The American Sociologist

, Volume 36, Issue 3–4, pp 5–26 | Cite as

Reflections on public sociology: Public relations, disciplinary identity, and the strong program in professional sociology

  • David Boyns
  • Jesse Fletcher

Abstract

Public sociology is an attempt to redress the issues of public engagement and disciplinary identity that have beset the discipline over the past several decades. While public sociology seeks to rectify the public invisibility of sociology, this paper investigates the limitations of it program. Several points of critique are offered. First, public sociology's affiliations with Marxism serve to potentially entrench existing divisions within the discipline. Second, public sociology's advancement of an agenda geared toward a “sociology for publics” instead of a “sociology of publics” imposes limitations on the development of a public interface. Third, the lack of a methodological agenda for public sociology raises concerns of how sociology can compete within a contested climate of public opinion. Fourth, issues of disciplinary coherence are not necessarily resolved by public sociology, and are potentially exacerbated by the invocation of public sociology as a new disciplinary identity. Fifth, the incoherence of professional sociology is obviated, and a misleading affiliation is made between scientific knowledge and the hegemonic structure of the profession. Finally, the idealism of public sociology's putative defense of civil society is explored as a Utopian gesture akin to that of Habermas’ attempt to revive the public sphere. The development of a strong program in professional sociology is briefly offered as a means to repair the disciplinary problems that are illustrated by emergence of the project of public sociology.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bell, W. 1996. “The Sociology of the Future and the Future of Sociology.” Sociological Perspectives 39, 1: 39–57.Google Scholar
  2. Bellah, R., R. Madsen, W.M. Sullivan, A. Swidler, and S. Tipton. 1985. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bender, T. 1997. Intellect and Public Life: Essays on the Social History of Academic Intellectuals in the United States. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berger, P. 1963. Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Books.Google Scholar
  5. —. 2002. “Whatever Happened to Sociology.” First Things 126: 27–29.Google Scholar
  6. Bonacich, E., and R. Appelbaum. 2000. Behind the Label: Inequality in the Los Angeles Apparel Industry. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. 1993. Sociology in Question. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Brady. D. 2004. “Why Public Sociology May Fail.” Social Forces 82, 4: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burawoy, M. 1989. “Two Methods in Search of Science: Skocpol versus Trotsky.” Theory and Society 18, 6: 759–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. —. 1990. “Marxism as Science: Historical Challenges and Theoretical Growth,” American Sociological Review 55:775–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. -. 2005a. “The Return of the Repressed: Recovering the Public Face of U.S. Sociology, One Hundred Years On.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, July: 1-18.Google Scholar
  12. —. 2005b. “The Critical Turn to Public Sociology.” Critical Sociology 31, 3: 313–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. —. 2005c. “For Public Sociology.” American Sociological Review, 70, 1: 4–28.Google Scholar
  14. —, and E.O. Wright. 2002. “Sociological Marxism,” in The Handbook of Sociological Theory, edited by Jonathan H. Turner. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Burns, V. 2004. “The Academic Caste System: Prestige Hierarchies in Ph.D. Exchange Networks.” American Sociological Review 69: 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Calhoun, C. 1992. “Introduction: Habermas and the Public Sphere.” Pp. 1–48, in Craig Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Collins, R. 1989. “Sociology: Proscience or Antiscience?” American Sociological Review 54, 1: 124–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. —. 1997. “A Sociological Guilt Trip: Comment on Connell.” The American Journal of Sociology 102, 6: 1558–1564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Connell, R.W. 1997. “Why Is Classical Theory Classical?” The American Journal of Sociology, 102, 6: 1511–1557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dahrendorf, R. 1958. “Out of Utopia: Toward a Reorientation of Sociological Analysis.” American Journal of Sociology 64: 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Derrida, J. 1978. Writing and Difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Foucault, M. 1970 [1966]. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  23. Fromm, E. 1961. Marx's Concept of Man. New York: Frederick Ungar.Google Scholar
  24. Gamson, W. 2004. “Life on the Interface.” Social Problems 51, 1: 106–110.Google Scholar
  25. Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Gouldner, A. 1985. Against Marxism: The Origins of Marxism and the Sociology of Intellectuals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Habermas, J. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  28. —. 1987. The Theory of Communiciative Action. Volume 2, Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  29. —. 1989. Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Harding, S. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  31. —. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Horkheimer, M., and T.W. Adorno. 1993 [1947], Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York: Continuum Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  33. Horowitz, I.L. 1993. The Decomposition of Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Jacoby, R. 1987. The Last Intellectuals: American Culture in the Age of Academe. New York: Noonday Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kellner, D. 2000. “Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Democracy: A Critical Intervention,” in Perspectives on Habermas, edited by Lewis Hahn. Illinois: Open Court Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kuhn, T. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lakatos, I. 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Lemert, C. 1995. Sociology after the Crisis. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lyotard, J.-F. 1984. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press.Google Scholar
  41. Luhmann, N. 1994. “The Modernity of Science.” New German Critique 61: 9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McCarthy, T. 1978. The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Michael, J. 2000. Anxious Intellects: Academic Professionals, Public Intellectuals, and Enlightenment Values. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mills, C.W. 1956a. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. —. 1956b. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. New York Times. 2003. “Judging 2003's Ideas: The Most Overrated and Underrated.” New York Times, December 27.Google Scholar
  47. Nielson, F. 2003. “The Vacant “We”: Remarks on Public Sociology.” Social Forces 82, 4: 1–9.Google Scholar
  48. Parsons, T. 1969. ”‘The Intellectuals’: A Social Role Category,” in On Intellectuals, edited by Philip Rieff. New York: Doubleday and Company.Google Scholar
  49. Popper, K. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  50. Posner, R.A. 2002. Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Riesman, D. 1950. The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Seidman, S. 1994. “The End of Sociological Theory,” in Steven Seidman (ed.), The Postmodern Turn: New Perspectives on Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. —. 2003. Contested Knowledge: Social Theory Today. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  54. Shils, E. 1958. “Intellectuals and the Powers.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 1, 1: 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. —. 1982. The Constitution of Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  56. Turner, J.H. 1989. “The Disintegration of American Sociology.” Sociological Perspectives 32, 4: 419–433.Google Scholar
  57. —. 1998. “Must Sociological Theory and Sociological Practice Be So Far Apart?: A Polemical Answer.” Sociological Perspectives 41, 2: 243–259.Google Scholar
  58. Turner, S.P., and J.H. Turner. 1990. The Impossible Science: An Institutional Analysis of American Sociology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Vaughan, D. 1996. The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  60. —. 2004. “Public Sociologist by Accident.” Social Problems 51:115–118.Google Scholar
  61. Wallerstein, I., et al. 1996. Open the Social Sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Ward, S. 1995. “The Revenge of the Humanities: Reality, Rhetoric, and the Politics of Postmodernism.” Sociological Perspectives 38, 2: 109–128.Google Scholar
  63. Whitehead, A.N. 1967. Science and the Modern World. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  64. Wilner, P. 1985. “The Main Drift of Sociology between 1936 and 1982.” The History of Sociology 5, 2:1–20.Google Scholar
  65. Wood, J.L. 1998. “The Academy under Siege: An Outline of Problems and Strategies.” Sociological Perspectives 41, 4: 833–847.Google Scholar
  66. -.1999. “C.P. Snow Revisited: The Two Cultures of Faculty and Administration.” Faculty Coalition for Public Higher Education Occasional Monograph Series (November 1999): 3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Transaction Publishers 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Boyns
    • 1
  • Jesse Fletcher
    • 2
  1. 1.Sociology at California State University at NorthridgeUSA
  2. 2.California State University at NorthridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations