A Note on Sociological Research as a Factor in Social Change:The Reception of the Kinsey Report

Abstract

A MONG the criticisms leveled against a recent study of drinking and dating habits of college women' was one which alleged that sociological research which dealt with the mores was intrinsically subversive. The argument was twofold, as follows: (1) the normal reaction to nonconformity to rules should be one of severe disapproval. It is essential that rules have the sanction of such disapproval back of them or else they cannot be enforced. The researcher's attitude, on the contrary, is completely nonmoral. He accepts whatever happens simply as data. He does not support the mores, he merely studies their effectiveness. Such an attitude is subversive because it detracts from the sacred nature of the mores. The subjects of study see that it is possible to view non-conformity in an objective, nonpunitive manner, thus weakening their own drive toward conformity. Increased nonconformity results. The mores are abrogated. They may even be destroyed. In brief, social change is effected. (2) Sociological research, it is argued further, by publishing the facts of nonconformity is doubly subversive. Not only does the process of fact finding itself lead to disorganization among the subjects of study but the airing of the facts further stimulates nonconformity by others. These arguments are very interesting sociologically. They suggest that scientific research is in and of itself a factor making for social change, quite aside from any material or nonmaterial inventions that may result from it. As presented above, they are a converse aspect of the feeling common two or three generations ago among the muckrakers. (Even sociologists like R. E. Park shared it.) Their idea was that if they could only make the facts of nonconformity (in their case, political and economic corruption) known to the public, the public would take the proper measures to change them. At that time, research was looked upon as an ally to social reform, rather than, as intimated above, an ally to social disorganization. Similar criticisms have been leveled against the Kinsey study of sexual behavior in American men. It has been alleged that publishing data of this nature, revealing as they do a seemingly widespread flaunting of the mores, makes for further flaunting on the part of others. If everyone is violating the mores, I might as well, too, it is argued, becomes the common reaction. It is, of course, impossible as yet to test either of these hypotheses. We cannot yet measure or even isolate out the impact on the subjects studied nor on the mores themselves of such a study as Kinsey's. The results of any social invention take time to reveal themselves. Five or ten years from now we may, conceivably, be able to look. back and trace certain results back to the Kinsey report. The points here raised, however, suggest an interesting approach to the whole problem of social change. Perhaps we can trace in detail the exact steps by which an invention (in this case a social invention, the Kinsey report) infiltrates the cultural pattern and modifies its design. In line with this suggestion, a project was attempted to explore the possibilities.