Jeffries Vincent (Editor). Handbook Of Public Sociology

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

22 Chapter 1

This ethos of truth and goodness transcends different viewpoints regarding

matters such as forms of practice, theoretical traditions, and methodologi-

cal preferences.

Collins (1998:243) notes that “moral authority must lie at the heart of

meaningful social theory.” The ultimate values of truth and goodness pos-

sess this authority. The search for the realization of these values gives moral

purpose to the practice of sociology. The holistic four forms model provides

the mechanism through which this search can be fully embedded in socio-

logical practice. It unites the efforts to know and understand the truth, to

identify both the undesirable and the good, to devise means to realize the

good, and to communicate and dialogue with publics regarding sociologi-

cal ideas relevant to human welfare. This is a comprehensive and powerful

model of the science of sociology. Chosen as a disciplinary norm it has the

potential to maximize a variety of significant and lasting contributions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thank you to Wendell Bell, Michael Burawoy, Cecelia Jeffries, and Law-

rence T. Nichols for their comments and suggestions.

REFERENCES

Abbott, Andrew. 2007. “For Humanist Sociology.” Pp. 195–209 in Public Sociology,

edited by D. Clawson, R. Zussman, J. Misra, N. Gerstel, R. Stokes, D. L. Anderton,

and M. Burawoy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Abbott, James R. 2006. “Critical Sociologies and Ressentiment: Mills and Becker.”

The American Sociologist 37:15–30.

Boon, Susan D. 2008. “Communicating Personal Relationships Resarch Findings.”

Personal Relationships 15:iii–vi.

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

70:4–28.

———. 2005b. “The Critical Turn to Public Sociology.” Pp. 309–322 in Enriching

the Sociological Imagination: How Radical Sociology Changed the Discipline, edited by

Rhonda Levine. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Burawoy, Michael, and Erik Olin Wright. 2001. “Sociological Marxism.” Pp. 459–

486 in Handbook of Sociological Theory, edited by Jonathan H. Turner. New York:

Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Collins, Patricia Hill. 1998. Fighting Words: Black Women and the Fight for Justice.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Jeffries, Vincent, Barry V. Johnston, Lawrence T. Nichols, Samuel P. Oliner, Edward

Tiryakian, and Jay Weinstein. 2006. “Altruism and Social Solidarity: Envisioning

a Field of Specialization.” The American Sociologist 37:67–83.

Redefining the Nature and Future of Sociology 23

Lee, Richard E., and Immanuel Wallerstein. 2004. “Structures of Knowledge.” Pp.

227–235 in The Blackwell Companion to Sociology, edited by Judith R. Blau. Mal-

den, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Nichols, Lawrence T. 2006. “The Diversity of Sorokin’s Integralism: Eastern, West-

ern, Christian and Non-Christian Variants.” Pp. 59–69 in Integralism, Altruism

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

Avino. Valencia: Publicacions de la Universitat de Valencia.

Parsons, Talcott. 1978. “A Paradigm of the Human Condition.” Pp. 352–433 in Ac-

tion Theory and the Human Condition. New York: Free Press.

Peterson, Christopher, and Martin E. P. Seligman. 2004. Character Strengths and

Virtues. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ritzer, George. 2008. Modern Sociological Theory. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Seligman, Martin E. P. 2005. “Positive Psychology, Positive Prevention, and Positive

Therapy.” Pp. 3–9 in Handbook of Positive Psychology, edited by C. R. Snyder and

Shane Lopez. New York: Oxford.

Sorokin, Pitirim A. 1937a. Social and Cultural Dynamics. Volume 1. New York:

American Book Company.

———. 1937b. Social and Cultural Dynamics. Volume 2. New York: American Book

Company.

———. 1963. “Reply to My Critics.” Pp. 369–408 in Pitirim A. Sorokin in Review,

edited by Phillip J. Allen. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

———. 1964. The Basic Trends of Our Times. New Haven, CT: College & University

Press.

———. 1998 [1943]. “Referential Principles of Integralist Sociology.” Pp. 104–114

in Pitirim A. Sorokin on the Practice of Sociology, edited by Barry V. Johnston. Chi-

cago: University of Chicago Press.

Tiryakian, Edward A. 2005. “Parsons and the Human Condition.” Pp. 267–288 in

After Parsons: A Theory of Action for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Renee C. Fox,

Victor M. Lidz, and Harold J. Bershady. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2007. “The Sociologist and the Public Sphere.” Pp. 169–175

in Public Sociology, edited by D. Clawson, R. Zussman, J. Misra, N. Gerstel, R.

Stokes, D. L. Anderton, and M. Burawoy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

EXPLORING AND ELABORATING

THE HOLISTIC MODEL

TWO REFORMERS

It might seem strange, at a glance, to link the figures of Michael Burawoy

and Pitirim A. Sorokin, and to suggest that their theoretical paradigms can

profitably be considered together. A closer examination, however, reveals

many interesting similarities, even parallels. Both served as presidents of

the American Sociological Association, Sorokin in 1964–1965, and Bura-

woy in 2003–2004. Both used the occasion of their presidential address to

invite their audience to imagine an alternative future for the field. Both pro-

jected a distinctive charisma and demonstrated the ability to inspire other

sociologists. Both were controversial, focusing much of their work on con-

flict and historical change, and choosing to engage critics who propounded

competing perspectives. Both displayed the courage of their convictions

and, despite quarrels with their own field, expressed profound optimism in

the sociological enterprise.

For present purposes, what is most significant is that both Sorokin and

Burawoy have championed a holistic approach that challenges scholars in

the field to reexamine the very nature of the sociological project. The fol-

lowing discussion will compare the two models, and will speculate as to

how Sorokin—a leading figure in the development of sociology both in

Russia and the United States—might respond to the Burawoy paradigm.

Burawoy’s own possible rejoinder will also be considered. This virtual

dialogue may elucidate some of the strengths and limitations of both ap-

proaches, and perhaps even point toward a possible larger synthesis.

Burawoy’s Holistic Sociology

and Sorokin’s “Integralism”:

A Conversation of Ideas

Lawrence T. Nichols

28 Chapter 2

BURAWOY’S HOLISTIC PARADIGM

Despite the tendency among sociologists to identify Burawoy with “public

sociology,” it is important to bear in mind at all times that public sociology

is only one component of his “vision of the sociological tradition” (Levine

1994). As articulated in his ASA presidential address, as well as related

articles and book chapters (Burawoy 2004, 2005a, 2005b), Burawoy’s ap-

proach embraces four distinctive, though closely related, types of work in

an organic division of labor. Professional sociology provides the founda-

tion and the “home base” of the entire enterprise. In Burawoy’s conception

(2005a:10), this activity

consists first and foremost of multiple intersecting research programs, each

with their assumptions, exemplars, defining questions, conceptual appara-

tuses, and evolving theories. . . . such as organization theory, stratification, po-

litical sociology, . . . etc. . . . Within each research program, exemplary studies

solve one set of puzzles and at the same time create new ones.

In short, professional sociology proceeds via discursive practices among ex-

perts trained in its distinctive frame of reference. It asserts legitimate knowl-

edge claims and seeks a place of equality with cognate fields of learning.

A second type of sociological labor, called critical sociology, provides an

ongoing critique of contemporary understandings of professional sociol-

ogy. It responds to professional knowledge claims with questions, especially

two perpetual inquiries: (1) knowledge for whom? and (2) knowledge for

what? In Burawoy’s formulation (2005a:10), its role is

to examine the foundations—both the explicit and the implicit, both norma-

tive and descriptive—of the research programs of professional sociology. We

think here of the work of Robert Lynd . . . [of] C. Wright Mills . . . [of] Alvin

Gouldner. . . . Feminism, queer theory and critical race theory have hauled pro-

fessional sociology over the coals. . . . In each case critical sociology attempts

to make professional sociology aware of its biases, silences, promoting new

research programs built on alternate foundations.

Acting as “the conscience of professional sociology” (Burawoy 2004), criti-

cal sociological work engages its counterpart in a never-ending dialogue.

A third form is policy sociology, which Burawoy understands as logically

analogous to professional sociology, but with an outward rather than an

inward orientation. Policy sociology is sociology in the service of a goal

defined by a client.

Policy sociology’s raison d’être is to provide solutions to problems that are

presented to us, or to legitimate solutions that have already been reached.

Burawoy’s Holistic Sociology and Sorokin’s “Integralism” 29

Some clients specify the task of the sociologist with a narrow contract whereas

other clients are more like patrons defining broad policy agendas. (Burawoy

2005a:9)

Solutions, by definition, must draw upon the knowledge affirmations

of professional sociology, rather than the questions of critical sociology.

Burawoy describes policy sociology as “instrumental,” as applying shared

knowledge in order to make a difference in the world.

The fourth type of sociological labor is public sociology. In Burawoy’s con-

ceptualization, this activity is logically analogous to critical sociology because

it is likewise concerned with questions of value. In contrast to its critical coun-

terpart, however, public sociology has an outward orientation toward a broad

range of groups that constitute contemporary civil societies. Drawing upon

Habermas’s (1984) notion of “communicative action,” Burawoy (2005a:7)

characterizes public sociology dialogically, as “a conversation with publics,

understood as people who are themselves involved in conversation.”

He differentiates this activity into two contrasting forms: traditional

and organic. The traditional type is more impersonal and detached, in the

sense that “the publics being addressed are generally invisible . . . thin . . .

passive . . . and they are usually mainstream” (Burawoy 2005a:7). Acting

at a distance, the traditional public sociologist “instigates debates within

or between publics, although he or she might not actually participate in

them.” This suggests that the “conversation” involved in traditional public

sociology is rather artificial and constrained, tending toward monologue on

the part of the sociological experts.

Burawoy is far more interested in the second, “organic” variety that is

characterized by a deep and sustained engagement, and by an identification

of sociologists with the values and goals of selected publics. According to

his formulation (2005a:7–8), in organic public sociology

the sociologist works in close connection with a visible, thick, active, local

and often counter-public. The bulk of public sociology is indeed of an organic

kind—sociologists working with a labor movement, neighborhood associa-

tions, communities of faith, immigrant rights groups, human rights organi-

zations. Between the organic public sociologist and a public is a dialogue, a

process of mutual education.

In contrast to the economic relationships of policy sociology, political

relationships are typical of public sociology. If policy sociology faces the

danger of commercialization, public sociology runs the risk of partisanship

determining knowledge outcomes.

In advocating for public sociology, Burawoy portrays sociologists as a

force for positive change, a liberal conscience for contemporary society that

provides needed moral leadership.

30 Chapter 2

In 1968, the world seemed ripe for change for the better. The civil rights

movement, the women’s movement, student movements around the world,

antiwar marches and sit-ins captured the imagination of a new generation

of sociologists who saw conventional sociology as lagging behind the most

progressive movements; whereas today the world is lagging behind sociology,

unapologetic about its drift into political and economic fundamentalism. . . .

The political context and the sociological conscience have moved in opposite

directions, so that the world we inhabit is increasingly in conflict with the

ethos and principles that animate sociology—an ethos opposed to inequality,

to the erosion of civil liberties, to the destruction of public life, and to discrimi-

nation and exclusion. (Burawoy 2004:2)

From this perspective, sociology—and especially public sociology—is a

socio-political “civil rights” movement (Burawoy 2005a:25) with an ethos

of egalitarianism and progressivism.

In sum, Burawoy envisions sociology as a fourfold matrix of special-

ized, complementary activities. One pair (professional and critical) is more

“inwardly” oriented toward practitioners, while the second (policy and

public) is more “outwardly” oriented toward diverse consumers. Within

each pairing, there is a dialectic of continual affirmation and questioning,

reaffirmation and renewed questioning, that maintains the vitality of the

sociological project as a whole.

HOW MIGHT SOROKIN RESPOND?

Before entering into a discussion of specific points of agreement and dis-

agreement between Burawoy and Sorokin, it will be helpful to sketch out

Sorokin’s major publications. These will be organized in terms of Burawoy’s

proposed division of labor in sociology—always with the caveat that many

of them relate to more than one of Burawoy’s four types.

As table 2.1 indicates, Sorokin made significant contributions to all four

types of sociology. As the discussion below will show in detail, Sorokin

lived through the tensions among the styles of sociological work examined

by Burawoy. His experience, like his thinking, was dialectical.

Sorokin’s Earlier Perspective

The question of how Sorokin might respond to Burawoy’s proposed orga-

nization of sociological labor is complicated by the fact that Sorokin’s views

on science and sociology evolved over the course of several decades. His

earlier period (from about 1914 through 1936) included some work that is

clearly public sociology. Most significantly Sorokin wrote a column, entitled

“Notes of a Sociologist” that examined unfolding events during the revolu-

Burawoy’s Holistic Sociology and Sorokin’s “Integralism” 31

tionary year of 1917. Indeed, these articles qualify as “organic public soci-

ology” in Burawoy’s sense, because Sorokin was himself a member of the

political group for which he offered his sociological insights. He also wrote

an article about suicide for the popular press, and delivered an address to

students at the University of Petrograd (in 1922) that included sociological

commentary about the historical upheaval in Russia (see Nichols 1999). The

main thrust of this period, however, was in the direction of professional and

critical sociology, which is hardly surprising, given that Sorokin regarded

himself as one of a relatively small group that was working to create the field

of academic sociology in Russia, Europe, and the United States.

Sorokin’s earlier views were deeply influenced by the revolutionary pe-

riod extending from the uprisings of 1905, through the two revolutions of

1917, to the civil war and massive famine of the early 1920s. It is important

to emphasize that Sorokin was among the most politically engaged sociolo-

gists of the era. As a young man, he was an agitator on the political left,

Professional Sociology

A System of Sociology (1920)

Hunger as a Factor in Human Affairs (1922)

Sociology of Revolution (1925)

Social Mobility (1927)

Principles of Rural-Urban Sociology (1929)

A Systematic Sourcebook in Rural

Sociology (1930–1932)

“Social Time” (1937)

Social and Cultural Dynamics (1937–1941)

Man and Society in Calamity (1942)

Sociocultural Causality, Space, Time (1943)

Society, Culture and Personality (1947)

Explorations in Altruistic Love and Behavior

(1950)

Ways and Power of Love (1954)

Critical Sociology

Contemporary Sociological Theories

(1928)

“Sociology as a Science” (1931)

“Declaration of Independence of the

Social Sciences” (1941)

Social Philosophies of an Age of Crisis

(1950)

Fads and Foibles in Sociology (1956)

“Reply to My Critics” (1963)

“The Sociology of Yesterday, Today and

Tomorrow” (1965)

Sociological Theories of Today (1966)

Table 2.1. Sorokin’s Works (Selected) and Burawoy’s Typology

Policy Sociology

“The New Soviet Codes and Soviet Justice”

(1924)

“Is Accurate Social Planning Possible?”

(1936)

Reconstruction of Humanity (1948)

Ways and Power of Love (1954)

Power and Morality (1959)

Public Sociology

“Notes of a Sociologist” (1917)

Crisis of Our Age (1941)

Russia and the United States (1944)

Reconstruction of Humanity (1948)

Altruistic Love (1950)

S.O.S.: The Meaning of Our Crisis (1951)

“Amitology” (1951)

Forms and Techniques of Altruistic &

Spiritual Growth (1954)

American Sex Revolution (1956)

Power and Morality (1959)

Basic Trends of Our Time (1964)