Beyond the Comtean Schema: The Sociology of Culture and Cognition Versus Cognitive Social Science

In this essay, I argue that the very form of the grammatical construction “a sociology of culture and cognition” (which is a specification of the more general schema “a sociology of [X]”) is symptomatic of a deeply entrenched form of “Primitive Classification” (which I will refer to as the “Comtean schema”) that governs the way in which sociologists conceive of their place in, and engage with other denizens of, the social science landscape. I will also argue that while this style of disciplinary engagement might have worked in the past when it came to dealing with the standard (nineteenth‐century) social science disciplines and even some late‐twentieth‐century upstarts, it will not work as a way to engage the now‐sprawling postdisciplinary field that I will refer to as “Cognitive Social Science” (CSS). The takeaway point is that if sociologists want to be part of CSS (and it is in their interest to be part of it because this constitutes the future of the behavioral sciences), then they will have to give up the Comtean‐schematic thought style.     

Teaching Sociology at a Tribal College: Navajo Philosophy as a Pedagogy

This article begins with a brief history of Dine College, the first tribally controlled college in the nation. I then provide an overview of Dine College’s educational philosophy, called Sa’ah Naaghai Bik’eh Hozhoon, and give examples that demonstrate how I apply this SNBH philosophy in my teaching. I discuss my own Dine identity, and explain how that fosters a greater understanding among the students I teach. I also introduce a concept called “the Navajo time bind” that illuminates the challenges I face in teaching sociology to a Navajo population. Overall, this article provides insights about the unique aspects of teaching sociology in a tribally controlled college.     

WE WANT MORE – WE ARE MORE

Impressed with the current migration in Europe and the connected socio-political and civil-societal challenges, we examine the question which contribution group-dynamic learning forms and its paradigms can raise awareness for a shared created future. Group dynamics understands itself as a place of practical philosophy, as intervention per se, where collectives can emancipate and participation should become alive. The origin of this idea is the examination with the unknown, the differences and the linked questioning of subjective truths, feelings and convictions. The connection between individual as well as collective self-enlightenment processes and the competence extension dealing with personal, cultural, moral, social etc. boundaries.We focus on the emotional effects (uncertainty and fear as a side effect of migration) as well as the theoretical background of the unknown and discuss the sense and the possibilities of participative-designed intervention forms of knowledge creation. Taking into account that several issues of collaboration for a shared future cannot be solved without the people concerned, we examine why we are “more”, why we want “more” and from what we will need “more”.     

Standpoint theory and middle-range theorizing in International Sociology

This paper responds to Julian Go's Lecture “Thinking against Empire. Anti-colonial Thought and Social Theory.” It proceeds in two parts: I first follow Go's invitation to read and reread Mabel Dove Danquah and Frantz Fanon and explore what their work contributes to our understanding of state-forms. I then examine the terms of Go's invitation more closely. I contrast Go's juxtaposition of imperial sociology on the one hand and anti-colonial sociology on the other hand, with the broader range of theoretical traditions and methods, which a practice-oriented sociology of sociology and an international history of sociology would highlight. I raise the question what “standpoint” adds to the authors Go discusses and the broader range of scholars who have engaged with post-colonial contexts in their research at this point in time. Calling for consideration of the anti-colonial standpoint is a particular choice, which has a distinctive heritage in Hegelian-Marxian projections of the social whole and is in tension with either deep exploration of particular thinkers or the middle-range theorizing that Go also seems to endorse. Defined at a level of abstraction that is “above” (or underneath) actual conversations in a range of fields and subfields, it can appear as a “test” for scholars who have long engaged with post-colonial contexts, which can have unintended consequences when coupled with the institutional power and asymmetric insularity of Anglo-American academia.     

Medical diagnosis of dyslexia in a Swedish elite school: A case of “consecrating medicalization”

Based on qualitative data of an upper-secondary school in Sweden’s primary elite community, Djursholm, I propose how medical diagnosis of students as dyslexics contributes to consecrating them by offering a short cut to successful performance, while at the same time reproducing differences between social classes. The study suggests how students that do not score top can be labeled dyslexic and the social and moral consequences of that. I introduce the concept of “consecrating medicalization” in order to discriminate between the effects of medical diagnosis of members of different social classes. In this way, this paper contributes to further examining some key problems in medical sociology and the sociology of elites, by offering a framework of synthesis and integration.     

