Anticolonial thought,the sociological imagination,and social science: A reply to critics

Sociology was born in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a project in, of, and for empire. This essay excavates a tradition of social thought that grew alongside metropolitan sociology but has been marginalized by it: anticolonial thought. Emerging from anticolonial movements, writers and thinkers, anticolonial thought in 19th and 20th centuries emerged from a variety of thinkers (from indigenous activists in the Americas to educated elites in the American, Francophone and British colonies). I argue that this body of thought offers distinct visions of society, social relations, and social structure, along with generative analytic approaches to the social self, social solidarity and global relations—among other themes. Anticolonial thought offers the basis for an alternative canon and corpus of sociological thinking to which we might turn as we seek to revitalize and decolonize sociology.     

The History of Social Thought and the History of Sociology

Abstract

Just as sociologists in the past have been insistent upon making a distinction between the history of social thought and sociological theory, so is it argued here than an equally important distinction be made between the history of social thought and the history of sociology. It is suggested that the history of social thought is no more useful to the advance of sociological theory than any other contiguously related field of study. Since the history of social thought is not directly concerned with the discipline of sociology, it is suggested that it be eliminated from the curricula of sociology. Not only is this area of study unlikely to contribute to the development of sociological theory but also such a study can have unanticipated consequences that hinder such a contribution. The genetic fallacy is less likely to be committed when the distinction between the history of social thought and the history of sociology is kept clearly in mind.     

LEVINE'S VISIONS OF THE GERMAN TRADITION IN THE LIGHT OF WEBER

This article illuminates Levine's analysis of the German tradition in his book Visions of the Sociological Tradition in the light of Max Weber's concept of verstehen . According to Levine, the understanding of subjective meaning is the most important theme of thinkers whose ideas resulted in the founding of sociology in Germany. Visions is more than a history of sociological theory, its broadest purpose being to stimulate a dialogue among competing "narratives' that will reduce the fragmentation in contemporary sociology and also address the moral dilemmas in contemporary society. This dialogical purpose provides a criterion for selecting ideas that best represent the various sociological traditions. Considering Weber in the context of Levine's book will not only clarify the German tradition but will also lead to both support and criticism of his dialogical thesis.     

Sociological social work: a cartoon

I trace an account of social work—and sociology—that I believe holds a promise for re-forming the relationship between the two. I develop the argument in two ways. First, taking 1920s Chicago as a case study, I will attempt ‘a history of the present’ to suggest how the relationship between sociology and social work came to be as it is. I will suggest that the practice of some (both familiar and forgotten) people in 1920s and 1930s sociology and social work is best explained as a form of ‘sociological social work’. Second, after tracking this genealogy, I suggest an agenda for sociological social work that consists of straining to enact certain kinds of inter-disciplinary relationships, developing methodological social work practice, hearing occasional sociological frontier conversations and shared theorising. I illustrate how these arguments challenge both sociology and social work and both theory and practice.     

More than just a product: Strengthening literature in sociological analysis

Contemporary sociology of literature is predominantly shaped by the research of literary production, which approaches literary works as black boxes and subordinates them to social interactions and institutions. Even sociologists who recognize usefulness of literature for its inner quality often look at literary texts as mere passive objects to be translated into sociological discourse. In proposing a new sociology of literature, I first briefly outline the history of sociological studies of literature; second, I introduce “the state of the art” in the sociology of literature; third, I explore the relationship between sociology and literature in more general terms; and lastly, I discuss approaches and ideas with the potential to become components of a new research program, which would be a powerful alternative to the mainstream paradigms in sociological studies of literature. Such a program would make it clear that sociology can greatly benefit from cooperation with literature when sociologists are sensitive to the subtleties and (especially aesthetic) specificities of literary works.     

Ontology and Method in Cognitive Sociology

The sociology of cognition could serve as a more effective bridge between sociology and other disciplines, and more of a two‐way thoroughfare, if we would consider doing the following two things, which we are already doing here and there. First, we need to take a stand in philosophy of social science debates. Second, we need to show how what we do contributes to sociological methods, and not only say that what we do contributes to sociological theory, however fundamental that contribution may be.     

Toward a Buddhist Sociology: Theories,Methods, and Possibilities

This article explores potential links between Buddhism and sociology, highlighting the many commonalities between sociology and Buddhism, with an emphasis on ways that Buddhist thought and practice may contribute to the field of sociology. What could Buddhism offer to our understanding of social institutions, social problems, and to the dynamics and possibilities for social change? The Four Noble Truths, central to Buddhist teachings, are explored in reference to their sociological theory applications. Finally, mindfulness practices that are endemic to Buddhism are explored as tools for sociologists to consider as they work reflexively, develop sociological insights, and pursue social justice.     

The body in sociology: tensions inside and outside sociological thought

The human body has in recent years become a ‘hot’ topic in sociology, not just in empirical research but also in sociological theorizing. In the latter context, the body has been variously a resource for broadening the parameters of traditional sociological thought deriving from the nineteenth century, and for overturning that paradigm and fundamentally reorienting the assumptions and concepts of sociological thinking. Attempts to abandon the old paradigm and foster a new one through the means of thinking about bodies are many and manifold, and in this paper we trace out the intricate history of moves towards a ‘corporeal sociology’. We identify the dilemmas that have attended these developments, especially as concerns the ways in which new modes of thinking sociologically have tended to founder over the classical sociological dichotomy between social structure and social action. Through tracing out the various moves and counter‐moves within this field, we identify a central contradiction that affects all contemporary sociological practice, not just that dealing with the body: an oscillation between judging the utility of conceptual tools in terms of criteria derived from the discipline of Cultural Studies, and evaluating the arguments created by those tools on the basis of the incompatible criteria of classical sociology. The paper challenges sociologists to choose one set of criteria or the other, for sociological practice cannot be based on both such antagonistic paradigms.     

From False Premises to False Conclusions. On Pierre Bourdieu’s Alleged Sociological Determinism

Pierre Bourdieu’s sociological determinism is a recurrent issue in French as well as in Anglo-Saxon sociology. Accusations of ‘determinism’ are very often coupled with the enunciation of a mechanistic and rigid structuralist vision of society which would result in a ‘reproductivist’ approach of social relations. In such a perspective, social change would be hardly possible. Without ignoring Bourdieu’s particular attention to structural constraints, in this article my intention will be to refute the accusations of social determinism by showing in a synthetic manner why it would be if not completely erroneous, but at least simplistic to define Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology as one only focusing on reproductive tendencies and thus being incapable of dealing with the possibility of social change.     

The Long and Winding Road: Civil Repair of Intimate Injustice

Over the last decade, I have been trying to help fashion a new kind of critical social theory, one that can contribute to the "new theoretical reflection and interpretation of social contestation and political action" (Cohen 1982:xii) that such post-Marxist thinkers as Cohen and Seyla Benhabib (1986) called for two decades ago but that has seemed less and less ascertainable with the passing of time. Outlining a sociological approach to what I call the "civil sphere" of society, I have defined what I would like to think is a new object domain for sociology, one centering on the expansion and contraction of democratic solidarity. Through a series of conceptual elaborations and empirical investigations, I have begun to sketch out core components of this "civil sphere." These cultural and institutional components are fundamentally ambiguous, and they form contradictory relations with the "noncivil" domains that surround the civil sphere.     

Between Mechanism Talk And Mechanism Cult: New Emphases in Explanatory Sociology And Empirical Research

The study of mechanisms has received increased attention in recent years and contributed to the formation of so-called ‘analytical sociology’ that has put the idea of social mechanisms at its core. We discuss the crucial characteristics of mechanism-based explanations and their relation to the longstanding tradition of explanatory sociology. Looking at the widespread and growing number of references to ‘mechanisms’ in the current research literature, we identify typical deviations from the ideal of a mechanism-based explanation. Many references come down to mechanism talk insofar as it is not explicated in detail how and why particular inputs tend to result in particular outputs. To this end, researchers have to give a detailed verbal account of how exactly a mechanism is thought to unfold under specified conditions, or to specify a formal generative model which can be analysed analytically or by simulation. This agenda has been at the core of methodological individualism, sociological rational choice theory, and explanatory sociology for some time, but has received a new coat of whitewash by analytical sociology. This more recent theoretical movement offers a fresh problem-centred agenda based on the well-known macro-micro-macro model and could inspire a new generation of research that places greater weight on analysing social dynamics than on developing theories of action. However, we submit that, rather than constituting a competing approach, these impulses should be located within the longstanding and multifaceted explanatory agenda in sociology. Avoiding any form of mechanism cult and choosing from the full toolbox of explanatory/analytical sociology will be crucial to answer key questions in established areas of sociological research.     

Warfare,social theory and West European development

This paper explores the intellectual reasons for the failure of sociology to give sufficient attention to warfare and military organisation as central problems in social theory. These reasons are to be found in the dominance of liberal functionalism and Marxism as paradigms in the development of sociology. A reorientation of social theory is called for and it is suggested that writers in the neo-Machiavellian tradition provide an important corrective to sociological orthodoxy in respect of the role of war and military organisation in social life. The paper goes on to show that these factors are crucial components in an adequate account of one of the most important problems raised by sociology: why did hegemonic capitalism develop originally in the West and not elsewhere. Thus, ironically, those factors which sociology has tended to ignore are actually the key to solving one of its central problems.     

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.     

