Culture’s Coherence: How the Trees Compose the Woods

In cultural sociology, the concept of culture refers to processes and products of meaning-making. This concept sustains coherence while also encompassing empirical complexity and theoretical difference. Much of the variety in the way cultural sociologists talk about culture is simply attributable to inconsequential terminological difference, and the remainder is attributable to differences of empirical angle and theoretical emphasis within the field which are encompassed by this core idea. Cultural sociologists understand meaning as transcending biology, irreducible to social structure, and public rather than private. These conceptual boundaries provide a firm foundation for empirical research and guide the development of cultural theory. Further exploration of the concept of “meaning” is better pursued in the analytic philosophy of meaning, but such exploration is unnecessary and potentially counter-productive for cultural sociology.     

The Conceptual Incoherence of “Culture” in American Sociology

The meaning of the concept “culture” as used in American sociology is incoherent. Despite the advances and maturing of cultural sociology, the central idea of “culture” itself remains conceptually muddled. This article demonstrates this critical point by analyzing the definitions, meanings, and uses of the word “culture” in the field of cultural sociology’s most significant, recent edited volumes, handbooks, readers, companions, annual review chapters, and award-winning books and journal articles. Arguing for the scholarly importance of conceptual coherence, this article calls for more disciplined and cooperative theoretical work to clarify and move toward a more standardized meaning of “culture” in American sociology.     

Save the World on Your Own Time: Or, What’s the Matter with Sociology?

This essay explores the question of why sociology departments, compared to other university departments, are often viewed negatively by higher-level administrators (deans, provosts, chancellors and presidents). We are asked to consider, as sociologists, how departments are ranked and evaluated by administrators. The characteristics of any good university department are identified (e.g., grants, support from alumni, publications, quality of teaching, national rankings, student enrollments); and, the characteristics of dynamic and healthy departments are outlined (e.g., student learning is primary; there is a commitment to the goals of the larger organization; leadership is provided by the unit to solve all-university problems; there is a focus on learning; faculty are productive; there are strong communication links across the organization). The question is posed and then systemically answered as to how sociology departments compare in terms of these standards. It is suggested that a major factor in terms of how and why sociology departments are negatively evaluated is the fact that sociology uses narratives of power and explanations of organizational behavior that are inherently oppositional, i.e., there is an “us” and “them” mentally that sometimes develops. Other reasons for organizational marginalization are identified such as the “canon wars” and their lingering effects, and the fact that the sociological enterprise has been diluted by the teaching of “sociology” in many other campus units, such as composition programs. Finally, questions are raised about how sociology, as an intellectual enterprise, differs from other disciplines in terms of pedagogy, the sequencing of courses, “grand” theory, and forms of apprenticeship. It is recommended that sociologists act positively to help the organizations within which they work to identify common problems and solve them. It is argued that sociology can and should “own” the area of civic engagement as a means of making a positive and distinctive contribution. Sociological “stories” grounded in the reality of everyday life are compelling. It is suggested that sociologists need to deepen connections with their communities and to offer real solutions to real problems.     

Teaching Sociology at a Tribal College: Navajo Philosophy as a Pedagogy

This article begins with a brief history of Dine College, the first tribally controlled college in the nation. I then provide an overview of Dine College’s educational philosophy, called Sa’ah Naaghai Bik’eh Hozhoon, and give examples that demonstrate how I apply this SNBH philosophy in my teaching. I discuss my own Dine identity, and explain how that fosters a greater understanding among the students I teach. I also introduce a concept called “the Navajo time bind” that illuminates the challenges I face in teaching sociology to a Navajo population. Overall, this article provides insights about the unique aspects of teaching sociology in a tribally controlled college.     

Toward A Renewed Sociological Jurisprudence: From Roscoe Pound to Herbert Blumer and Beyond

