Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Igniting Constructionist Imaginations: Social Constructionism’s Absence and Potential Contribution to Public Sociology

  • Published:
The American Sociologist Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Why have social constructionists remained absent from debates over public sociology? I argue that constructionist scholarship would be particularly amenable to Michael Burawoy’s notion of ‘organic’ public sociology, given the ability of constructionist scholars to orient awareness contexts in order to help engender constructionist imaginations. This approach requires that constructionists take on a different view of the role of the analyst. I also discuss some of the problems Canadian academics have had engaging with the media in their efforts to engage in ‘traditional’ public sociology, as well as what a constructionist public sociology may look like practice. I conclude by addressing potential challenges to a constructionist public sociology within Canada, including reference to sociology’s disciplinary coherence and how we can approach—and what we mean by—‘publics’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The ability to remain faithful to a ‘value neutral’ or ‘on the sidelines’ goal is one fraught with difficulties, both methodological and epistemological. However such difficulties are not necessarily germane to social constructionism per se, and I do not engage this issue directly in this paper. Such difficulties remain important to address, however, with respect to the ability to faithfully transmit interpretive sociological knowledge to publics.

  2. I am not trying to imply that Burawoy’s model of organic public sociology is ‘better’ than traditional public sociology per se. Traditional public sociology is still ideal for dealing with very large groups where in-depth interaction is unfeasible. Organic public sociology is most amenable to a constructionist public sociology centered on small groups where extended engagement and reflexive, mutually constitutive interactions are fostered.

  3. Burawoy’s Marxist affiliation is more apparent in his Critical Sociology article (2005b) than the more muted critical presence in his American Sociological Review paper (2005). In the former, for instance, his advocacy for “the project of sociological socialism” (2005b: 325) is necessary considering a world which “lags behind sociology” and requires transformation (2005b: 317–318). I agree with Burawoy (2009a: 457) that some of the critics who point to his putative Marxism in order to attack his model as a whole engage in ad hominem attacks without providing any empirical data to suggest how this affiliation has maligned Burawoy’s model for public sociology. Of course some have argued that critical sociology is not critical enough, and that the notion of public sociology is at best a “transitional measure” (Aronowitz 2005: 336) towards a sociology with less servitude towards power interests (see also Acker 2005; Brewer 2005).

  4. Vaughan’s insights are especially ironic considering Burawoy’s own affiliation with ethnography. His dissertation was an ethnography which was later published as his book Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly Capitalism (1979). He has continued to pursue ethnographic research up to the present (1985; 1992; 2009b), and has contributed theoretical advances to ethnography as well (2003). Burawoy’s empirical sociological work has been and continues to be historical and ethnographic, yet his theoretical model of public sociology is far more normative.

  5. Others who have addressed the public sociology debates have also pointed to the problem of public sociology lying outside of formal accreditation and legitimation. Doing public sociology in earnest requires so much time that many sociologists, especially young untenured scholars building up a CV feel pressed towards professional sociology (see Brady 2004: 1632; Noy 2009). I would count myself among them! Whether or not public sociology takes on a constructionist form, this issue is perhaps one of the more prescient ones to address.

References

  • Abbott, A. (2001). Chaos of disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acker, J. (2005). Comments on Burawoy on public sociology. Critical Sociology 31(3), 327–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adorjan, M. (2011). The lens of victim contests and youth crime stat wars. Symbolic Interaction 34(4), 552–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronowitz, S. (2005). Comments on Michael Burawoy’s ‘The critical turn to public sociology’. Critical Sociology 31(3), 333–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atherton, C. (1993). “Empiricists versus social constructionists: time for a cease fire.” Families in Society 74617–624.

