستمی در تلفیق و عبور از دو سویه انگاری های رایج در علوم اجتماعی و لحاظ نمودن عاطفه، عقلانیت به ترتیب به‌عنوان همدلی، همفکری و دستاورد این تلفیق، طرح همکاری جهت تبیین وفاق اجتماعی، پیام مقاله حاضر می‌باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Integration of Emotion and Rationality and Its Application in Explaining Social Consensus

نویسنده [English]

  • Bahram Sarmast
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Payame Noor University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Emotion, rationality, and social consensus are among the most significant theoretical discussions in the field of sociology. Due to their influential role in shaping various social theories, they have consistently been the focal point of thinkers from diverse intellectual domains. Each of these three concepts possesses unique characteristics from a paradigmatic perspective, which not only contributes to the formation of paradigms in social order and social cohesion but also attempts to preserve the authenticity of one or integrate the concepts into a social theory in different ways. This article is developed using a comparative method and aims to elucidate the theoretical and paradigmatic foundations from the perspective of relevant thinkers. It identifies the theoretical and paradigmatic commonalities and distinctions, and then, by utilizing these shared aspects and transcending the prevalent dichotomies, it embarks on integrating the constructs of emotion and rationality to explain social consensus. The outcome of this comparative analysis and theoretical integration suggests that most social and political thinkers have encountered a form of dichotomy in integrating concepts to explain social issues, failing to provide a clear and defined framework from a theoretical and paradigmatic perspective for this integration. The application of a systemic approach to integrate and move beyond the common dichotomies in social sciences, considering emotion and rationality as empathy and collaborative thinking, respectively, and the resultant achievement of this integration, serves as the proposal for cooperation aimed at explaining social consensus.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Emotion
  • Rationality
  • Social Consensus
  • Paradigm
  • Integration
 
 
منابع
Abdollahian, H. (2002). Rationality and reasoning: A dialogue between generations, women, and men. Women’s Research Quarterly, 3. Spring. [In Persian]
Aghajani, N., Eslami Tanha, A., & Mohammadi, M. (2019). Social action rationality from the perspective of Islamic wisdom in confrontation with Weber’s tradition. Islam and Social Studies, 7(1), 25. Summer. [In Persian]
Ahmadvand, D. (2024). Critique of epistemology on logical reasoning and rationality in organization and management. Humanities Development, 5(9), Spring and Summer. [In Persian]
Arab Pour, E., & Mehdi Zadeh, Sh. (2020). Meta-analysis of studies on social order and cohesion in Iran. Contemporary Sociological Research, 9(71), Autumn and Winter. [In Persian]
Azad Armaki, T. (1996). Sociology of rationality. Scientific Quarterly in the Field of Philosophy of Religion and New Theology, 1(1), 1. [In Persian]
Bagheri, Sh., & Nazarian, R. (2017). The contributions of Muslim sociologists in clarifying the dualism of structure and agency. Fundamental Research in Humanities, 10. Spring. [In Persian]
Beshteh Naz, M. (2022). Critique of Anthony Giddens’ cultural theory. Scientific Journal of Political Research in Human Sciences, 1(1), 1. Spring. [In Persian]
Beyaan, M., Shapur, & Hashemianfar, S. A. (2022). Journal of Social-Cultural Development Studies, 11(1), 1401 Summer. [In Persian]
Collins, R. (1975). Conflict sociology: Towards an explanatory science. New York: Academic Press.
Danayi Fard, H. (2007). Competing paradigms in organization science: An applied approach to ontology, epistemology, and methodology. Behavioral Knowledge, 14(26). [In Persian]
Fazeli, N. (2018). Formulating the issue of emotions in Iran: A theory on the dynamics of emotional patterns in Iran. Cultural and Communication Studies, 19(33), Autumn. [In Persian]
Fooladian, M., & Jalai Pour, M. (2016). Comparing hegemonic and charismatic domination based on Weber’s views: Clarifying a conceptual line. Interdisciplinary Journal of Humanities, 8(3), Summer. [In Persian]
Ghaeni, A. (2012). The three paradigms of positivism, interpretation, and hermeneutics in organization and management studies. Cultural Strategy, 19. Autumn. [In Persian]
Ghaffari, M., & Sadeghpour, M. (2023). The blend of emotion and borrowing in the macro-value management of society: A case study of discourse formation mechanisms of the Revolution Leader regarding the martyrdom of Qassem Soleimani. Scientific Political Knowledge Journal, Special Issue 1 on Resistance. [In Persian]
Ghahramani, M. A., & Abdollahi, B. (2013). Examining the relationship between ontology and epistemology of interpretive, critical, and scientific paradigms with the methodology and methods used in this paradigm. Research Journal, 4(1), 7. Spring and Summer. [In Persian]
Ghanimati, H., Mansouri, F., & Dadandish, P. (2020). Social cohesion and its relationship with normative dispersion. Social Issues in Iran, 11(2), Autumn and Winter. [In Persian]
Ghodrati, A., & colleagues. (2018). Identifying social and cultural components affecting commitment to social order in Tehran. Sociological Studies, 25(1), Spring and Summer. [In Persian]
Giddens, A. (2004). Modernity and self-identity (N. Mofaqian, Trans.). Tehran: Nashr-e-Ni. [In Persian]
Habermas, J. (2013). The theory of communicative action: Reason and rationality in society, lifeworld, and the critique of the functionalists’ concept of reason (K. Poladi, Trans.). Tehran: Markaz Publications, 1st ed., 2nd revision. [In Persian]
Hajiani, E. (2011). Indicators of solidarity and the impact of Islamic freedom on it. National Studies, Special Issue, 1. [In Persian]
Heidari, A., & colleagues. (2012). The theory of symbolic disintegration and legislation: A case study of Shahid Chamran University students in Ahvaz. Social Issues in Iran, 3(2). [In Persian]
Hosseinzadeh, M. (2007). Rationality from the perspective of epistemology. Philosophical Knowledge, 4(4), Summer. [In Persian]
Iman, M. T. (2009). Paradigmatic foundations of quantitative and qualitative research methods in humanities. Qom: Research Institute of the Seminary and University. [In Persian]
Iman, Z. (2022). Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory and its role in determining the accountability model in the accounting system. Scientific-Research Journal of Accounting and Management, 8(30), Summer. [In Persian]
Jahani Nasab, A. (2022). Examination of the concept of social solidarity in the thoughts of Ibn Khaldun and Émile Durkheim. Scientific-Research Journal of Social Theories of Muslim Thinkers, 12(1). Spring. [In Persian]
Javadi Yeganeh, M. R. (2008). A sociological approach to rational choice theory. Cultural Strategy, 3. Autumn. [In Persian]
Kraib, J. (1999). Modern theories in sociology (M. Mohajer, Trans.). Tehran: Soroush. [In Persian]
Kuzer, L. (1994). The life and thoughts of great sociologists (M. Salathi, Trans.). Tehran: Scientific Publications. [In Persian]
Lawler, E. J. (2001). An affect theory of social exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 107(2), 321-335.
Lawler, E. J. (2002). Micro social orders. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65(1), 4-17.
