(Re)
Making
Sociology:
Breaking
the
bonds
of our
discipline
Contemporary
Sociology
Washington
Jan
1998
Article 32
Delivery Options
Publisher Information
Clean Copy for Printing
Citation
Abstract
Full Text
Page Image
Authors:
Joey Sprague
Volume:
27
Issue:
1
Start Page:
24-28
ISSN:
00943061
Subject Terms:
Sociology
Abstract:
It
is argued that what can unite sociologists is the
potential
to support informed social action, but the
way
the discipline is constructed makes it
increasingly
difficult to facilitate an informed public
discourse.
Full
Text:
Copyright
American Sociological Association Jan 1998
What
is sociology? The question tends to focus our
attention
on issues of topic and/or method, and at
that
point we can see why the question emerges.
We
are increasingly diverse on both dimensions. Of
course,
any good sociologist, certainly Dorothy
Smith
(1987, 1990), could tell us that sociology is
what
we make of it. So, the question really is, how
are
we making sociology? Asking it that way
focuses
our attention more on the organization of
the
discipline, on the practices by which we
produce
and reproduce ourselves. Then we can see
that
what ties us together is the bonds of our
discipline.
The nod to Foucault ( 1980) is
intentional.
I want to argue that what could unite us
is
our potential to support informed social action.
Yet
the way we construct our discipline makes it
increasingly
difficult to facilitate an informed public
discourse.
Ironically, what ties us together tends to
keep
us from uniting.
For
one thing, as diverse as we are becoming, the
sociology
we have inherited and work within is the
product
of a particular subgroup's perspective on
society.
Feminist and other critical scholars have
been
demonstrating for some time that the
substance
of sociology is how society looks from
the
standpoint of social elites, typically racially and
economically
privileged men (see, for example,
Collins
1991; hooks 1994; Smith 1990; Sprague
1997).
For instance, our conceptual preference is
for
decontextualized abstractions. Our unit of
analysis
is more often an abstract individual than a
person
who lives within and actively negotiates a
complex
web of social relations, including class,
gender,
and race. The standpoint of the privileged
also
comes through in our conventional
segmentation
of social life, where we often
downplay,
or even hide, the experience of the least
powerful
(Smith 1990). For instance, we separate
work
and family, making it harder to see that
maintaining
a family involves work and that
households
can be sites of both paid and unpaid
labor
and production for the market (Cancian
1985;
Collins 1991; Oakley 1974; Mies 1986).
Everywhere,
and usually by inattention, we discount
the
work of caring, of physical and emotional
nurturance,
especially if it is done by subordinate
groups
in general and women in particular (Cancian
and
Oliker forthcoming; Glenn 1992).
Feminist
and other scholars have also criticized the
way
the standpoint of economically and racially
privileged
men underlies the emphasis on
separation,
abstraction, and control in the
methodological
tradition we have inherited (Collins
1991;
Foucault 1980; Keller 1985; Habermas
1971;
Smith 1990). In that tradition, researchers'
values
and personal history are to be hidden from
view,
intellectually isolated from the development of
research
agendas and from their interpretation of
data.
Our methods direct us to convert the lives of
those
we study into data, using our frameworks to
the
exclusion of theirs and without attending to the
interpersonal
and social structural relationships of
power
and privilege through which researchers and
researched
are connected.
Part
of the problem with seeing society from the
perspective
of economically and racially privileged
men
is that, like any perspective, it is limited. Those
limitations
distort our view, as the examples above
demonstrate.
A more disturbing aspect of the
standpoint
we tend to use is that the distortions
naturalize
the privilege of those who have it, and
thus
the oppression of those over whom they (and
sometimes
we) have privilege.
Still,
as sociologists we are standing in an
intellectual
space from which we could construct a
more
broadly useful, even liberatory, understanding
of
society. We share an awareness that the social
has
important explanatory force-that individuals,
groups,
and even institutions are embedded in a
social
context that shapes and constrains their
choices.
We also realize that the social is the
product
of the concerted actions of individuals,
sometimes
singly, more often in groups, and through
institutions.
In a sense, we study the shape and
consequences
of social action. Because we study
social
action, we are in a position to ask and
answer
the kinds of questions that are central to
guiding
it.
Ironically,
even though we, as sociologists, try to
describe
and explain social action, we are bound in
a
discipline that makes it hard to participate in
social
action outside the academy. We do
sociology
in varying ways, and venues and
expectations
at specific workplaces vary greatly.
Still,
within the profession we are held to a fairly
uniform
set of standards. In particular, we divide
our
activities into research, teaching, and service,
and
assign status and material rewards differentially
within
and among those categories. The terms in
which
we evaluate ourselves and one another within
the
profession and the way we segment the terrain
of
our professional lives-literally our curriculum
vitae-also
follow the logic of the privileged
masculine
standpoint in emphasizing abstraction,
segmentation,
quantity, and hierarchy at the
expense
of concrete connection and support.
In
assigning status, we place the heaviest weight on
research
and apply some explicit criteria for
distinguishing
high- from lowstatus research. We
value
basic research, scholarship motivated by the
interests
of scholars, over applied research, work
that
employs sociological tools toward concrete
social
goals. We count publications and weigh each
by
the status-value of the outlet. The highest status
is
accorded to a few disciplinary journals, whose
names
we can all repeat in the proper order. Some
criteria
are less explicit: what men usually do over
what
women usually do; highly technical analyses
over
simpler approaches; abstract, dispassionate,
esoteric
language over personal, committed, and
accessible
language.
As
a discipline, we say that teaching is important
and
our professional organizations provide services
to
support it. However, the major rewards in the
discipline
do not go to effective teachers or even,
for
the most part, to people who work at
teaching-oriented
institutions. Few graduate
programs
require their students to be familiar with
the
flourishing literature on teaching in sociology.
Unaware
of the alternatives, many of us understand
teaching
to be telling students everything we know
about
a topic in a "conversation" that is, for the
most
part, one-way.
Those
of us at educational institutions must juggle
the
demands of teaching with those of research in a
context
where being a productive researcher often
conflicts
with being a committed and effective
teacher.
At the highly competitive leading research
institutions,
teaching even can get defined as the
necessary
price of being supported to do research,
and
the "truly privileged" are those who are able to
bring
in external funding and use some of it to buy
their
way out of classroom teaching. We reinforce
the
sharp line we draw between research and
teaching
in our standards for evaluating publications
about
scholarship: We hold publication of original
research
to be much more important and creative
than
the organization of an area's scholarship in a
way
that supports teaching about it.
Through
these practices we have made ourselves
into
a diverse discipline held together by an
individualized
status hierarchy. What we could
make
of ourselves is a role of leadership in public
discourse
about how to make society a better place
for
more people. Looking at it sociologically, the
purpose
of knowledge is to inform intentional
action.
In a democratic society, the purpose of
knowledge
is to facilitate public discourse that can
inform
social action.
The
need for an informed public discourse is great.
Sociologists
are often among the loudest in decrying
the
quality of public discourse about social
phenomena.
Politicians speak in sound bites. The
news
media increasingly resemble tabloids. Unable
to
understand the sources of the social problems
and
cynical about the actions of politicians, most
people
turn off. Politics seems irrelevant to these
people,
though as sociologists we are well aware
that
the decisions of policymakers certainly are not.
Many
of us would say that contributing in some
way
to general social knowledge is what we do, or
at
least what we want to do, or went to graduate
school
to be able to do. But judging from our
actions,
we don't do it very well. The way we
organize
ourselves into that trichotomy of research,
teaching,
and service undercuts our ability to
facilitate
informed public discourse.
For
example, consider the consequences of
apportioning
esteem based on length of publication
list.
The easiest way to increase your publication list
is
to break one article into two, split parts of an
argument
or analytic emphases. This encourages the
fragmentation
of knowledge and the labor it takes
to
create some sense of the whole. In emphasizing
quantity
in our evaluation of research productivity,
we
condemn one another to a treadmill whose
speed
is ever increasing. The time and energy it
takes
to generate multiple publications and to keep
up
with the ones others are generating at the same
feverish
rate leaves little time or energy to spare for
involvement
in family, neighborhood, and/or
community.
