Committing Canadian Sociology: Developing a Canadian Sociology and a Sociology of Canada

This paper is a slightly revised version of the author's “Outstanding Career Award Lecture” presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Sociological Association in Victoria, British Columbia on June 6, 2013. The paper distinguishes between Canadian Sociology and the Sociology of Canada. The former involves the explanatory stance that one takes to understanding Canada. The latter addresses the significant social dimensions that underlie Canadian social organization, culture, and behavior. I make a case for a Canadian Sociology that focuses on the unique features of Canadian society rather than adopting a comparative perspective. I also argue that there is a continuing need within the Sociology of Canada to address the issues of staples development. However, I argue that “new” staples analysis must have a directional change from that of the past, in that social processes now largely determine the pattern of staples development. Moreover, new staples analysis must include issues that were never part of earlier staples analysis, such as issues of environmental impacts and of staples depletion under conditions, such as climate change. The paper concludes by analyzing four factors that provide the dominant social contexts for analyzing modern staples development: (1) the rise of neoliberal government, (2) the implementation of globalization and its social consequences, (3) the assumption of aboriginal rights and entitlement, and (4) the rise of environmentalism. These factors were generally not considered in earlier staples approaches. They are critical to understanding the role of staples development and its impact on Canada in the present time. Cet article est une version quelque peu révisé du cours pour le “prix pour contributions exceptionnelles” de l'auteur, présenté à la réunion annuelle de la Société Canadienne de Sociologie à Victoria, Colombie‐Britannique le 6 juin 2013. Cet article ce distingue entre la sociologie canadienne et la sociologie du Canada. Le premier ce concerne la position explicative que l'on prend pour comprendre le Canada. Le dernier adresse les importantes dimensions sociales qui sous‐tendent l'organisation sociale, culturelle et comportementale. Je soutiendrai une sociologie canadienne qui se concentre sur les aspects uniques de la société canadienne au lieu d'adopter une perspective comparative. Je soutiendrai aussi qu'il existe un besoin continu au sein de la sociologie du Canada pour adresser les questions de la théorie des principales ressources. Cependant, je soutiens que l'analyse des principales ressources “nouvelle” nécessite un changement de direction que celles du passé, en ce que les processus sociaux déterminent principalement le système de développement des principales ressources. De plus, l'analyse des principales ressources “nouveau” doit inclure les problèmes qui n’étaient jamais partis des analyses précédentes, comme les problèmes d'impacts environnementaux et de la diminution des principales ressources dans les conditions comme celui des changements climatiques. Cet article ce termine par scruter quatre facteurs qui produisent le contexte social dominant dans les analyses du développement des principales ressources moderne: (1) la croissance du gouvernement néolibéral; (2) l'implémentation de la globalisation et ses conséquences sociales ; (3) l'assomption des droits autochtones, et (4) l'ascension d'environnementalisme. Ces facteurs n'ont été généralement pas considérés dans les méthodes d'analyse des principales ressources antérieures. Ils sont cruciaux pour comprendre le rôle du développement des principales ressources et leurs impacts contemporains sur le Canada.     

A Sociology of the Periphery Versus a Peripheral Sociology: Rural Sociology and the Dimension of Space1

Abstract Rural sociology is intrinsically concerned with the spatial dimensions of social life. However, this underlying research tradition, particularly the use of space as a research strategy, has been insufficiently addressed and its contributions to general sociology are little recognized. I outline how concern with space, uneven development, and the social relationships of peripheral settings have provided substantive boundary and conceptual meaning to rural sociology, propelled its evolution, and left it with a legacy of strengths, weaknesses, and challenges. A willingness to tackle the dimension of space and the thorny problems it raises often sets rural sociologists apart from other sociologists. This research tradition contrasted with general sociology's concern with developing generalization, aspatial covering laws, and proto-typical relationships of modern or Fordist development settings. Conceptual openings have left sociologists questioning their past agenda. Coupled with the “creative marginality” inherent in the questions and contexts addressed by rural sociologists, this makes the subfield central to contemporary sociology.     

The Relationship between Theory and Research: a Study in the Sociology of Sociology*

While the importance of the relationship between theory and research is given credence in sociology, little has been done in delineating the specific nature of such a relationship. In order to do so, the present article examines data concerning the theoretical orientation and methodological procedures employed by the authors of 1,434 articles (in five substantive areas) which have appeared in nine major sociological journals over the period 1950 to 1970. Analysis of these data reveals the presence of a strong affinity between the utilization of a realist theoretical perspective, centering upon the study of group properties, and the employment of less empirical research techniques. Conversely, those authors shown to employ a nominalist theoretical approach, and hence those focusing upon individual properties, were found to use more empirical techniques and procedures in their research. Further analysis of the relationship between the theoretical and methodological orientations utilized by the authors surveyed appears to indicate some tendency for one's mode of data analysis to be as much a reason for, as a function of, one's theoretical perspective.     

Sociology as a discipline: Quasi-science and quasi-humanities

Sociologists, like other professionals and academic practitioners, have engaged in a collective project—“becoming a science.” This article traces the occupational and intellectual components of that project, focusing especially on the model of science employed, the limits of that model, and the limits of the science model in general. It is argued that sociology is a quasi-science and a quasi-humanities. Unfortunately, sociology has not systematically pursued its links to the humanities. The article argues for maintaining the empirical and explanatory thrust of the science model, while recognizing the extent to which concepts and theories are civilizationally embedded. The article ends with suggestions for systematically enriching sociology by closer links to the humanities. This article is a revision of a paper presented at the Plenary Session, The Future of Sociology, Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, August 24, 1988, Atlanta, Georgia. I have discussed the issues raised in this paper with, and received comments on previous drafts from, many colleagues: Andrew Abbott, Renee Anspach, Joseph Berger, Philip Converse, Claude Fischer, Herbert Gans, Michael Kennedy, Albert J. Rothenberg, AndrewScott, Anne Scott, Robert Scott, William Sewell, Jr., Margaret Somers, Sheldon Stryker, and Charles Tilly. They are not responsible for its sins.     

Durkheim's Dilemma: Toward a Sociology of Emergence

The concept of emergence is a central thread uniting Durkheim's theoretical and empirical work, yet this aspect of Durkheim's work has been neglected. I reinterpret Durkheim in light of theories of emergence developed by contemporary philosophers of mind, and I show that Durkheim's writings prefigure many elements of these contemporary theories. Reading Durkheim as an emergentist helps to clarify several difficult and confusing aspects of his work, and reveals a range of unresolved issues. I identify five such issues, and I show how Durkheim's writings on emergence suggest potential responses.     

Sociology: a view from the diaspora

From the vantage point of criminology, one of sociology's main export subject areas, the present and future of sociology appear a good deal more promising than John Holmwood's essay on the discipline's misfortune would suggest. Sociology remains in high demand by students and faculty hiring remains strong, even in its more critical sub-fields, such as race and ethnicity, sex and gender, and social inequality. Holmwood is correct that sociology is vulnerable to external pressures to demonstrate its relevance to social practice, but those pressures come from left-wing social movements as well as from centres of power. He is also correct that external pressures contribute to internal disagreement, but sociology has been at war with itself since the 1960s, with little evident decline in its academic standing or intellectual vitality. Those of us on the discipline's diaspora, who depend on sociology for both support and light, must remain hopeful about sociology's continued good fortune.     

Sense and Segmentarity: Some Markers of a Deleuzian-Guattarian Sociology

Although the focus of their work was rarely explicitly sociological, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari developed concepts that have important and often profound implications for social theory and practice. Two of these, sense and segmentarity, provide us with entirely new ways to view sociological problems of meaning and structure. Deleuze conceives sense independently of both agency and signification. That is, sense is neither the manifestation of a communicating subject nor a structure of language—it is noncorporeal, impersonal, and prelinguistic, in his words, a pure effect or event. With Guattari, Deleuze notes that it is not a question of how subjects produce social structures, but how a machinics of desire produces subjects. In Deleuze and Guattari, desire is not defined as a want or a lack, but as a machinery of forces, flows, and breaks of energy. The functional stratification we witness in social life is only the molar effect of a more primary segmentation of desire that occurs at the molecular level, at the level of bodies. In Deleuze and Guattari, bodies are not just human bodies, but anorganic composites or mixtures, organic form itself being a mode of the body's subjectification. The problem of the subject, and thus of the constitution of society, is first a problem of how the sense of bodies is produced through the assembly of desiring-machines. The subject, we could say, is the actualization of desire on the incorporeal surface of bodies.     

Social Theory and Self-Organization: Toward a Sociology of Postmodernism

Abstract Significant changes which represent a linguistic and semantic turn in social theory occurred between in the mid 1970's and the early 1980's. This turn indicates the importance of the social and public dimensions of symbolic meaning that has been distorted functionally by orthodox modernization theory. Modern society is characterized as penetrating the idea of functional primacy into various areas of social life, but in the 1980's skepticism about modernity increased markedly and fluctuation of modernity was resulted. In this paper I discuss the problem of symbolic meaning and fluctuation of modernity from the viewpoint of self-organization paradigm which emphasizes ‘order from fluctuation’ and self-reference, and review the possibility of a postmodern sociology through claiming the necessity to ask how anti-control systems can be built.     

Sociology as a vocation

What does it mean to be a sociologist? Does it still make sense to “commit a social science”? This essay reflects on the former question and answers the latter affirmatively. It accepts much of Weber’s argument in “Science as a Vocation,” but it goes beyond Weber by suggesting that the practice of sociology is meaningful in ways he did not fully recognize. The point of doing sociology is not only being dedicated to specialized scholarly work or called to illuminate human affairs, but also being oriented to certain virtues and moved by a particular kind of passion.     

Family Sociology in a Small Academic Community:

This paper focuses on the development and dissemina- tion of knowledge about family in the small academic community in Israel. The definition of family in this paper is inclusive of all forms of nuclear and extended family and kinship networks. An extensive bibliography was developed as a basis for this review of the multiple disciplinary research on family in Israel. An examination of the development of family sociology in Israel suggests a marginalization of the field of research. Zionist ideology does not place the family in a prominent role in social change. Instead, the family is seen as passive recipient of change as it occurs in the larger society. Only in positions concerning the need to absorb immigrants or to blend exiles can the role of the family in shaping society be seen. The exotic or problematic families have been the subjects of family research in Israel, leaving the average Israeli family largely unstud- ied.     

Toward a Sociology of Nature

Although we often believe that nature stands apart from social life, our experience of nature is profoundly social. This paper unpacks this paradox in order to (1) explain sociology's neglect of the environment and (2) introduce the articles in this special issue on “the sociology of nature.” I argue that sociology's disinterest in the biophysical world is a legacy of its classical concern with tracing society's “Great Transformation” from gemeinschaft to gesellschaft: while early anthropologists studied “primitive” societies that allegedly had not yet completed “the passage from nature to culture” (Lévi‐Strauss 1963 : 99), pioneering sociologists presumed that industrialization and urbanization liberated “modern” society from nature and therefore focused their attention on “urbanism as a way of life” (Wirth 1938 ). As exemplified by the articles in this symposium, environmental sociology critiques the nature‐culture and town‐country dualisms. One of environmental sociology's core contributions has been demonstrating that nature is just as much a social construction as race or gender; however, its more profound challenge to the discipline lies in its refutation of the sociological axiom that social facts can be explained purely through reference to other social facts. “Environmental facts” are a constitutive feature of social life, not merely an effect of it.     

Toward a Sociology of Oceans

Despite covering around 70 percent of the earth's surface, the ocean has long been ignored by sociology or treated as merely an extension of land‐based systems. Increasingly, however, oceans are assuming a higher profile, emerging both as a new resource frontier, a medium for geopolitical rivalry and conflict, and a unique and threatened ecological hot spot. In this article, I propose a new sociological specialty area, the “sociology of oceans” to be situated at the interface between environmental sociology and traditional maritime studies. After reviewing existing sociological research on maritime topics and the consideration of (or lack of consideration) the sea by classic sociological theorists, I briefly discuss several contemporary sociological approaches to the ocean that have attracted some notice. In the final section of the paper, I make the case for a distinct sociology of oceans and briefly sketch what this might look like. One possible trajectory for creating a shared vision or common paradigm, I argue, is to draw on Deleuze and Guattari's dialectical theory of the smooth and the striated. Même s'il couvre 70% de la surface de la Terre, l'océan a été longtemps ignoré en sociologie ou traité comme une extension des systèmes terrestres. De plus en plus, toutefois, l'océan retient l'attention, en étant vu comme une nouvelle frontière en termes de ressources, un médium pour les rivalités et les conflits géopolitiques, et un lieu écologique névralgique et unique. Dans cet article, je propose une nouvelle spécialisation sociologique, la ‘sociologie des océans’, se situant dans l'interface entre la sociologie environnementale et les études maritimes traditionnelles. Après une recension de la recherche sociologique existante sur les sujets maritimes et la prise en compte (ou l'absence de prise en compte) de l'océan par les théoriciens de la sociologie classique, je discute brièvement quelques approches sociologiques contemporaines de l'océan ayant attiré l'attention. Dans la dernière partie de l'article, j'insiste sur le besoin d'une sociologie distincte de l'océan et je présente brièvement à quoi cela pourrait ressembler. Une voie possible pour créer une vision commune ou un paradigme, selon moi, est de s'inspirer de la théorie dialectique du lisse et du strié de Deleuze et Guattari.     

Nocturnal Omissions: Steps Toward a Sociology of Dreams

The examination of dreams should properly be a legitimate topic of sociological investigation. We argue that there are four basic principles of dream-life that suggest that dreams are external to the individual mind and are collective enterprises: 1) dreams are not willed by the individual self; 2) dreams reflect social reality; 3) dreams are public rhetoric; and 4) dreams are collectively interpretable. With the development of sociological approaches that examine topics previously defined as psychological, such as the sociology of emotion and cognition, the seemingly idiosyncratic components of these nocturnal productions should not exclude them from social analysis.     

Black Sociology and Phenomenological Sociology*

This paper is a comparative analysis of black sociology and phenomenological sociology and an attempt to show how phenomenology might be used to provide an epistemological foundation for black sociology. Attention is directed toward the writings of black and phenomenological sociologists. Arguments rest on appeals to authorities—quotations from and citations to influential writers. The specific points of comparison are the way the protagonists of the perspectives (1) define their activities, (2) criticize conventional sociology, and (3) investigate social reality. Epistemological issues are examined within a framework of the standard methodological problems of validity and reliability.     

Chronic Disease and Applied Sociology: An Essay in Personalized Sociology*

This essay represents an attempt to combine personal experience and general sociological knowledge in formulating (1) an analytic model of disease and (2) a definition of chronic disease that would help us better understand the trials and tribulations of chronically diseased persons as they cope with their environments. These objectives are achieved but their heuristic value as analytic tools or their utility for pragmatic intervention requires amplification and demonstration. The ideas and themes discussed are viewed as important considerations fur applied sociological pursuits, particularly in medical sociology, but also have broader implications for sociology in general.     

Sociology and Science: The Making of a Social Scientific Method

Criticism against quantitative methods has grown in the context of “big-data”, charging an empirical, quantitative agenda with expanding to displace qualitative and theoretical approaches indispensable to the future of sociological research. Underscoring the strong convergences between the historical development of empiricism in the scientific method and the apparent turn to quantitative empiricism in sociology, this article uses content and hierarchical clustering analyses on the textual representations of journal articles from 1950 to 2010 to open dialogue on the epistemological issues of contemporary sociological research. In doing so, I push towards the conceptualization of a social scientific method, inspired by the scientific method from the philosophy of science and borne out of growing constructions of a systematically empirical representation among sociology articles. I articulate how this social scientific method is defined by three dimensions – empiricism, and theoretical and discursive compartmentalization –, and how, contrary to popular expectations, knowledge production consequently becomes independent of choice of research method, bound up instead in social constructions that divide its epistemological occurrence into two levels: (i) the way in which social reality is broken down into data, collected and analyzed, and (ii) the way in which this data is framed and made to recursively influence future sociological knowledge production. In this way, empiricism both mediates and is mediated by knowledge production not through the direct manipulation of method or theory use, but by redefining the ways in which methods are being labeled and knowledge framed, remembered, and interpreted.