Varieties of Normative Inquiry: Moral Alternatives to Politicization in Sociology

This article evaluates four different ways of relating the normative side of sociology to its empirical side. Two such ways are in existence at present. The first is “dualism,” the idea that sociology provides purely scientific results to political or moral projects that are conducted on some independent normative basis. This position is commonly invoked in the idea of “value-free sociology.” The second is “monism,” the ideas that value-freedom is impossible and that sociology is inevitably value-driven, indeed perhaps that it should be openly so driven. This position is commonly invoked in the idea of “the unity of theory and practice.” These existing approaches are complemented by two that do not yet exist in practice. Both are explicitly normative in part. The first of these is a “canonical” approach, like that of the subdiscipline of political theory, in which normative inquiry within sociology would be formally recognized within the discipline and would be organized around a classical canon of normative works. The second would be a “legalist” approach, which would grow out of new genres of writing that aimed at the systematic normative evaluation of bodies of work or literatures, thus working inductively, in contrast to the canonical approach’s deductivism. The article evaluates these four positions according to four criteria: feasibility, coherence, trajectory, and open-mindedness. It concludes that the current positions (dualism and monism) are both embarrassingly weak: typically unconscious and sometimes naïve, in many cases driven by the unacknowledged – and hence uncritical - assumption that one's particular politics are in fact universally desirable. The discipline should try to create an explicit but rigorously argued normative subdiscipline, probably combining both the canonical and legalist positions.     

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.     

Sociology as a Natural Science? The Agenda of Walter Wallace*

Walter L. Wallace has spent over twenty years outlining parameters for the discipline of sociology. He has paid special attention to what he calls the “complementarities” between the various areas of sociological specialization. From this investigation he has proposed a metalanguage to unite the discipline, with a particular emphasis on structure. Wallace's position is that sociology must, inevitably, follow the canons of the natural science model. This perspective is sketched in this article with some assessment of Wallace's contribution to contemporary sociology.     

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.     

Sex,Lies, and Statistics: Can Rural Sociology Survive Restructuring? (or) What Is Right with Rural Sociology and How Can We Fix It1

Abstract Rural Sociology faces increasing threats of marginalization from social and economic restructuring of academia and of the larger society in which it is embedded. Contrary to some recent analyses, the problem lies more in the inadequacies of data conceptualization, production, and collection than in the theoretical vitality of the discipline. The failure to match theoretical and conceptual advances with appropriate data leaves sociologists grappling with “modern data to study a postmodern world.” Research on the impact of restructuring on social and spatial divisions of labor and the contributions of feminist theory and research to the conceptualization of work and household illustrate the theoretical advances and the empirical deficiencies faced by the discipline. Disciplinary survival and development depend on meeting the challenge of matching theoretical progress with an appropriate empirical base.     

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

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

A Different Kind of Discipline: Social Reproduction and the Transmission of Non‐cognitive Skills at an Urban Charter School

A key component of recent school reform policies has been the authorization of public charter schools. A subset of public charter schools, often termed “no excuses” schools, have received national attention for their students’ academic success; however, scholars have recently begun to question the role of the schools’ authoritarian discipline systems in the process of social reproduction. This study examines the extent to which authoritarian discipline systems are necessary for success at “no excuses” schools, drawing upon qualitative research at a strategic site: a school that adopts many of the practices of “no excuses” schools while also pursuing a relational approach to discipline. Qualitative analysis of classroom observation and interview data finds that a relational approach to discipline cultivates non‐cognitive skills more closely aligned with the evaluative standards of middle‐class institutions, such as skills in self‐expression, self‐regulation, problem‐solving, and conflict resolution. A comparison of academic achievement data also suggests that “no excuses” schools may be able to implement relational discipline approaches without sacrificing academic success on a key predictor of future academic performance.     

No Path to Paradise: Deconstructing the Promise of Public Sociology

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

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.     

Teaching Sociological Theory for a New Century: Contending with the Time Crunch

Despite being a decade into the 21st century, sociological theory continues to be taught at the undergraduate and graduate level in nearly every program in the United States as if it were still 1970. 40 years ago, it made sense to dichotomize theory into two courses—“classical” and “contemporary”—because the latter of the two only covered theory from about the 1930s to the “present.” Today a literal and figurative time crunch has emerged that makes teaching theory difficult and at times, arbitrary based on the professor’s training, mentor, ideological/epistemological biases, and structural factors like textbook choice and number of academic weeks allotted per course. That is, we spend a large amount of time debating who should be in or out, and not enough time preparing our students for the application of theory towards the ultimate goal: knowledge about the social world. Students, then, leave confused at how one uses theory, what theory actually is, and, often times, disengaged from theory because of the density with which some theories approach the social world. In the paper below, the time crunch and its tendency to produce a “lost generation” of theorists is examined. After elucidating how the time crunch constrains sociology, four possible solutions are presented. This list of solutions is neither definitive nor exhaustive, and is meant to generate a rich discussion about the direction the discipline should head in the new century.     

