Questions about the field

[Arcadian]

What’s up sociologists! I come in peace from the land of psychology. I have some general questions about the field.

 

Although I have never formally studied (or even taken an introductory course in) sociology, I have long been interested in sociological phenomena, especially structural violence and class stratification, and I have been told that I think like a sociologist. Maybe I went into the wrong field, but alas. Psychology can inform sociology and vice versa.

 

Anyway, as I said, I have never read a text book on sociology, so I am unacquainted with the history and evolution of the field. But I know there are many conceptions (perhaps misconceptions) out there about sociology, and I know some people (anarcho-capitalists) who tend to make sweeping negative generalizations about the field. Here are some questions that I have:

1. Is it true that most sociologists can be classified in what is called the “political left”? Are there major counterexamples? I don’t generally like to think in terms of a left-right dichotomy, which is severely oversimplified, but it can be a useful distinction in some contexts.
2. Is there anything like a “unified theory of sociology” or an effort to create one? Physicists are trying to mathematically unify the forces of nature, and psychologists are making a similar effort to develop a unified theory of cognition. Is there anything like that in sociology, or is it primarily an applied science? (Not to say that would be a bad thing, but just wondering.)
3. What are the most common two or three research methods in sociology?
4. How often does sociology link up with philosophy in the academic world? It seems like they should be intimately linked, as social philosophy is basically concerned with sociological questions. But are they?
5. Same question as above, but with social psychology (instead of philosophy).
6. Are there any famous sociologists alive today?
7. From my naïve perspective, it seems that sociologists, as individuals with a scientific understanding of society, should be in a position to make important decisions about society. They are probably more qualified to make such decisions than “politicians.” Is there much effort among sociologists to directly affect, or even enter into, the political system?
8. Are most sociologists considered “radical” in their ideas? It almost seems necessary, for how can one study society and merely conclude that the status quo is acceptable?

Thanks for your time.

[surefire]

What’s up sociologists! I come in peace from the land of psychology. I have some general questions about the field.

 

Although I have never formally studied (or even taken an introductory course in) sociology, I have long been interested in sociological phenomena, especially structural violence and class stratification, and I have been told that I think like a sociologist. Maybe I went into the wrong field, but alas. Psychology can inform sociology and vice versa.

 

Anyway, as I said, I have never read a text book on sociology, so I am unacquainted with the history and evolution of the field. But I know there are many conceptions (perhaps misconceptions) out there about sociology, and I know some people (anarcho-capitalists) who tend to make sweeping negative generalizations about the field. Here are some questions that I have:

1. Is it true that most sociologists can be classified in what is called the “political left”? Are there major counterexamples? I don’t generally like to think in terms of a left-right dichotomy, which is severely oversimplified, but it can be a useful distinction in some contexts.
2. Is there anything like a “unified theory of sociology” or an effort to create one? Physicists are trying to mathematically unify the forces of nature, and psychologists are making a similar effort to develop a unified theory of cognition. Is there anything like that in sociology, or is it primarily an applied science? (Not to say that would be a bad thing, but just wondering.)
3. What are the most common two or three research methods in sociology?
4. How often does sociology link up with philosophy in the academic world? It seems like they should be intimately linked, as social philosophy is basically concerned with sociological questions. But are they?
5. Same question as above, but with social psychology (instead of philosophy).
6. Are there any famous sociologists alive today?
7. From my naïve perspective, it seems that sociologists, as individuals with a scientific understanding of society, should be in a position to make important decisions about society. They are probably more qualified to make such decisions than “politicians.” Is there much effort among sociologists to directly affect, or even enter into, the political system?
8. Are most sociologists considered “radical” in their ideas? It almost seems necessary, for how can one study society and merely conclude that the status quo is acceptable?

Thanks for your time.

 

Hi there Arcadian,

 

Warm greetings into Soc-land! You don't really mention the purpose of your inquiries, are we just chalking this up to discipline-curiosity?

 

These are good questions, and I'll prod at a couple of them. Hopefully others will chime in!

 

1. I think you're right to be wary of the dichotomy danger, but at the risk of kicking a hornet nest, I'd say that the short answer is "yes, we're a 'lefty' discipline". There are ongoing "advocacy versus objectivity" tensions of the discipline, and the discussion shifts depending on the field's orientation towards/role in public policy, social movements and the state. Stephen Turner put out an interesting "American Sociology" book lately that dissects some of the tensions (he also co-authored the delightfully-titled "The impossible science", which is worth a read). Both of these emphasize an American Sociology - to complicate things, there are regional/geographic divisions regarding the field, in addition to political ones; foundational sociology largely emerges from Europe and comes to prominence via American "pockets" like the Chicago school, and yet I myself sort of work in the realm of Canadian Sociology, which has its own identity issues. Anyway, it is glib to say that we're a "lefty" discipline, but there also are few distinct counter-examples. There is some conservative (but not republican) thinking with regards to the importance of social norms and order (and one might cite one of our foundational thinkers, Durkheim, as such, given his sometimes optimism regarding the role of the state and its capacity to maintain order). But contemporary examples? Maybe Robert Nisbett (Berkeley) or Edward Shils (Chicago), but they're both deceased.

2. As alluded to above, there are multiple points of fragmentation in the discipline from which you could formulate a case that a unified theory of sociology isn't possible. As a grad student, when I go to job talks and the like, I've come to recognize someone's reference to a unified theory of the discipline as an opportunity to sit back, grab popcorn, and watch the faculty fur fly. Maybe someone else on GC has had a different experience? Sociology has some not-totally-agreed-upon-but-nonetheless-present consistent fundamentals: the "holy trinity" theorists are Durkheim, Weber and Marx, and there are methods and stats courses that sort of encourage standardized application. However, the fragmentation does a couple of things: (1) it reflects, again, the shifting relationship with the state which goes through political "phases" of utilizing and then admonishing experts, (2) it permits the emergence and priority of not only distinct and contentious scholarship, but scholars from traditionally-excluded gendered/racialized/classed perspectives, (3) there is some unity via sub-field concentration (I work in crime and deviance, there are multiple other areas), (4) it encourages a "sociology of anything", which some people get defensive about, but I've seen this result in some innovative and playful scholarship.

3. Methods tend to fall on a qualitative or quantitative divide (though there are ample mixed-methods approaches that are fruitful). Some qualitative ones include interviewing and ethnography and some quantitative ones can rely on statistical analysis of a wide swath of different data sets (survey, census, demo, crime rates).

4. On epistemological-type questions, I find that classic sociological theory lines up with philosophy fairly frequently. At their most interesting, I find the connection engaging as it poses important questions about what we can "know" and "say" about groups and individuals. At their most aggravating, there can be fairly grating squabbles.

5. I don't feel at all equipped to answer this one!

6. Oh yeah, for sure. One of my faves, Howard S. Becker, is still kicking and productively publishing. This thread might be a good one for this question:

7. As alluded to above, there are complexities here regarding distinct impressions of the field's purpose (advocacy vs. objectivity) as well as political trends. For my own concentration, there is a lot of talk of a rehabilitative age of punishment where experts from fields like sociology were actively sought out to craft and comment upon public policy and then a shift in the 80s towards an era of punitiveness where the prevailing political attitude was that rehabilitation didn't work and things like "three strikes" measures came to the fore. Again, one shift doesn't neatly replace the other (it's not like rehab measures have been eradicated), but that hopefully gives a sense of the trend. I couldn't commit to comment on other concentrations, but I know there was a distinct "anti-expert" atmosphere during the political decline of the welfare state. And now, public sociology seems to be much more prominent and I actually commented recently that public policy hires are more en vogue. These are just my general impressions though. I know many sociologists that go on to have active roles beyond academia, but these are often advocacy-type things for NGOs (like, lots of people in my concentration work with the John Howard Society) or research institutes. I know a few who work for state-esque structures like StatsCan, but I couldn't really comment on their absorption or otherwise into strictly political system work. More often, I see them maintain "outsider" roles that maintain a healthy skepticism of the state and status quo (I've seen multiple sociologists recruited by media and otherwise to comment on the recent events in Ferguson, for example).

8. I get into this a little bit above. So, maybe more "outsider" than "radical", though you could easily search for and find examples of radical sociologists.

 

HTH!

[Arcadian]

No clearly defined purpose - sometimes I just sit around and wonder, what is it like to be a sociologist? Your answers were great. I'll let you know if I think of any more questions.