Some Observations on the Social Organization of Canadian Sociology

Abstract

A o provide a meaningful portrait of Canadian sociology is a complex task. What is needed in any complex situation, of course, is some of relevance, which serves to direct attention to a limited and manageable number of factors. The types of the substantive knowledge generated by sociologists practicing in Canada constitute the selective principles used by the editor of this issue, Professor Elkin, to focus attention on the distinctive features of Canadian sociology. Professor Elkin starts with the assumption that the distinctions existing between the concerns of sociologists in Canada and those in the U.S. can be largely attributed to differences in the type and salience of social processes characterizing the two societies. The logic of this organizing theme is a sound one, resting, as it does, on the premise that sociologists, like other human beings, tend to become interested in and concerned with the dominant features of their environment. The rich potential for comparative analysis of social processes endemic in this perspective also makes the heuristic value of such a criterion of relevance undisputable. In fact, the substantive content of the papers contained in this issue empirically document both the validity and the intellectual potentiality embodied in Elkin's organizing principle. It should be clear from the above discussion that both the organization and the content of this issue are well suited to the central task of providing a portrait of Canadian sociology. However, the question can be raised as to whether this approach provides a full portrait or only a partial portrait of Canadian sociology. More specifically, could the portrait of Canadian sociology be fleshed out more by supplementing the analysis of substantive issues of concern to sociologists practicing in Canada with a systematic consideration of the structural context in which substantive sociological knowledge is generated in Canada? Since my own experience leads me to the conclusion that differences in the social context in which