Self-generation of Social Reality and the Critique of Critical Realism:Margaret Archer and Andrew Sayer

This article tries to critique the ontological perspective of Margaret Archer and Andrew Sayer’s epistemology on social reality. To explain the social world dynamism, Archer introduces morphogenetic social theory. Accordingly, she explain the social world by interaction between culture, agency and structure. Also, Andrew Sayer besides paying attention to the existing complexities in the nature of social reality, struggles to introduce a specific model upon which one can come up with a new formulation of the process of social knowledge. His model is based on the dialectical relation between the researcher (subject), research topic (object) and other subjects who work in a common linguistic community. The article criticizes both approaches because they do not pay attention to the self-generation of social reality. Self-generation is refer to the role of social reality (object) in changing and reproduction of itself. Bothe Archer’s morphogenesis and Sayer’s epistemology neglect the effective role of social reality in self-reproduction.This article tries to critique the ontological perspective of Margaret Archer and Andrew Sayer’s epistemology on social reality. To explain the social world dynamism, Archer introduces morphogenetic social theory. Accordingly, she explain the social world by interaction between culture, agency and structure. Also, Andrew Sayer besides paying attention to the existing complexities in the nature of social reality, struggles to introduce a specific model upon which one can come up with a new formulation of the process of social knowledge. His model is based on the dialectical relation between the researcher (subject), research topic (object) and other subjects who work in a common linguistic community. The article criticizes both approaches because they do not pay attention to the self-generation of social reality. Self-generation is refer to the role of social reality (object) in changing and reproduction of itself. Bothe Archer’s morphogenesis and Sayer’s epistemology neglect the effective role of social reality in self-reproduction.This article tries to critique the ontological perspective of Margaret Archer and Andrew Sayer’s epistemology on social reality. To explain the social world dynamism, Archer introduces morphogenetic social theory. Accordingly, she explain the social world by interaction between culture, agency and structure. Also, Andrew Sayer besides paying attention to the existing complexities in the nature of social reality, struggles to introduce a specific model upon which one can come up with a new formulation of the process of social knowledge. His model is based on the dialectical relation between the researcher (subject), research topic (object) and other subjects who work in a common linguistic community. The article criticizes both approaches because they do not pay attention to the self-generation of social reality. Self-generation is refer to the role of social reality (object) in changing and reproduction of itself. Bothe Archer’s morphogenesis and Sayer’s epistemology neglect the effective role of social reality in self-reproduction.