Jeffries Vincent (Editor). Handbook Of Public Sociology

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

102 Chapter 5

Considering all things, we weigh various reasons and judge outcomes

against each other, including good versus good (being kind or telling the

truth), perhaps deciding that in some particular case, for example, it would

be better, all-things-considered, to be kind to a person rather than to tell

the person a hurtful truth.

A BETTER FUTURE IS POSSIBLE

In answering Michael Burawoy’s call for a public sociology—a sociology

that, while using the tools of social science, engages in dialogue with the

public about vital issues of the times with the aim of improving the public’s

well-being—I argue that two features of public sociology must be explored

more fully for its successful development.

The first deals with the passing of time and the inescapable futures

orientation involved in decision-making and social action. Always, the

consequences of present action occur in the future. Always, more or less

explicitly, public debate is about the future, whether it is the new-future of

some presently contemplated act or the then-future of some act of the past.

Always, the underlying question is, “What ought to be done (or have been

done) to maintain, construct, or avoid some particular future outcome?”

One problem is that most people don’t have reliable and valid methods

to create or evaluate beliefs about the future, including the future conse-

quences of their own and others’ actions. Thus, I propose some principles

of futures thinking, for making and testing statements about what might,

could, or will happen in the future, taking into account the contingencies

of human action, principles that public sociologists can use to describe a

fan of possible and contingently probable futures.

A second problem is knowing “What is preferable?” If public sociologists

are concerned with the “betterment of society,” then we must ask what is

better? And how do we know? I propose epistemic implication as a method

of objectively testing value judgments. Using it, public sociologists can

examine proposed images of the good society and objectively evaluate the

moral claims on which they are based.

Like any good social research, systematic study and testing of proposi-

tions about the future and about the good require hard work. But the pay-

off for public discussion of current problems and what to do about them

is great, because more rigorous, complex, and sound thinking is added to

public discourse, including the caution that anyone’s beliefs about the fu-

ture and the good—no matter what or who the source or how strongly the

beliefs are held—are to some extent uncertain, contingent, and corrigible.

I understand, of course, that politics can be dirty business and that many,

if not most, sociologists may want to remain out of public debate for fear of

Public Sociology and the Future 103

making themselves vulnerable to attack. Claiming to be value-free, garbing

oneself in the innocence of only reporting the facts, and demanding the

immunity of the academy appear to be safe strategies, especially in today’s

world where powerful interests show no restraint in assassinating the char-

acter of the bearers of unwelcome messages.

And yet there is an attraction—if not an obligation—to elevate public

discourse on the important issues of our time by bringing in more reason,

evidence, logic, complexity and nuance, civility, humility, and, as I have

stressed here, reliable and valid futures thinking and objective value judging.

Public sociologists have commitments to truth and goodness, and to fair-

ness and open-mindedness. Also, they must have moral courage.

Even in a world of special interests, corporate manipulations of the truth,

corruptions of power, governmental deceptions, and mass-media thought

control, perhaps—just perhaps, public sociologists could help ordinary

people become consciously active and effective participants in shaping their

own futures. Searching for alternative possibilities for the future, estimating

probable future outcomes of different actions, and evaluating the desirabil-

ity of the alternatives, people could imagine a better world that was truly

possible and design the actions that would create it. So doing, they might

build, not a sky-high “pile of debris” for the angel of history to see, but

rather a future world in which all people on Earth would coexist in peace,

would enjoy freedom and good health, and would live long, self-directed,

socially beneficial, loving, and satisfying lives.

REFERENCES

Adam, Barbara. 1990. Time and Social Theory. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

———. 1995. Timewatch: The Social Analysis of Time. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Baumeister, Roy F. 1991. Meanings of Life. New York: The Guilford Press.

———. 1997. Evil: Inside Human Cruelty and Violence. New York: W. H. Freeman and

Company.

Bell, Wendell. 1993. “Bringing the Good Back In: Values, Objectivity, and the Fu-

ture.” International Social Science Journal 137(August):333–347.

———. 2000. “New Futures and the Eternal Struggle between Good and Evil.” Journal

of Futures Studies 5:1–20.

———. 2003 [1997]. Foundations of Futures Studies. Volume 1, History, Purposes, and

Knowledge. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

———. 2004 [1997]. Foundations of Futures Studies. Volume 2, Values, Objectivity, and

the Good Society. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Bell, Wendell, and James A. Mau (eds.). 1971. The Sociology of the Future. New York:

Russell Sage Foundation.

Boulding, Kenneth E. 1985. Human Betterment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Burawoy, Michael. 2005. “For Public Sociology.” American Sociological Review

70:4–28.

104 Chapter 5

Campbell, Donald T. 1965. “Variation and Selective Retention in Socio-Cultural

Evolution.” Pp. 19–49 in Social Change in Developing Areas, edited by H. R. Bar-

ringer, G. I. Blanksten, and R. W. Mack. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.

