Sociology Today Research Articles

Doing Sociology Today: A book launch for Revisiting Culture and Society

Doing Sociology Today: A book launch for Revisiting Culture and Society

What’s Up with Cultural Sociology? From Bourdieu and the Mainstream to ‘Productive Weirdness’

What constitutes the field of ‘cultural sociology’ today? Where has it come from, and where is it going? And how has the journal Cultural Sociology played a role in the field over the journal’s 15 years of existence? This article comprises a dialogue between one of the current editors, Christopher Thorpe, and one of the founding editors, David Inglis. Reflecting on these questions, the dialogue also touches on major issues in cultural sociology today; these include the continuing legacy of Bourdieu, the presence of Actor Network Theory, differences between critical-theoretical and Yale School conceptions of cultural autonomy, neo-liberalization processes, the status of postcolonial sociological ideas in the field, attempts to decolonize sociological accounts of culture, and the interplay between mainstream and ‘productively weird’ kinds of cultural sociology.

Kant's pragmatic use of reason from a sociological point of view: Third way or methodological impasse?

The paper focuses on the relevance of Kant's anthropologically oriented idea of the pragmatic use of reason for specific theoretical approaches in sociology. As I show in the first part, Kant's explicit presence in 20th-century sociology does not refer much to his anthropology and specifically to its cornerstone – the pragmatic use of reason which establishes a subtle connection between the theoretical and practical functions of reason. As an instrument for gaining systematic knowledge about the social world and ourselves as beings both passively and actively involved in this process, Kant's pragmatic use of reason serves a specific form of the theoretical use of reason. At the same time, it embodies a kind of practical reasoning concerning the “general welfare” in the social sphere. Building on the key arguments in the first part, I then address the question of whether we can view Kant's pragmatic approach as a possible third way for sociology today, beyond the simplifying opposition of ‘theoretical’ normativity and ‘realistic’ empiricism, and whether this third way can help us in clearing specific sociological issues. Here, I focus on two examples, namely the use of Kant's notion of “unsocial sociability” in Ralf Dahrendorf's conflict theory and on the criticism of Kant's cosmopolitanism in Ulrich Beck's reformed sociology of cosmopolitanism.

Social Science as Public Philosophy Revived

More than thirty years ago, in their best-selling Habits of the Heart, Robert Bellah and his colleagues coined the phrase “Social Science as Public Philosophy” (SSPP). They proposed it as an alternative to the “professional sociology” they believed had become increasingly hegemonic; too many sociologists, they contended, mistakenly embraced an ideal of social science modelled on the natural sciences. Instead, they championed a vision of sociology in which “the boundary between social science and philosophy was still open”—a vision they traced back to the classical works of Tocqueville, Durkheim, and others. Though rhetorically tantalizing and rich with critical potential, unfortunately SSPP remains undertheorized and thus neglected. Accordingly, the aim of this article is to systematically reconstruct, refine, and ultimately revive the sociological vision underlying SSPP. This vision consists of five pillars: (1) a rejection of the dualist aspiration to separate facts from values, in favour of an interpretive-cum-normative conception of social science; (2) a view of sociology as grounded in, and motivated by, specific traditions of ethical and philosophical inquiry; (3) transparency regarding the sociologist’s theoretical and normative commitments, and a willingness to subject them to public scrutiny; (4) an immanent conception of social criticism, which values identification rather than detachment; and (5) a commitment to democracy, substantively conceived. I contend that SSPP remains a vital resource for sociology today.