This article, based on the Distinguished Lecture presented on August 21, 2001, at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction in Anaheim, California, proposes a synthesis of Herbert Blumer's macrosociological perspective on the race question with Roscoe Pound's philosophy and science of law (i.e., his so‐called sociological jurisprudence), Joseph Tussman's and Jacobus tenBroek's juridical methodology, and Philip Selznick's sociology of responsive law. The compound so produced will help to establish a foundation for a praxiological sociology of American constitutional law. The article focuses on the problem of legislative‐made “classifications” and their relations to the legitimate public purposes entailed in the enactment of statutes, laws, and decrees. Such classifications become problematic when they are said to be “underinclusive,” “over‐inclusive,” or both in seeking to effect their aims. Strategic research sites for this issue are racial and ethnic classifications that single out one or a limited cluster of racial or ethnic groups for special benefits (“affirmative action”) or restitution (“reparations”). Calling for a reinvigoration of Pound's pragmatic approach to sociological jurisprudence, I show how Blumer's analysis of the “color line”—when seen in relation to the original intent of the makers of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth post‐Civil War Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and, using Tussman's and tenBroek's showing of how such categorizations might be both methodically evaluated and applied to the challenged classifications—provides grounds for reconsidering whether the latter are instances of “reverse discrimination” and, hence, violations of the constitutional requirement of “equal protection of the law.” The science of law is a science of social engineering having to do with that part of the whole field which may be achieved by the ordering of human relations through the action of politically organized society. —Roscoe Pound, Justice According to Law We did not hold it necessary to wait for nature to put a canal across the Isthmus of Panama, and we shall not much longer hold it necessary to wait for nature to dig the legal canals that will give security to neglected human interests which clamor for recognition and protection. —Roscoe Pound, “Juristic Problems of National Progress”     

Outsider Scholars and Outsider Sociologists

If we take the time to look at the academy writ large and sociology as a discipline specifically, we can readily find the evidence to confirm a long‐standing exclusion of certain scholars from the academic mainstream. This exclusion is especially evident in the case of scholars of color, but also includes women, nonelites (e.g., college and graduate students who lack academic social capital from elders who have been through it and could help), and those who wish to push for a more humanist scientific agenda over purist positivist science. Sexism and racism keep us from seeing the best of our ideas emerge to bring the discipline forward. As if the pursuit of good work and good works are mutually exclusive, an embrace of purist positivism leads us to shun antiracist, antisexist, nonhumanist science, labeling it “advocacy” or worse, “activist,” and conversely, ceding ground to those who wrap themselves in “objectivity” even as they may further regressive agendas. This article makes a case for the existence of an “outsider scholar,” and outlines sociology's outsider problem. I argue that this problem endures at all levels of the academic endeavor, from undergraduate education all the way through to the ranks of administration. I conclude by offering remedies to lead us toward a more inclusive and social justice‐oriented sociology.     

In the Spirit of Selden Bacon: The Sociology Of Drinking and Drug Problems

In 1943, the sociologist Selden Bacon proposed studying drinking behavior from a “sociologic” perspective. Since then, a problem-oriented approach – a sociology of problem drinking and problem drug use, not a sociology of drinking and drug use behavior – has dominated the literature on alcohol and other drugs. However, a review of the literature reveals a sociology of drinking and drug problems in the spirit of the research that Bacon proposed. This article suggests that the sociology of drinking and drug problems can be regarded as a multidisciplinary field of study and usefully divided among three primary perspectives: (1) a sociocultural perspective that considers social change, modern society, and cultural influence; (2) a socio-environmental perspective that explores social learning, social setting, and alienation; and (3) an ideological perspective that examines cultural, institutional, and professional ideologies. The sociology of drinking and drug problems exposes the considerable influence of “sociologic” factors on problem drinking and problem drug use across scientific disciplines and, in particular, that problem drinking and problem drug use, from a multidisciplinary standpoint, are not caused exclusively by biologic traits. However, the sociology of drinking and drug problems is limited by the problem-oriented approach. More research needs to analyze the normal use of alcohol and other drugs to better understand the connection between substance use and social life.     

Inventing the axial age: the origins and uses of a historical concept

The concept of the axial age, initially proposed by the philosopher Karl Jaspers to refer to a period in the first millennium BCE that saw the rise of major religious and philosophical figures and ideas throughout Eurasia, has gained an established position in a number of fields, including historical sociology, cultural sociology, and the sociology of religion. We explore whether the notion of an “axial age” has historical and intellectual cogency, or whether the authors who use the label of a more free-floating “axiality” to connote varied “breakthroughs” in human experience may have a more compelling case. Throughout, we draw attention to ways in which uses of the axial age concept in contemporary social science vary in these and other respects. In the conclusion, we reflect on the value of the concept and its current uses and their utility in making sense of human experience.     

On the Centrality of Action: Social Science,Historical Logics,and Max Weber's Legacy

This article draws attention to the fundamental centrality of “action” – i.e. symbolically constituted behavior – for the historical and social sciences. The work of Max Weber and contemporary American historian and theorist William H. Sewell, Jr. are examined, so as to shed light on the debate concerning social science's central subject matter as well as on the implications of this work for sociological and historical theory. The examination of Sewell's view leverages the importance of the concept of action underlying Weber's concept of “social action.” Weber's position on action and social action is of great interest not only to general theory but also to the field of cultural sociology, which has neglected to develop systematically upon the theoretical purchase Weber offers to it.     

