Forgetting the founders*

The inability, or unwillingness, of 20^th‐century sociologists to move beyond the agenda bequeathed by Marx, Weber, and Durkheim is remarkable in view not only of the now outdated presuppositions shared by all three but of the increasing likelihood that the more important influence on the human behavioural sciences in the 21^st century will turn out to be Darwin's. Not only has the coming together of evolutionary theory, population genetics, and molecular biology shown that significantly more of human behaviour can be explained by the theory of natural selection than was previously recognized, but non‐reductionist explanations of cultural and social evolution from within a neo‐Darwinian paradigm can be framed in terms no longer vulnerable to the criticisms previously levelled against the application to sociology of Darwin's original insight about ‘descent with modification’.     

The sociology of intellectuals in the 20th and 21st century

Sociologists have treated intellectuals and their ideas for a long time as mere products of external social structures. Recently, however, researchers shifted their focus to cultural explanations, appreciating more fully the role cultural structures play in shaping their biographical trajectories and success. At the same time, I argue that these theories do not fully integrate the insight of performance theories and focus usually on textual self‐presentation of intellectuals. Although such an approach is valuable, I propose that sociologists should pay attention also to the processes of meaning‐making that make up intellectual appeal on stage. In the second part of the paper, I argue that the sociology of intellectuals has been for too long obsessed with questions of success and prestige, and I propose that sociologists should shift their attention to the underappreciated and marginalised among intellectuals.     

Social Theory Across Disciplinary Boundaries: Cultural Studies and Sociology

This essay proposes that sociology can learn from social theory developed in the humanities. In the face of recent challenges to sociological explanations of social outcomes (from rational choice and economic theory, cognitive psychological theories of intelligence, and communitarian social philosophy), social theory should specify the constitutive force of social signification. After identifying a key weakness in theoretical approaches currently available in sociology, the inadequacy of various conceptions of the social, I analyze three significant new works in cultural studies in order to sketch out alternative ways of defining and measuring the force of social signification. The essay concludes with an attempt to establish the basis of a dialogue between cultural studies and sociology.     

Sociology and the Second Darwinian Revolution: A Metatheoretical Analysis

Sociologists tend to eschew biological explanations of human social behavior. Accordingly, when evolutionary biologists began to apply neo‐Darwinian theory to the study of human social behavior, the reactions of sociologists typically ranged from indifference to overt hostility. Since the mid‐1960s, however, neo‐Darwinian evolutionary theory has stimulated a "second Darwinian revolution" in traditional social scientific conceptions of human nature and social behavior, even while most sociologists remain largely uninformed about neo‐Darwinian theory and research. This article traces sociology's long‐standing isolation from the life sciences, especially evolutionary biology, to divergence in the metatheoretical assumptions that typify conventional sociological thought versus contemporary evolutionary biology. We conclude with a discussion of the recent emergence of a nascent "evolutionary sociology" that integrates sociobiological reasoning with contemporary sociological thought.     

History of and in Sociology

Epochal synthesis, retrospective ethnography, and critical comparison identify three distinct ways of thinking about history–sociology relations. Epochal synthesis has lost the favor it enjoyed 40 years ago, but is likely to revive with the rising prevalence of evolutionary explanations for social affairs. Retrospective ethnography requires an ability to reconstruct actors’ dispositions from the historical record, never an easy task. Critical comparison opens the way to specification of causal mechanisms and processes without reconstruction of dispositions. Retrospective ethnography and critical comparison will compete for historical sociologists’ attention for some time to come.     

From social evolutionism to biocultural evolutionism

A brief review of the evolutionism of Comte, Marx, Spencer, and Durkheim, representatives of the Masters, reveals an excessive concern with the integration of differentiation. This represents their most common feature, but neither it nor anything else adds up to a definite evolutionary theory. An antithetical convergence, with Comte excluded, refers to a varying utilization of the Darwinian mechanism, natural selection. It is not clear, however, that the masters fully grasped the meaning of natural selection, or indeed that this could be understood unequivocally. As a result they failed to convey unambiguously a fundamental interest in evolution to subsequent generations of social scientists. A period of estrangement from evolutionary theory ensued in which the focus seemed to shift from social evolution to social change. By the 1950s, sociology and anthropology experienced a revival of evolutionary interest largely in the form of a reiteration of old conceptions and problems. A critical glance at evolutionary biology reveals, next, an ambiguity in the concept of natural selection when understood as ultimate cause and mechanism of evolution. The basic significance of the evolutionistic alliance known as sociobiology lies in the latter's partial redressing of the ambiguity by way of the maximization principle. Equally important, indeed complementary, is the sociobiological appeal to the social sciences for help to discover the environmental parameters that impinge on the principle — and thus for a contribution to the development of a biocultural model. A few examples of biocultural theorizing follow that show varying degrees of systemic dependence between the biological and the cultural. The basic nomothetic thrust of the emerging biocultural model is to emphasize the adaptive paths along which cultural phenomena are likely to evolve.     

Economic man and selfish genes: the implications of group selection for economic valuation and policy

A basic tenet of socio-economics is that economic behavior is shaped by social bonds and cultural context. A relevant controversy in evolutionary biology is group selection and the related issue of altruistic behavior, that is, behavior neutral or detrimental to the individual but positive for the survival of the group. In this paper we examine the parallel controversies surrounding “economic man” and “selfish genes” with particular emphasis on the policy implications of group selection. We argue for the replacement of standard welfare economics with models of human behavior in the spirit of “consilience” between economic theory and the best available science from other relevant disciplines.     

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 Biodemography of Fertility: A Review and Future Research Frontiers

The social sciences have been reticent to integrate a biodemographic approach to the study of fertility choice and behaviour, resulting in theories and findings that are largely socially-deterministic. The aim of this paper is to first reflect on reasons for this lack of integration, provide a review of previous examinations, take stock of what we have learned until now and propose future research frontiers. We review the early foundations of proximate determinants followed by behavioural genetic (family and twin) studies that isolated the extent of genetic influence on fertility traits. We then discuss research that considers gene and environment interaction and the importance of cohort and country-specific estimates, followed by multivariate models that explore motivational precursors to fertility and education. The next section on molecular genetics reviews fertility-related candidate gene studies and their shortcomings and on-going work on genome wide association studies. Work in evolutionary anthropology and biology is then briefly examined, focusing on evidence for natural selection. Biological and genetic factors are relevant in explaining and predicting fertility traits, with socio-environmental factors and their interaction still key in understanding outcomes. Studying the interplay between genes and the environment, new data sources and integration of new methods will be central to understanding and predicting future fertility trends.     

Nature,culture, and sexual inequality: A look at causal logic

The nature‐culture issue in recent exemplary cross‐cultural works is examined from a causal modeling viewpoint. The causal models in most current explanations do not depart radically from those of the 1950s. The recent models mostly continue to emphasize the interaction of biological and sociocultural factors in producing sexual inequality. In all of the theories examined, economic production is singled out as important in the sociocultural realm. Some researchers sidestep the nature‐culture issue by dealing solely with variation, or by translating conceivably biological factors into social causes. Biosocial writers have produced the most novel causal model—one which incorporates the effect of culture on biology. These findings suggest that we need to pay attention to the causal networks of theories, rather than dichotomizing them into “biological” and “sociological” explanations.     

The Poverty of Deductivism: A Constructive Realist Model of Sociological Explanation

Despite the lip service which many sociologists pay to Popper's hypothetico‐deductive model (HDM) of theory testing, few if any major social theories have been definitively falsified. The reason is that sociological explanations do not fit the deductivist model of explanation: They do not contain universal or statistical "covering laws" from which falsifiable hypotheses could be deduced. Sociological explanations are better conceived in realist terms as causal models of the social processes that produce certain outcomes. While few models are completely false, some are nonetheless more empirically adequate than others. This essay argues that (1) the CLM is inadequate to sociology and that (2) attempts to reformulate the HDM are therefore destined to fail. It then outlines (3) a constructive realist model (CRM) of sociological explanation and uses it to develop (4) explanatory realist (ER) criteria for evaluating explanations. Deductivist and realist approaches to methodology are then compared through an examination of Skocpol's States and Social Revolutions .     

The Evolution of Sexual Pleasure

Abstract

Sexual pleasure is an innate component of human sexuality. Although disdained throughout history by religious groups and variably explained by theories, philosophers, and societies, sexual pleasure permeates human experience. Traditional evolutionists explain this preoccupation via the development of sexual mating strategies and the human desire to propagate one's genes; however, here I will argue that the saturation of sexual pleasure suggests that sexual activity is no longer pursued solely to ensure reproductive success. Rather, humans engage in sexual behavior to achieve sexual pleasure—a proposition supported by widespread non-procreative sex in mammals, divergent cultural norms, and humans' evolved capacity to experience heightened sexual pleasure. I will address the nature and evolution of sexual pleasure with a cross-cultural findings culled from ethology, anthropology, primatology, and evolutionary theories.     