The evolutionary sociology of J.Turner: An introduction to the concept of Spencer selection

This paper describes the main ideas of J.Turner related to his concept of Spencer selection. In his concept, he made an attempt to formulate the basic principles of Spencer selection, and also provided an argument showing how H.Spencer's evolutionary approach, contrary to popular belief, can be relevant for sociology today. J.Turner believes that the main driving forces of human evolution strengthened (or introduced) certain cognitive, motivational and behavioural tendencies, and people used these tendencies purposefully to create a certain culture and social structure. H.Spencer's explanation does not directly ignore sociological explanations of the dynamics and evolution of social systems, unlike simple modern evolutionary explanations of institutionalisation in terms of evolving behavioural tendencies based on the concept of natural (Darwinian) selection. The latter are used in evolutionary psychology and sociobiology based on implicit assumptions about the automatic nature of the process of transforming neurological reactions and behavioural tendencies into social structures and institutions. The basis of Spencerian selection is formed by a certain set of needs of people (individual level) and social differentiation of institutional organisation (reproduction, regulation, production and distribution) as the population grows (societal level), as well as changes caused by war with their specific dynamics. Thus, Darwinian ideas about the natural selection of individual organisms can be counted as sufficient for understanding and explantion of the evolution and dynamics of the layers of sociocultural phenomena traditionally studied by sociologists. For this purpose, it is necessary to turn to a special type of selection of superorganisms, formulated by H.Spencer in his works at the dawn of the formation of sociology itself as a separate science. In addition, in itself, such a combination of sociological and biological models of social processes is promising for the development of individual multidisciplinary research programmes that can subsequently significantly strengthen and enrich the social sciences as a whole.

Past and present currents of sociology: 70 years of Current Sociology

This review paper marks the 70th anniversary of Current Sociology, the first journal founded by the International Sociological Association (ISA). The past seven decades have been a time of immense change within sociology and around the world, and the shifts within the structure and content of the journal mirror these transformations. Current Sociology today is a vastly different publication to the bibliography focused journal of 1952, and remains one of the top global sociology journals, and a proudly international publication. This short overview traces the history of Current Sociology across the decades, highlighting the work of the editors in guiding the development of the journal, and providing a glimpse into the development of the discipline, and the social developments of the past 70 years.

K.M. Takhtarev is one of the First Professional Sociologists in Russia. To the 150th Anniversary of His Birth

Introduction. The article presents the fate and work of the famous Russian sociologist Konstantin Mikhailovich Takhtarev (1871–1925), who would have turned 150 years old in 2021. He was one of the first professional sociologists who played an important role in the institutionalization of Russian sociology. His works and other deeds are still not fully comprehended and, therefore, are insufficiently used in research and in the process of training sociologists. The article presents the main results of his work and the direction of his activities in organizing sociological knowledge in Russia.Methodology and sources. The article implements a historical and biographical approach combined with a comparative analysis of the life and scientific fate of the famous Russian sociologist K. M. Takhtarev, professor of the St Petersburg University (1911–1925). His main works and the results of his activities on the institutionalization of Russian sociology are analyzed.Results and discussion. The name of K.M. Takhtarev stands next to such names as M.M. Kovalevsky, N.I. Kareev, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky, E.V. de Roberti, P.A. Sorokin, etc. His contribution to the institutionalization of Russian sociology is very significant. He was one of the first to prepare complete textbooks, created his own system of sociology (P. Sorokin), was one of the organizers of the M.M. Kovalevsky Russian Sociological Society, which confirmed the formation of the Russian sociological community. The creation of the country's first sociological institute is associated with his name. N.I. Kareev called him and P.A. Sorokin the first professional sociologists of Russia. The article shows his understanding of the subject of sociology, the basic concepts that reveal the essence of social life, its evolution, through the stages of self-sufficiency – the foundations of his theory. The significance of the systematization of sociological ideas carried out by him, which formed the basis of his system of sociology, is revealed. The role of Takhtarev in the development of genetic sociology as a sociological direction studying the dynamics of forms of society and social institutions is emphasized.Conclusion. The significance of K.M. Takhtarev's ideas for today's sociology is shown and it is argued that it is necessary to refer to his works today. The special relevance of the logic of building his own system of sociology, research experiments in the field of genetic sociology, the substantiation of social laws and the classification of social laws are emphasized.

