چکیده:
Understanding social reality is understanding a form of social ontology that describes the basic structures of social life. The purpose of this article is to understand the social reality from the perspective of Derek Layder. Layder as one of the thinkers in the field of social theory, with a discussion about dualities in sociology, tries to reduce the agency-structure duality to smaller analytical domains and show how these domains of social life are spread by power in time and space. In his opinion, although structure and agency are empirically related, each of them is considered independent and separate fields, and social reality can be identified by knowing these fields and separating them from each other. The present article, while examining the theory of Layder's social domains, using the method of critical realism, which seeks to discover productive mechanisms in social phenomena, criticizes and expands the said theory and shows that although Layder also Like critical realists, he considers social reality to be complex and multi-layered, but does not talk about productive mechanisms.
خلاصه ماشینی:
For example, how to integrate micro and macro levels of analysis, the role of social structures in shaping individual actions, and the influence of culture and ideology on our understanding of reality are all issues that require further investigation and research.
In the last three decades of the twentieth century, some sociologists also examined social reality in the shadow of dualities such as subjectivism 1 - objectivism 2, micro 3 - macro 4, structure 5 - agency 6 9 8 Among the most important of them, one can mention Giddens 7, Habermas, Bourdieu, and Layder 10.
From the perspective of critical realism and at its forefront, Bhaskar's approach, positivism, as one of the realist theories regarding science and the philosophy of science, holds a reductionist position; because it reduces the multiple levels of reality on one hand to the level of causal events and on the other hand, only to a single level (the empirical level), and therefore is involved in a type of 'actualism' 2, while the nature of reality is much more complex than our knowledge of it; and in addition to this issue, meaning the complexity and layered nature of reality, the human mind, contrary to the view of positivists, is not like a simple and clear mirror or, in other words, a blank slate; therefore, one cannot believe in a one-to-one correspondence between the components of mind, language, and reality.
(
, 
, 
)