Max weber's vision of economic sociology

Max Weber's economic sociology is usually associated with The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904–1905), but in this paper I show that what Weber himself called his “Wirtschaftssoziologie”, or economic sociology, looked quite different and was something that he developed during the last year of his life, 1919–1920. I present and outline Weber's (later) economic sociology and pay particular attention to his ideas of “economic (social) action” and of the three different forms of capitalism (rational capitalism, political capitalism and traditional capitalism). I also show that to Weber, economic sociology was part of a more general science of economics that he often referred to as “social economics” (“Sozialökonomik”). The paper ends with a comparison between the paradigm of economic sociology, which can be found in the work of Max Weber, and the paradigm of what is known as New Economic Sociology.     

Emergenz und Reduktion

The micro-macro-link is a common problem in nearly every scientific field. In contemporary philosophy of mind a new concept of emergence has been developed which could also be useful for sociology. After a brief overview of the debate in the field of philosophy of mind, three different answers to the micro-macro problem are being distinguished and then transferred to sociology: an eliminative (e.g. R. Collins), a reductionist (e.g. rational choice theories) and a non-reductive answer based on the concept of emergence (e.g. Emile Durkheim, and, partly, N. Luhmann). Using the argument of “multiple realization” the article argues for a “conceptual dualism”.     

Sociological Knowledge of the Other: Wolff’s “Surrender and Catch” Methodology

From a sociological perspective the “surrender and catch” expression derives, of course, from the experiential and existential basis of Wolff’s epistemology and hermeneutics.“Surrender” is connected with phenomenology, and Husserl’s (as well as Schütz’s) writings, besides Scheler’s idea of a “relatively natural world view”.“Surrender and catch” is also a “sociology of understanding” a definition which recuperates the German verstehende Soziologie though it makes a distinction between “surrender” and “surrender to”. It is not just a theory, it is a methodology too, in order to understand the otherness.Wolff was a multi-facetted scholar and this affected his conceptualizations. Furthermore, his surrender is something one experiences existentially in a number of fields, from the nature of empirical research to the art of theoretical reflection, from politics to poetry, from philosophy to history to sociology.It must also be pointed out that surrender and catch are a form of protest against the status quo.     

Who Wants a Deliberative Public Sphere?1

Democratic theorists and social scientists suggest that a deliberative public sphere would be good for democracy by maximizing emancipatory possibilities and providing broad legitimacy to political decision making. But do ordinary Americans actually want a deliberative public sphere? I examine this question in the context of four contentious “religion and science” debates. Through a multidimensional evaluation exercise with 62 ordinary respondents, I find that evaluation of public representatives in these debates tends to favor open‐mindedness and ongoing debate. Further, respondents explicitly discount elected representatives who participate in public debate precisely because they are seen as violating deliberative norms through their affiliation with electoral politics. Respondents want a deliberative public sphere. However, this desire reflects an understanding of the public sphere and institutional politics as disconnected arenas with incompatible rules and objectives, raising multiple questions for democratic theory and for political sociology.     

Sociology’s Sacred Victims and the Politics of Knowledge: Moral Foundations Theory and Disciplinary Controversies

The field of sociology has long been subject to critique for alleged ideological bias and left-wing groupthink linked to its social justice mission. Critics contend that the construction of “sacred victims” by progressive intellectuals hinders their ability to objectively appraise the circumstances of such vulnerable groups. To address this criticism, we survey 479 sociologists in national universities and colleges in the U.S. regarding three sensitive controversies: urban poverty in the black community; gendered differences in occupational choices; and immigration. We find significant patterns in the data. Commitment to the field’s “moral mission,” preferred research paradigm, gender, and especially political orientation are all significant predictors of sociologists’ views. The results, we suggest, can be understood by conceptualizing the field of sociology as an “emotive community.” In doing so, we draw upon current social psychological research on moral foundations theory developed by Jonathan Haidt and colleagues.     

Saving the Savior

This article begins with an autobiographical reflection about what sociology has meant to me as an Iranian intellectual. Sociology has enabled me to think critically about my country's politics and culture, appreciating its strengths without overlooking its unjust and injurious aspects. That experience shapes my answer to the question “Saving Sociology?” If there is anything in sociology that I would like to save–in both senses “to keep” and “to rescue”—it is sociology as a critical, reflective discipline, a discipline that not only studies society but also contributes to its change. As the contemporary world moves toward a “global” society, we are increasingly facing the dilemmas of multiculturalism. Sociologists often investigate other societies or (like myself) look back at their own from a spatial and cultural distance. This situation has created a dilemma for many scholars: Should we criticize problems stemming from “indigenous” beliefs and practices of other societies? Cultural relativism argues that different cultures provide indigenous answers to their social problems that should be judged in their own context. While this approach correctly encourages us to avoid ethnocentrism, it has led to inaction towards the suffering of oppressed groups. Reflecting on the relativist approach to sexual dominance, I question some cultural relativist assumptions. Discussing how “indigenous” responses to male domination in many cases disguise and protect that domination, I will challenge the “localist” approach of relativism and argue for a universalist approach.     

“That proves you mad,because you know it not”: impaired insight and the dilemma of governing psychiatric patients as legal subjects

This article investigates “impaired insight,” a controversial psychiatric category describing a mad person unable to know his or her madness. Like “moral insanity” and other concepts before it, impaired insight offers a way to link the disparate logics of human responsibility in psychiatry and the law. I attribute its development to changes wrought by deinstitutionalization, the rise of antipsychotic medication, and patient incarceration in penal settings. In a system that aims to govern psychiatric patients through their freedom, the logic of impaired insight introduces a wrinkle: can a person make an informed choice to refuse treatment if madness itself impairs awareness of illness? Drawing on tools from the sociology of science, I trace the process by which researchers recast psychodynamic “denial” as a neurological and therefore non-volitional “impairment” in the 1990s. I then show how social movement actors mobilized the materialized form in the legal and policy fields in the 2000s, bringing insight science to bear upon the very questions of custodial management and patient rights that gave birth to it. At stake is this dilemma: how can societies that simultaneously privilege individual responsibility and somatic accounts of behavior govern those at the border of legal capacity, and with what justification?     

„The study of population offers something for everyone“

Despite a significant overlap between sociology and demography, “sociology of population” is not well-established in Germany yet. This is very distinct from the development in the US where research at the intersection of sociology and demography is united under the umbrella of “social demography”. This introductory chapter of this KZfSS Special Issue first explores the synergies of both disciplines. We then present the special Issue’s content of the volume. It is structured along demography’s core fields of “Fertility and Partnership” (Section I), “Migration and Mobility” (Section II) and “Mortality and Morbidity” (Section III). The volume contains furthermore a section on “Welfare State and Demographic Change” (Section IV) as well as cutting-edge research in the realm of “Sociology and Biodemography” (Section V).     

Le métier de conseiller d’insertion et de probation : dans les coulisses de l’État pénal ?

This study of the changing profession of “counselors of integration and probation” (conseillers d’insertion et de probation, Cip) proposes a sociology of occupational groups that takes into account both statutory and moral considerations. Turning social services in prisons into a “penitentiary service of integration and probation” has involved professionalization, “juridicization” (with a shift from social work to the field of law) as well as a switch from a “compassionate” toward a “repressive” pole of interventions. Based on a survey conducted in prison, this study of work situations and conflicts helps us formulate the problems of ruptures and continuities in relation to both these employees’ individual trajectories and the institutional framework of their actions. This case study of Cip, an occupational group seen herein as a litmus test of what the penal institution does to persons under a court order, enables us to imagine an ethnography of the “state in acts”.     

Varieties of Normative Inquiry: Moral Alternatives to Politicization in Sociology

This article evaluates four different ways of relating the normative side of sociology to its empirical side. Two such ways are in existence at present. The first is “dualism,” the idea that sociology provides purely scientific results to political or moral projects that are conducted on some independent normative basis. This position is commonly invoked in the idea of “value-free sociology.” The second is “monism,” the ideas that value-freedom is impossible and that sociology is inevitably value-driven, indeed perhaps that it should be openly so driven. This position is commonly invoked in the idea of “the unity of theory and practice.” These existing approaches are complemented by two that do not yet exist in practice. Both are explicitly normative in part. The first of these is a “canonical” approach, like that of the subdiscipline of political theory, in which normative inquiry within sociology would be formally recognized within the discipline and would be organized around a classical canon of normative works. The second would be a “legalist” approach, which would grow out of new genres of writing that aimed at the systematic normative evaluation of bodies of work or literatures, thus working inductively, in contrast to the canonical approach’s deductivism. The article evaluates these four positions according to four criteria: feasibility, coherence, trajectory, and open-mindedness. It concludes that the current positions (dualism and monism) are both embarrassingly weak: typically unconscious and sometimes naïve, in many cases driven by the unacknowledged – and hence uncritical - assumption that one's particular politics are in fact universally desirable. The discipline should try to create an explicit but rigorously argued normative subdiscipline, probably combining both the canonical and legalist positions.     

Testing planets: Institutions tested in an era of uncertainty

Prior accounts of the experimenter’s regress in laboratory testing are set against the background of a relatively stable institutional context. Even if the tools are new or the object of investigation is unknown, participating entities are named, a certain degree of funding is presumed, and an organization exists to conduct the test. In this paper, I argue that this background assumption obscures the importance of institutional and organizational context to the sociology of testing. I analyze ethnographic data gathered among a NASA team whose funding is uncertain, whose mission organization is not yet established, and whose object of investigation is inaccessible. In what I characterize as “ontological flexibility,” I reveal how scientists shift their accounts of object agency in response to changes in their institutional environment. As they describe the moon as “uncooperative” or “multiple” while they make appeals to institutions at various stages of support in their exploration projects, this reveals the presence of an “institutional regress”: a previously overlooked aspect of the sociology of testing.     

Reply to Klein

Many “theoretical” writings in sociology and in the social sciences use conceptual frameworks (perspectives, paradigms). Developments in family sociology are used as a case study to explore the role of conceptual frameworks in the growth of scientific theory. The claim that conceptual frameworks are necessary for theory building is evaluated. Using writings in family sociology and in the philosophy of science, the claim is found wanting. Social scientists are therefore cautioned to avoid conceptual work that is only rhetorically related to the development of theory.     

Driving in a dead-end street: critical remarks on Andrew Abbott’s <Emphasis Type="Italic">Processual Sociology</Emphasis>

In his book Processual Sociology (2016), Andrew Abbott proposes a radically new theoretical perspective for sociology. This review essay discusses the strengths and weaknesses of his “processual” approach, in comparison with other dynamic perspectives in sociology such as, in particular, Norbert Elias’s “process sociology.” It critically questions central ideas and arguments advanced in this book: the reduction of social processes to “events,” the focus on stability as the central explanandum of sociological theory, the implicit separation of individual and social processes, the proposition that the social world changes faster than the individual, the idea that “excess” rather than “scarcity” is the central problematic of human affairs, the strong emphasis on the inherent normativity of sociological concepts, the focus on values as the core of human social life, the neglect of human interdependence, power, coercion, and violence, and the distinction between “moral facts” and “empirical facts.” Detailed criticisms of the arguments in various chapters are given, and alternative viewpoints are proposed. The conclusion is that Processual Sociology fails to provide a fruitful approach for understanding and explaining social processes, and that it even represents, in several respects, theoretical regression rather than progress.     

What Can I Do? Applying Classroom Knowledge to Service Work, or Doing Practice Sociology

Faculty members are frequently asked by students and parents, “what can I do with a Sociology degree?” This paper suggests ways to address the question and take action to insure that majors have the knowledge and skills to be successful in the job search and the work world. In addition, the paper indicates ways that combining service learning and applied sociology serves goals of students, faculty, universities, and communities. Approaches to teaching applied (practice) sociology in departments and to integrating service learning and course content show the “natural synergy” between the two types of learning. Finally, the article discusses practical issues related to service learning in applied settings: getting the support of faculty and administrators; convincing students of the benefits of service learning; revising curricula; and setting up the service learning experiences. The conclusion is that combining service learning and applied sociology courses has positive results for all involved.     

Relational Troubles and Semiofficial Suspicion: Educators and the Medicalization of “Unruly” Children

Using an interview‐based analysis of the accounts of interactions between educators, parents, and clinicians, this study explores educators' roles in interpreting childhood troubles as the medical phenomenon of attention deficit‐hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The analysis of interviews shows how children's “personal” troubles become understood as “relational” ones, prompting increasingly sophisticated social responses. I argue that the institution of education, operating in a clinical capacity but lacking the legitimate authority to assign ADHD diagnoses, plays a hybridized, semiofficial role in the medicalization process. This assertion informs a critique of the “informal/official” dichotomy found in the sociology of deviance lexicon, and furthers previous positions in the sociology of mental health that have implicated school representatives in the social construction of behavior disorders.