Abstract
We can only welcome the discourse that has been initiated in our professional community with the concept of public sociology in the focus. Undoubtedly, Michael Burawoy has indisputable merits in fuelling this international dialogue. I find, however, that his position and conceptual framework is debatable at several points, therefore my review is on the side of those who criticize his ideas. My paper is divided into three parts: in keeping with the idea that the drop mirrors the ocean, I will start with the detailed critique of a single paragraph—the one which makes comments on his table entitled Types of sociological knowledge. It will be argued that by switching his viewpoints and using vaguely defined notions without empirical evidences he often tackles his subject inconsistently. Secondly, I intend to offer an alternative, three-dimensional conceptual model in which the social scientist’s prestige, influence and position on the action chain is taken into account as the main analytical aspects of the relationship between her/him and the public. Finally, based on this model, I propose to identify some strategies in order to find a better balance between the public and professional activity of social scientists.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Of course, I do understand why: unlike Riesman’s Lonely Crowd or Myrdal’s American Dilemma, they are not addressed to the wide public but first of all to sociologists. So far so good, but then why cannot sociologists constitute a “visible” and “thick” community?
It is also debatable that professional sociology produces theories that “correspond to the empirical world”. Just think of the Parsonsian structuralist-functionalism also apparently influencing the structure of Burawoy’s thinking (including the commented table)!
We do not understand the same by the concepts because for me, the concept of critical sociology as a distinct category is untenable since all professional articles are in some regard the critique of earlier articles. Isn’t Burawoy’s manifesto itself is the best example to prove that a text can belong to several knowledge types at the same time?
These are the peer review of the colleagues, the report of the sociologists for the clients and the debate between critical intellectuals.
This has been crystallized relatively well in the student-teacher relationship, while it is far less obvious in a research concerning a civil organization. It could also be an interesting research topic to see what possibilities a sect has when confronting a sociologist who pursues a polemic with it. There is little chance for the emergence of consensus apropos the truth-ideal. It is evident that the chances of the target groups of public sociology to assert an accountability-claim are unequal.
When defining public sociology, Burawoy mentions a research paper of three Berkeley graduate students presented at the 2004 ASA conference who “studied the plied of low-paid service workers on campus, bringing them out of the shadows, and constituting them as a public to which the university should be accountable.” (264)
Among the vaguely worded sentences the following thesis stands out: “In times of market tyranny and state despotism, sociology – and in particular its public face – defends the interests of humanity” (287) Which state is meant? American, Peruvian, Indian, or Russian? What market, what despotism does the author speak about? What does “humanity” as such have to do with all this?
One of the objectives of the Research Committee on Sociology of Health (RC 15) declares that the committee “encourages the generation of sociological knowledge that enables health professional administrators, officials, and planners to improve the delivery of health services in the domains of prevention, management, cure, and rehabilitation.” (http://www.isa-sociology.org/rc15.htm)
In seven of twenty research committees established at that time, such a goal was spelt out in their foundation charters. http://www.isa-sociology.org
For example, he speaks about the “balkanized” political science, anthropology, or geography (286).
Mala fide, Burawoy’s sociology-centricity might as well be taken for a form of sociological imperialism as it devours some other occupations (journalist, activist, social worker) and also overvalues the importance of sociology to the detriment of the rest of the social science disciplines. In my opinion, he is particularly unjust to economics.
It is characteristic that 26 out of the 53 ISA research committees laid down in their statutes that interdisciplinary approach was one of their aims. http://www.isa-sociology.org
I find Gans’ (1989) presidential address very appealing, so in the following I am often following in his wake.
It is not as easy as many tend to believe! That is why I think it is a mistake to leave this task to beginners.
It is difficult to comprehend why he published so many papers on the theme in the past two years!
References
Brady, D. (2004). Why public sociology may fail? Social Forces, 82(4), 1 (June).
Burawoy, M. (2005). 2004 American sociological association presidential address: For public sociology. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(2), 259–294.
Burawoy, M. (2006). A public sociology for human rights. Introduction. In J. Blau, & K. I. Smith (Eds.) Public sociology reader. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Calhoun, C. (2005). The promise of public sociology. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 355–363.
Etzioni, A. (2005). Bookmarks for public sociologists. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 373–378.
Gans, H. (1989). Sociology in America: The discipline and the public, ASA, 1988 presidential address. American Sociological Review, 54, 1–16.
Nielsen, F. (2004). The Vacant’We’: Remarks on public sociology. Social Forces, 82(4), 1619–1629.
Tittle, C. R. (2004). The arrogance of public sociology. Social Forces, 82(4), 1639–1643.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
My remarks target Burawoy’s ‘2004 American Sociological Association Presidential address: For public sociology’, The British Journal of Sociology 56 (2): 259–294.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hadas, M. Much Ado About Nothing?. Am Soc 38, 309–322 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-007-9013-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-007-9013-y