  • Beck, U. (2005). How not to become a museum piece. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 335–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. (1967). Whose side are we on? Social Problems, 14(3), 239–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Best, J. (1989). “Afterword”. In J. Best (Ed.), Images of issues: Typifying contemporary social problems (pp. 39–54). Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, J. (1990). Threatened children: Rhetoric and concern about child-victims. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, J. (1995). Images of issues. New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, J. (2001). Damned lies and statistics: Untangling numbers from the media, politicians, and activists. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, J. (2003). “But seriously folks: The limitations of the strict constructionist interpretation of social problems.”. In J. A. Holstein & G. Miller (Eds.), Challenges and choices: Constructionist perspectives on social problems (pp. 51–69). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, J. (2004). Why don’t they listen to us? Fashion notes on the imperial wardrobe. Social Problems, 51(1), 154–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Best, J. (2005). Lies, calculations and constructions: beyond ‘How to Lie with Statistics’. Statistical Science, 20(3), 210–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Best, J., & Horiuchi, G. T. (1985). The razor blade in the apple: the social construction of urban legends. Social Problems, 32(5), 488–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohan, J. (1993). “Regarding gender: essentialism, constructionism, and feminist psychology.”. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyns, D., & Fletcher, J. (2005). Reflections on public sociology: public relations, disciplinary identity, and the strong program in professional sociology. The American Sociologist, 36(3–4), 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, D. (2004). Why public sociology may fail. Social Forces, 82(4), 1629–1638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, R. (2005). Response to Michael Buroway’s Commentary: ‘The critical turn to public sociology’. Critical Sociology 31(3), 353–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. (2005a). For public sociology. American Sociological Review, 70(1), 4–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. (2005b). The critical turn to public sociology. Critical Sociology, 31(3), 313–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. (2005c). Response: public sociology: populist fad or path to renewal? The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 417–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. (2008). A public sociology for California. Critical Sociology, 34(3), 339–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. (2009c). Disciplinary mosaic: the case of Canadian sociology. The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 34(3), 869–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun, C. (2005). The promise of public sociology. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 355–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrington, K. (2002). “Feminist Research in Crimino-Legal Studies: Reflections on ‘Absolute Rubbish’.’ Law Text Culture 6(1), http://ro.uow.edu.au/ltc/vol6/iss1/8, accessed June 10, 2011.

  • Christensen, T. (2012). No Path to Paradise: Deconstructing the Promise of Public Sociology. The American Sociologist, doi:10.1007/s12108-012-9173-2.

  • Creese, G., McLaren, A. T., & Pulkingham, J. (2009). Rethinking burawoy: reflections from Canadian feminist sociology. The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 34(3), 601–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S. (2009). Drifting apart? The Institutional dynamics awaiting public sociology in Canada. The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 34(3), 623–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. (2002). Much Ado about Goffman. The American Sociologist, 33(2), 105–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, J. L. (2001). Innocence lost: accomplishing victimization in intimate stalking cases. Symbolic Interaction, 24(3), 285–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, T. and J. Cardwell. (1986). “On the implications of symbolic interactionism for applied sociology.” Journal of Applied Sociology 315–21.

  • Eichler, M. (2002). Feminism and Canadian sociology. The American Sociologist, 33(1), 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericson, R. (2005). Publicizing sociology. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 365–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericson, R., Baranek, P., & Chan, J. (1991). Representing order: Crime, Law, and justice in the news media. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (2005). Bookmarks for public sociologists. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 373–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forte, J. (2003). “Applied symbolic interactionism”. In L. Reynolds & N. Herman-Kinney (Eds.), Handbook of symbolic interactionism (pp. 915–936). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forte, J. (2004a). Symbolic interactionism and social work: a forgotten legacy, part 1. Families in Society, 85(3), 391–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forte, J. (2004b). Symbolic interactionism and social work: a forgotten legacy, part 2. Families in Society, 85(4), 521–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, C. (1995). “Expanding the Vision of the Social Constructionist Debates: Creating Relevance for Practitioners.” Families in Society 76395–407.

  • Furedi, F. (2009). “Recapturing the sociological imagination: The challenge for public sociology.”. In V. Jeffries (Ed.), Handbook of public sociology (pp. 171–184). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gergen, K. (2001). Social construction in context. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghamari-Tabrizi, B. (2005). Can Burawoy make everybody happy? Comments on public sociology. The American Sociologist, 31(3), 361–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1964). Awareness contexts and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 29(5), 669–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glassner, B. (1999). The culture of fear: Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenn, N. D. (2009). “Some suggested standards for distinguishing between good and bad public sociology”. In V. Jeffries (Ed.), Handbook of public sociology (pp. 135–150). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gubrium, J., & Holstein, J. (2000). “Analyzing interpretive practice”. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 487–508). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gusfield, J. (1984). “On the side: Practical action and social constructionism in social problems theory.”. In J. W. Schneider & J. I. Kitsuse (Eds.), Studies in the sociology of social problems (pp. 31–51). Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gusfield, J. (1985). Theories and Hobgoblins. Society for the Study of Social Problems Newsletter, 17, 16–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1984) [1981]. The theory of communicative action vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.

  • Habermas, J. (1991) [1962]. Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society (T. Burger and F. Lawrence, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Hepburn, A. (2000). On the alleged incompatibility between relativism and feminist psychology. Feminism & Psychology, 10(1), 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra, P., & Kitsuse, J. (2003). “Claims-making discourse and vernacular resources”. In J. Holstein & G. Miller (Eds.), Challenges and choices: Constructionist perspectives on social problems (pp. 17–50). New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, P. (1998). Moral panic: Changing concepts of the child molester in modern America. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, P. (2003). Images of terror: What We Can and Can’t know about terrorism social problems and social issues. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, B., & Farahbakhsh, K. (2012). Public Sociology and the Democratization of Technology: Drawing on User -led Research to Achieve Mutual Education. The American Sociologist, doi:10.1007/s12108-012-9174-1.

  • Kitsuse, J., & Spector, M. (1973). Toward a sociology of social problems: Social conditions, value-judgments, and social problems. Social Problems, 20(4), 407–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kowalchuk, L., & McLaughlin, N. (2009). Mapping the social space of opinion: Public sociology and the Op-Ed in Canada. The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 34(3), 697–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayrl, D., & Westbrook, L. (2009). “On writing public sociology: Accountability through accessibility, dialogue, and relevance.”. In V. Jeffries (Ed.), Handbook of public sociology (pp. 151–169). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R., & Robert, N. (1971). Contemporary social problems (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt.

  • McGovern, C. (Feb 1998). A ticking crime bomb. Alberta Report, 2(3), 21.

  • McLain, R. (2002). Reflexivity and the sociology of practice. Sociological Practice: A Journal of Clinical and Applied Sociology, 4(4), 249–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, N. (2005). Canada’s Impossible science: historical and institutional origins of the coming crisis in Anglo-Canadian sociology. The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 30(1), 1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, N., Kowalchuk, L., & Turcotte, K. (2005). Why sociology does Not need to Be saved: analytic reflections on public sociologies. The American Sociologist, 36(3–4), 133–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. (2003). “Getting serious about an applied constructionism of social problems”. In J. Holstein & G. Miller (Eds.), Challenges and choices: constructionist perspectives on social problems (pp. 236–254). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G., & Fox, K. (1999). Learning from sociological practice: the case of applied constructionism. The American Sociologist, 30(1), 54–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, L. T. (2009). “Burawoy’s Holistic sociology and Sorokin’s ‘Integralism’: A conversation of ideas”. In V. Jeffries (Ed.), Handbook of public sociology (pp. 27–46). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, F. (2004). The vacant ‘We’: remarks on public sociology. Social Forces, 82(4), 1619–1627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noy, D. (2009). “The Contradictions of Public Sociology: A View from a Graduate Student at Berkeley.” The American Sociologist Online First (9).

  • Rafter, N. (1992). Some consequences of strict constructionism. Social Problems, 39(1), 38–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinarman, C., & Levine, H. (1997). Crack in America: Demon drugs and social justice. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. (2005). Who will speak, and who will listen? Comments on Burawoy and public sociology. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 405–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, M., & Kitsuse, J. I. (1973). Social problems: a Re-formulation. Social Problems, 21(2), 145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, M., & Kitsuse, J. I. (1977). Constructing social problems. Menlo Park: Cummings Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speer, S. (2000). Let’s get real? feminism, constructionism and the realism/relativism debate. Feminism & Psychology, 10(4), 519–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, J. (2011). The paradox of youth violence. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, J. (2005). It’s not as simple as it seems: ambiguous culpability and ambivalent affect in news representations of violent youth. Symbolic Interaction, 28(1), 47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprague, J., & Laube, H. (2009). Institutional barriers to doing public sociology: experiences of feminists in the academy. The American Sociologist, 40(4), 249–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, J. (2004). Marital suitors court social science spin-sters: the unwittingly conservative effects of public sociology. Social Problems, 51(1), 131–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tittle, C. R. (2004). The arrogance of public sociology. Social Forces, 82(4), 1639–1643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troyer, R. (1992). Some consequences of contextual constructionism. Social Problems, 39(1), 35–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. H. (2005). Is public sociology such a good idea? The American Sociologist, 36(3–4), 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. H. (2006). American sociology in chaos: differentiation without integration. The American Sociologist, 37(2), 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, D. (2005). On the relevance of ethnography for the production of public sociology and policy. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 411–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolgar, S and Pawluch, D. (1985a). “Ontological Gerrymandering: The Anatomy of Social Problems Explanations.” Social Problems 32(3), 214–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolgar, S., & Pawluch, D. (1985b). How shall we move beyond constructivism? Social Problems, 33(2), 159–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zurcher, L. (1986). The bureaucratizing of impulse: self-conception in the 1980s. Symbolic Interaction, 9(2), 169–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Michael C. Adorjan

Authors
  1. Michael C. Adorjan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael C. Adorjan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Adorjan, M.C. Igniting Constructionist Imaginations: Social Constructionism’s Absence and Potential Contribution to Public Sociology. Am Soc 44, 1–22 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-012-9172-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-012-9172-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation