Jeffries Vincent (Editor). Handbook Of Public Sociology

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

12 Chapter 1

assemblages that can potentially give the powerless and national actors

greater influence on global processes and institutions are identified.

In chapter 23 Edward A. Tiryakian considers the importance of global

altruism, “a cognitive and normative orientation that gives primacy to

improving the conditions of the most unfortunate members of the global

community.” There are many of these: about two-fifths of the world’s

population lives in conditions of extreme poverty and powerlessness. This

problem can be “transformed by the voluntaristic actions of forms of altru-

ism.” These forms of global altruism involve agents at the micro, meso,

and macro levels. At the micro level three individuals are discussed, all

of whom are associated with a movement of altruism directed toward the

global community. At the meso level of international non-governmental

organizations, the activities of two organizations, focusing on human rights

and medical assistance, respectively, are considered. The macro level agents

are countries, and their contributions to aid for poorer countries are as-

sessed. From an existential perspective, public sociology can respond to the

need to increase awareness “that global altruism is not only the activity of

globalization but also that the ‘other’ is an integral part of the global com-

munity, that our being-in-the-world is contingent on the other’s well-being

in the world with us.”

Chapter 24, by Barbara Adam, examines the field of future studies. The

lack of a future perspective in sociological analysis has created a deficiency

of knowledge that “permeates the four modes of sociological inquiry in

different ways.” Auguste Comte and Karl Marx had an “explicitly activist,

future oriented approach to social analysis” but later theories lacked these

interests. In the 1960s a new futures approach developed. It included ideas

of influencing social processes, and visions of responsibility and of values

that defined preferable futures. It did not gain prominence, however. Thus

critical sociology has “the urgent task to scrutinize our disciplinary assump-

tions, approaches, and knowledge practices for their appropriateness to the

contemporary context in which futures are produced for millennia hence.”

A public sociology focused on future-making will identify opportunities

for social change, explore the connections of knowledge, action, and eth-

ics, and participate in dialogue regarding what is right and just. The four

form model allows public sociologists to engage these issues “in the secure

knowledge that others will guard the professional standard, serve the policy

field, and act as the conscience of the discipline.”

Part VI: Future Directions

In chapter 25 Michael Burawoy interprets the reactions to public sociol-

ogy. There have been diverse and often suprisingly hostile responses to “the

seemingly innocent proposal to take sociology’s findings, its ideas, its theo-

Redefining the Nature and Future of Sociology 13

ries beyond the academy, that is to carry on what is effectively its mission

of public education.” These different reactions to public sociology and the

four sociologies scheme are positional perspectives, not random in nature.

Rather, they reflect both location within the division of sociological labor

and position within a hierarchial disciplinary field. Although antagonistic

aspects of the relations between the four forms of sociology exist, they also

augment and benefit each other. The chapters in this volume show that the

four sociologies do indeed make contributions to each other that need to

be recognized. An additional bond of unity is evident in a shared commit-

ment to sociology. When this is manifested in the “common project” of

studying “problems of public concern,” it transcends differences between

forms of practice. In an era characterized by increasing dangers and op-

portunities, sociologists have a clear choice: “we can assert our presence in

society, joining the switch men and women of history, or possibly for the

last time, be condemned to irrelevance.”

SYNTHESIS AND INNOVATIVE PERSPECTIVES:

CHOICES TO BE CONSIDERED

The Holistic Four Sociologies Model

The previous summaries and the chapters themselves indicate a general

consensus regarding the importance of public sociology and the holistic

four sociologies model. To be sure, modifications to the model and prob-

lematics in the relationship among the forms of practice are also noted.

However, many examples are provided of Burawoy’s (2005a:15) descrip-

tion of a holistic model of public sociology in which each form of practice

ideally makes a particular contribution to the whole.

This foundational idea of the model is illustrated at the general theoreti-

cal level in the chapters by Nichols and Jeffries. Both use the thought of

Pitirim A. Sorokin to illustrate the positive interdependence entailed in the

four sociologies model. The systemic nature of the four forms of practice

in a dynamic model of process is evident in the case studies of organic

public sociology, by Leonard, Hu, Cornell, Oliver, Horowitz, McCarthy

and Hagan, and by Kleidman in his analysis of organic social movement

scholarship. These chapters provide numerous examples of how the four

sociologies interact to produce a greater excellence. The ability of the

model to describe and analyze a sociological field is illustrated in some

detail in the chapters by Kleidman, Howard-Hassmann, Oliner, Sassen,

and Adam. Finally, the chapters on teaching by DeCesare and Persell both

examine the interplay of the four forms of practice, the latter from a variety

of perspectives.

14 Chapter 1

Modifications to the model itself are proposed in the chapter by Morrow,

and to a lesser degree the chapter by Feagin, Elias, and Mueller. Possible

tensions between the forms of practice are considered by Persell in a context

of teaching and by Kleidman in studying social movements in the context

of organic public sociology. Factors impeding an effective relationship be-

tween professional and public sociology are aptly described by McCarthy

and Hagan.

However, the preponderent content of the information and analysis

in the chapters in this volume strongly supports the assertion that the

four sociologies model applied to practice shows numerous instances of

positive interdependence. Theory, research, and the scope of analysis are

enhanced by the application of the four forms model of the discipline to

a study topic. It is reasonable to maintain that the model is both justified

and elaborated.

Critical Sociology

Critical sociology has traditionally been associated with the identifica-

tion of the problematic, negative, or pathological. Within this focus a

frequent topic has been the means of ameliorating these conditions (Ritzer

2008:144–148). This perspective can be contrasted with one that would

also provide a constructive vision of preferable alternatives (Abbott 2006).

In this regard, Abbott (2007:207) notes: “The deepest moral obligation of

the sociological imagination is not critique, but vision.”

The chapters in this volume provide a basis for combining these two per-

spectives into a more comprehensive formulation of the nature of critical

sociology. The basis for a critical perspective involving this dual emphasis

within the four form model is evident in Burawoy’s (2005a:10,16) descrip-

tion of critical sociology as the “conscience” of sociology on the one hand,

and a source of “moral vision” on the other. It is also expressed in Abbott’s

(2007:203) call to understand both “immoral and evil things that are

nonetheless products of the social process” so that they can be “eradicated,”

and also to imagine what a “truly humane” social process or society would

“look like” (Abbott 2007:207). Such a comprehensive critical sociology

that would encompass both the negative and the positive would be enlight-

ening and energizing to the other forms of practice.

An example of this positive orientation is illustrated by efforts to develop

“real utopias” as a focus of theory and research. For example, alternative

states such as equality, democracy, communities of caring, freedom, and

individual self-realization can become the basis of scientific research pro-

grams (Burawoy and Wright 2001:477–484; Burawoy 2005b:320–322).

Basic theoretical and empirical questions include the origins of such al-

ternative states, the conditions of their existence and reproduction, and

Redefining the Nature and Future of Sociology 15

their internal and external contradictions and long-term course of change

(Burawoy 2005b:322).

Central to this formulation of the nature of critical sociology is a moral

vision of the good. It transcends any particular theoretical orientation, such

as Marxism. Rather, like the four sociologies model, it can be integrated

with all theoretical approaches and methodological practices. It also pro-

vides the possibility of transcending left-right and political distinctions, as

advocated by Abbott (2007). In the broadest sense, this critical sociology of

the good proposes a state considered preferable to that which exists.

The good in this sense means something that has the desired or right

qualities. It represents the greater perfection or excellence of a given phe-

nomenon. Given the nature of the subject matter of sociology, this vision

of the good is necessarily located at single or multiple points within the

domain of culture, society, and personality. For example, in advocating a

positive critical social theory that is directed toward the realization of social

and economic justice Collins (1998:xiv–xv) locates justice in the relation-

ship between groups.

