Sociology and the environment: An analysis of journal coverage

Many sociologists have suggested that the dominant paradigm in sociology ignores the environment, which accounts for the fact that environmental sociology is poorly represented in sociology’s mainstream journals. The purpose of this article is to test this assumption empirically by examining the coverage of environmental sociology in nine mainstream sociology journals from 1969 through 1994. The nine journals are separated into two tiers, representing higher and lower prestige journals. Each environmental article is categorized by its area (attitudes and behaviors, environmental movement, political economy, risk, and “new human ecology”) and whether it involves “sociology of the environmental issues” (the application of standard sociological perspectives to environmental issues) or “core environmental sociology” (the examination of societal-environmental relationships). We find that less than two percent of all articles published in the sampled journals in the twenty-five-year period of study were environmental, and that the higher tier journals were less likely to publish environmental articles than were the lower tier journals. Environmental articles were more likely to be part of “core environmental sociology” after 1981 than they were “sociology of the environmental issues,” which suggests a greater recognition among both environmental sociologists and journal reviewers that human societies are ecosystem-dependent. The number of environmental articles increased in the 1990s, portending a fruitful period for sociologists specializing on the environment. We argue that the broader field of sociology can benefit by recognizing the linkages environmental sociology has to other sociological specializations and that, ultimately, sociology needs to be able to address environmental variables in order to understand society. Naomi T. Krogman’s primary interest is in stakeholder framing of environmental disputes and natural resource policy change. She is currently a research sociologist at the Center for Socioeconomic Research at the University of Southwestern Louisiana and adjunct faculty in the Department of Sociology, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, LA 70504-0198. JoAnne DeRouen Darlington is a research sociologist focusing on social change and community sustainability emerging from the disastrous interactions between society and the environment. She is currently employed with the Natural Hazards Research Center, Campus Box 482, Boulder, CO 80309.     

Whither the profession of sociology?

Sociological practice and applied sociology have long held an ambiguous status within the profession. A major source of tension has been the debate over the utility of knowledge: one faction views sociology as inescapably involved with societal problems and social action; another faction seeks scientific status and academic acceptance. In recent years, sociological practice and applied sociology have received greater recognition within the ASA. In the future, the vitality of the sociological enterprise will depend more upon its perceived social utility than its academic standing. The demand for useful knowledge and skills in social analysis will grow as a result of the increasing need for program assessments and the need to democratically “manage” diverse ethnic and cultural differences in the common interest.     

The Corpus Status of Literature in Teaching Sociology: Novels as “Sociological Reconstruction”

Using fiction in teaching sociology involves what Harvey Sacks calls “sociological reconstruction”. Numerous comments on teaching sociology provide advice and suggestions on the use of literature and “what counts” as “sociological” literature, including specific titles. This paper goes further: while the use of literature is a routine feature of sociological accounts, discerning the relevance of a novel, or a passage within a novel, to sociological themes is an analyst’s achievement. It requires work both by the teacher and the student to recognize the relevance of fiction to sociology. Previous studies on fiction in sociology focus on the pedagogic aspects of using novels but fail to acknowledge the key problem of “sociological reconstruction” attempted through the use of novels. The paper explicates the crucial and generic issue of “corpus status”, which is fore-grounded by the use of non-sociological materials in sociology.     

Doing Public Sociology in the Field—A Strong Sociological Intervention Project in China

Through the in-depth analysis of the features of Huabei rural industrialization, the unique factory regime in Baigou, Hebei, and the resulting special workers, this paper reveals two dilemmas the migrant workers in Baigou and larger Hubei area face: Because of the interpersonal network of labor market, personalized trade, familial labor process, and patrimonial management, the workers are unable to become either industrial working class or citizens. Facing this special group of workers, we still believe in their power of self-liberation. Drawing on Touraine’s action sociology and sociological intervention, and Burawoy’s public sociology and praxis-oriented research, we modify “sociological intervention” according to the reality of Chinese society and propose the methodology of “strong sociological intervention” whose vehicle is “Baigou Migrant Worker Night School.” The night school provided workers with courses of labor law, English, and computer based on their actual needs. Labor law is the core to evoke the self-consciousness of the workers. Through communications in the night school and workers’ real living circumstances, we collected their true information and treated it as the source of sociological knowledge. After three sessions of night school training, workers showed changes in skills, social, and psychological aspects, laying a foundation for the growth of self-consciousness.     

Why sociology does not need to be saved: Analytic reflections on public sociologies

After reviewing the debate about public sociologies in the American Sociological Association over the past few years, we offer a response to calls for “saving sociology” from the Burawoy approach as well as an analytic critique of the former ASA president's “For Public Sociology” address. While being sympathetic to the basic idea of public sociologies, we argue that the “reflexive” and “critical” categories of sociology, as Burawoy has conceptualized them, are too ambiguous and value-laden to allow for empirical investigation of the different major orientations of sociological research and the ways the discipline can address non-academic audiences. Debates about the future of sociology should be undertaken with empirical evidence, and we need a theoretical approach that can allow us to compare both disciplines and nations as well as taking into account the institutional context of the universities in which we operate. Research into the conditions under which professional, critical, policy, and public sociologies could work together for the larger disciplinary and societal good is called for instead of overheated rhetoric both for and against public sociologies.     

A Canadian rejoinder: Sociology north and south of the border

In response to the recent The American Sociologist special issue on Canadian sociology, this rejoinder dialogues with some of the perspectives offered there on the discipline north of the border with an eye towards lessons that American sociologists might learn from the Canadian experience. My reflections build on a larger analytic piece entitled “Canada’s Impossible Science: The Historical and Institutional Origins of the Coming Crisis of Anglo-Canadian Sociology” to be published soon in The Canadian Journal Sociology. Particular attention is paid to the different institutional arrangements of higher education in Canada and the United States, Anglo-Canadian reliance on the particularly English “weakness as strength” strategy for sociology, tensions between the cultural values of populism, egalitarianism, and excellence, and the trade-offs between professional and public intellectual work. A critique is offered of the “origin myth” of Canadian sociology as a particularly vibrant “critical sociology,” with discussion of Dorothy Smith's influence on sociology in Canada. His research interests are in sociological theory, the sociology of culture, and the study of intellectuals from the perspective of the sociology of organisations and professions. He is studying Edward Said as a “global public intellectual” as part of a Canadian government-funded interdisciplinary grant on “Globalization and Autonomy” at McMaster University. He is also working “Canadian professors as public intellectuals,” a project also funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada.     

Sociologists of the unexpected: Edward A. Ross and Georg Sinimel on the unintended consequences of modernity

The modern increase in opportunities for social activities also brings with it unintended side effects posed by the liberating potential and the acceleration of modern life. In this paper it is argued that the views reflected in Georg Simmel’s formal approach and in American sociologist Edward A. Ross’ reformative sociology are (1) complementary and (2) offer fresh insights for our current sociological understanding of unexpected consequences in contemporary “high modernity” or knowledge societies. A long forgotten nexus between the ideas of Simmel’s and the work of Ross will be reviewed in order to point out affinities between the two authors’ takes on the unintended and sometimes tragic moments in modern culture and their relevance for sociology today. Based on these discussions a fundamental mode for framing the unexpected in modern society as a recursively-linked component to the intended is illustrated.     

The “Peculiar Eclipsing” of Women in Sociological Theory: Moving from Nearly Total to Partial

This paper revisits the observation made by Ward and Grant (Current Perspective in Social Theory 11:117–140, 1991) that there had been a “peculiar eclipsing” of women in sociological theory. It provides longitudinal studies of women’s participation and recognition in three conventional outlets for sociological theorizing: the theory section of the American Sociological Association (ASA); sociological theory textbooks; and sociological theory journals. It finds that the percentage of ASA Theory Section members who were women increased from 12% in 1982 to 31% in 2008, but is not nearly as high as the 53% in all ASA sections taken together; that women’s recognition in sociological theory textbooks grew, more between the 1980s and the 2000s than between the 1960s and the 1980s, undoubtedly reflecting the increasing respectability of feminist theory within the profession; and that women’s relative participation as authors in sociology theory journals increased from the 1980s to the 2000s by about 33%, but nowhere near as much as their participation as authors in the American Sociological Review, where their relative participation in the 2000s was more than three times what it had been in the 1980s. We speculate that, given women’s increasing leadership roles in both the Theory section and the theory journals, women may be using less conventional outlets for their theorizing than is offered by either the section or the journals.     

Public Sociology or Partisan Sociology? The Curious Case of Whiteness Studies

This paper identifies the common themes in 245-plus refereed articles on whiteness studies that were published in academic journals after 1992 in an attempt to assess the implications of whiteness studies for the discipline of sociology. Of special interest is the relationship between whiteness studies and Michael Burawoy’s call for public sociology. I argue that the emerging field of whiteness studies identifies itself as a public sociology that is infused by the moral vision of critical sociology. Nevertheless, the field does not accept professional sociology as Burawoy defined it. The ontological, epistemological, and soteriological foundations of whiteness studies encourage the field to pander to one segment of the public—the marginalized—and condemn another segment of the public—“privileged whites,” thus rendering impossible a democratic dialogue on one of the most basic social issues of our time. Conflating Western epistemology with whiteness encourages a misreading of American social scientific work on race relations, thus opening the door to a so-called hermeneutics of suspicion. The result is not an innocuous “pop” sociology, but a partisan sociology, whose implications should caution sociologists against an uncritical embracing of public sociology.     

Visual sociology and sociological vision,revisited

Visual sociology has two main interests: picture-making by researchers (or their subjects) in the course of sociological fieldwork, and pictures made by social actors in the context of everyday life. Focusing on the latter interest and based in three social aspects of images—that they are produced in general societal settings and specific institutional settings, and are a kind of discursive practice—three approaches to the sociology of visual material are illustrated.     

Robert K. Merton as postwar prophet

Within the context of a discussion of Robert K. Merton’s ideas on leadership in postwar America, the article examines the nature and impact of Merton’s “sociological parables.” This term refers to short tales from social life from which sociological lessons with moral implications can be drawn. These parables, such as the bank insolvency story told in “The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy,” illustrate the manner in which Merton merged moral and sociological messages in his writings. Suggestions are made along the lines that these parables, or at least the moral messages they contain, contributed to Merton’s postwar fame. His most recent publications are “Simmel’s Contribution to Parsons’ Action Theory and Its Fate,” in Michael Kaern, ed.Georg Simmel and Contempory Sociology (Kluwer, 1990); and “Robert K. Merton’s Extension of Simmel’sUbersehbar” inSociological Theory, Spring 1990.     

Reflexivity and the Sociology of Practice

Reflexive theories offer an alternative perspective on sociological intervention and an interpretation of current social conditions that open up new possibilities for the theoretical, professional, and societal recentering of sociological practice as what I will call the sociology of practice. From a reflexive perspective, sociological knowledge and everyday knowledge are related through a process of mutual transformation in ways that foster a convergence of theoretical and applied issues, redraw the boundaries between sociological and the extrasociological activities, and require new forms of lay–expert engagement in which lay knowledge plays a substantive role. Discursive models of engagement are typically advocated, but I argue that an interventive model of lay–expert engagement organized as the sociology of practice optimizes the possibility that engagement will meet reflexive criteria. The sociology of practice is recentered as a substantive body of knowledge relevant to the work of all sociologists and essential for ameliorating social problems.     

The Davis–Moore theory of stratification: The life course of a socially constructed classic

In 1945 Davis and Moore, following an earlier formulation by Davis, proposed a functional theory of stratification that was intended to account for what they contended was the “universal necessity” for social inequality in any social order. Beginning with an article by Tumin in 1953, the Davis-Moore theory elicited regular analysis, commentary, criticism, and debate through the 1970s. Although professional work on the theory has largely ceased since the late 1980s, the Davis-Moore theory remains perhaps the single most widely cited paper in American introductory sociology and stratification textbooks and constitutes “required reading” in hundreds, if not thousands, of undergraduate and graduate courses throughout the United States. The present paper traces the history of the debate and attempts to explain the theory’s longevity and vitality in the face of what has amounted to largely negative assessments by other sociologists over the preceding fifty years.     

A mexican American woman encounters sociology: An autobiographical perspective

I attempt to show how my ideas about bureaucracy and Mexican American culture are a product of my life history and how I worked out key features of these ideas in teaching sociology at a small university. This was made possible because strategic sponsors helped me as an “outsider” to become a kind of “insider” within that social milieu. Her fields of interest are bureaucracy, family, social psychology and race and ethnic relations. She is currently writing a monograph on Mexican American family life.     

Charles Tilly,German Historicism,and the Critical Realist Philosophy of Science

This paper examines Charles Tilly’s relationship to the schools of thought known as historicism and critical realism. Tilly was committed to a social epistemology that was inherently historicist, and he increasingly called himself a “historicist.” The “search for grand laws in human affairs comparable to the laws of Newtonian mechanics,” he argued, was a “waste of time” and had “utterly failed.” Tilly’s approach was strongly reminiscent of the arguments developed in the first half of the 20th century by Rickert, Weber, Troeltsch, and Meinecke for a synthesis of particularization and generalization and for a focus on “historical individuals” rather than abstract universals. Nonetheless, Tilly never openly engaged with this earlier wave of historicist sociology, despite its fruitfulness for and similarity to his own project. The paper explores some of the possible reasons for this missed encounter. The paper argues further that Tilly’s program of “relational realism” resembled critical realism, but with main two differences: Tilly did not fully embrace critical realism’s argument that social mechanisms are always co-constituted by social meaning or its normative program of explanatory critique. In order to continue developing Tilly’s ideas it is crucial to connect them to the epistemological ideas that governed the first wave of historicist sociology in Weimar Germany and to a version of philosophical realism that is interpretivist and critical.     

Sociology,energy and interdisciplinary environmental science

The movement toward interdisciplinary studies of human-environment interactions holds considerable appeal for environmental sociologists. But a survey of the paradigms and institutions that govern interdisciplinary research onenergy—a key variable in socioecological theory and an important cause of environmental decline—suggests that the prospects for a significant sociological role in these sorts of studies could turn out to be fairly limited. Over the past twenty years, a variety of devices have been successfully used in interdisciplinary energy analysis to diminish the importance of the social, and to marginalize the contributions of the social sciences. This is unfortunate because insights from sociological studies of the energy system are of considerable value in both disciplinary theory-building and interdisciplinary environmental policy-making. These external limits on sociological analysis are only part of the story. Sociology’s own theoretical unease with technology and the physical/natural world, and its insular tendencies in regard to other disciplines, have significantly contributed to a decline of sociological work on energy-environment topics over the past decade. Given growing interest by natural scientists in the human dimensions of global environmental change, the time now seems right for a renewal of energy research by sociologists—although the initiative must come from within the discipline. A number of suggestions are offered for anchoring the sociology of human-environment interactions more firmly in the discipline, as well as for expanding sociology’s role in interdisciplinary environment research. The comments and suggestions of Gene Rosa, Riley Dunlap, Tom Dietz, Bruce Hackett, Bill Freudenburg and anonymous reviewers have been helpful in revising earlier drafts of the paper. The research was supported in part by the Washington State University Agricultural Experiment Station.     

Quebec Sociology: A Discipline and its Object

Quebec sociology and Quebec society are categorically distinct from other sociologies and countries. Both are “communities,” both have French-speaking majorities, and both exist in Anglo-Saxon environments. As well, Quebec sociology has always been and continues to be obsessed by the national question. Interpretations proposed by sociologists—predominantly French-speaking—of and about the Quebec Question have never been independent of the struggles in which they have taken place. In fact, sociological readings of nationalism in Quebec appear to be a direct consequence of their social position and relationship with political power. Through the prism of sociology, the French-speaking collectivity in Canada has been, successively and simultaneously, characterized through categories of race, ethnic group, society, and nation. 2 This article presents five ways in which sociologists have represented Quebec society. First, the Pioneers: Léon Gérin and Marius Barbeau, or the Quebec “Difference” as a handicap. Second, the characterization of Quebec through race, territory, and soul. Third provides the external perspectives of Miner and Hughes. Fourth will examine the Laval (Quebec) School. Finally, this article will examine Quebec Society as either an ethnic or civic nation. Each theme has been set chronologically in specific periods of Quebec sociology: the Pioneers (Part 1 and 2, before 1940); the institutionalization of academic sociology (Part 3 and 4, 1940-1969); and the “nationalization” and professionalization of sociology (Part 5, 1970 to the present).     

Bernard Barber’s social system theory

Conclusion Barber’s theory writing expressed his vocation. For him theory-user-friendliness, academic-sociological-openness, and scientific-empirical-insightful-encouragement seem to have been synonyms. Hence, there is a hypothesis implicit to this memoire that should be tested by a full assesssment of Barber’s academic contribution, perhaps by a doctoral dissertation. It is this: Bernard Barber has continued to contribute sociological theory in the way he began (before his courage students to scientifically reflect upon the “paradigmatic” theory enunciated by Parsons (and Merton), how it bad developed, and how it could he made more fruitful. This was also a special “field of study” which gave ongoing stimulus to his studies in the sociology of science and, finally to his late-in-career exposition of his social system theory. This would have to be confirmed by a careful study of all his works, based upon what he wrote, the accounts of those who knew him, and of those who have studied his work as students and colleagues. It would also involve analysis of the work of his students, colleagues, and collaborators.     

The many faces of sociology: Ambivalence and conflict in graduate education

This article addresses how the ambivalence of the discipline of sociology affects students’ understanding of it. We consider this ambivalence as multi-layered. The first level embodies the usefulness of sociology as a discipline and sociologists’ ambivalence toward their profession. The second involves applying a sociological perspective to our everyday lives. We discuss the administrative organization of our department, the examination structure, and the structure of asymetric power relations. We conclude that one possible solution toward resolving ambivalences both in our everyday lives and within the profession is to take our critical theoretical training seriously. with special interests in social psychology and qualitative research. She is planning a dissertation on how ideology affects the structure of battered women’s shelters. Barbara G. Brents is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Missouri with special interests in political economy and aging. She currently is working on a dissertation entitled “The Class Politics of Age: The Social Security Act of 1935.”     

The professional ideology of social pathologists transformed: The new political orthodoxy in sociology

In a landmark article published in 1943, the young C. Wright Mills roundly criticized early American sociologists who focused on the sociology of social problems. These “social pathologists,” Mills argued, were social conservatives with homogeneous viewpoints who strove to maintain the established social order. A review of recent surveys on the political attitudes of sociologists, an analysis of recent articles on social problems published by the American Sociological Association (ASA) and the Society for the Study of Social Problems, an examination of social problems textbooks, and a consideration of the proceedings of the ASA annual meetings reveal an extraordinary turnabout. An ongoing trend toward the politicization of sociology and the radicalization of the sociology of social problems has resulted in a diminished stature of the profession which jeopardizes its future.