For a postcolonial sociology

Postcolonial theory has enjoyed wide influence in the humanities but it has left sociology comparatively unscathed. Does this mean that postcolonial theory is not relevant to sociology? Focusing upon social theory and historical sociology in particular, this article considers if and how postcolonial theory in the humanities might be imported into North American sociology. It argues that postcolonial theory offers a substantial critique of sociology because it alerts us to sociology’s tendency to analytically bifurcate social relations. The article also suggests that a postcolonial sociology can overcome these problems by incorporating relational social theories to give new accounts of modernity. Rather than simply studying non-Western postcolonial societies or only examining colonialism, this approach insists upon the interactional constitution of social units, processes, and practices across space. To illustrate, the article draws upon relational theories (actor-network theory and field theory) to offer postcolonial accounts of two conventional research areas in historical sociology: the industrial revolution in England and the French Revolution.     

Max Weber and the Sociology of Music

The sociology of music has been an area largely left to European sociologists. In an effort to generate greater domestic interest in the field, an examination of Max Weber's methodology and an update to his study of music is proposed. Fewer occupations or cultural projects are more social than making music, and the domestic sociological community's absence from the debate is deplorable given the dominant position our country possesses regarding musical production. Weber's Sociology of Music, which combines urban theory, class/labor theory, rationalization theory, and even climatic changes, is an excellent place to begin a thorough discussion of the social components of music. Our present understanding of cultural theories, urban theories, and Habermas's Communicative Action Theory can be employed to improve on Weber's theory; toward a new approach for the study of the sociology of music.     

Social Evolution and Environmental Context: Explanative Pluralism and Potentiality

We identify four common, but we argue fallacious, reasons social scientists object to theories that rely on environmental conditions to explain variation in the evolution of societies. First, some sociologists exclude environmental forces as beyond the domain of sociology. Second, environmental theories are often pejoratively labeled “determinist,” and rejected on those grounds. Third, environmental theories are regularly dismissed as being functionalist. Fourth, environmental theories are frequently charged with being Eurocentric and serving to justify colonialism and social inequalities. We argue that although there are examples of theories that fail in these regards, there is no inherent reason that environmental theories are more prone to these limitations and problems than are more sociologically “pure” theories. We argue that sociology should strive to be more transdisciplinary and can benefit from consideration of environmental conditions.     

An Empirical Test of Crisis,Social Selection,and Role Explanations of the Relationship Between Marital Disruption and Psychological Distress: A Pooled Time‐Series Analysis of Four‐Wave Panel Data

Although a higher level of psychological distress has been found in many studies of divorced compared with married individuals, explanations for this difference remain elusive. Three basic theoretical explanations have been proposed. Social role theory maintains that the role of being divorced is inherently more stressful than that of being married; crisis theory attributes the higher stress to role transitions and transient stressors of the disruption process, and social selection theory claims that the higher stress levels among the divorced result from the selection of people with poor mental health into divorce. Some empirical support is available for each of these approaches, but all three have not been tested simultaneously in a longitudinal study. This research empirically evaluates the efficacy of these theories in a pooled time‐series analysis of a four‐wave panel of married persons followed over 12 years. The pooled‐time series random effects model was used to estimate the effects of social roles, crisis, and social selection. The results provide evidence that the higher stress levels of the divorced primarily reflect the effect of social role with selection and crisis effects making small contributions only.     

Social explanation and socialization: on Bourdieu and the structure, disposition, practice scheme

The standard narrative of the sociology of education accounts for the perpetuation of relative differentials in class access to education by a structure‐disposition‐practice scheme in which the central explanatory weight is carried by properties of socialized agents. The dominant scheme of this kind is now that inspired by Bourdieu. In this context, it is, therefore, appropriate to interrogate the competence of socialization in sociological explanations of social events and processes. The argument adopts a position of scientific and critical realism, and it is suggested that a realist sociology might find in Bourdieu's approach, notwithstanding specific theoretical and conceptual weaknesses, a framework strong enough to sustain the multilevel explanations of inequality/difference necessary in the sociology of education.