The different ways in which Lockwood, Habermas, and Giddens conceptualise the social-/system-integration distinction are examined. It is argued that (with some modification) Lockwood's conceptualisation is logically more congruent and heuristically more useful than that of the other two theorists.
Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
2.
Habermas, J. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 2. London: Polity Press.
3.
Lockwood, D. 1964. `Social Integration and System integration', in G. K. Zollschan and W. Hirsch (eds). Explorations in Social Change. London: Routledge.
4.
Lockwood, D. 1992. Solidarity and Schism: `The Problem of Disorder' in Durkheimian and Marxist Sociologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
McCarthy, T. 1985. `Reflections on Rationalisation in The Theory of Communicative Action', in R. J. Bernstein (ed.) Habermas and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
6.
Mouzelis, N. 1990. Post-Marxist Alternatives. London: Macmillan.
7.
Mouzelis, N. 1991. Back to Sociological Theory. London: Macmillan.
8.
Mouzelis, N.1993. `Comparing the Durkheimian and the Marxist Traditions', Sociological Review, 41 (3):572-582.
9.
Mouzelis, N. 1995. Sociological Theory: What Went Wrong?London: Macmillan.
10.
Parsons, T. and Platt, G. 1973. The American University. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
