Journal Article

Response to Goldstone and Useem

McAdam, Doug, Fligstein, Neil

2012

Overview

We would like to thank Jack Goldstone and Bert Useem for their thoughtful comment on our article in Sociological Theory. As they say, there are many things about which we agree. In the interest of debate, we focus on those issues that we think require clarification and others on which we may have genuine differences of opinion. Creating something as general as a theory of fields is a daunting task. Goldstone and Useem rightly point out that such a theory has to be less sensitive to the particular ongoing struggles of a particular field and offer more generic propositions. This is a useful exercise because it clarifies what is general about field structure and dynamics, which, we contend, can help us make sense of the distinctive history of any given field. We are comfortable arguing that, for all their differences, democratic politics, a financial market, a division within a firm, and a cultural arena within a given society adhere to common field dynamics. We intend this as a bold claim that offers analysts of these arenas of action a common language and set of concepts and dynamic principles to focus on in understanding the idiosyncratic features of their field of interest. Adapted from the source document.

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell,SAGE Publications
• Subject: Capital market / Dual aspect theory / Dynamics / Group identity / Language / Market / Markets / Political sociology / Politics / Social movements / Social theories / Sociological theory