Toward a reflexive sociology

Gouldner’s call for a “reflexive sociology” in 1970 remains a largely unexamined idea, yet with the breakdown of functionalism’s begemony and the present ferment in theory its time may finally have come. In attempting to clarify and reconstruct Gouldner’s idea, I begin with his concepts “background assumptions” and “domain assumptions,” linking them with Kubn’s ideas. Employing levels of abstraction to approach Gouldner’s material systematically, I proceed to develop and illustrate two contrasting background assumptions or world hypotheses: “stratification” and “interaction.” Finally, I examine some methodological implications of these world views, centering on defining problems, ratio scales and images of measurement, sampling and multivariate-analysis procedures. Introduced to sociology by C. Wright Mills, Bernard Phillips studied with Robin N. Williams, Jr. and taught at the University of North Carolina and the University of Illinois (where he overlapped with Alvin W. Gouldner for a year) before coming to Boston University. A cofounder of the ASA section, Sociological Practice, Phillips’ interests are in Societal Change, Theory and Methods.     

Gouldner's theoretical method and reflexive sociology

Conclusion There is a further, more substantial proof that Gouldner, somewhere in the deep metaphorically of his thought, recognized the digression of his sociolinguistic phase. It turns out that the Culture of Critical Discourse did reappear one more time after its repression in The Two Marxisms. In the book on Marxism and intellectuals, left unpublished at the time of his death, CCD reenters in a crucial chapter The Origins of Marxist Theory in the New Class. How and where it reappears is most telling.In The Future of Intellectuals one of the most objectivistic sections is Thesis Eleven, The Alienation of Intellectuals and Intelligentsia. Here, still in the sociolinguistic phase, Gouldner tried, it seems, to answer the troubling question of his New Class theory. How, if CCD is classicist and thus deeply flawed, is the New Class to be a source of revolutionary change? He offers two answers: one, CCD is radicalizing partly because... it experiences itself as distant from (and superior to) ordinary languages; and, two, because intellectuals are structurally blocked with respect to their ascendency to power, status, and the fulfillment of their interests. In other words, the New Class is a source of critique, hence, change because it is alienated, by its discourse, and its structural location. It is crucial to note, however, that Gouldner provides no comprehensive discussion of the nature and effects of that alienation, which is left as a presumably self-evident potential tied to a property (CCD) and a structural effect — two very objectivistic explanations. This theme is picked up in the chapter in the book on Marxism and intellectuals. Here Gouldner provides a full account of alienation. After a very brief discussion of CCD (now presented as dynamically interacting with the second alienating effect, career blockages), Gouldner says: Alienation, then, is a statement about the Subject's failure to have acquired the power and control over his world — including the means of production — inherent in the very notion of the Subject. It is a grievance about the constraint to which the Subject has been exposed. Alienation would not be problematic without the premise that man is and should be a Subject, that persons should control their activity.... The aim of such a Subject, then, is not simply self-control and self-development; he also seeks domination over the object world. The Subject reenters, now capitalized, as if to make up for lost time. Even though, in the same place, Gouldner warns of the humanistic imperialism of this view of the alienated Subject, it is quite clear that the same process is at work here as in The Two Marxisms. Though presenting a superficially balanced appraisal of the subject in its objective context, of critical, voluntaristic Marxism against deterministic objectivist Marxism, Gouldner's prose decidedly favors the revolutionary potential of the Subject. Control over human activity, even domination of the object world, is, virtually, an inherent right of the Subject — a conviction that, Gouldner regrets, loses salience with the emergence of Scientific Marxism. It might be too harsh to interpret the sociolinguistic phase as an objectivistic digression. If Gouldner's work is taken as a whole, it could, more fairly, be said that his Reflexive Sociology was, among other things, an attempt to overcome the limitations placed on social theory by its weddedness to the classical, subject-object dichotomy. Though, from one point of view, he remained within the terms of that debate, from another he employed his own dichotomizing method in an attempt to transcend it. If he was, himself, and for good reasons, on the side of critique, the subject, and voluntarism, this does not mean that he ignored the object world. Whether or not his solution prevails remains to be seen. But it is evident that a problem which today is debated widely among social theorists, was tackled by Gouldner a full generation before Foucault, Bourdieu, and Giddens took up this same question. Such was Gouldner's genius. He left a rich legacy precisely because he trusted his own individuating impulses, personal experiences, unique aptitudes and all of the fainter powers of apprehension, and thus could often see what needed to be seen, and say what needed to be said, long before the rest of us.     

Public relations and historical sociology: Historiography as reflexive critique

The essay focuses on thinking about thinking about PR history. The space between history and sociology encompasses theoretical and conceptual frames and can be drawn upon to consider PR in time, across times and between times. It reflects upon the purposes and practices of historical sociology and foregrounds themes relevant to public relations, its histories and methodological approaches. The paper, which is methodological at the strategic rather than the technical level, argues that public relations historians can usefully engage with theoretical issues and problems delineated in historical sociology and historical theory. Evolutionary, functionalist and typological approaches and the cultural logics of historical periodization are discussed and contextualized.     

The use of participant observation in evaluation research

In the last several years considerable interest has developed in the use of qualitative methods in evaluation research. Recent works indicate that the tradition of qualitative research has much that will be useful to evaluation researchers. This paper does not seek to cover the range of qualitative methods available to the evaluation researcher but rather is concerned with one methodology in that tradition, participant observation. The paper describes the methodology of participant observation for those who are interested in its characteristics and for those who would like to consider it for evaluation or other types of research. Examples are given of how it has been used and references to additional sources of information are included as well. The paper is organized into three sections: characteristics of participant observation, when it is appropriate to use it, and specific techniques of the method.     

Use of electronic media in a participant observation study

I wake up at 6:15 am, roll out of bed, and flip on my personal computer. Fieldwork is never more than a few steps away, thanks to my access to Zytek's electronic mail system. I dial into the network and spend the next 30 minutes sending out messages to set up meetings. I am planning another trip to Detroit in two weeks and send a message to the area sales manager I met last week in order to get permission to attend a two day event for a major customer. I send additional messages to set up an interview and get my name put on a distribution list, download new mail to my PC, and start printing it. After breakfast, I return to find 17 pages of mail — announcements and agendas for four meetings, a five page memo with the minutes from yesterday's pricing committee meeting, a five page memo requesting input from marketing groups for a software product, and a response from a marketing manager to my request to have lunch next Wednesday. I look through my mail for ten minutes and then head out the door. It's 7:35 am.     

Race,class, and educational opportunity: Trends in the sociology of education

This essay examines some of the trends in educational, sociological, and social psychological research on inequality of educational opportunity for African Americans in the United States. A review of theoretical approaches and methodological developments is followed by an overview of research and theory in selected substantive areas; social allocation processes in schools (ability grouping, tracking, etc.), the relationship of poverty to academic achievement, and educational attainment. The article concludes with recommendations for future research.     

Some thoughts on graduate education in sociology

Examining the question of graduate education in sociology raises issues about the way we perceive our discipline and its future. Multiple theoretical perspectives and applied vs. basic interests need not fractionate the discipline if we orient ourselves to those skills which comprise the essence of sociological work; and the idea of a disciplinary core will be more easily operationalized if we construct graduate curricula with these skills in mind. How we practice our discipline will be a far more significant determinant of both its future and the content of graduate training than our normative pronouncements about what ought to be. His recent publications, both with Les Whitbeck, include “Knowledge Use as Knowledge Creation” inKnowledge (1986), and “Sources of Knowledge for Practice” in theJournal of Applied Behavioral Science (forthcoming).     

School beyond stratification: Internal goods,alienation, and an expanded sociology of education

Theory and Society - Sociologists of education often emphasize goods that result from a practice (external goods) rather than goods intrinsic to a practice (internal goods). The authors draw from...     

Marxist sociology and humanist sociology: Diversity, intersections, and convergence

Marxist sociology is at the intersection of Marxism and sociology; while humanist sociology is at the intersection of humanist thought and sociology. Both see sociological theory as a living, evolving activity, and both take a critical stance toward the workings of capitalism. The main difference between them is that Marxist sociology is a body of thought tied to a movement, whereas humanist sociology is a movement tied to a body of thought. Professor of Sociology, Purdue University Calumet. He is past chair of the Section on Marxist Sociology, has been a member of the AHS for twenty years, and is co-author of Crisis and Change: Basic Questions of Marxist Sociology.     

Financial literacy education: An opportunity for colleges and sociology

Financial literacy represents the knowledge necessary to manage one's financial affairs in a way that contributes to overall wellbeing, yet financial literacy and financial education are understudied in sociology. While emerging adults have low rates of financial literacy overall, this article focuses on college students due to increasing college access and student loan debt. Based on the limited literature that assesses college financial literacy education, it appears that these types of programs may serve to advance college students' financial knowledge. Additional mechanisms that serve to develop college students' financial literacy include parent socialization, banking experience, and high school financial education programs. However, not everyone has the same access to these resources. Thus, given the magnitude of the US student debt crisis and persistent economic inequalities, college financial literacy education may prove beneficial for all students, particularly those from economically vulnerable backgrounds. This article serves as an invitation to sociologists to consider financial literacy education as both a worthwhile pursuit in application and as a research topic.     

The disengagement process: A neglected problem in participant observation research

Of the various phases or stages of participant observation, the disengagement process has typically been glossed over in methodological discussions of qualitative research. Drawing on the author's fieldwork experience and on the scattered references to disengagement in the ethnographic literature, this paper systematically outlines and examines the problems and issues associated with this neglected phase of the fieldwork process. Three interrelated questions or issues structure the inquiry. The first deals with the problem of informational sufficiency and its relation to closure; the second with the various precipitants of disengagement; and the third with the factors that can function as barriers or impediments to disengagement.For their critical and helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper, I wish to thank Gideon Sjoberg, Sheldon Olson, and Ben Blount.     

The place of sociology in a drug education curriculum

This article gives consideration to the part a sociological perspective can play in a drug education curriculum. Sociology's study of human behavior from the context of various social groupings is considered appropriate to any understanding of drugs and drug use, as are a number of substantive areas common to the discipline. The sociological perspective is examined from the broad foci of structure and process, and with each focus examples of a sociological approach to drug use is offered. The common concerns of these approaches, as well as their points of divergence, are discussed. A sample outline of a course in "Drugs and Society" is also presented, suggesting the ways in which the sociological issues discussed could provide an orientation to the study of drug use in a social context.