Several examples of a critical sociology with this focus are in chapters in

this volume. Such visions of the good are most comprehensively integrated

into a system of sociology that articulates the four forms model in the

writings of Sorokin, as described in the chapters by Nichols and Jeffries. In

Sorokin’s system individual altruism, a universalistic social solidarity, and

an integral culture that emphasizes norms and values of mutual aid and

cooperation provides a positive critical perspective. It is an alternative to the

contemporary era dominated by a problematic sensate culture, the misuse

of power, and intergroup antagonisms. Feagin, Elias, and Mueller advocate

a moral vision of democracy, pluralism, equal access to resources, and so-

cial justice as an alternative to the prevailing system of social relations.

The chapter by Bell emphasizes the existence of universal values as a basis

for a sociology of the good. Examples include the United Nations Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and the Global Ethic formulated by the Par-

liament of World’s Religions. Bell also draws examples of universal values

from social science research, including the World Order Models Project that

uses more than 100 indicators to measure the five preferred values of peace,

economic well-being, ecological balance, social justice, and political partici-

pation. In the chapter on human rights Howard-Hassmann notes that the

international law of human rights provides a comprehensive enumeration

of economic, social, and cultural rights that can be used as a critical stan-

dard for sociological analysis.

In his chapter Glenn provides an analytical structure for the incorporation

of such value premises in the practice of professional sociology. These ulti-

mate values are based on religion, humanistic traditions, or philosophy. Em-

pirically, their validity cannot be assessed. They represent the value judgments

16 Chapter 1

of the individual sociologist. Scientific procedures can, however, be used to

assess the merits of various means to reach these ultimate values. Sociologists

are frequently involved in the empirical analysis of various sociocultural fac-

tors for this purpose.

Developing a focus on the good and explicitly and deliberately incorpo-

rating it within the practice of science can be observed in recent develop-

ments in psychology. After World War II psychology became a discipline

focused on a disease model in which emphasis was placed on pathology

and its amelioration. In the late 1990s the positive psychology movement,

dedicated instead to studying human excellence and strengths, began to

take form and develop (Seligman 2005). In a foundational work Peterson

and Seligman (2004) systematically surveyed the ideas of moral philoso-

phers and thinkers representing all of the major world religions throughout

history to determine their views regarding the nature of human goodness.

They conclude there are six broad categories of virtue that can be regarded

as universal notions of human excellence and goodness on the level of per-

sonality: wisdom and knowledge, courage, humanity, justice, temperance

and transcendence.

To study the good there must be some idea of what it is. Critical sociol-

ogy performs this function through the medium of reflexive discourse and

knowledge (Burawoy 2005a:10–11). The full development of this form of

practice entails a continuing debate within the discipline regarding ontol-

ogy and epistemology, basic assumptions, value judgments, and the nature

of both the problematic and of the good.

This debate has direct bearing on the content and direction of profes-

sional sociology. The selection of topics for theoretical development and

research programs is a crucial one for the accumulation of knowledge and

understanding. It is also crucial for maximizing the contribution of soci-

ology to the general welfare. This decision can be made on the basis of

scientific importance, so that what is studied involves fundamental ques-

tions about basic sociocultural structures and processes. This decision can

also be made in accordance with some conception of the good that relates

to the betterment of the sociocultural. Ideally, these two criteria are both

present in basic decisions regarding the practice of sociology. The discern-

ing application of both criteria are the best guarantee of the “recapturing”

of the sociological imagination called for by Furedi, and the “eye-opening”

studies advocated by Gans, in their respective chapters.

It is crucial to the progress of the discipline to revitalize and redirect

critical sociology in this manner. A comprehensive critical perspective that

transcends particular theoretical or research traditions but that can inform

the application of all is needed. If such a universalized critical perspective

is integrated into disciplinary practice it could significantly affect what is

studied, how results are presented, and what conclusions are emphasized.

