Diversity in sociology: Problem or solution?

Some of sociology’s recent internal critics (e.g., Turner and Turner, 1990; Halliday and Janowitz, 1992; Collins, 1986; Gans, 1990; Crane and Small, 1992) suggest that the discipline's diversity of theoretical, methodological and substantive foci leave it in a weakened position for achieving individual and collective ends. Other sociologists (e.g., D'Antonio, 1992; Roos and Jones, 1993; Stacey and Thorne, 1985) argue that substantive diversity has made the discipline attractive to a greater variety of previously underrepresented groups, particularly women, groups that have, in turn, contributed to sociology’s substantive diversity. This paper reports on a content analysis of 2,016 articles from North American sociology journals in 1936, 1956, 1976, and 1996 as well as from chemistry, anthropology, economics, political science, and psychology journals in 1996. The analysis focused on a number of, often contradictory, hypotheses drawn from the competing views of sociology's diversity with respect to its substantive concerns and its gender composition. It finds, for instance, that there is more substantive diversity in today's sociology journal articles than there was earlier, at least when diversity is measured in terms of fields that are reputed to be attractive to women. This may not be surprising, since more women are writing sociology journal articles than ever before. Moreover, the substantive diversity seems to be related to more, not less, funding of sociological research. It is, of course, a trite remark — one made more frequently by sociologists than by their gibing critics — that sociology has not yet come to the development which commands from its adherents wholehearted agreement as to the objectives to be aimed at, the field to he limited, and the methods to be used. Gladys Bryson, 1936     

社会建设和社会管理研究与中国社会学使命

根据中国社会学百多年发展的轨迹和中国社会学前辈艰辛探索学科本土化的启示,在我看来,探索社会建设和社会管理的重要且正确的研究路径是:立足现实,提炼现实;开发传统,超越传统;借鉴国外,跳出国外;正确总结中国理念,科学概括中国经验。     

The 'New' Sociology of Empire and Colonialism

This study reviews recent sociological scholarship on empire and colonialism. The new 'imperial–colonial studies' in sociology is not a fully fledged subfield but an emerging space of inquiry that examines social forms, processes, and relations associated with imperialism and colonialism. This study sketches the main features of the new scholarship. It also situates the new sociological studies within a larger history of sociological inquiry and interdisciplinary context. Finally, it suggests that the future of sociology's new imperial–colonial studies lies not in 'sociologizing' the study of empire and colonialism but in deploying analyses of empire and colonialism to help critically reorient some of traditional sociology's limiting lenses and assumptions.     

At the birth of second century sociology: times of reflexivity, spaces of identity, and nodes of knowledge

The sociology of the next century is likely to differ from that of the twentieth century. The current situation and the future prospects of sociology are assessed by spelling out the trajectory over the past century of sociology's predominant assumptions about the character and direction of the social world and of its own task of cognition. Sociology is located in three spaces of identity: a space of disciplines, a stage of everyday practice, and a space of imagination and investigation. From the cosmological, epistemological, and spatial trajectories some indications of a new, very different future of sociology are given. Finally, a way of preserving and developing the legacy of first century sociology is presented, in the form of nodes of knowledge, central to a 'typical' sociological approach to the social.     

Reflections on public sociology: Public relations, disciplinary identity, and the strong program in professional sociology

Public sociology is an attempt to redress the issues of public engagement and disciplinary identity that have beset the discipline over the past several decades. While public sociology seeks to rectify the public invisibility of sociology, this paper investigates the limitations of it program. Several points of critique are offered. First, public sociology's affiliations with Marxism serve to potentially entrench existing divisions within the discipline. Second, public sociology's advancement of an agenda geared toward a “sociology for publics” instead of a “sociology of publics” imposes limitations on the development of a public interface. Third, the lack of a methodological agenda for public sociology raises concerns of how sociology can compete within a contested climate of public opinion. Fourth, issues of disciplinary coherence are not necessarily resolved by public sociology, and are potentially exacerbated by the invocation of public sociology as a new disciplinary identity. Fifth, the incoherence of professional sociology is obviated, and a misleading affiliation is made between scientific knowledge and the hegemonic structure of the profession. Finally, the idealism of public sociology's putative defense of civil society is explored as a Utopian gesture akin to that of Habermas’ attempt to revive the public sphere. The development of a strong program in professional sociology is briefly offered as a means to repair the disciplinary problems that are illustrated by emergence of the project of public sociology.     

Complexity and practical knowledge in the social sciences: a comment on Stehr and Grundmann

This paper takes issue with Stehr and Grundmann's argument in this journal that sociology's poor record of contribution to practical knowledge results from sociologists' misguided attachment to the idea that social phenomena are peculiarly complex, and so peculiarly resistant to efforts at practical knowledge formation. Stehr and Grundmann develop their thesis by contrasting sociology to economics, claiming the latter's superior methods and disciplinary cultures enable it to contribute more successfully to solving practical problems. We argue that Stehr and Grundmann's comparison of the relative success of economics and sociology as policy sciences underestimates the extent to which the complexity argument has been destructive of economics' capacity to contribute practical knowledge, and overestimates the importance of disciplinary methods and cultures in explaining the use of economics in policy making. Further, we argue that the 'complexity argument' can contribute to better policy making, by virtue of its capacity to highlight the dangers of simplistic or fundamentalist solutions to social problems with complex causes.     

Reflections on Public Sociology: Public Relations, Disciplinary Identity, and the Strong Program in Professional Sociology

Public sociology is an attempt to redress the issues of public engagement and disciplinary identity that have beset the discipline over the past several decades. While public sociology seeks to rectify the public invisibility of sociology, this paper investigates the limitations of it program. Several points of critique are offered. First, public sociology's affiliations with Marxism serve to potentially entrench existing divisions within the discipline. Second, public sociology's advancement of an agenda geared toward a "sociology for publics" instead of a "sociology of publics" imposes limitations on the development of a public interface. Third, the lack of a methodological agenda for public sociology raises concerns of how sociology can compete within a contested climate of public opinion. Fourth, issues of disciplinary coherence are not necessarily resolved by public sociology, and are potentially exacerbated by the invocation of public sociology as a new disciplinary identity. Fifth, the incoherence of professional sociology is obviated, and a misleading affiliation is made between scientific knowledge and the hegemonic structure of the profession. Finally, the idealism of public sociology's putative defense of civil society is explored as a utopian gesture akin to that of Habermas' attempt to revive the public sphere. The development of a strong program in professional sociology is briefly offered as a means to repair the disciplinary problems that are illustrated by emergence of the project of public sociology.     

The politics of figurational sociology

Figurational sociology is so often said to distance itself from the political issues of the day. Whilst this is certainly true with regards to the present day, it in no way follows that figurational sociology seeks to distance itself from politics as such. On the contrary, as will be shown within this paper, politics is and always has been a central concern for figurational sociologists. This political concern, however, is an exclusively long term concern; figurational sociology purposively postpones present political engagement for the sake of developing a sufficiently detached sociology that would eventually facilitate in the delivery of effective practical and political measures. This paper discusses the stakes involved in, as well as the reasoning behind, the assignment of such a place to politics. It gestures towards two distinct and separate concepts of social control that exist within figurational sociology and then proceeds to offer a critical consideration of the consequences that can be derived from any temporal demarcation of the political done on their basis. The paper ultimately suggests that figurational sociology's position on politics raises a series of as yet unanswered questions, questions which can no longer remain unanswered by the contemporary figurational sociologist.     

NARRATIVE'S MOMENT AND SOCIOLOGY'S PHENOMENA: Toward a Narrative Sociology

In its urgency to establish itself as a science, sociology missed the opportunity to nurture its narrative character that the Thomas and Znaniecki research represented. Another moment now exists in an array of contradictions inherent in conventional sociological practices and the increasing acceptance and sophistication of narrative work in the human sciences. These conditions contain the potential for developing a narrative sociology in which sociology's phenomena are seen as significantly constituted by stories and in which sociological work is seen as narrative work. This article examines those conditions for purposes of opening spaces that a narrative sociology might fill.     

THE SOCIAL LIFE OF PURE SOCIOLOGY

Marshall's (2008 ) critique of Black's (1995, 2000a, 2000b ) pure sociology paradigm reveals his preference for studying the psychological properties of individuals, rather than developing a genuinely sociological framework for studying "social life." The current rejoinder concentrates on four main issues, starting with a discussion of the ontological status of social life as a reality sui generis. The second section deals with the scientific status of pure sociology and clarifies the underlying logic of the explanatory approach. The third part considers the scientific adequacy or validity of pure sociology. Where the intellectual stakes are highest—the theoretical validity of "pure sociology"—Marshall's critique falls flattest: the available evidence overwhelmingly supports the theoretical claims of pure sociologists. By the same token, Marshall fails to demonstrate the utility of psychologizing social life, or how the imputation of psychological variables enhances the explanatory power of purely sociological models. The paper then reveals the hypocrisy of particular aspects of Marshall's critique, as the evidence indicates that he has used some similar elements of theory construction for which he has criticized Black and the pure sociology framework. The conclusion reminds readers of the excitement of pure sociology's mission beyond the futility of irresolvable philosophical quibbles.     

Cultural Sociology, Modes of Inquiry, and Political Analysis: A Rejoinder to Steensland

Closely bounded research programs are both common and effective in sociology. Describing such programs as operating with a "restricted code" is deeply problematic. These matters aside, the remarkable rise of cultural sociology in fact reflects adaptation to sociology's disciplinary norms and core thematic concerns. Steensland (2009) might better have reversed his argument: faced with the achievements of cultural analysis, the slumbering giant called "mainstream sociology" should wake up.     

Sociology and the Nation-State in an Era of Shifting Boundaries

Academic disciplines and nation-states resemble one another in the sense that both emerged worldwide as overarching categories for conferring collective identities about a century ago. During the past quarter century, however, the status of both has been challenged. Disciplines like sociology have been challenged by more salient intellectual boundaries organized around subdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and supradisciplinary lines—a fact that helps account for sociology's response to external threats to the discipline with a sense of being in crisis. Nation-states have been similarly challenged by new jurisdictions organized around subnational, transnational, and supranational lines. Even so, these changes constitute a process of differentiation, not displacement; disciplines and nation-states are likely to persist in serving important functions. albeit reduced in scope.     

THE FEMINIST CRITIQUE AND A DECADE OF PUBLISHED RESEARCH IN SOCIOLOGY JOURNALS

In the mid to early 1970s feminist writers raised four major criticisms about sociological research on women and expressed concern about the related issue of the discipline's treatment of women sociologists. Critics charged that sociological research underrepresented women as subjects, concentrated on research topics more central to men's than to women's lives, used concepts, paradigms, methods, and theories better portraying men's than women's lives, and used men and male experience as norms against which all social experience was assessed. Examination of published research in ten major sociology journals the 1974–83 period suggests that some concerns articulated in the critiques are reflected in subsequent published work, but others have had little or only limited impact. Findings suggest an association between women's participation as editors, board members, and authors in journals and the quantity and character of published gender articles.     

Sociology and the Second Darwinian Revolution: A Metatheoretical Analysis

Sociologists tend to eschew biological explanations of human social behavior. Accordingly, when evolutionary biologists began to apply neo‐Darwinian theory to the study of human social behavior, the reactions of sociologists typically ranged from indifference to overt hostility. Since the mid‐1960s, however, neo‐Darwinian evolutionary theory has stimulated a "second Darwinian revolution" in traditional social scientific conceptions of human nature and social behavior, even while most sociologists remain largely uninformed about neo‐Darwinian theory and research. This article traces sociology's long‐standing isolation from the life sciences, especially evolutionary biology, to divergence in the metatheoretical assumptions that typify conventional sociological thought versus contemporary evolutionary biology. We conclude with a discussion of the recent emergence of a nascent "evolutionary sociology" that integrates sociobiological reasoning with contemporary sociological thought.     

Class,gender and generation matter: using the concept of social generation to study inequality and social change

This article highlights how concepts from the sociology of generations can facilitate new understandings of the processes by which social inequalities are made and perpetuated in the lives of young people. There is a tendency in some youth research for inequality to be conceptualised too simplistically, as a process of reproduction that remains stable over time. Hence, continuing inequality is weighed as evidence against theories proposing social change. Using the sociology of generations, the article argues that social change and new risks are not facades behind which more real, and long-standing, forms of inequality are hidden, but are central to the way inequalities, including but not only by class, gender and race, are made in the conditions facing emerging generations of young people.     

2004 American Sociological Association Presidential address: for public sociology*

Responding to the growing gap between the sociological ethos and the world we study, the challenge of public sociology is to engage multiple publics in multiple ways. These public sociologies should not be left out in the cold, but brought into the framework of our discipline. In this way we make public sociology a visible and legitimate enterprise, and, thereby, invigorate the discipline as a whole. Accordingly, if we map out the division of sociological labor, we discover antagonistic interdependence among four types of knowledge: professional, critical, policy, and public. In the best of all worlds the flourishing of each type of sociology is a condition for the flourishing of all, but they can just as easily assume pathological forms or become victims of exclusion and subordination. This field of power beckons us to explore the relations among the four types of sociology as they vary historically and nationally, and as they provide the template for divergent individual careers. Finally, comparing disciplines points to the umbilical chord that connects sociology to the world of publics, underlining sociology's particular investment in the defense of civil society, itself beleaguered by the encroachment of markets and states.     

Imagining The Sociological Imagination: the biographical context of a sociological classic

Charles Wright Mills's arguments in The Sociological Imagination are very popular and this paper focuses on the biographical context in which his programmatic statements were occasioned. This breaks new ground by locating The Sociological Imagination and earlier programmatic statements in the professional and personal travails that motivated them. This approach is adopted in order to display the intersection between biography and sociology in Mills's life and career, a feature that he made a central part of sociology's promise. The paper utilizes this approach to reflect on the reasons why The Sociological Imagination became so popular and was able to transcend Mills's general unpopularity at the time of his death; and as part of the explanation of why the dismissal of the book on its publication contrasts with the contemporary view, enabling it to transpose successfully to a time significantly different than at its writing.     

Occupational feminization, occupational decline? Sociology’s changing sex composition

In recent years, research and popular wisdom have often linked the feminization of sociology with discussions of sociology's decline. In light of these concerns, this article examines recent data on the influx of women into sociology's graduate programs and academic positions, women’s position in the field, and the health of the field itself. The data show that women have made notable progress moving into academic sociology's recruitment pool, and lower level academic positions. As well, the gender gap in earnings has narrowed, real annual earnings continue to increase, and underemployment and underutilization continue to decline. All these are strong indicators that the field is on the upswing, and women's position in it improving. Despite these successes, gender boundaries remain in the sociological workplace. Women are not represented in the numbers one would expect in the tenured associate and full professor ranks, and all races have not benefited equally from the declining earnings gap. Intellectual boundaries also persist, as men and women often operate in different sociological spheres. This article is a revision of a talk given at the 1995 Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C., August. An abridged version (without tables) was published in the Newsletter of the American Sociological Association's Section on Organizations, Occupations, and Work. I wish to thank Lee Clarke, Helmut Anheier, and Judith Gerson for helpful comments on an earlier draft, and Carla Howery and Michael Schuchert for providing data from ASA data bases.     

Back to Hegel? On Gillian Rose's critique of sociological reason

Thirty‐five years ago, Gillian Rose articulated a significant critique of classical sociological reason, emphasizing its relationship to its philosophical forebears. In a series of works, but most significantly in her Hegel contra Sociology, Rose worked to specify the implications of sociology's failure, both in its critical Marxist and its ‘scientific’ forms, to move beyond Kant and to fully come to terms with the thought of Hegel. In this article, I unpack and explain the substance of her criticisms, developing the necessary Hegelian philosophical background on which she founded them. I argue that Rose's attempted recuperation of ‘speculative reason’ for social theory remains little understood, despite its continued relevance to contemporary debates concerning the nature and scope of sociological reason. As an illustration, I employ Rose to critique Chernilo's recent call for a more philosophically sophisticated sociology. From the vantage point of Rose, this particular account of a ‘philosophical sociology’ remains abstract and rooted in the neo‐Kantian contradictions that continue to characterize sociology.     

Combining the liberal and useful arts: Sociological skills in the global economy

The discipline of sociology remains vulnerable in an environment of economic uncertainty and global change. Constraints on higher education are likely to increase and recurrent pressures on traditional liberal arts programs will continue unabated. An older, more diverse, cost-conscious and career-minded student population will increasingly insist on clearer pathways to difficult and bewildering labor markets. But sociology’s weakness as a liberal art may be overcome by combining it with a more applied and practical orientation. The very forces that threaten the discipline’s institutional existence make it profoundly relevant and valuable in an age of social transformation. Based on a familiar Millsian conception of the sociological imagination, this article attempts to combine sociology’s liberal tradition with its role as a “useful art,” honed into the specific features of workplace change and the employment setting. It does so by suggesting five categories of emerging skills in the global economy and ways that sociology has a far reaching claim to their practice and development. The categories are: 1) the skills of knowledge workers; 2) skills in the learning organization; 3) skills in the technological context; 4) skills in the diverse and divided workplace; 5) change-making skills. The article concludes by urging those in the discipline to make sociology more of a useful art that has practical application in a changing world. An earlier version of this article was presented at the Sociological Practice Association 15th Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, June 11, 1993.