Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-9prln Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T03:31:10.459Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond biology: A sociological stance on what is society

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2025

Péter Bodor Open the ORCID record for Péter Bodor [Opens in a new window]  and
Dániel Havrancsik
Péter Bodor*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Sociology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary bodor.peter@tatk.elte.hu
Dániel Havrancsik
Affiliation:
Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Social Theory, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary havrancsik.daniel@tatk.elte.hu https://tatk.elte.hu/
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We discuss some of the most central problems and concepts elaborated within the social sciences, especially sociology, which are not or only tangentially exposed by Moffett. Then, we will exemplify of how identity, which is a central constituent of Moffett's definition of society, cannot be opposed to interaction despite his claims. Rather it is to be studied as interactional achievement.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 48 , 2025 , e56
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aytar, E., & Bodor, P. (2019). Discourses of being a Muslim woman in contemporary Hungary and the Hijab paradox. Quaderni di Sociologia, 80, 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, C., & Galasinski, D. (2001). Cultural studies and discourse analysis – A dialogue on language and identity. SAGE.Google Scholar
Bodor, P. (2013). Identity in discourse. The case of ascribing “schizophrenia” to Europe and Hungary. In Heller, M., & Kriza, B. (Eds). Identities, ideologies and representations in post-transition Hungary. (pp. 117–153). Eötvös Publishing House.Google Scholar
Durkheim, E. (1982). The rules of sociological method. The Free Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadamer, H.-G. (1992). Citizen of two worlds. In Misgeld, D., & Nicholson, G. (Eds), Hans-Georg Gadamer on education, poetry, and history. (pp. 209–220). SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Marx, K. (1867–1894). Das Kapital. Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie. Verlag von Oto Meisner.Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe. The Free Press.Google Scholar
Simmel, G. (2009). Sociology. Inquiries into the construction of social forms. Brill.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. An outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press.Google Scholar