Redefining the Nature and Future of Sociology 17

Basic theoretical contribution, topical importance, and potential benefit to

society would become the prime criteria for publication in major profes-

sional journals, thereby moving the profession toward greater creativity and

influence.

Critical sociology can thus play a vital role in influencing the content of

professional, policy, and public sociology (Burawoy 2005b:317, 322). An

extensively debated conception of multiple goods can concentrate and co-

ordinate the practice of professional and policy sociologies. This then facili-

tates providing the foundation of relevance called for by public sociology.

New Fields and Perspectives

The volume gives prominence to several perspectives and fields of in-

vestigation that are either relatively new or are generally neglected in the

sociology of today. All of these perspectives can be viewed as implicated in

some manner with a critical sociology that seeks to define the preferable

and the good. In this sense these perspectives are components of a sociol-

ogy that complements the study of the negative and the problematic with

a systematic analysis of a greater goodness and the means to achieve it in

the future.

Despite many positive and unique features of Sorokin’s thought, his ideas

are generally not considered by contemporary sociology (Ritzer 2008:70).

At the level of general theory Sorokin’s integral system of sociology engages

directly with the nature of the good. In this context a basic feature of So-

rokin’s integralism is an ontology and epistemology that incorporates ideas

from the major world religions within the practice of sociology. Diverse

systems of thought such as Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism,

Islam, and Christianity are all identified by Sorokin as integral in nature.

Their distinguishing feature is the incorporation of ideas regarding the spiri-

tual and transcendental in a system of thought that also gives full account

to empirical and rational criteria (Sorokin 1937a:18–150, 1937b:3–180,

1963:372–382, 1964:69–77, 1998 [1943]). Because of this comprehensive

nature, integralism has a potentially wide appeal (Nichols 2006).

An attempt to extend the boundaries of the behavioral sciences in a com-

parable manner was made by Parsons. In a major work in metatheory, he

develops the concept of the telic system to refer to that part of the human

condition that pertains to the transcendent and to ultimate meanings (Tirya-

kian 2005). The telic system is described as a residual and non-empirical cat-

egory that is relevent to human action orientation (Parsons 1978:352–433).

Building on Weber, Parsons notes that the fundamental meanings in the

telic or “transempirical” system derive from religious orientations.

Practically speaking with respect to the four sociologies model, Sorokin’s

integralism suggests the possibility of incorporating such orientations from

18 Chapter 1

religious traditions within the frame of reference of sociology. For example,

ideas such as justice, love, and the Golden Rule can be used in critical so-

ciology as value premises, and in professional sociology as concepts and

variables. Collins (1998:243–251) notes the combination of spirituality

and ideas such as these has great potential to enable social theory to “en-

gage deep feelings” in the realization of what is considered right. This can

impact both motivation in the practice of sociology and relevance in the

dialogue of public sociology.

A recently emerging synthesis in the study of social movements is de-

scribed and analyzed in the chapter by Kleidman. Engaged social movement

scholarship represents the merging of previous work by activists working

with social movements and traditional scholarship. It presents a model of

organic public sociology in the ongoing process of movement activism.

This model can be applied in fields such as human rights and intergroup

forgiveness, as described in the chapters by Howard-Hassmann and Oliner,

respectively. The model is also relevant to the efforts to move the process of

globalization toward environmentalism and social justice that are analyzed

in the chapter by Sassen. It likewise has application in the agency involved

in manifesting the global altruism described by Tiryakian.

The study of human rights is now beginning to develop as a field within

sociology. Consensual human rights are directly relevant to the creation of

alternative conditions that more fully realize values that can be considered

universal. The existing formal normative framework described in the chap-

ter by Howard-Hassmann provides the content of a positive critical sociol-

ogy of human rights. This in turn provides a promising theoretical and

research agenda for both professional and policy sociologies, and relevance

for public sociology.

The systematic study of altruistic love has been given little attention in

sociology, despite areas of investigation that are clearly sociological (Jeffries,

Johnston, Nichols, Oliner, Tiryakian, and Weinstein 2006). Several selections

in this volume give prominence to this field of study. The chapters by Nichols

and Jeffries place the study of altruism in the broader context of Sorokin’s

system of thought and in so doing link it with social solidarity and his vision

of a different society and culture. In his chapter Tiryakian examines altruism

and agency in its behalf on the micro, meso, and macro levels.

Altruism is also an important factor in forgiveness, a topic considerably

researched in psychology, but rarely studied in sociology. The chapter by

Oliner presents a distinctly sociological perspective on the study of inter-

group forgiveness and reconciliation that ranges the micro-macro contin-

uum from the dyad to nations. The chapter invites sociologists to develop

a theoretical and research agenda to better understand how long-standing

animosities between groups can be put aside to permit solidary relations

to develop.

Redefining the Nature and Future of Sociology 19

The more comprehensive incorporation of a future perspective in so-

ciological theory and research is suggested in the chapters by Bell and by

Adam. Future studies are directly relevant to the visionary aspect of critical

sociology. When a potential state of goodness is defined by the critical per-

spective, it becomes a possibility to be considered for the future. As noted

by both Bell and by Adam in this volume, public dialogues about future

possibilities also involve considerations of the good and the most effective

options and policies to realize it. From a futures perspective such dialogues

also involve ideas of individual agency, choice, ethics, and a vision of the

good society. Sociologists can contribute to this public debate by provid-

ing valid knowledge and understanding of what futures are possible, what

futures are probable under a variety of specified conditions, what futures

are preferable, and how they can be created.

In summary, the perspectives and fields considered in this analysis have

the common theme of exploring and developing the study of some com-

ponent of the good. In this sense they move sociology from the study of

pathology to the study of alternative and more positive conditions. In this

way they all contribute to a sociology that is visionary but that is also firmly

grounded in actual social life, whether of the past or of the possible future.

Disciplinary Changes

Establishing the four sociologies model in the ongoing practice of sociol-

ogy requires disciplinary changes of a varied nature. One area where this is

the case is graduate education.

The interdependence of the four sociologies and their positive effects on

theory, research, and teaching indicated in the chapters in this volume suggest

courses in all four forms would be beneficial. Unlike the other forms, courses

in theory and methods are generally required in graduate departments. In her

chapter on university teaching Persell suggests collecting teaching materials

for courses in critical, policy, and public sociology and having them published

by the Teaching Resources Center of the American Sociological Association as

a first step in considering curricular changes. The full implementation of the

model in high school sociology courses suggested by DeCesare would ideally

require some course work or training in each of the forms of practice.

Several changes in graduate education are mentioned in the Gans chap-

ter. The most general is the development of partial tracks for professional

and public sociology. The emphasis in public sociology would be on topic-

driven research, qualitative methods, writing for the public, and workshops

in the sociology of American society. In their chapter on writing public

sociology Mayrl and Westbrook also suggest that graduate education in so-

ciology needs to begin to devote appropriate attention to writing, including

how to communicate with diverse audiences.

20 Chapter 1

Disciplinary changes are also recommended by Gans. Chief among these

include greater acceptance within the profession of public sociology and

more equal access to various rewards such as publication opportunities,

academic advancement, and funding for topic-driven studies.

CONCLUSION

The model of holistic sociology redefines the nature of the discipline in

terms of categories of practice (Burawoy 2005a:11). This model provides a

new perspective that has the potential to energize and unify the discipline.

