Decolonizing Sociology Through Collaboration,Co-Learning and Action: A Case for Participatory Action Research1

Despite important efforts by postcolonial scholars to “decolonize” sociology, this endeavor remains limited by the scaffolding of empirical research, or the institutionalized practices and beliefs embedded within data collection and researchers' relationship to research subjects. In its current form, this scaffolding excludes “subaltern” voices from critiquing and extending sociological theory, deriving benefits from the study, or informing social actions that stem from the research. This limits the field's understanding of the multi-faceted impacts of colonialism and retrenches inequalities between scholars and participants. Participatory Action Research (PAR) offers an alternative, decolonial infrastructure. PAR acknowledges the value of knowledge from the periphery and calls for (1) the participation of marginalized research populations in each step of the research process; (2) co-learning between researchers and participants; and (3) collaborative social action that centers the needs of marginalized research populations. Drawing on a case study of PAR in Rio de Janeiro, I demonstrate how PAR allows sociologists, in partnership with historically colonized groups, to decolonize sociology not only in theory, but in the concrete practices of empirical research.     

Totem and Taboo in Sociology: The Politics of Affirmative Action Research*

The thesis is advanced that sociology's strong links with welfare-state liberalism have also led to the widespread acquiescence to “liberal taboos” regarding some topics of social research such as affirmative action. The relationship between sociology and liberalism is examined. Radical and neoconservative influences are also noted. Adverse encounters with affirmative action taboos by intellectuals and social scientists are discussed as is the “fashionable” consensus on affirmative action in sociology. That this consensus may sometimes be shallow and relatively uninformed is suggested by reactions by the author's Southern California colleagues regarding his proposed studies of (1) the extent of widespread public discussion of affirmative action in the 1970s. and (2) the social psychological impact of such policies upon white males. The paper concludes with a discussion of related taboos in sociology and other fields and the dangers involved in ideological allegiances. I'm not saying that cities are doomed places, but I will say that the hard core of the welfare society is doomed. There are no prospects for these people. Nobody ever took the trouble to teach them anything. They live in a kind of perpetual chaos, in a great noise. And, you know, they really are startled souls. They cannot be reasoned with or talked to about anything. Isn't it time for us to admit this? For a long time, the subject lay under a taboo. Nobody was going to talk about it. Now people are beginning to do so. Though I consider myself a kind of liberal, I have to admit that the taboos were partly of liberal origin. It was supposed to be wrong to speak with candor. But lying in a good cause only aggravates disorder. –Saul Bellow (1982) We had best remember that socìology and ideology are competitors …–Alvin Gouldner (1976)     

Black Sociology and Phenomenological Sociology*

This paper is a comparative analysis of black sociology and phenomenological sociology and an attempt to show how phenomenology might be used to provide an epistemological foundation for black sociology. Attention is directed toward the writings of black and phenomenological sociologists. Arguments rest on appeals to authorities—quotations from and citations to influential writers. The specific points of comparison are the way the protagonists of the perspectives (1) define their activities, (2) criticize conventional sociology, and (3) investigate social reality. Epistemological issues are examined within a framework of the standard methodological problems of validity and reliability.     

From Affirmative Action to Diversity: Critical Reflections on Graduate Education in Sociology

This article explores the contradictory results of the shift from a race‐conscious affirmative action discourse to a broader “diversity embrace” that advocates tolerance, equality, and respect for cultural differences on university campuses. Drawing on critical race theory and research on the practice of affirmative action in organizations, we argue that the diversity embrace subsumes recognition of racialized histories, social relations, and practices in favor of a “color‐blind” rhetoric that reinforces negative assumptions about the academic merit and worthiness of underrepresented minority students (URM). Our review of the status and condition of URM graduate students in sociology departments reveals that minority inclusion is part of a larger strategy that emphasizes individual and group differences rather than corrective action for past discrimination. We find that access and inclusion in graduate programs in sociology have been uneven with relatively few departments producing a majority of URM sociology doctorates. The diversity embrace obscures their continual low representation in graduate programs, fosters professionalization practices detrimental to these students, and undermines efforts to create a “critical mass” of faculty of color. Such practices constitute a racial project that preserves White privilege at the individual and institutional levels.     

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.     

Animals and Sociology

This paper outlines some of the major theoretical contributions of the specialty field known as ‘animals and society’. It examines three areas of focus within the field. One of these areas finds connections between our exploitation of animals and other forms of domination and oppression. Consequently, this body of research provides insight into how we might challenge and overcome inequality, more generally. A second area examines animal abuse and questions entrenched assumptions about the link between cruelty to animals and violence directed toward humans. This research also reveals that animals are often victims and pawns in domestic violence. A third area uses human–animal interaction to challenge dominant sociological views of the self. By doing so, this work expands our knowledge of what it means to live in a social world. Overall, the scholarly work within the field of animals and society suggests that the inclusion of animals in sociological research can expand and clarify existing theories and concepts.     

Sociology and Youth

While a variety of social structural factors do influence all youth, it is critical to note that American youth are not a monolithic entity. Obviously, differences in age, race, sex, and socioeconomic status will play a part in what youth think, feel, and believe. Still, as this review of youth-oriented research indicates, the empirical focus, for the most part, has been upon white, middle-class, college students. One result of this research bias has been a tendency to generalize for all youth from data collected from a relatively small, select, youth population.
A second obvious outcome is that sociologists have largely ignored the study of poor youth; non-students; blacks, Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, American Indians; youth in the work world; youth in the military; and females.
Generally, this review of the social science research suggests that there is consensus among students of youth behavior as to the factors which influence the attitudes and behavior of contemporary youth. At the same time, it must be noted that much of what is pronounced is based on little in the way of empirical research and derived primarily from observations of a limited segment of American youth.
Finally, this review of the literature would certainly support the observation that social scientists have provided little in the way of knowledge that would be of value to policy planners, program developers, or those involved in the day to day business of youth socialization.     

Sociology

The authors describe how three elementary teachers working in very different parts of the United States teach about Mexico. These teachers' practices allow them to enhance the traditional social studies curriculum, help children learn about themselves and other people, and increase children's capacities for global citizenship.     

Psychoanalysis and Sociology

Sociological Forum -     

Classical Liberalism and Sociology

Sociological Forum -     

Sociology and the Prosaic

The sociology of Erving Goffman is examined, including those who influenced his work as well as those influenced by it. Goffman's sociology is examined in terms of focus and scope, theory, and method. As much of his sociology is singular in its presentation, stylistic elements in Goffman's work are also considered.     

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.