The “Turkish Model” of Sociology: East–West Science, State Formation, and the Post-Secular

The field of sociology in Turkey has a history that is perhaps unique to Europe (and the “West”) in its co-founding with a modern nation-state, and yet its story is more central to the discipline’s general development than that of a marginal “outlier.” Positioned at an East–west crossroads, Turkey, and its sociological tradition, have been in an ongoing conversation between the two cultural poles. Drawing on Edward Said’s Orientalism, this article traces the discipline’s history through the lens of an East–west gaze. Touching on the lived public social questions that this story invokes, regarding ethnic relations, gender, migration, democracy-building, religion, and international relations, this article surveys the growth and present state of the discipline, including methodological trends and current issues.     

Saving the Savior

This article begins with an autobiographical reflection about what sociology has meant to me as an Iranian intellectual. Sociology has enabled me to think critically about my country's politics and culture, appreciating its strengths without overlooking its unjust and injurious aspects. That experience shapes my answer to the question “Saving Sociology?” If there is anything in sociology that I would like to save–in both senses “to keep” and “to rescue”—it is sociology as a critical, reflective discipline, a discipline that not only studies society but also contributes to its change. As the contemporary world moves toward a “global” society, we are increasingly facing the dilemmas of multiculturalism. Sociologists often investigate other societies or (like myself) look back at their own from a spatial and cultural distance. This situation has created a dilemma for many scholars: Should we criticize problems stemming from “indigenous” beliefs and practices of other societies? Cultural relativism argues that different cultures provide indigenous answers to their social problems that should be judged in their own context. While this approach correctly encourages us to avoid ethnocentrism, it has led to inaction towards the suffering of oppressed groups. Reflecting on the relativist approach to sexual dominance, I question some cultural relativist assumptions. Discussing how “indigenous” responses to male domination in many cases disguise and protect that domination, I will challenge the “localist” approach of relativism and argue for a universalist approach.     

Rationalists, Fatalists, and the Modern Superstitious: Test-Taking in Introductory Sociology

As sociologists we are guided by a rational approach to understanding the social world. This rational approach is also evident in the way we test students. But do students approach tests from the same orientation that we take in creating them, or are they influenced by such nonrational orientations as superstitions? To explore this question the authors created and administered the Luck and Superstition Questionnaire to 426 students taking Introduction to Sociology. We found that nearly 70 percent of students indicate some level of test‐related superstitious practice. However, we also found that superstitious practice was largely unrelated to religious belief and practice, gender and race, educational performance and grade expectations, and end‐of‐semester pressures. These results are entirely consistent with Colin Campbell's theory of modern superstition. Superstitious practice in modern society is self‐sustaining–not integrated into social institutions or systems of belief–and only “half‐believed” by the very practitioners of modern superstition.     

Detecting and Decomposing the “Faith Factor” in Social-Service Provision and Absorption

Abstract

Faith-based provision and reception of social services may yield results that differ either randomly or persistently (via “fixed effects”) from the outcomes achieved under non-faith-based, but certainly not value-free, administration of these services. Yet attributing raw differences in performance to unobservable factors assumed to derive from “faith” should be a last resort. Instead, the objective of analysis should be to identify any such factors and their cost and strength operationally so that they can become a managed part of any program offered by existing providers or entrants.

These factors, or the cost effectiveness of employing them, could differ between secular and faith-based providers. Then members of the two groups optimally would use a different mix of means even if they were to pursue precisely the same ends. Yet program design and operation by both groups would stand to benefit from knowing the keys to their relative performance in particular areas of social service with particular groups of clients. Comparing the outcomes of experiments based on random assignment may provide little help in that regard. Micro-simulations may provide a superior approach to tightening the link between input-based model predictions and continuous learning from outcomes.     

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

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

Affective Interaction as a Determinant of Musical Involvement*

Music may be understood as a structural representation, or symbolic “model,” of social interaction processes. Since music is a readily available expressive system in our society, individuals may use it as a socially meaningful symbolic medium within which they manage conflicting affective associations with interaction. Music listening then becomes one means by which individuals may maintain psychological well-being while adapting to complex social structures. Three initial points in this argument were examined, using high and low music listeners. High listeners were found to have more conflicting positive and negative affective associations with interaction than low or medium listeners, as measured by a TAT-type technique. The effect of role playing an affective interaction situation in an experimental design increased listening absorption in music for high but not for low listeners. High listeners were also more likely to describe musical effects in terms of symbolic participation in group processes.     

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.     

Reconciliation and the Representation of Indigenous Peoples in Introductory Sociology Textbooks

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has indicated that education has a central role to play in the reconciliation process. This article assesses how well sociology is doing in this regard by looking at what introductory textbooks say about three topics: (1) residential schools, (2) Indigenous “religion;” and (3) the social construction of Indigenous identities. The findings are mixed. While most textbooks mention the “loss of culture” and the abuse associated with those schools, discussions of intergenerational trauma could be much improved. Discussions of Indigenous religion are still guided by a Western model that has long been regarded as inappropriate to Indigenous cultures. All textbooks ignore the ways in which Indigenous identities are socially constructed and how this is linked to the dramatic growth of the Indigenous population over the last several decades. A concluding section draws upon the work of Indigenous scholars in suggesting ways of decolonizing textbooks.     

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

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