**1. Introduction**

356 Sociological Landscape – Theories, Realities and Trends

Quirk, James and Rodney D. Fort. 1999. *Hard Ball: The Abuse of Power in Pro Team Sports*.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1972. "Merger as a Response to Organizational Interdependence."

Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Phillip Nowak. 1976. "Joint Ventures and Inter-organizational

Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Gerald R. Salancik. 1978. The External Control of Organizations. New-

Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and revival of American Community.

Romo, Frank P. and Michael Schwartz. 1995. "The Structural Embeddedness of Business

Samuel, Issac.2002. *The Political Game: Power and Influence in Organizations*. Haifa: University

Sorensen, Aage B. 2000. "Toward a Sounder Basis for Class Analysis." *American Journal of* 

Tjosvold, Dean. 1986. "The Dynamics of Interdependence in Organizations." *Human* 

Tjosvold, Dean. 1990. "Power in Cooperative and Competitive Organizational Contexts."

Uzzi, Brian. 1997. "Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of

Weimann, Gabriel. 1996. "Cable Comes to the Holy Land: The Impact of Cable TV on Israeli

Weingerten, Gilad. 2003. "A winning triangle: Sports, Television, Money." *Panim* 25:42-48

Wenner, Lawrence A. 1989. *Media, Sport and Society*. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Whannel, Garry. 1992. *Fields in Vision: Television Sport and Cultural Transformation*. London

Whipple, Judith M. and Frankel Robert. 2000. "Strategic Alliance Success Factors." *The* 

White, Harrison C. 1992. *Identity and Control: A Structural Theory of Social Action*. Princeton,

Williams, John. 1994. "The Local and the Global in English Soccer and the Rise of Satellite

Zaheer, Akbar, Bill McEvily, and Vincenzo Perrone. 1998. "Does Trust Matter? Exploring the

Zuckerman, Arnon. 1999. *Global Television*. Ministry of Defense Publications (Hebrew).

Effects of Interorganizational and Interpersonal trust on Performance."

Decisions: The Migration of Manufacturing Plants in New York State, 1960-1985."

Interdependence." *Administrative Science Quarterly* 21:398-418.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

*Administrative Science Quarterly* 17:382-394.

York: Harper & Row.

New York: Simon and Schuster.

of Haifa, Zmora-Bitan. (Hebrew).

*Sociology* 105:1523-1558.

and New-York: Routledge.

NJ: Princeton University Press.

*Organization Studies* 9:141-159.

*Relations* 39:517-540.

(Hebrew).

*American Sociological Review* 60:874-907.

*The Journal of Social Psychology* 130:249-258.

*Journal of Supply Chain Management* 36:21-28.

TV." *Sociology of Sport Journal* 11:376-397.

Embeddedness." *Administrative Science Quarterly* 42:35-67.

Viewers." *Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media* 40:243-257.

Sociology can be defined as the study of society, that is, as thinking, writing and talking about that elusive thing called 'society'. The latter concept is highly ambiguous and contested among different sociologists. The same goes for all the main aspects of social life, like the market, corporation, state, community, science, technology, law, and so forth, which are also sociologically approached in different ways. The ambiguous nature of society therefore means that sociology, just like economics or political science, is divided and pluriform. In this chapter, sociology is introduced as a social activity, not only because sociologists are very much embedded in social life in general and in organizations in particular, but also because their sociologies have the potential to change society, both constructively and destructively. The close relation between theory and practice, not always recognized by scientists, lays responsibilities upon sociologists, which the latter cannot discard without betraying their scientific vocation. The ambiguity of that which they try to know already manifests itself in the clashing sociological theories about society, and about what are perceived to be its distinctive elements.

Different sociological approaches to the study of society can be distinguished; their definitions of theory and science differ from each other. These various traditions can prove to be of great value to the reflexive sociologist who recognizes the ambivalence that is inherent to doing sociology. This awareness is the first prerequisite for a sociological dialogue and dialogical sociology, whereby clashing sociologies are allowed to interact, and eventually create new liberating perspectives and generate innovation. This dialogical approach does not only follow from the recognition of the ambiguous nature of society in general, and of organizations, be it a research lab, a business corporation, a public agency or an NGO, in particular, but also from the commitment to the European values of freedom and reason, as these have been understood by reflexive sociologists like C. Wright Mills, Alvin Gouldner or Irving Louis Horowitz. Dialogue is the playground par excellence for representing Socratic reason in all domains of social existence. Hence, it is only through dialogical activities and the institutionalization of dialogue, or what radical sociologists have called the 'publics', that sociology can develop as a science, and avoids the alliance with reifying forces.