Charnov, Bruce H. 1987. “The Academician as Good Citizen.” Pp. 3–20 in Ethical

Dilemmas for Academic Professionals, edited by S. L. Payne and B. H. Charnov.

Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Clausen, John H. 1986. “Early Adult Choices and the Life Course.” Zeifschrift für

Sozialisationsforschuung und Erziehungssoziologie 6:313–320.

Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions. 1993. Towards a Global Ethic.

Chicago: Parliament of the World’s Religions.

Edgerton, Robert B. 1992. Sick Societies: Challenging the Myth of Primitive Harmony.

New York: The Free Press.

Gordon, Theodore, and Olaf Helmer. 1964. Report on a Long-Range Forecasting Study.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND paper P-2982.

Goveia, Elsa V. 1956. A Study on the Historiography of the British West Indies to the

End of the Nineteenth Century. Mexico: Instituto Panamericano de Geografia e

Historia.

Harman, Gilbert. 1977. The Nature of Morality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jeffries, Vincent. 2005. “Pitirim A. Sorokin’s Integralism and Public Sociology.” The

American Sociologist 36(3):66–87.

———. 2006. “The Eleven Theses of Integralism.” Pp. 43–57 in Integralism, Altruism

and Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of Pitirim A. Sorokin, edited by Elvira del Pozo

Aviñó. València, Spain: Universitat de València.

Kant, Immanuel. 1958. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, translated by H. J.

Paton. New York: Harper & Row.

Land, Kenneth C., and Stephen H. Schneider (eds.). 1987. Forecasting in the Social

and Natural Sciences. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.

Lasswell, Harold D. 1971. A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. New York: Elsevier.

———. 1977 [1975]. “The Scope of the Conference: Postconference Objectives.”

Pp. 41–57 in World Priorities, edited by B. Pregel, H. D. Lasswell, and J. McHale.

New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Lee, Keekok. 1985. A New Basis for Moral Philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan

Paul.

MacIntyre, Alisdair. 1984. After Virtue. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame

Press.

Meadows, D. H., D. L. Meadows, J. Randers, and W. W. Behrens III. 1972. The Limits

to Growth. New York: Universe.

Perkins, H. Wesley (ed.). 2003. The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and

College Age Substance Abuse. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pieper, Josef. 1966. The Four Cardinal Virtues: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance,

translated by R. Winston, C. Winston et al. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre

Dame Press.

Raz, J. 1977. “Promises and Obligations.” Pp. 210–228 in Law, Morality, and Society,

edited by P. M. S. Hacker and J. Raz. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Rossi, Peter. 1987. “Unemployment Insurance Payments and Recidivism among

Released Prisoners.” Pp. 107–124 in Effective Social Science, edited by B. Barber.

New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Public Sociology and the Future 105

Slaughter, Richard A. 2004. Futures beyond Dystopia: Creating Social Foresight. London

and New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Sprigge, T. L. S. 1988. The Rational Foundations of Ethics. London and New York:

Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Sullivan, Michael J., III. 1991. Measuring Global Values. New York: Greenwood

Press.

Sumner, L. W. 1987. The Moral Foundation of Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Textor, R. B., M. L. B. Ladavalya, and S. Prabudhanitisarn. 1984. Alternative Sociocul-

tural Futures for Thailand. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Chiang Mai University.

Tong, Rosemarie. 1986. Ethics in Policy Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

Whyte, William Foote. 1991. Social Theory for Action. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

107

The discipline of sociology is an interdependent system. Each part makes a

unique contribution to the productivity and creativity of the whole. This is

the fundamental principle of Michael Burawoy’s (2005) ideal type model.

Four forms of sociological practice are identified: professional, the research

and theoretical traditions and their yield of knowledge and understanding;

critical, the search for a moral vision for the profession and for society;

policy, the formulation of means to realize a given end; public, the recipro-

cal communication between sociology and a variety of publics. Each form

of practice can reach greater validity, creativity, and excellence through the

mechanism of their reciprocal interdependence.

The sociological thought of Pitirim A. Sorokin is the ideal exemplar

for illustrating the validity and analytical power of Burawoy’s four-form

model of interdependence. The scope of his writings is diverse, compre-

hensive, and innovative. In his approximately sixty years of scholarly

work, he produced thirty-seven books and over four hundred articles

(Johnston 1998:1). Sorokin’s works span the four forms of sociology. He

was a pioneer in initiating a number of areas of theoretical development

and research. He explored the nature of the good extensively and devoted

considerable attention to discerning and enumerating effective policies to

reach it, both within sociology and in the general society. He wrote works

for an academic audience, and also for the general public (Johnston 1995,

1998; Nichols 1999).

Sorokin may be considered the premier exemplar of the public sociologist

in the systemic meaning of this idea. Many of his works are predominately

one form of practice, others embody more than one form. This chapter

107

The Scientific System of Public

Sociology: The Exemplar of

Pitirim A. Sorokin’s Social Thought

Vincent Jeffries

108 Chapter 6

organizes ideas from his various works to render accurately his system of

sociology within Burawoy’s four forms model.

THE PROFESSIONAL FOUNDATION

Professional sociology is the necessary condition for the other three forms.

The research programs and theoretical traditions that are its core provide

the knowledge and understanding that give sociology its identity and na-

ture as an academic discipline, and its legitimacy as a science (Burawoy

2005).

Sorokin’s professional sociology is original, diverse, and comprehensive.

It rests on a clearly articulated frame of reference and conceptual frame-

work, spans a variety of areas, and incorporates extensive empirical data.

It also advocates an ontology and epistemology unique to contemporary

sociology.

The Frame of Reference

The most basic sociological phenomenon is interaction, in which the

mental state and behavior of two or more participating individuals is influ-

enced to some degree. There are three basic components of interaction: the

individuals who are interacting; meanings, values, and norms; and behavior

and materials that serve as vehicles or conductors in objectifying this ideo-

logical culture (Sorokin 1947:40–42). From a different perspective, there

are three inseparable components of the reality that is the subject matter

of sociology: society, the totality of interacting individuals and their social

relationships; culture, the meanings, values, and norms and the vehicles

through which they are objectified; and personality, the thinking and acting

individuals. To adequately understand any one of these components, the

other two must also be considered (Sorokin 1947:63–64; 1966:635–649).

Within this frame of reference, general sociology is divided into structural

and dynamic perspectives. The former focuses on the components and

interrelationships of sociocultural phenomena, the latter on processes and

change. Special sociologies employ the same concepts and organization to

study particular sociocultural phenomena, such as war or the family (So-

rokin 1947:16–17).

Sociological Knowledge and Understanding

Sorokin’s analysis of social structure includes consideration of the forms

of interaction, the factors of solidarity and antagonism, types of social re-

lationships, the characteristics of organized groups, social differentiation

108 Chapter 6

The Scientific System of Public Sociology 109

and stratification (1937c, 1947), and the nature of social space and time

(1964b). Social dynamics includes an analysis of how groups originate and

maintain their existence (1947), changes in social relationships (1937c,

1947), the nature and factors of social mobility (1959), the sociology

of crises (1942), the varieties and uniformities of revolutionary change

(1925, 1937c), and the causes of war and the prospects for peace (1937c,

1998b[1944]). The analyses of internal disturbances and of war include a

comprehensive quantitative survey of their magnitude and incidence from

500 BC to AD 1925 (1937c).

The structure of culture is described in terms of the nature of cultural

integration and its manifestation in both causal/functional and logico-

meaningful interdependence. There are three main types of integrated

culture: ideational, idealistic, and sensate (1937a, 1937b, 1941a, 1957a).

In an ideational culture the nature of reality and the predominant values

are viewed as primarily supernatural and spiritual, and are related to some

idea of God or the Ultimate Reality. A sensate culture is the opposite, the

nature of reality and value being regarded as primarily physical and mate-

rial. An idealistic culture combines these contrasting conceptions into a

harmonious system, with the ideational perspective being foundational.

These ideal types of culture are examined in relation to various compart-

ments of culture such as truth and knowledge, scientific inventions and dis-

coveries, philosophical first principles, the fine arts, ethics, and the juridical

mentality. In support of these cultural types, extensive quantitative data is

presented in tables and figures, generally spanning a period from about 600

BC to about AD 1925.

The analysis of cultural dynamics includes topics such as the concep-

tion, objectification, and socialization of cultural systems, the growth and

decline of cultural systems in the previously identified compartments of

culture, and the analysis of fluctuations in the three main types of inte-

grated culture. Changes from ideational to idealistic to sensate culture are

explained by immanent change, due primarily to the unfolding of internal

potentialities, and the principle of limits, that the number of basic socio-

cultural forms is limited (Sorokin 1941a).

The assumption that culture, society, and personality are interdependent

systems provides the context for considering the structure and dynamics of

personality. Thus the sociocultural inevitably exerts profound influences

upon personality. On the other hand, individual personalities inevitably

influence the sociocultural (1947:342). Individuals are not passive and

each person is an active agent through selectivity, combination, and creativ-

ity (1947:356).

The structure of personality is described as involving four basic compo-

nents: biological egos of two types, conscious and unconscious; social egos;

and the supraconscious. Biological egos include basic needs and drives

110 Chapter 6

while social egos are the reflection within the individual of the culture of

the groups to which he or she belongs. The fourth component of personal-

ity, the supraconscious, is the source of creativity and of spirituality. It op-

erates through intuition that transcends sense perception and reason. The

supraconscious is involved in the individual’s relation to God, and the for-

mulation of basic ideas of goodness and beauty (Sorokin 1947:342–364;

1954a:83–114, 480–488). Altruistic love is a particularly important po-

tential of personality because love can transform both individuals and the

sociocultural universe (Sorokin 1950a, 1950b, 1954a:3–79, 480–488).

Personality dynamics are inevitable due to the life cycle movement of

childhood, adolescence, maturity, and old age and changes in group and

cultural contacts over the life course (Sorokin 1947:714–723). Altruistic

transformation is a form of personality dynamics in which individuals

increase their practice of altruistic love. Considerable data are presented

on self-directed personal change and on the influence of groups on change

toward greater altruism (Sorokin 1954a:287–455, 1954b).

In addition to these empirical studies and theoretical formulations,

Sorokin’s professional sociology also includes the analysis and classifica-

tion of sociological theories. In three major works he presented the ideas

of other theorists, arranged them in typologies of schools of thought, and

critiqued them (Sorokin 1928, 1950c, 1966).

The Integral Ontology and Epistemology

Integralism is the foundation of various aspects of Sorokin’s system of

thought (Ford 1963; Jeffries 2005; Johnston 1995, 1998; Nichols 1999).

Sorokin believed that the development of an integral perspective and tradi-

tion was necessary for sociology to realize greater understanding and more

important contributions to society (Sorokin 1957b, 1941a:746–769, 1961,

1963a:372–408, 1964a:226–237).

The essential nature of integralism and its occurance in history is de-

scribed in Sorokin’s analysis of systems of truth and knowledge. This

compartment of culture includes religious, philosophical, and scientific

thought and focuses on the basic questions of ontology and epistemology:

the nature of reality and how it can be known and understood (Sorokin

1937b:1–180, 1957a:225–283). Three systems of truth are identified in

accordance with the foundational premises of the three cultural types: ide-

ational truth is the truth of faith, sensate truth is empiricism, and idealistic

truth is the truth of reason. Idealistic truth combines faith and empiricism

into a harmonious system of idealistic rationalism. Quantitative analysis of

systems of truth in the Graeco-Roman and Western cultures from 580 BC to

AD 1920 indicates that, despite fluctuations in dominance, the overall in-

The Scientific System of Public Sociology 111

cidence and importance of these three systems of truth was approximately

equal over this time (Sorokin 1937b:54–55).

Idealistic culture was predominant in Greece during the fourth and fifth

centuries BC and in Western culture during the thirteenth and fourteenth

centuries AD. The idealistic rationalism characteristic of the systems of truth

of these two historical cultures is illustrated by the writings of Plato and

Aristotle in Classical Greece, and Thomas Aquinas in the later Middle Ages

(Sorokin 1937b:61–123). The empirical data and analyses of these idealis-

tic cultures provides the basis for Sorokin’s formulation of the nature of an

integral system of truth, and his vision of an integral culture of the future.

In later writings, Sorokin (1961:95–96, 1963b:481; Ford 1963:53) referred

to idealistic culture and its system of truth as integral, and in this sense the

terms and descriptions of historical cultures are interchangeable.

The foundational characteristic of integralism is the idea that reality,

and the human needs and ends that it entails, consists of empirical-

sensory, rational-mindful, and supersensory-superrational aspects (So-

rokin 1941a:741–746, 1956a, 1957b, 1964a:226–237, 1998b[1944]:283–

286). Since this is the nature of the true reality, an integral system of

truth includes empirical, rational, and supersensory sources of truth and

methods of cognition. Thus the senses, reason, and faith are combined

into a harmonious system of truth, as in the historic systems of idealistic

rationalism. The truth of faith is eclectic, consisting of both intuition and

religious ideas of revelation.

Each of these sources of cognition is fallible. Integralism combines

these three ways of seeking truth into one harmonious system of ontology

and epistemology. This holistic approach gives the possibility of mutual

supplementation and checking of knowledge and understanding across the

channels of cognition, increased validity, and a more comprehensive per-

spective in the system of truth (Sorokin 1941a:741–764, 1963a:372–408,

1998b[1944]:284).

CRITICAL SOCIOLOGY

Critical sociology interrogates the adequacy and purposes of disciplinary

practice. The nature of the moral foundations and value commitments in-

volved in the practice of sociology are examined and evaluated, as are the

morals, values, and social characteristics of society. Such questions provide

perspectives for assessing topics that are the focus of practice within profes-

sional sociology, and their relation to problems and issues in society. The

legitimacy of critical sociology derives from the moral vision it provides as

the conscience of sociology (Burawoy 2005).