Reply to Klein

Many “theoretical” writings in sociology and in the social sciences use conceptual frameworks (perspectives, paradigms). Developments in family sociology are used as a case study to explore the role of conceptual frameworks in the growth of scientific theory. The claim that conceptual frameworks are necessary for theory building is evaluated. Using writings in family sociology and in the philosophy of science, the claim is found wanting. Social scientists are therefore cautioned to avoid conceptual work that is only rhetorically related to the development of theory.     

Environmental and Resource Sociology: Theoretical Issues and Opportunities for Synthesis1

Abstract Rural sociologists have been disproportionately represented among the major contributors to environmental sociology. In part, this is because several areas of longstanding rural sociological interest (e.g., sociology of resource management and outdoor recreation, studies of resource-dependent communities) essentially came to be redefined as environmental sociology during the 1970s. The most significant role of rural sociologists in building environmental sociology, however, has perhaps been the fact that the material and biophysical nature of the phenomena they have traditionally studied contributed to a general predisposition to recognize the “materiality” of social structure and social life. I assess the major strategies that have been developed for theorizing this materiality, and then indicate some of the most critical lines of debate and dissension. I argue that if these debates are examined in their specifics—rather than as incompatible perspectives or “paradigms”—some opportunities for synthesis become apparent. Some suggested avenues of synthesis are set forth.     

Sociological Knowledge of the Other: Wolff’s “Surrender and Catch” Methodology

From a sociological perspective the “surrender and catch” expression derives, of course, from the experiential and existential basis of Wolff’s epistemology and hermeneutics.“Surrender” is connected with phenomenology, and Husserl’s (as well as Schütz’s) writings, besides Scheler’s idea of a “relatively natural world view”.“Surrender and catch” is also a “sociology of understanding” a definition which recuperates the German verstehende Soziologie though it makes a distinction between “surrender” and “surrender to”. It is not just a theory, it is a methodology too, in order to understand the otherness.Wolff was a multi-facetted scholar and this affected his conceptualizations. Furthermore, his surrender is something one experiences existentially in a number of fields, from the nature of empirical research to the art of theoretical reflection, from politics to poetry, from philosophy to history to sociology.It must also be pointed out that surrender and catch are a form of protest against the status quo.     

Beyond the Comtean Schema: The Sociology of Culture and Cognition Versus Cognitive Social Science

In this essay, I argue that the very form of the grammatical construction “a sociology of culture and cognition” (which is a specification of the more general schema “a sociology of [X]”) is symptomatic of a deeply entrenched form of “Primitive Classification” (which I will refer to as the “Comtean schema”) that governs the way in which sociologists conceive of their place in, and engage with other denizens of, the social science landscape. I will also argue that while this style of disciplinary engagement might have worked in the past when it came to dealing with the standard (nineteenth‐century) social science disciplines and even some late‐twentieth‐century upstarts, it will not work as a way to engage the now‐sprawling postdisciplinary field that I will refer to as “Cognitive Social Science” (CSS). The takeaway point is that if sociologists want to be part of CSS (and it is in their interest to be part of it because this constitutes the future of the behavioral sciences), then they will have to give up the Comtean‐schematic thought style.     

Considerations on the ‘Replication Problem’ in Sociology

We re-examine the so-called “replication problem” in sociology—a scarcity of published studies dedicated to reproducing findings from prior research. We do this in part by considering the larger epistemological traditions of the natural sciences and humanities. We make three primary arguments: that (1) replication studies are more prevalent than is commonly perceived, (2) calls for and discussions of replication do not attend enough to issues of theory, and (3) we should reconsider as a discipline how we evaluate replications. In developing this third argument, we draw on the concept of episteme, discussing two epistemes that concurrently exist in sociology: the scientific project and the aesthetic object. The former overlaps with approaches to knowledge growth in the natural sciences, the latter with the humanities. We propose that sociology is situated between these extremes, presenting unique challenges for replication research. In particular, nuanced considerations of replications in sociology foreclose any simplistic accounts of a replication problem in the discipline.     

Three Ecologies: Urban Metabolism and the Society‐Nature Opposition

This article is an intellectual history of two enduring binaries—society‐nature and city‐countryside—and their co‐identification, told through evolving uses of the concept of “urban metabolism.” After recounting the emergence of the modern society‐nature opposition in the separation of town and country under early industrial capitalism, I interpret “three ecologies”—successive periods of urban metabolism research spanning three disciplines within the social sciences. The first is the human ecology of the Chicago School, which treated the city as an ecosystem in analogy to external, natural ecosystems. The second is industrial ecology: materials‐flow analyses of cities that conceptualize external nature as the source of urban metabolism's raw materials and the destination for its social wastes. The third is urban political ecology, a reconceptualization of the city as a product of diverse socio‐natural flows. By analyzing these three traditions in succession, I demonstrate both the efficacy and the limits to Catton and Dunlap's distinction between a “human exemptionalist paradigm” and a “new ecological paradigm” in sociology.     

Figuration und Emergenz

The paper reconstructs the methodology of Norbert Elias against the background of his ontology. Thereby Robert van Kriekens thesis will be defended that Elias is a proponent of a “third sociology”. His ontology shows that figurations are integrated wholes. Human beings form the parts of this wholes and necessarily build up social relations based upon their “relational properties”. This model of social wholes builds the finishing part of a mereological ontology of layers of the natural and social world. Physical-chemical wholes can reductively explained, biological and sociological wholes are ontologically and epistemologically irreducible because of phenomena of emergence. This ontology of Elias serves as a background for his methodology which does not favour individualist but moderat holist or relationalist explanations. With a new definition of social emergence it can be shown that relations are central factors of sociological explanations which can be found in Elias’ historical-sociological studies.?Keywords:Norbert Elias ? Ontology ? Methodology ? Third sociology ? Part-whole ? Methodological individualism ? Methodological relationalism ? Relational sociology ? Emergence ? Figuration ? Micro-macro     

Feeling the Hands of Time: Intersections of Time and Emotion

While the fields of the sociology of time and the sociology of emotion have grown exponentially, missing from the literature is explicit theorizing on the intersections of emotion and time. In this review article, we begin by examining literature that explores both how time (e.g. temporal control, perceived amount) influences emotional responses and how emotions (e.g. emotional intensity, valence) impact perceptions of time. Although such research occurs in a variety of disciplines, much of it fails to look at individuals' active manipulation of time and emotion to produce desired experiences. After discussing the established concepts of emotion work (Hochschild 1979) and time work (Flaherty 2003), we illustrate how two newer concepts – “temporal emotion work” (Lois 2010, 2012) and “emoting time” (Mullaney and Shope 2012) – serve as starting points for thinking about how individuals actively use time in emotion work and emotions in time work. Although much of the thinking to date occurs within the scholarly literature on work and family, we call for more intentional and systematic theorizing about the relationship between time and emotion.     

The Sociological Insight of W.E.B. Du Bois

W.E.B. Du Bois discussed key aspects of the new field of sociology in his early writings. This article presents Du Bois’ conception of the developing field and his sociological perspective based on nine of his key original sociological writings. Rather than generating theoretical formulations and studying abstract concepts, Du Bois insisted that sociology be an empirical science adhering to the methods utilized by the physical sciences. Sociology's major objectives are to study the “deeds of men” and to provide a science of human action. Sociological research seeks the discovery of “truth” which can form the basis of social policy. Noting that the regularity of human behavior is evidence of laws and acknowledging that human behavior is also subject to chance factors, sociology must seek to determine the limits of each. Du Bois’ research methods, based on methodological triangulation, were formulated to provide the “truths” which he eagerly sought. Du Bois was convinced that these truths were worth knowing and that sociology had the promise of becoming one of the “greatest sciences.” Attention directed toward Du Bois’ key sociological writings within sociology curricula will introduce current and future readers to the groundbreaking sociological work of the pioneer sociologist.     

Presidential Address Rural Sociology at the Crossroads*

Abstract A complex array of socio‐historical, demographic, and organizational factors have combined in recent years to threaten both the current status of and future prospects for the discipline of rural sociology, and for the Rural Sociological Society (RSS). This paper examines the somewhat problematic recent trajectories of the RSS as a professional organization and of rural sociology more generally and notes a degree of disciplinary and organizational inertia that have limited the pursuit of new directions. It also presents a discussion of selected factors that have contributed to these concerns, including both “external” factors that are largely beyond the organizational reach of RSS and “internal” factors that are more directly linked to organizational characteristics and actions. Drawing upon the distinctions between “red ocean” and “blue ocean” strategies outlined by market strategists Kim and Mauborgne, the discussion then shifts to a focus on action alternatives that, if pursued, could help to create an expanded set of opportunities and a brighter future for rural sociology, and for the Rural Sociological Society.