The quality of life concept in sociology

An interdisciplinary concept, quality of life (QOL) has gained prominence in research in psychology, marketing, and several other disciplines. What is its status in sociology? Arising out of the social indicators“movement,” QOL has gained attention as both objective and subjective measures. Precursors of the concept figured in sociological research in the 1930s on level and plane of living. Now, it is recognized in one sociological encyclopedia, a textbook, and a few sociological monographs, but otherwise has gained little coinage in general sociology. One social problems text has adopted it as an organizing theme. With these modest inroads, the components of QOL, such as inequality, income, crime, the environment, etc., always have been prominent in sociology. When QOL is recognized in theory and when legislatures require its use in evaluation of public programs, the concept will become established in sociological research.     

The Sociological pied-piper: Moving forward without RATs

There is a trend in current quantitative sociology that argues for the integration of quantitative sociological research and rational action theories (RATs). The main proponents argue that the two are not only desirable for each other but are in fact necessary to give them credibility. In this paper the author argues that quantitative sociology does not need RAT in order to be an essential and credible part of sociological analysis. Drawing on the work of Bourdieu, she argues that quantitative sociology should not link itself to the atomistic theories of rational action but rather should look towards a position within sociology based on its own strengths. In addition, it is argued that the current vogue to link RAT and quantitative research owes more to the character of RATs than to their explanatory power. Thus, the responsibility for a way forward for sociological research of all kinds lies not only with those actively engaged in research but also with those who claim to be generating sociological theory.     

Embodiment and social structure: a response to Howson and Inglis

Howson and Inglis' paper is both timely and thought provoking. However, it is my contention that their argument is fundamentally flawed. They make five claims. The first two concern the emergence of sociological interest in 'the body' and are sound in my view. The third is that the work of Merleau-Ponty, which has been central to many forms of 'corporeal sociology', lacks an account of social structure and is insufficiently sociological in focus to be of use t o sociology. The fourth suggests that the work of Pierre Bourdieu, which might be deemed a corrective to Merleau-Ponty, cannot serve this purpose without generating a form of social structural determinism which would undermine the benefits of Merleau-Ponty's contribution. The fifth speculates on whether cultural studies might not provide a more fruitful avenue for those who wish either to avoid determinism or to rejoin Merleau-Ponty. My main contention is with the third and fourth of these claims, though my view also necessarily has implications for the fifth.     

Further Beyond the Durkheimian Problematic: Environmental Sociology and the Co‐construction of the Social and the Natural

The biophysical environment is not tangential to the social; it is only tangential to conventional sociological thought. Environmental sociology arose in the 1970s based on this presupposition, but over time theory and empirical research have generally adopted a social constructionist or natural realist approach. Despite rejection of the Durkheimian dictum of explaining social facts through the invocation of other social facts, and thus refusal to presuppose human exemptionalism from ecological constraints, scholarship continues to reflect this nature/culture divide. When environmental sociologists focus on one side or the other of the nature/culture divide, the intertwining and conjoint constitution of the social and the biophysical–material is obscured. The intent of the present essay is to articulate a co‐constructionist ontological position sensitive to the temporal emergence of hybridity between the social and the natural and amenable to recognition of salient dynamics not readily envisioned from either side of the nature/culture divide. In doing so, the argument builds upon prior metatheoretical scholarship in environmental sociology and science and technology studies and highlights ontological conundrums that must be confronted in order to further the move toward a viable co‐constructionist posture.     

Facing Each Other: Japanese and Russian Sociologies

The history of sociology as a subfield has long aimed to describe the historical developments of the discipline, within which national traditions offer unique voices while also contributing to a global sociology. How do various sociological paradigms and national traditions approach social reality in similar and different ways? This paper examines Russian and Japanese contributions to the history of sociology by reviewing some of their major concepts and perspectives. On this basis, this paper seeks to probe into the past and present self-understandings of the two sociological traditions, as well as their potentials for a more active role in global sociological discourse. Both countries have a history of protracted isolation, which has made them more or less invisible in the international sociological community. However, Russian and Japanese sociological traditions exist and are ready to be tapped, even as their production and mobilization of intellectual resources remain strongly embedded in their politics, cultures, and societies. A broader aim of this paper is to enhance mutual understandings and future collaborations between sociologists in Russia and Japan.     

Spencer is dead, long live Spencer: individualism, holism, and the problem of norms

The debate between the advocates of sociological individualism and those of holism has been pervasive in the development of social theory. This debate is often situated in the false problems of sociology, since it is seen as a particular form of the perennial and irresolvable dilemma between social nominalism and realism, as well as between freedom and determinism. Nevertheless, the debate is far from over within contemporary sociology and other social science, as indicated by the resurgence of individualism in rational action theory and its repudiation by holistic social theories. The aim of this paper is to identify some modern variations on this theme as well as to discern certain common tendencies of two seemingly opposite theoretical perspectives, viz. the convergence upon a normative solution to the problem of social order. This convergence is therefore denoted normative convergence between sociological individualism and holistic sociology.