Mahdavi, S. M. S., & Sharifi, M. (2019). Reflection on the paradigmatic differences between quantitative and qualitative methods in social sciences. Humanities Research Journal, 53. Spring. [In Persian]
Maqsoudi, M. (2018). Assessing the collective identity of Iranians with an emphasis on social cohesion. National Studies, 19(3). [In Persian]
Masoudnia, H., & Shafiei Yingabadi, N. (2024). Social consensus in Iran: Challenges and solutions. Political Journal, 54(4), Winter. [In Persian]
Mohammadi, A., & colleagues. (2022). Proposing a model of social action based on Parsons’ AGIL framework in Iran’s engineering system. Strategy, 11(44). Autumn. [In Persian]
Mohammadi, M. (2007). Religion and ethics in Durkheim’s communitarianism and its critique. Religious Thought Quarterly, Shiraz University, 25. [In Persian]
Mohammadi, M. (2022). The relationship between emotion and the rational component of the self from Aristotle’s perspective. Scientific Journal of Wisdom and Philosophy, 18(96), Spring. [In Persian]
Moqaddas, A. A., & Ghodrati, H. (2004). Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory and its methodological foundations. Social Science Journal of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, 1(4), Spring. [In Persian]
Moqaddas, A. A., & Ghodrati, Sh. (2011). A critical examination of Jonathan Turner’s, Theodore Kemper’s, and Edward Lawler’s sociological theories of emotions. Applied Sociology, 22(42), 2. Summer. [In Persian]
Motavaseli, F. (2019). Talcott Parsons’ theory of social order and its correlation with order in the managerial conduct of the Prophet Muhammad. International Journal of Nations Research, 4(43). Summer. [In Persian]
Naeibi, H., & colleagues. (2017). Durkheim’s and Merton’s theory of anomie: Similarities, differences, and measurement methods. Scientific-Research Journal of Social Welfare, 17(66), Autumn. [In Persian]
Naghdi, A., & Kamarbigi, K. (2010). A study of social consensus in urban, rural, and tribal communities of Ilam. 4(2), Tir. [In Persian]
Najafi, K., & Farahmand, M. (1989). An examination of the factors affecting social consensus among the Lur and Lak tribes (case study: Mazdan city, Khorramabad). Journal of Social Development, 13(4). Summer. [In Persian]
Nozari, H. A. (2002). Revisiting Habermas. Cheshmeh, Tehran. [In Persian]
Parsons, T., & Robert, B. (1995). Family, socialization and interaction process. New York: The Free Press.
Rabani Khorasgani, A., & Kianpour, M. (2009). Sociology of emotions. Applied Sociology, 20(34), 2. Summer. [In Persian]
Reza Doost, K. (2023). Socio-cultural factors affecting social consensus in Dehdasht city. Journal of National Security Studies, 61, 16(1). [In Persian]
Ritzer, G. (2003). Sociological theories in the contemporary era (M. Salathi, Trans.). Tehran: Scientific Publications. [In Persian]
Ritzer, G. (2014). Sociological theory (1st ed., H. Naeibi, Trans.). Tehran: Nashr-e-Ni. [In Persian]
Sadeghi Fasaei, S., Naseri Rad, M. (2011). Fundamental elements of qualitative research in social sciences: Ontology, epistemology, methodology, and methods. Iranian Social Studies, 5(2), Summer. [In Persian]
Safari, H., & Tofigh, E. (2009). A critical examination of the impact of deviant forms on the intensity of mechanical solidarity in the modern era based on Durkheim’s theory: A case study of Tehran. Iranian Sociology, 10(1), Spring. [In Persian]
Salehi Amiri, S. R. (2009). Cohesion and cultural diversity. Tehran: Research Institute of Strategic Studies. [In Persian]
Satari, A., Yazdani, F., & Farazi, A. (2017). Examining Habermas’s communicative action theory and its implications in higher education in Iran. Educational Sciences Journal of Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, 6(24), Spring and Summer. [In Persian]
Shafiei, M. (2005). The theory of communicative action (lifeworld and system) and social and political critique. Political Knowledge Quarterly, 2. Autumn and Winter. [In Persian]
Thamm, R. A. (2006). The classification of emotion. In J. E. Stets & J. H. Turner (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of emotions (pp. 1-15). New York: Springer Science.
Tohidfam, M., & Hosseinian Amiri, M. (2009). The integration of agency and structure in the ideas of Giddens, Bourdieu, and Habermas and its impact on contemporary sociology. Political Science Journal, 4(3), Summer. [In Persian]
Turner, J. H. (2006). Psychoanalytic sociological theories and emotion. In J. E. Stets & J. H. Turner (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of emotions (pp. 164-178). New York: Springer Science.
Vajdani, F. (2012). Explaining the internal relationship between rationality and emotion and its implications for nurturing creative thinking in higher education. Higher Education Letter, 5(19), Autumn. [In Persian]
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Zaki, M. A. (2016). Social cohesion, students, and universities in Iran. Iranian Social Studies, 10(4), Winter. [In Persian]