THE DEMISE OF SOCIAL THEORY AND THE ‘PROMISE’ OF SOCIOLOGY

THE “PROMISE” OF SOCIOLOGY

For Wright Mills (2000 [1959]), the fundamental task of the sociologist is to identify how scopic socio-historical forces and individual biographies and agency intersect. A sociology that privileges either of these essential ingredients at the expense of the other, short-changes the discipline’s raison-d’être and vision. Such compartmentalisation incapacitates engaging theoretical inflection. It proscribes what Wright Mills (1959, passim) calls “the promise” of “the sociological imagination”. What is the state of theory generation in sociology and the social sciences today? Are we realising and reaping the potential that theory-driven social research possesses for enriching, intriguing and enduring sociological analysis? It is these pivotal questions that this piece aims to address. In the process, emphasis is made on identifying and explaining some of the currents that are stemming the development of social theory generation and thus curtailing sociology’s promise.

The Scourge of Utilitarianism and Neo-liberal, Bureaucratic Expediency

From Durkheim’s anomie and Tonnies’ community, to Weber’s rationalisation and Marx’s alienation; from Parsons’ functional pre-requisites to Merton’s social strain; from Tannenbaum, Lemert and Becker’s labelling theory, Goffman’s stigma, to the manifold shades and hues of subculture; from Ritzer’s Mcdonaldisation, Giddens’ structuration, to Beck’s risk society and Baudrillard, Lyotard and Derrida’s ’s post-modernity - can we even imagine a sociology without these exciting and intriguing concepts? Would we as sociology students have been as attracted and committed to the discipline without the engaging debates on Comte, Spencer, Durkheim, Marx, Veblin, Weber, the Chicago and Frankfurt Schools, all the above concepts and more. There is some telling and trailblazing theoretical work in sociology and the social sciences today. The rise of a transnational and trans-regional collaborative sociology developing a “world society” theory (Wittman, 2018) is one strong case in point. Such works are however the exception and not the rule. As Outwaithe (2016, p.1) poignantly puts it: “[i]n much of sociology, it often seems that the wave of theory has passed over, often leaving nothing but ritualistic footnotes attached to highly empiricist exercises in “normal science.”

In a social world craving for big data, soundbites and buzzwords that everyone is racing to embrace and laud without the slightest glimpse of critical engagement and forethought, at best social theory is perceived as a tool for the fool meandering and lost in the playground of the inane. At worst, it is not even engaged with, considered or debated at all. The “watering down” of social theory courses on campuses across the UK and the US (ibid.) and beyond, epitomises all this, while underscoring a pull toward abstract empiricism and theory void research.

The penchant for atheoretical work and a general resistance to theory is evident across the area’s myriad subdisciplines. Consider this plea from the editors of the European Journal of Sport and Society (Thiel et al., 2018, p. 4):

Lately, the number of papers submitted to our journal, which do not underpin their empirical studies with a precise, informative, and coherent social theory has continuously risen. In some cases, the lack of a theoretical framework even led to the impression that the explanations of the empirical findings in the discussion part were a ‘poking around in the dark’ rather than a justified deduction of assumptions, which could lead to subsequent research. We therefore strongly encourage all authors to unfold the theoretical framework of their studies and to discuss their empirical findings by systematically linking them with social theory.

Politicians, policy-makers and administrators, who are quite often the absolute holders of the purse requisite for the commissioning of social research, edge social scientists towards this theory-abject position. Their primary objective remains the harnessing of ‘credible’ and ‘robust’ indicators. These are often expected to offer insights on prevalence trends in respect of a social problem (requiring some sort of policy response). Studies and their results are expected to be reported in a way that is accessible and intelligible to the policy maker, service manager or legislator. Complex and engaging theoretical inflection, requisite for the development of all fields in the social science is not encouraged. The end result is thus research that is essentially utilitarian, reductive and simply descriptive in scope – an unimaginative, reactionary sociology. Huber (1979, p. 591) had long anticipated the dangers of sociology (and the humanities in general) succumbing this reality, at a time of theoretical resurgence in the discipline:

In academia, itself a depressed area, the social sciences and humanities have suffered from declining enrollments and shrinking resources to the point where scholars need to ask what various disciplines must do to survive. On the one hand, if we as sociologists, produce only bits and pieces of common sense, albeit dressed up in esoteric language, we may find that no one cares about the games we play. On the other hand, if we organise ourselves to produce knowledge that someone with money – government or business – cares enough to pay for, then we risk reshaping the discipline in unforeseen ways, simply reacting to external forces. In parallel, as the neo-liberal, economistic precepts of ‘audit’, ‘cost-effectiveness’ and ‘accountability’ have also come increasingly to bear on setting the social policy and welfare services agenda, more emphasis is being made on commissioning and engaging sociologists and social scientists in service and practice evaluation studies. These are now sine qua non for the requisite ‘evidence base’ for policy, service and practice development. Such studies often include a mix of methods to assuage the weaknesses and limitations of undue paradigmic compartmentalisation and to ensure that they are as robust as possible in their scope from both ‘breath’ and ‘depth’ angles. However, results-centred evaluation studies such as these rarely plod beyond the descriptive and the specificity of the practice worlds they investigate. In sum, a rich resource that may be used to investigate and theorise on the wider social world, remains subject (and one may argue even subservient) to bureaucratic expediency. Moreover, a hegemonic agenda is clipping sociology’s proverbial wings and assuaging the discipline’s potential for complex engagement and insight. As Lempert claims (2018, p. 7), even the areas of inquiry that social scientists today decide to immerse themselves in are tempered a priori by the power mongers shaping normative discourse.

Social science today limits itself to what it calls “engaging in current debates”, which are equally politicized and controlled. The very idea that social science is about “debates” that must be politically “current” is itself a fallacy that represents an underlying destruction of discipline and intellectual life.

The zero sum of this reality is the metamorphosis of sociology into a purely pragmatic ‘applied’ field; desensitised to demystifying established dogma and buttressing rather than resisting mythification and convention. Lacking the requisite space to engage in daring and exciting theoretical exploration, most sociology today simply regurgitates and replicates established truths and power structures. Parallels may also be drawn here with Matthews’ (2017) scathing critique on the state of theory in modern criminology. He contends (p. 580) that the surge and domination of liberalism in criminology today is contributing to liberal agenda-driven and low-level theoretical exploration in the discipline. While pushing for the promotion of a liberal criminology, this drive is de-valuing the importance of a “unified body of theory” – a critique that can also be applied to sociology and the social sciences in general across the globe.

RE-VISITING SOCIOLOGY’S PROMISE

To conclude, what is thus required for sociology to revisit its promise, is to rekindle its mission and passion for theory. The curators of the discipline world-wide must ensure that this passion is transmitted effectively to students of the discipline. Related university curricula must shift from purely pragmatic considerations and effectively zone in on both classic and contemporary directions in sociological theory, demonstrating how these theories may prove pivotal for understanding and explaining current social currents and to anticipate and dwell on new ones. Research programmes in the area must further incentivise and encourage theorydriven work. Moreover, the wider society at large must tangibly recognise the importance of the space to think, theorise, inflect and speculate. At the very least, our universities should be such spaces.

References

Ansgar, T., Seiberth, K, & Mayer, J. (2018). Why does theory matter? Reflections on an apparently self-evident question in sport sociology. European Journal for Sport and Society, 15(1), 1-4. doi: 10.1080/16138171.2018.1437689

Huber, J. (1979). Comment: Where is the cutting edge of sociology? The Sociological Quarterly, 20 (Autumn 1979), 591-603.

Lempert, D. (2018). Foreword: The death of social sciences in an era of multicultural corporatism (“neo-liberalism”): with efforts at resuscitation. Catalyst: A Social Justice Forum, 8(1), 1-52. http://trace.tennessee.edu/catalyst/vol8/iss1/2

Matthews, R. (2017). False starts, wrong turns and dead ends: Reflections on recent developments in criminology. Critical Criminology, 25, 577-591. Doi: 10.1007.s10612-017-9372-9.

Outwaithe, W. (2016). Challenges in Sociological Theory. Frontiers in Sociology, 1(5), 1-2. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2016.00005

Thiel, A., Seiberth, K., & Mayer, J. (2018). Reflections on an apparently self-evident question in sport sociology. European Journal for Sport and Society, 15(1), 1-4. doi: 10.1080/16138171.2018.1437689

Wittman, V. (2018). World Society: An Ice-breaker for a Global Shift in Sociology? In I. Muenstermann (Ed.), Social responsibility. Intechopen. No.5055. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.75048.

Wright-mills, C. (2000). The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. First Published 1959.