Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why sociology does not need to be saved: Analytic reflections on public sociologies

  • Published:
The American Sociologist Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

After reviewing the debate about public sociologies in the American Sociological Association over the past few years, we offer a response to calls for “saving sociology” from the Burawoy approach as well as an analytic critique of the former ASA president's “For Public Sociology” address. While being sympathetic to the basic idea of public sociologies, we argue that the “reflexive” and “critical” categories of sociology, as Burawoy has conceptualized them, are too ambiguous and value-laden to allow for empirical investigation of the different major orientations of sociological research and the ways the discipline can address non-academic audiences. Debates about the future of sociology should be undertaken with empirical evidence, and we need a theoretical approach that can allow us to compare both disciplines and nations as well as taking into account the institutional context of the universities in which we operate. Research into the conditions under which professional, critical, policy, and public sociologies could work together for the larger disciplinary and societal good is called for instead of overheated rhetoric both for and against public sociologies.

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

References

  • Abrams, P. 1968. The Origins of British Sociology: 1834–1914. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acker, J. 2005. “Comments on Burawoy on Public Sociology.” Critical Sociology 31(3): 327–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. and Sanford, R.N. 1950. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ally, Shireen. 2005. “Oppositional Intellectualism as a Reflection, not Rejection, of Power: Witts Sociology, 1975–1989,” paper presented at the American Sociological Association meetings, Philadelphia, PA.

  • Anderson, E. 2002. “The Ideologically Driven Critique.” American Journal of Sociology 107 (6): 1533–1550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronowitz, S. 2005. “Comments on Michael Burawoy's ‘The Critical Turn in Public Sociology.’” Critical Sociology 31 (3): 333–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, G. and Gayle, N. 1993. Sociology: An Introduction From the Classics to Contemporary Feminists. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baiocchi, G. 2005. “Interrogating Connections: From Public Criticisms to Critical Publics in Burawoy's Public Sociology.” Critical Sociology 31 (3): 339–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. 2005. “How Not to Become a Museum Piece. The British Journal of Sociology. 56(3): 335–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. 1984. Homo Academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, and Wacquant, L. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, D. 2004. “Why Public Sociologies May Fail.” Social Forces 82 (4): 1629–1638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. 2005. “For Public Social Science.” The British Journal of Sociology. 56(3):345–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, Rose M. 2005. “Response to Michael Burawoy's Commentary: ‘The Critical Turn to Public Sociology.’” Critical Sociology 31 (3): 353–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. 2004a. “Public Sociologies: Contradictions, Dilemmas, and Possibilities.” Social Forces 82 (4): 1603–1618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • -. 2004b. “South Africanizing U.S. Sociology.” From the Left, Newsletter of the Marxist Section of the ASA.

  • —. 2004c. “Introduction: Public Sociologies: A Symposium from Boston College.” Social Problems 51(1): 103–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2004d. “Manifesto for Public Sociologies.” Social Problems 51(1): 124–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2005a. “2004 Presidential Address: For Public Sociology.” American Sociological Review 70 (1): 4–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2005b. Provincializing the Social Sciences. G. Steinmetz, editor, The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences: Positivism and its Epistemological Others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2005c. “The Critical Turn to Public Sociology.” Critical Sociology 31 (3): 313–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2005d. “Rejoinder: Toward a Critical Public Sociology.” Critical Sociology 31 (3): 379–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —, Gamson, Ryan, Pfohl, Vaughan, Derber, Schor. 2004. “Public Sociologies: A Symposium from Boston College.” Social Problems: 51:1:103–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bute, M. 2005. Public Sociology: Aristocratic or Populist? Paper presented at the American Sociological Meetings, Philadelphia, PA.

  • Calhoun, C. 2005. “The Promise of Public Sociology.” British Journal of Sociology. 56(3): 355–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chriss, J.J. 1999. Alvin Gouldner: Sociologist and Outlaw Marxist. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deflem, M. 2004a. Save Sociology, http://www.savesociology.org. Accessed August 10, 2005.

  • -. 2004b. Sociology and Politics, www.cas.sc.edu/socy/faculty/deflem/ savesociology/00socpolitics.html. Accessed August 10, 2005.

  • -. 2004c. Public Sociology, www.cas.sc.edu/socy/faculty/deflem/savesociology/02publicsociology.html. Accessed August 10, 2005.

  • —. 2004d. “There's the ASA, but Where's the Sociology?” Footnotes 32 (6): 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derber, C. 2004. “Public Sociology as a Vocation.” Social Problems 51(1): 119–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duneier, M. 2002. “What Kind of Combat Sport is Sociology?” American Journal of Sociology 107 (6): 1551–1576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. 2005. “Bookmarks for Public Sociologists.” The British Journal of Sociology 56(3):373–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farganis, J. 1996. Readings in Sociological Theory: The Classic Tradition to Post-Modernism. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, S. 2002. “A Review Essay on Making Social Sciences Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again.” Sociological Theory 20 (1): 131–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2000. The Professional Quest for Truth: A Social Theory of Science and Knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. 2000. “A Very Qualified Success, Indeed: The Case of Anthony Giddens and British Sociology.” Canadian Journal of Sociology 25 (4): 507–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • -. 2004. Kuhn vs Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Social Science. Columbia University Press.

  • Gamson, W. 2004. “Life on the Interface.” Social Problems 51(1): 106–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghamari-Tabrizi, B. 2005. “Can Burawoy Make Everybody Happy? Comments on Public Sociology.” Critical Sociology 31 (3): 361–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. 1970. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York: Avon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J.A. 2005. “A Guarded Welcome.” The British Journal of Sociology 56(3): 379–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, T. 1992. “Introduction: Sociology's Fragile Professionalism.” T. Halliday and M. Janowitz, (eds.), Sociology and Its Publics: The Forms and Fates of Disciplinary Organization. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halsey, A.H. 2004. A History of Sociology in Britain: Science, Literature, and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz-Fishman, W. and Scott, J. 2005. “Comments on Burawoy: A View From the Bottom-Up.” Critical Sociology 31 (3): 371–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Light, D. 2005. “Contributing to Scholarship and Theory through Public Sociology.” Social Forces 83(4): 1647–1654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M. 2000. “Against Reflexivity as an Academic Virtue and Source of Privileged Knowledge.” Theory, Culture, and Society. 17(3): 26–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, N.G. 1998. “Why Do Schools of Thought Fail? Neo-Freudianism as a Case Study in the Sociology of Knowledge.” Journal of the History of the Behavioural Sciences 34 (2): 113–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1999. “Origin Myths in the Social Sciences: Fromm, the Frankfurt School and the Emergence of Critical Theory.” The Canadian Journal of Sociology 24 (1): 109–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2004. “A Canadian Rejoinder: Sociology North and South of the Border.” American Sociologist 35(1): 80–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2005. “Canada's Impossible Science: Historical and Institutional Origins of the Coming Crisis in Anglo-Canadian Sociology.” Canadian Journal of Sociology 30 (1): 1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGee, M. 2005. Self-Help, Inc: Makeover Culture in American Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C.W. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neilsen, F. 2004. “The Vacant ‘We’: Remarks on Public Sociology.” Social Forces 82 (4): 1619–1627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, K. 2002. “No Shame: The View from the Left Bank.” American Journal of Sociology 107 (6): 1577–1599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, R. 1966. The Sociological Tradition. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1976. Sociology as an Art Form. London: Heinneman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, G. and Vidich, A.J. 1999. Collaboration, Reputation, and Ethics in American Academic Life: Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, D.W. 2004. “The Couch and the Clinic: The Cultural Authority of Popular Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis.” Cultural Studies 18 (1): 109–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfohl, S. 2004. “Blessings and Curses in the Sociology Classroom.” Social Problems 51(1): 113–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platt, J. 2003. The British Sociological Association: A Sociological History. Durham, UK: Sociologypress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riesman, D. [1954] 1993. Abundance for What? And Other Essays. New Jersey: Transaction Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritzer, G. 2000a. Modern Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2000b. Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, C. 2004. Can We Be Companeros? Social Problems 51(1): 110–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schor, J. 2004. “From Obscurity to ‘People Magazine.’” Social Problems 51(1): 121–124.

    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 

  • Smith, D.E. 1991. The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1995. The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    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 

  • Steinberg, S. 1995. Turning Back: The Retreat From Racial Justice in American Thought and Policy. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swartz, D. 2003. “From Critical Sociology to Public Intellectual: Pierre Bourdieu and Politics.” Theory and Society 32: 791–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tittle, C. 2004. “The Arrogance of Public Sociology.” Social Forces 82 (4): 1639–1643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. 2005. “Foundations of Sociology: In Search of the Disciplinary Core.” Paper presented at the American Sociological Association meetings, Philadelphia, PA.

  • Turner, S. and Turner, J. 1990. The Impossible Science: An Institutional Analysis of American Sociology. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urry, John. 2005. “The Good News and the Bad News.” Critical Sociology 31 (3): 375–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, D. 2004. “Public Sociologist by Accident.” Social Problems 51(1): 115–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 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 

  • Wacquant, L. 2002. “Scrutinizing the Streets: Poverty, Morality, and the Pitfalls of Urban Ethnography.” American Journal of Sociology 107 (6): 1468–1532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. 1988. The Company of Critics. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitely, R. 1984. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford Clarendon.

  • Wiggerhaus, Rolf. 1994. The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, A. 1989. Whose Keeper? Social Science and Moral Obligation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1998. Marginalized in the Middle. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003. An Intellectual in Public. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Neil McLaughlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa Kowalchuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kerry Turcotte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McLaughlin, N., Kowalchuk, L. & Turcotte, K. Why sociology does not need to be saved: Analytic reflections on public sociologies. Am Soc 36, 133–151 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-005-1021-1

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-005-1021-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation