Positivism in Sociological Practice: 1967–1990*

Le positivisme n'est jamais à l'abri de la controverse, surtout en sociologie, où sa viabilité a fait l'objet de longs débate parmi les théoriciens de divers acabits. Mais il reste à savoir jusquà quel point les pratidens de la sociologie considèrent encore le positivisme comme une théorie satisfaisante. Les auteurs examinent cette question par une analyse de contenu de 176 articles choisis au hasard dans les revues des associations de sociologie américaines, canadiennes, scandinaves et britanniques datant de la fin des années 1960 et la fin des années 1980. L'utilisation d'une grille d'analyse construite à partir de sept éléments du positivisme caractéristiques du mouvement de la theory construction révèle des éléments de persistance aussi bien que de changement. Les résultats amènent les auteurs à questionner la relation qui existe entre la théorie et la pratique en sociologie et à se demander si l'épistémologie de la sociologie reflète la réalité de sa pratique. En conclusion, Ton suggère quelques pistes de recherche ultérieure sur le sujet. Positivism is no stranger to controversy, least of all in sociology, where its viability has been the subject of a long-running debate among theorists of different stripes. Yet the question remains to what degree sociological practitioners continue to find positivism to be persuasive. This question is approached through a content analysis of 176 randomly selected articles published in the late 1960s and the late 1980s in the official journals of the American, Canadian, Scandinavian and British sociological associations. Using an index based on seven elements of positivism that were characteristic of the “theory construction” movement of the late 1960s, the authors found both persistence and change. The results raise questions about the relationship between the realms of theory and practice in sociology and whether sociologists' philosophies of science reflect what practitioners actually do in their sociological work. The authors conclude with suggestions for further research on this topic.     

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.     

MOB SOCIOLOGY AND ESCALATED FORCE: Sociology's Contribution to Repressive Police Tactics

Mob sociology is a theory of crowd behavior that is found in U.S. police literature and that has been used to design and justify demonstration management practices. Mob sociology is derived from sociological theories about crowd behavior but ignores their originators'assertions that crowds occur within a larger social context. Mob sociology was diffused throughout the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s through a national civil disorder training program and a variety of police manuals and magazines. It is highly compatible with the escalated force style of protest policing and has lost much of its influence since the introduction of negotiated management practices. However, it is still present in police literature and training programs and should be replaced by contemporary social science research and theory.     

Toward A Sociology of Nuclear Weapons*

This article serves as an introduction to the issue's special feature on “The Nuclear Threat.” The early sociological literature on nuclear war related issues is reviewed and the dearth of sociological work in this area since the early 1960s is documented. A new call for sociological theory and research on the nuclear threat is issued and possible topics are outlined. The paper concludes with a brief review of the papers that make up the special feature.     

Struggle and solidarity: civic republican elements in Pierre Bourdieu’s political sociology

Pierre Bourdieu developed a theory of democratic politics that is at least as indebted to civic republicanism as to Marxism. He was familiar with the civic republican tradition, and it increasingly influenced both his political interventions and sociological work, especially late in his career. Bourdieu drew above all on Niccolò Machiavelli’s version of republicanism, though the French republican tradition also influenced him via Durkheimian social theory. Three elements of Bourdieu’s work in particular—his concept of field autonomy, his view of interests and universalism, and his understanding of how solidarity is generated and sustained—may be understood, at least in part, as sociological reformulations of republican ideas. By drawing attention to these republican influences, the article aims to show that the conceptual resources which some critics, including Jeffrey C. Alexander, consider indispensable to an adequate theory of democracy are not entirely absent in Bourdieu’s work. On the basis of this reassessment, the article concludes that Bourdieu and Alexander are not as opposed in their thinking about democratic politics as it might first appear.     

SOCIOLOGY IN AN ERA OF FRAGMENTATION:From the Sociology of Knowledge to the Philosophy of Science, and Back Again

In this article we revisit Alvin Gouldner's The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology (1970). In part, this article is an attempt to apply Gouldner's own lessons about the sociology of knowledge to his own work, situating it with respect to the dominant epistemological unconscious of late 1960s American sociology as well as the broader historical context of a still-vibrant Fordist mode of societalization. Gouldner's critique of positivism was limited because he was still partially caught up within the dominant epistemological framework in American sociology at that time, a formation we call methodological positivism. With thirty years of hindsight, it is not surprising that contemporary readers interested in following up Gouldner's call for a reflexive sociology of knowledge will find certain aspects of his own program unsatisfactory. We propose an alternative sociology of knowledge based on a more explicit philosophy of scientific understanding, namely, contemporary critical realism. We also trace the vicissitudes of the trope of a "crisis in sociology" which Gouldner unleashed into the world and unpack the tensions between the "western" sociology referred to in the book's title and Gouldner's actual focus on the United States.     

Worlds come apart: Systems theory versus critical theory. Drama in the history of sociology in the twentieth century

This article places an episode in the history of sociological theory into intellectual history in the twentieth century. The perspective is chronological as well as contextual. The themes are two theoretical approaches, both embedded in both American and German history, Parsonian Systems Theory and “Frankfurt School” Critical Theory. The chronology shown spanned mainly from the 1940s to the 1960s. The context of the two theories is a period that is crucial in twentieth century history. The protagonists of the two approaches were, in the 1940s, Americans and Germans exiled in the United States. In the 1950s, both approaches were affected by McCarthyism in different ways. The 1960s, however, were the culmination. The dynamics of the two approaches led into a schism which came into the open on the occasion of the 1964 German Sociology Conference in Heidelberg celebrating Max Weber. The article shows the stages in the evolution of the schism, emulating three acts in a drama. The final split was over whether Weber or Marx should be the classic whose oeuvre was to influence sociological thinking today. My aim is to exemplify how these two authoritative approaches in sociological theory, far from escaping the vagaries and vicissitudes of their times, were embedded in twentieth-century history.     

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.     

The (postcolonial) return of grand theory in American sociology: Julian Go on postcolonial thought and social theory

Julian Go's BJS annual lecture is discussed in reference to his landmark OUP text Postcolonial Thought and Social Theory (2016). Go is one of the most prominent names in a "third wave" of post-colonial thought, now spearheading a post- (or de-) colonial turn in sociological theory, something that has professionally revived the sub-field of "grand" social theory in mainstream US sociology. While endorsing the aims and substantive themes of this turn, the review raises questions about the delayed timing of this post-colonial wave in the discipline, both relative to the humanities more generally, and to the impact of post-colonialism in other national contexts. Go's challenge is, in effect, something quite particular to teaching social theory in the US sociology context. The review goes on to question how effectively the critique speaks to mainstream empirical practitioners, given its lack of focus on transforming technical methods. It concludes by raising concerns about the relationship of Go and other "third wave" decolonial theorists to Marxism and Marxist politics.     

Language,structure and agency: What can realist social theory offer to sociolinguistics?

The sociolinguistic enterprise raises fundamental questions about the nature of the relationships between social phenomena (such as social class or gender) and linguistic variation, while within social theory a persistent concern is the nature of the relationship between structure and agency. Sociolinguistics can draw on social theory for analysis of the relationship between speaker and system, the role of language in the creation, maintenance and change of social institutions, and the role of human agency in sociolinguistic phenomena. This article summarises the key tenets of a sociological realism, based on the recent work of Margaret Archer (in particular her exploration of analytical dualism) and of Derek Layder (specifically his theory of ‘social domains’). It relates these ideas to sociolinguistics, arguing that language can be seen to have a different significance, depending on which domain is the focus of the researcher's interest. The article considers the distinctiveness of this approach, contrasting it with structuralist and social constructionist accounts and with structuration. It concludes by identifying some methodological implications, suggesting that sociological realism offers a productive theoretical framework for sociolinguistics in dealing with questions of language, structure and agency.     

Troubles With Textual Authority In Sociology

This text raises questions about the dilemma of the authorial voice in sociology texts that presume to present factual, data-based narratives about other people and their lives. The discussion bears particularly on so-called qualitative and historical forms of sociological writing although the issues are equally alive for other sociological genres. The dilemma of the authorial voice has beer given rather wide attention of late in literary studies and in anthropology. Relatively little attention thus far has been given to the topic in professional sociology. By drawing on variant reflexive forms, the text seeks to bring its own production and grounds under examination in such a way to suggest how the dilemma is present for those writing substantive narrative texts.     

What is the Main Significance of Economic for Sociological Theory?

This paper reconsiders classical and neoclassical economics’ significance for or affinity and convergence with sociological theory. The paper identifies certain types or elements of classical and neoclassical economics that are potentially significant or convergent with sociological theory: pure market economics, the economics of society cum the “rational choice model”, and social or sociological economics. First, it argues that as pure economics economic theory’s significance for or affinity and convergence with sociological theory is low because the first is inconsistent with or divergent from the latter, notably theoretical economic sociology. Second, the paper suggests that as the economics of society economic theory’s significance for or affinity and convergence with sociological theory is non-existent or minimal, because the “rational choice model” is missing or an exception within conventional economics. Third, the paper proposes and demonstrates that classical and neoclassical economics’ main significance for or affinity and convergence with sociological theory lies in social economics as its second ingredient, alongside market economics. The paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between economic and sociological theory and economics and sociology overall.     

Genomics: the clinical encounter and parallels across complementary and personalized medicine

Genomics is progressing from “bench to bedside,” especially in cancer care. Referred to as precision and personalized medicine, this article casts sociological scholarship on genomic medicine into three interconnected realms: laboratory, family, and clinic. Thought to be solely and objectively discovered in the laboratory, sociological research illustrates the messiness of genetic research. The self in (late) modern times is popularly conceptualized as unique and discrete; precision medicine highlights boundedness and the molecular material shared across families. Within the clinic, sociological research has focused on the geneticization debate over the extent to which genetic ways of understanding disease have subsumed other approaches to conceptualizing and treating illness and the impact of genomics on medicine's dominance. How else is genomic medicine affecting the clinical encounter? We ask if personalized medicine unexpectedly reflects practices found in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), raising questions about what this means for modern medicine and the patient‐consumer.     

The Indigenization of American Sociology in Japan: The Contribution of Kazuko Tsurumi

This paper is an investigation of attempts at endogenization and indigenization in the history of sociology in Japan. The author begins by presenting a short history of Japanese sociology. While the issues of endogenization and indigenization had been raised in the 1910s, imperialism and the militarization of the Emperor state and society blocked this form of development. Japanese social sciences have thus mainly followed the model of Western social sciences. The issue of indigenization gained attention after World War II and especially after the late 1960s, which was a time of reflection on the extreme influence of American sociology. In this context, this paper investigates the development of Kazuko Tsurumi’s sociology, which is one of the best examples of work that deals with the issue of indigenization. Tsurumi analyzes social change from pre-World War II to post-World War II Japan by drawing on sociological functionalism. However, Tsurumi suggests that Kunio Yanagita’s theory of folklore and ethnology provides a stronger explanatory framework than functionalism, and contends that Kumagusu Minaka has developed an approach rooted in East Asia. Tsurumi advances this indigenous development theory based on the work of Yanagita and Minakata, and at the same time internationalizes this theory. This paper concludes that Tsurumi’s theory is an important medium between Western sociology and Eastern sociology.     

The Utility of Weber's Ideal Type: Verstehen and the Theory of Critical Mass

Weber's concepts of the ideal type and Verstehen are perhaps the most often discussed and debated but least understood of all his methodological formulations. This is in part a consequence of the complexity regarding the historical and intellectual matrix in which he developed his conceptual thought, and in part the relationship of the ideal type and Verstehen to other central aspects both of his methodology and theoretical works. The full scope of Weber's effort, and the relevance of this to contemporary sociological and historical investigations, can be found in his orientation to positivism and its role vis-a-vis the social sciences. A return by social scientists to mathematical modeling (which is not necessarily the province of the natural sciences) may, ironically, provide the foundation for returning back to a reconsideration of Weber's methodological thought, while repositioning the role of the ideal type and positivism in sociological investigations.     

Sociological theory: Looking forward

A brief model of the rise, salience, criticism, and relative decline of theoretical perspectives in sociology is sketched, citing the dominance of sociological positivism in the early part of the twentieth century as an example. Classical evolutionary theory and structural-functionalism are also mentioned as illustrations. Viewing the contemporary theoretical scene, the author sees a kind of peaceful pluralism as a visible motif, and some modest signs of integrative or synthetic theoretical activity on the horizon. He is the author of many books and articles on sociological theory, economic sociology, collective behavior and social movements, and the sociology of education. Most recently he edited theHandbook of Sociology (1988).     

On several problems regarding the development of demographic theory in China since the founding of the People's Republic

Policy theory over the last 30 years, as Comrade Tian sees it, can be divided into 3 developmental stages: 1) from 1949 to 1957 saw the rise of "population controlism" represented by the sociological school; 2) from the late 1950s into the early 1960s featured the "new Population Theory" represented by Ma Yinchu, and a "theory of human hands and power" formulated in the course of criticism and repudiation; and 3) after the 1960s population studies were at a state of standstill or only 1/2 active. While advocating birth control, Comrade Mao Zedong showed inadequacy in regard to demographic theory and in practice he lacked sufficient understanding of the gravity of New China's population problem. In reviewing the developmental history of demographic theory in new China, it would be very inappropriate not to analyze and evaluate realistically Mao Zedong's thinking on population but only criticize certain of his faults. The main manifestations in Comrade Tian Xueyuan's division of the stages of development of new China's population theory are: 1) the first stage is unable to reflect accurately the objective reality of a healthy development of China's population theory, 2) the third stage includes 2 entirely different developmental periods before and after the smashing of the "gang of four," and 3) Tian's stages did not convey the development and change in Comrade Mao Zedong's demographic thinking in the different stages and their influence on the development of China's population theory. Tian Xueyuan and Zedong differ in terms of content of the developmental stages of population theory, not in terms of the time of the stages.     

The contextualization of definitions of religion

The author insists on the need to take the social-structural context into account to evaluate the existing types of definitions of religion. Proposing a definition for the Western hemisphere, he then checks his definition against sociological studies referring to ‘new types of religiosity’ and concludes that sociologists should differentiate between meaning systems – of which religion is a sub-division – and spiritualities. In a second step, he discusses two sociological theories about religion and insists that sociologists should be more careful in using such theories by taking into consideration the type of religion the theory is concerned with. Finally, he suggests that rational choice theory and secularization theory might well be integrated and applied in a European context if we move to the level of the competing existing meaning systems.     

Political Activist As Participant Observer: Conflicts Of Commitment In A Study Of The Draft Resistance Movement Of The 1960's*

In studying the draft resistance movement of the 1960's the author combined sociological observation with active and politically committed participation in the movement. The resulting conflicts of loyalty were rooted in basic characteristics of the movement, and of field research as a way of being in and experiencing the world. There were conflicts between political and research goals in daily decisions about how to allocate time and energy, and in larger choices about whether to take risks and to more fully join the community of fate of the movement. The role of researcher became a retreat, expressing limits to involvement and risk-taking, and providing a point of outside leverage which full participants lacked. The movement's ways of defining and interpreting experience ran counter to the more detached and routihizing perspectives of sociology. Conflicts between being a committed participant and an observing sociologist culminated in a sense of betraying the movement, and raised basic questions about uses, organization, and types of knowledge.