Organizing disciplinary practice around the realization of the four forms

model maximizes the scientific and social potential of sociological knowl-

edge and understanding. It represents a call to seek the perfection of each

form of practice, recognizing that this can be realized for each form only

through taking account of the central orientations of the other three. This

systemic interdependence insulates against the pathologies of the forms

that can occur when they are detached from each other: self-referentiality,

servility, dogmatism, and faddishness (Burawoy 2005a:16–17).

The four sociologies model places the choices individuals make in so-

ciological projects in a disciplinary matrix. Wallerstein (2007) cogently

observes that the scientist/scholar inevitably takes a position on three func-

tions regarding his or her work and its relation to the public realm. First is

the intellectual function of presenting the most valid explanation. Second is

the moral function of evaluating the moral implications of the work. Third

is the political function of assessing the most effective means to realize the

good contained in the moral implications. Each function is inherently em-

bedded in practice, so whether on an explicit or implicit level, these choices

cannot be avoided.

These individual choices have clear parallels with different modes of

sociological practice. The inevitability of these choices directs attention to

the importance of the model as the sociocultural context of their potential

expression. When these individual choices are placed within the context

of the four sociologies it can affect practice in two ways. First, the model

heightens awareness of how individual decisions made in the process of

practice should be modified or redirected by the central concerns of other

modes of practice. For example, critical sociology raises the question of

whether a given study is really worth undertaking in terms of its potential

contribution to understanding and the advance of the good. Or again,

policy sociology asks how theory and research could be modified or shaped

to give the possibility of a consideration of means. Second, the four form

model also allows individual sociologists to specialize in the form or forms

of practice most suited to their inclinations and talents with the possibility

Redefining the Nature and Future of Sociology 21

that others may be complementing their work within the holistic model. If

the model has been given due consideration in formulating a project, then

it should be suited for others to elaborate its contributions to other forms.

The four forms model is a call for solidarity among sociologists (Burawoy

2005a:15). It calls upon all to see the discipline of sociology as a holistic

system and to place its perfection and contributions to society ahead of

more circumscribed concerns. In sociology, necessary differences of view-

point and practice too often become divisions that separate and isolate

practitioners from each other and close potential avenues of enlighten-

ment. Particularly pertinent concerns at this time are differences regard-

ing the preeminence of professional sociology on the one hand, or of a

sociology oriented primarily to political action on the other. In both cases,

a particular form of practice is identified by some as the essence of the so-

ciological project, with other forms being given little or no legitimacy. This

denial of legitimacy and rejection of alternative viewpoints impedes the

advancement of the science of sociology in all its aspects.

The holistic sociology model calls for a more inclusive and compre-

hensive view. The maximun potential of each form and of the discipline

itself depends on the vitality and creativity of each of the others. The full

implementation of the model in disciplinary practice thus requires a “com-

mon ethos that recognizes the validity of all four types of sociology—a

commitment based on the urgency of the problems we study” (Burawoy

2005a:17).

The first potential point of unity in this disciplinary ethos is the search

for the truth. This is most directly related to professional sociology and the

extension of this knowledge and understanding base to policy sociology.

Here the practice of sociology involves the ongoing efforts to move the sum

total of disciplinary ideas closer to a comprehensive knowledge and under-

standing of what is real, thus true, in the subject matter encompassed by

the disciplinary frame of reference of culture, society, and personality. The

second point of unity is the search for the good. This is most directly related

to critical sociology and to the dialogue of public sociology. A continuing

debate regarding the nature of the preferable, desirable, and the good is

central to these two forms of practice.

The separation of knowledge of the truth from knowledge of the good

has been a predominant characteristic of the search for knowledge in the

modern Western world (Lee and Wallerstein 2004:227–229). In contrast,

the four sociologies model embodies a systematic unity of the search for

truth and goodness in one model of the nature and practice of sociology. In

so doing, it provides the basis for a common ethos and purpose all sociolo-

gists can adhere to. The universalism of these two inseparable values makes

possible a basic unity of purpose within which the necessary debate and

conflict of ideas essential to creativity can assume its most powerful form.