EVOLUTIONARY MODEL OF SOCIAL CHANGE: A CRITIQUE

Anthony Giddens, one of the forerunner among the anti-evolutionists in sociology today, has made a special point of criticizing evolutionary theories for their lack of any concept of human agency, which for Giddens completely invalidates any social theory. Theories of social evolution have incited two kinds of critiques; one radical, and the other moderate. Radical critics of the theory of social evolution raise methodological issues with the theory of social evolution. They argue that social change cannot be understood through evolutionary theory, therefore the latter is not needed. Moderate criticism differs from radical criticism because it seeks to separate the concept of evolution from that of progress. According to this position, the idea of social progress must be rejected, but the evolutionary approach should be preserved. This article will look into the conceptual terrain of evolutionism and pattern of ebb and flow in it.

СОЦИОЛОГИЯ СЕМЬИ В РОССИИ: МЕТОДОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ ПРОЕКЦИИ И СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ НАУЧНО-ИССЛЕДОВАТЕЛЬСКИЕ ПРАКТИКИ

В статье рассматриваются особенности предметной области фамилистических исследований в современной российской социологии. Цель заключается в переоценке предметных границ и выявлении методологических проблем социологии семьи. Новизна работы выражается в определении внешненаучных и внутринаучных факторов, отличающих методологию социологического познания брачно-семейных отношений от методологии других наук. Статья состоит из двух основных частей. В первой части раскрываются основные методологические подходы к научному изучению брачно-семейной сферы: структурно-функциональный анализ, конфликтологическая парадигма, теории интерпретации человеческого поведения (феноменология, этнометодология, драматургический подход, символический интеракционизм, теория обмена), институционализм, феминистические концепции. Аргументируется возможность интеграции объективистской и субъективистской методологических проекций для лучшего социологического понимания брачно-семейного поведения в контексте трансформации семьи как социального института. Во второй части статьи анализируются актуальные научно-исследовательские практики в российской социологии семьи. Наиболее разработанными проблемно-предметными полями в отечественной социологии семьи являются: процессы социализации и воспитания в семье; межэтнические браки; типы семей и формы семейного образа жизни; семейно-брачные представления, ценности и установки молодежи; семьи группы риска; роль гендера в брачно-семейных отношениях. Автор приходит к выводу о тенденции преодоления познавательной односторонности различных методологических подходов, равно как и макро- и микросоциологии семьи, в попытке создания всеобъемлющей социологической теории семьи.

Ugly progress: W. E. B. Du Bois’s sociology of the future

The work of W. E. B. Du Bois is a powerful but unjustly neglected resource for sociological enquiry. Powerful insofar that it cuts against the grain of sociology as it exists today, offering a distinctive set of tools that allow the social world to be approached, conceptualised and studied in new ways. Unjustly neglected insofar that the explicit and implicit racism of sociology has positioned Du Bois as a peripheral figure. The purpose of this article is to contribute to the task of recuperating Du Bois’s hidden potency by considering his theory of social time. I argue that Du Bois’s essay ‘Of the Meaning of Progress’ presents an incisive critique of the triumphalist conception of progress that was dominant in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and the diffuse desire for a better future common in sociology today. Du Bois rejects the idea that history moves in a necessary and ameliorative fashion towards an ever better world. Instead, drawing on the black experience of slavery and racial violence, Du Bois proposes a notion of ugly progress: a looping conception of time that involves shuffling between the disappointments of the past and utopian hopes for the future. To conclude, I suggest the ugly conception of progress offers a fresh perspective on how marginalised figures from the past, such as Du Bois himself, should be positioned within the discipline of sociology.

Emotion, interaction and the structure-agency problem: Building on the sociology of Randall Collins

Sociology today faces a number of serious challenges to its integrity as a discipline. As a synthesis of Weberian and Durkheimian traditions, the work of Randall Collins represents an innovative vindication of sociology in the early 21st century. This article explores Collins’s interaction ritual theory to demonstrate its contemporary utility. However, to highlight the importance of Collins’s work, it seeks to advance and refine it theoretically. Specifically, it seeks to develop Collins’s argument about the role of emotions and, specifically, effervescence, in rituals. This paper argues that, while important, effervescence alone cannot be sufficient to ensure the conformity which is a typical feature of interaction and essential to explaining social order. Drawing on Goffman, Asch and Scheff, the paper argues that effervescence is underpinned by more robust mechanisms of honour and shame, themselves immediately connected to access to collective goods. In this way, the paper affirms the importance of Randall Collins’s work for sociology today.

Manuais didáticos e currículo de sociologia: uma análise pós-estruturalista

Este artigo persegue dois objetivos: a) oferecer uma reflexão teórico/metodológica do currículo e dos manuais didáticos a partir de uma perspectiva discursiva; b) realizar um exercício de aplicação desse referencial teórico na análise do discurso de alguns manuais didáticos de Sociologia aprovados pelo PNLD 2018. Numa perspectiva pós-estruturalista, currículo e livros didáticos são concebidos como práticas discursivas, objetos que se entrecruzam num incessante processo de produção de discursos, identidades, sujeitos. O artigo identifica, nos manuais analisados, a presença de uma formação discursiva (imaginação sociológica) que interpela o sujeito no sentido de atribuir para ele um determinado lugar no mundo simbólico, além de identificar as filiações sociais, históricas e políticas dessa formação situando-a num projeto mais geral de produção da subjetividade política dos sujeitos.

Russian Theoretical Sociology Today: On the Pages of Sociological Studies

В связи с 45-летием журнала «Социологические исследования» читателям предлагается (частично автобиографический) обзор работы журнала за последние 20–25 лет в области теоретический социологии. Представлены результаты анализа релевантных рубрик журнала и проведенных в последние десятилетия мероприятий по повышению теоретического уровня отечественного социологического знания. Освещены усилия по подготовке журнальных разделов, относящихся к теоретической социологии, обобщены их научные результаты; предложена характеристика состояния современных социологических теорий, каким оно видится в свете проанализированных публикаций; предложено авторское видение перспектив развития теоретической социологии в нашей стране.

The Sociology of Religion in a Post-Colonial Era: Towards Theoretical Reflexivity

This article makes two points. First, it argues that sociology, like all knowledge, is shaped, though not determined, by its historical-cultural origins. Early sociology arose in 19th-century Europe and its core concepts were shaped by that era—both in what they reveal about society and what they hide. We now realize this, so we sociologists of religion need to examine our inherited concepts to understand those concepts’ limitations. We also need to include an analysis of the way the current historical-cultural situation shapes sociology today. This is the theoretical reflexivity called for in the title. Second, the article argues that expanding sociology’s conceptual canon to include insights from other historical-cultural locations is more than just an ethical matter. It is also epistemological. Sociology does not make progress unless it includes insights from as many standpoints as possible. This does not mean that all insights are equal. It does mean that all have the potential to improve sociological understanding. Whether or not they actually do so is a matter for the scientific process to decide.

Descrédito de la verdad y banalización de la ideología

La sociología del conocimiento, y dentro de ella la de la ideología, se basan en una sólida tradición y han progresado a través del tiempo. No obstante, la expansión del relativismo en la ciencia social, por una parte, y de una simplista visión determinista, por otra, ha hecho mella en esta tradición. El presente ensayo reivindica los fueros del análisis clásico de la ideología, demuestra su valía para la sociología cognitiva (o cognoscitiva) y pone de relieve las falacias y pobreza de las posiciones llamadas posmodemas, que son las que encaman más claramente los males que aquejan un estudio fértil y riguroso de las condiciones sociales del conocimiento objetivo.

The Problem of Ontological Insecurity. What Can We Learn from Sociology Today? Some Zen Buddhist Inspirations

Can we learn about the art of living from sociology? Sociology teaches us that we are the part of a broader group called society. We are taught that society should be first described in order to be understood and/or explained, and that the cognitive function is the most important part in understanding the role sociology should play in a democratic and modern society. Is this understanding (cognition) enough? What more can we get to better our quality of life and live a wholesome life from studying sociology or society using a sociological perspective? Is sociology a tool for the art of living or is it just a play of the “sophisticated”? In this paper, we analyze the sociology from the philosophy of Zen Buddhism to show the connection between the work of mind and the sociological concepts that are used to analyze “society.” Moreover, we analyze the approaches of George H. Mead, Robert Merton, and especially and separately Anthony Giddens that created, very important for our considerations, the concept of “ontological security.” We also reconstruct the structural conditions of the art of living and happiness, analyzing the concept of greedy institutions by Lewis Coser. We analytically connect the structural conditions of work in contemporary greedy institutions (working on projects) with the loss of ontological security. We analyze the displacement of the meaning of work, career, autonomy, time structure, identity, privacy and happiness, and finally the sociology. We try to use a Buddhist inspiration to analyze issues of suffering and, associated with it, so called ontological insecurity and the welfare of the individual and/or society.

Historical Sociology in Russia

The author of this paper discusses the current state of historical sociology in Russia reflected in the respective section of the Sociological studies journal. After noting the potentialities of the discipline, the author summarizes the overall output of the 20 years’ long existence of this section. The basic preoccupation in the initial phase of the section’s existence was to get – and convey to readers – a clear understanding of the essence and functions of contemporary historical sociology (HS in the text below), to introduce its potentialities to the Russian sociologist audience. However, even today there are few regular contributors, authors tend to delve into minor issues, and even resort to long surpassed views on the discipline. A most urgent issue for Russian historical sociology today is, according to the author, to draw lessons from Russia’s recent centuries to understand the essence of Russia’s present as it is penetrated by its past: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under the circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living” (К. Маrx). This is the essence of the enigmas to be deciphered by historical sociologists. The author formulates some such enigmas (like the proverbial Russian rake repeatedly stepped-upon) observable in recent (as well as earlier) events in the country.

An interview with Hans Joas

An interview with Hans JoasThis interview took place at Lund University on January 18, 2017. In the interview Joas talks about the continuities and orientations of his own work, explains some of his key conceptual and theoretical insights, and comments on the state of sociology today.

The “false” debate between positivism andVerstehenin the origins of sociology

AbstractThe article revisits the debate between the positivists and non-positivists currents in sociology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, concluding that it is actually a false debate, due to the fact that, beyond their differences, both shared some of the basic principles of the paradigm of modernity. From this historical analysis the article seeks to draw lessons for the social sciences in the present, at a time when these seem to have reached a certain synthesis between the modern and postmodern epistemologies. The article shows us that such a synthesis was already prefigured in the writing of classical theorists as it is, in fact, an ineluctable structural law of science itself if it wants to escape from the trap of skepticism and epistemological nihilism. The article also explores how, as a consequence of the pervasiveness of the modern paradigm, a common ethnocentric bias can be traced in all the fathers of sociology and wonders whether sociology today has actually got rid of this problem.

CLASSIC SUBJECTIVE CONSTRUCTS OF REALITY AND SOCIO-CULTURAL PROCESS

The article discusses the features of a modern type of philosophical and sociological mentality, the basis of which is still dominant in the social sciences by the spirit of positivism and criticism. Through the revision of theories from the past, modern scholars continue to analyze them within the framework of a naturalscientific ideological approach, which results in an attempt to audit the positivist paradigm in order to justify its applicability in today’s reality. Thus, any sociophilosophical problems that studies or regards sociology are still considered superficially, as if from the outside. Secularism imposed by the West and the spread of non-religious humanism led to the emergence of an entirely new type of thinking, based on the human belief in itself and clearly expressed skepticism in relation to the existence of higher meaning. The purpose of this article is to describe the key intentions of our age, which is developing in light of the above transformation of sociological and philosophical knowledge, as well as to analyze how a person of the postmodern era designs contemporary reality under the influence of such changes. The main problem of sociological knowledge has always been the impossibility of studying the object of knowledge without complete alienation from it, or, on the contrary, the impossibility of going beyond the researcher’s subjectivity. As a result sociology was given the status of the science that can only offer a description of the essence of human existence which is fragmentary, unfinished, and often based solely on an individual philosophical view of reality. “The theories of progress” advanced by sociology today continue to describe the social development in isolation from the axiological assessment of the nature of social change, denying the ability of the individual of self-reflection and the experience of transforming the foundations of existence.