Abstract

Daniel Little's discussion of the relationship between Analytical Sociology's stated program and various exemplars of sociological scholarship occasions three questions. The first two are historical and "contextual": When and where is social life mechanistic, and how does it become that way? When and where does the assumption of a purposive, agentic actor apply? The third is reflexive: what is the relationship between analytic sociological theory and social theory more broadly understood? These questions lead to an argument that sociology, as a human science, should have a broader base of theoretical concepts, and a more meaning-centered understanding of causal explanation, than Analytic Sociology would suggest.