Industrial Society: Requiem for a Concept

This paper traces the historical development as well as the analytical and ideological uses of “industrial society” as an object of knowledge. The binary opposition traditional society/industrial society and the latter tripartite division traditional, industrial, post-industrial society have been central to the development of sociology as a discipline. Like all analytical concepts “industrial society” is both a way of seeing and not seeing. It focuses attention on some social attributes and processes rather than others. The first objective of this paper is to evaluate whether or not this object of knowledge focuses attention on crucial aspects of social life, or whether, instead, it shrouds and distorts more than it reveals. The second objective is to evaluate the ideological import of the concept. Did it, and does it still, provide a realistic and achievable model of the way we ought to live together?     

The Conceptual Incoherence of “Culture” in American Sociology

The meaning of the concept “culture” as used in American sociology is incoherent. Despite the advances and maturing of cultural sociology, the central idea of “culture” itself remains conceptually muddled. This article demonstrates this critical point by analyzing the definitions, meanings, and uses of the word “culture” in the field of cultural sociology’s most significant, recent edited volumes, handbooks, readers, companions, annual review chapters, and award-winning books and journal articles. Arguing for the scholarly importance of conceptual coherence, this article calls for more disciplined and cooperative theoretical work to clarify and move toward a more standardized meaning of “culture” in American sociology.     

Trust,scepticism, and social order: A contribution from the sociology of scientific knowledge

The sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK), which studies the organisation and content of science, has made two original contributions to the understanding of social order at large. First, SSK scholars regard social order as a problem of establishing “cognitive order” and knowledge. A wealth of case studies has demonstrated that interpersonal trust is necessary to achieve agreement and shared perception among particular collectives of specialists. Second, SSK scholars insist that all types of cognitive order and knowledge, whether “scientific” or “lay,” are the result of socially organised scepticism being parasitic upon existing trust and background expectations (an argument that I call “the Parasitic View of Scepticism”). Sociologists with an interest in today's so‐called “knowledge” and “information” societies, and more specifically, in the social distribution and political uses of doubt and unknowns (including “post‐truth”), would benefit from adopting the Parasitic View of Scepticism and investigating the corrosive and generative consequences of scepticism on the trust relations and the cognitive/social order upon which it is based, in line with insights from the emerging fields of agnotology and the sociology of ignorance.     

Vision and Mission of Sociology: Learning from the Russian Historical Experience

The present study demonstrates that the path of the “organic public sociology” (proposed by Michael Burowoy in his famous call of the 2004) as the dominating mode of sociological practice in the national context can be menacing with the serious pitfalls manifested in broad historical perspective. We reveal the four pitfalls basing on the analysis of the Russian experience through the last 150 years. First, the over-politicization and ideological biasness of sociological activities; second, the “personal sacrifice” of sociologist as a romanticized practice, potentially harmful for the discipline; third, the difficulties of the professional sociology institutionalization; fourth, the deprivation of the policy sociology development. Analyzing the history of Russian sociology in the context of the current international discussions, we give particular reference to the idea of the “Scientized Environment Supporting Actorhood” elaborated by John Meyer. We suggest the mode of communication between sociology and society, which, in our view, could be helpful for improving their interactions in various local, national and global contexts in the XXIst century. This mode escapes the political emphasis and ideological claims but rather concentrates on the more fundamental ethical issues. It also tries to overcome the limitations of the contemporary professional mainstream (instead of idealizing it). Finally, it presents itself to the publics in the understandable way, while remaining properly scientifically validated (however, avoiding the exaggerated accent on the statistical procedures and fitishization of the natural science’ principles (“numerology” and “quantofrenia”)). The public activities of the prominent sociologist Pitirim Sorokin in the American period of his career are a good example of this approach to the interactions with society.     

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.     

“The Past in the Present: Mills,Tocqueville and the Necessity of History”

Historical sociology has achieved a reasonable degree of respectability in the discipline, and there is much interesting work being produced. But a pronounced aspect of much of this work is an indifference to the question of the value of studying the past as a way to understanding the present. This article argues that, rather than trying to outdo the historians by producing “better,” more theoretically sophisticated history, sociologists would better advance the case for historical sociology by showing how any particular historical study helps illuminate contemporary concerns. The article draws upon the writings of C. Wright Mills and Alexis de Tocqueville to show not just the need for historical sociology but also as indications of how this might best be done.     

Advancing a sociology of ignorance in the study of racism and racial non‐knowing

By a wealth of indicators, ignorance appears a bona fide if often vexing social fact. Ignorance is socially constructed, negotiated, and pervasive; ignorance is often socially inevitable, even necessary; and, without a doubt, ignorance is socially consequential. Yet, despite its significance, ignorance has appeared a largely secondary concern among sociologists. Perhaps more perplexing, while sociologists of racism, power, and domination have long focused on the ways racial ideologies distort and mystify racial understanding to sustain White supremacy over time, we have done less to elaborate ignorance than is possible and warranted. Here, I join growing calls for a fully‐fledged “sociology of ignorance” and argue that antiracist and decolonial scholars have much to gain from and contribute to such an endeavor. This article traces the historical forebears of a “sociology of ignorance” and explores ignorance as a social concept before turning to examine precedents and increasing attention to ignorance scholarship on racism, racial domination, and racialized non‐knowing. Drawing from this work, I urge race‐critical scholars take advantage of our unique position to advance theory and methodology surrounding ignorance and the social‐cultural production of non‐knowledge as a broader area of social inquiry.     

Three Ecologies: Urban Metabolism and the Society‐Nature Opposition

This article is an intellectual history of two enduring binaries—society‐nature and city‐countryside—and their co‐identification, told through evolving uses of the concept of “urban metabolism.” After recounting the emergence of the modern society‐nature opposition in the separation of town and country under early industrial capitalism, I interpret “three ecologies”—successive periods of urban metabolism research spanning three disciplines within the social sciences. The first is the human ecology of the Chicago School, which treated the city as an ecosystem in analogy to external, natural ecosystems. The second is industrial ecology: materials‐flow analyses of cities that conceptualize external nature as the source of urban metabolism's raw materials and the destination for its social wastes. The third is urban political ecology, a reconceptualization of the city as a product of diverse socio‐natural flows. By analyzing these three traditions in succession, I demonstrate both the efficacy and the limits to Catton and Dunlap's distinction between a “human exemptionalist paradigm” and a “new ecological paradigm” in sociology.     

Presidential Address Rural Sociology at the Crossroads*

Abstract A complex array of socio‐historical, demographic, and organizational factors have combined in recent years to threaten both the current status of and future prospects for the discipline of rural sociology, and for the Rural Sociological Society (RSS). This paper examines the somewhat problematic recent trajectories of the RSS as a professional organization and of rural sociology more generally and notes a degree of disciplinary and organizational inertia that have limited the pursuit of new directions. It also presents a discussion of selected factors that have contributed to these concerns, including both “external” factors that are largely beyond the organizational reach of RSS and “internal” factors that are more directly linked to organizational characteristics and actions. Drawing upon the distinctions between “red ocean” and “blue ocean” strategies outlined by market strategists Kim and Mauborgne, the discussion then shifts to a focus on action alternatives that, if pursued, could help to create an expanded set of opportunities and a brighter future for rural sociology, and for the Rural Sociological Society.     

Towards an Integrated Understanding of Critical Upheavals: From Crisis to Contentious Politics to “All‐Encompassing Contentious Crisis”

This article advances a general, comprehensive approach around the concept of “all‐encompassing contentious crisis” to studying critical upheavals and their historical impacts. This interpretative framework aims to reorient how we think about extraordinary events by providing a rubric for converting the scheme of seemingly unrelated destructive upheavals into an integrative model of constructive development. It appropriates the theoretical insights developed in political science and sociology to enrich historical inquiry and, furthermore, to turn crisis into a more precise and full‐fledged model of development. It is hoped that this synthesized model can not only help to lessen the barrier between historians and social scientists but also bridge the gap between event and structure in explaining historical change.     

Preserving the unpreservable: docile and unruly objects at MoMA

The aim of this article is to theorize how materials can play an active, constitutive, and causally effective role in the production and sustenance of cultural forms and meanings. It does so through an empirical exploration of the Museum of Modern Art of New York (MoMA). The article describes the museum as an “objectification machine” that endeavors to transform and to stabilize artworks as meaningful “objects” that can be exhibited, classified, and circulated. The article explains how the extent to which the museum succeeds in this process of stabilization ultimately depends on the material properties of artworks and, more specially, on whether these behave as “docile” or “unruly” objects. Drawing on different empirical examples, the article explores how docile and unruly objects shape organizational dynamics within the museum and, through them, the wider processes of institutional and cultural reproduction. The article uses this empirical example to highlight the importance of developing a new “material sensibility” that restores heuristic dignity to the material within cultural sociology.     

On the Centrality of Action: Social Science,Historical Logics,and Max Weber's Legacy

This article draws attention to the fundamental centrality of “action” – i.e. symbolically constituted behavior – for the historical and social sciences. The work of Max Weber and contemporary American historian and theorist William H. Sewell, Jr. are examined, so as to shed light on the debate concerning social science's central subject matter as well as on the implications of this work for sociological and historical theory. The examination of Sewell's view leverages the importance of the concept of action underlying Weber's concept of “social action.” Weber's position on action and social action is of great interest not only to general theory but also to the field of cultural sociology, which has neglected to develop systematically upon the theoretical purchase Weber offers to it.     

Durkheim's Response to Spencer: An Essay Toward Historicism in the Historiography of Sociology*

Merton has made an important distinction between the “history” any “systematics” of sociological theory, and outlined the valuable functions of the former. Most histories of sociology, however, have been “presetist” or “Whiggish” in perspective; we propose an “historicist” alternative. Within this perspective, Durkheim's response to Spencer is analyzed in three areas: (1) the relation between “individual” and “society;” (2) evolution and social change; and (3) the scope and method of sociology. In these areas, Durkheim's critical style reveals a repetitive theme which is termed “inversion.” The essay concludes by re-affirming Merton's distinction and urging that the “historicist” perspective is the most valid and useful approach to the history of sociology.     

Toward a Historical Sociology of COVID-19: Path Dependence Method and Temporal Connections

Encountering the unprecedented social crisis of COVID-19, an increasing number of sociologists are calling for historical sociology to engage empirically with the dynamics of the COVID-19 crisis. I present the “path dependence method” and the “temporal connections” to interpret social life during the COVID-19 pandemic. By using the path dependence method, I show how the personal, social, and national problems created by the COVID-19 crisis initiate a new path and furthermore how this newly created path is justified in a society. Through the temporal connections, I will show how non-Western countries responded more reasonably and quickly than most Western countries to the COVID-19 crisis. The overall aim of this research is to disclose effectiveness of historical sociology, to encourage researchers to think time variable, and to argue that linking historical-sociological knowledge to the COVID-19 crisis would be a positive step for an in-depth COVID-19 sociology.     

Mythos Flexibilisierung?

In this article, we address the current debate of increasing work life flexibility in (West-) Germany. In order to shed some light on the contradiction between a widely accepted decrease in work life stability and empirical findings that do not confirm such a decline, we contrast “objective” evidence from occupational trajectories with “subjective” evidence on various dimensions of perceived continuity and discontinuity of job histories. We use the West German part of the German Life History Study for a survival analysis of occupational mobility for cohorts born between 1929 and 1971. Here, using a new concept, we distinguish between direct mobility and indirect mobility which is defined as an occupational change that happens after an employment interruption. In addition, we analyze a new German cross-sectional data set from 2005 on retrospective career perceptions. We employ multinomial regression models to understand whether younger individuals report more unwanted occupational mobility and employment interruptions than older individuals. Our findings indicate that direct occupational mobility has neither increased across cohorts nor has it surged upward for the most recent cohorts, but that there has been an increase in indirect occupational mobility. Furthermore, while there is no higher incidence of unwanted occupational mobility in younger age groups, we find mixed evidence regarding the increased occurrence of unwanted career interruptions in younger age groups. Finally, the desire to experience occupational and firm changes has grown for younger age groups.     

Save the World on Your Own Time: Or, What’s the Matter with Sociology?

This essay explores the question of why sociology departments, compared to other university departments, are often viewed negatively by higher-level administrators (deans, provosts, chancellors and presidents). We are asked to consider, as sociologists, how departments are ranked and evaluated by administrators. The characteristics of any good university department are identified (e.g., grants, support from alumni, publications, quality of teaching, national rankings, student enrollments); and, the characteristics of dynamic and healthy departments are outlined (e.g., student learning is primary; there is a commitment to the goals of the larger organization; leadership is provided by the unit to solve all-university problems; there is a focus on learning; faculty are productive; there are strong communication links across the organization). The question is posed and then systemically answered as to how sociology departments compare in terms of these standards. It is suggested that a major factor in terms of how and why sociology departments are negatively evaluated is the fact that sociology uses narratives of power and explanations of organizational behavior that are inherently oppositional, i.e., there is an “us” and “them” mentally that sometimes develops. Other reasons for organizational marginalization are identified such as the “canon wars” and their lingering effects, and the fact that the sociological enterprise has been diluted by the teaching of “sociology” in many other campus units, such as composition programs. Finally, questions are raised about how sociology, as an intellectual enterprise, differs from other disciplines in terms of pedagogy, the sequencing of courses, “grand” theory, and forms of apprenticeship. It is recommended that sociologists act positively to help the organizations within which they work to identify common problems and solve them. It is argued that sociology can and should “own” the area of civic engagement as a means of making a positive and distinctive contribution. Sociological “stories” grounded in the reality of everyday life are compelling. It is suggested that sociologists need to deepen connections with their communities and to offer real solutions to real problems.     

Die Arbeitsgruppe Professionssoziologie und die Randständigkeit der Professionssoziologie im deutschsprachigen Raum

The article analyzes the consequences of the marginal status of the Sociology of Professions in Germany during the last decades on the efforts of the new working group “Sociology of Professions.” This new working group has been established in order to make professions an attractive research topic. First it will be demonstrated that a lack of a solid grounding in the international literature influences the new efforts to publish textbooks. Second it will be shown that there is a missing historical perspective in the old and new sociology of professions in Germany. Finally everything seems to indicate that the new working group is more interested in questions of general sociology and occupational sociology than in questions of a sociology of professions.     

No Path to Paradise: Deconstructing the Promise of Public Sociology

This essay treats Burawoy’s advocacy for public sociology as a social problems claim. Using a social constructionist approach, I examine the rhetorical strategies Burawoy uses to construct the discipline in a way that makes public sociology seem not only relevant, but integral to what sociologists do. Sociology’s history, ethos and practitioners are framed in ways that make its commitment to the civil sphere appear as a “natural” direction for the discipline. Certain features of the discipline are foregrounded. Motives and desires are imputed. Villains are constructed and the paths to progress are outlined. By examining the framing strategies Burawoy uses to present his vision, the promise of public sociology is called into question. I do not argue that public sociology is without value. Rather, I unpack the claims its advocates make and question whether public sociology can deliver on its promise of a better sociology or a better society.     

Memoir and the Sociological Imagination1

This essay responds to Peter J. Stein’s 2019 memoir, A Boy’s Journey: From Nazi‐Occupied Prague to Freedom in America, and his December 2020 essay in The Forum, “Biography, Trauma, Holocaust, and the Sociological Eye” (Stein 2020). Underscoring the resonance between sociology and literature, I use Stein’s work as a springboard for identifying four parallels between memoir’s capacities and sociology’s: (1) capturing the role and weight of contingency in human life, (2) offering audiences a window onto worlds they cannot experience firsthand, (3) cultivating “humane sympathy” (Abbott 2007), especially by probing “meta‐feelings” (Pugh 2013), and (4) fueling the imagination.     

Introduction: Human Longevity,Utopia, and Solidarity

Biomedical and geriatric technologies are having major impacts on the development and management of human longevity. Our contention in this special issue is that longevity should be considered as a point of departure for new forms of politics in which social sciences, in particular sociology and politics, can play an important role. In this introduction, we argue that emerging consumer markets in biomedicine are incrementally redefining the relationship between old age and society. Techno‐economic transformations are creating new sites of vulnerability that are masked by medical utopias of good health and “living forever.” In this context, it is unlikely that such technologies will be able to overcome inequalities in distribution and may well exacerbate various forms of injustice. By drawing on notions of institutional precariousness and scarcity, we conclude that to maintain any degree of social solidarity, increasing longevity will force the emergence of a “sociology of limits.”