The
quantitative pressure on research productivity
at
many institutions creates a time conflict between
research
and teaching. The emphasis on knowledge
that
is separate from daily life creates an intellectual
conflict
as well, one that breeds a hierarchical
approach
to the classroom. Teaching becomes
"telling,"
as Goldschmid and Hughes (1980)
describe
it, an extended and one-sided review of
the
literature. If our focus is on facilitating informed
public
discourse, those students in the classroom
become
citizens who need to learn how to make
sense
of their complex lives so they can decide on
appropriate
action (hooks 1994). Teaching begins
to
look like service. But those student/citizens are
also
axes of data; their lives and their
understandings
are something we need to
incorporate
and account for in our scholarly
frameworks.
So teaching is an aspect of research.
Service,
for those of us in the academy, is hack
work
cranking the wheels of institutional
bureaucracy.
If academic sociologists want to
facilitate
civic discourse and informed social action,
we
should be following the model of our colleagues
in
the applied arena, testifying before policymakers,
helping
journalists see things sociologically, working
with
citizen groups to help them analyze their
situation.
That is, service would look a lot like
teaching
beyond the classroom. Further, being
engaged
in this way brings us into contact with
different
interpretive frameworks and generates
new
questions that are closer to the questions of
daily
life. That is, service interacts with research.
If
our goal were to facilitate informed public
discourse,
what would our research look like?
What
questions would we pursue? What would our
answers
look like in substance and in form? Would
our
research be solely what we think of as applied,
that
is, directed toward the solution of specific
problems?
I don't think so, but I do think we would
move
in the direction Dorothy Smith (1987, 1990)
is
pointing to: to help people make sense of the
constraints
and contradictions in their everyday lives
by
helping them see how these problems are the
outcome
of actions taken by powerful parties
outside
the local context, what she calls "external
relations
of ruling." In doing so, our agendas might
start
obliterating the basic/applied dichotomy,
because
informing discourse on a problem of lived
experience
would involve putting that problem in a
larger
social and historical context-including asking
such
questions as Who else has this problem? What
have
they tried to do, and how successful has that
attempt
been? How does this problem fit into the
larger
immediate context of social institutions and
practices,
and how does it shape actual selves in
daily
interactions?
Certainly
the way we write about our research
would
have to change. We would need to change
the
language we use to make it clearer and more
accessible
to a broader public. We would feel more
responsible
to draw out the relevance of our
scholarly
findings to some aspect of contemporary
social
life. We would value the intellectual
contribution
of scholarship that integrates and
connects
bits of knowledge into a big picture.
Research
would be a little more like teaching. I
think
these pressures would make for stronger
scholarship,
just as we usually find that we learn a
subject
the best through teaching it.
If
our mission is to inform public discourse,
classroom
teaching becomes a key element of that
goal,
because our ability to facilitate informed
discourse
about social action is constrained by the
ability
of the general public to think sociologically.
We
will have to reconstrue our role in the
classroom,
from telling students what to think to
helping
them learn how to think as sociologists. We
need
to facilitate our students' ability to evaluate
evidence,
to assess critically the analysis of data, to
be
able to apply contrasting explanatory
frameworks
to the findings and decide which is best
supported.
To
prepare students to participate fully in public
discourse,
we will also have to adopt the goal set
for
us by bell hooks (1994): to help them learn to
make
the connections between the explanatory
frameworks
we are developing and the
circumstances
of their own lives. If we are to help
them
understand their lives, we need to know more
about
those lives that are being constructed in
different
social situations than our own. As hooks
points
out, this means that both teacher and
students
bring resources to the classroom; effective
teaching
needs to be constructed as a collaboration.
In
the process, we will be learning about aspects of
social
life from the standpoints of our students,
which
will enrich our scholarly perspective.
Teaching,
in this way, starts to move in the direction
of
collaborative research.
If
our primary goal is to support informed public
discourse,
service becomes much larger than
disciplining
ourselves by filling spaces on
committees.
Service becomes the essence of the
profession-a
word that comes from the Latin word
that
means to declare one's beliefs openly. We
certainly
need to be available to those who come to
us
asking for sociological insights, but more than
that,
we need to take a more active role in
proselytizing
sociological understandings. The
venues
are varied: newspapers and magazines,
legislative
committee hearings, talks to public
service
groups. Years ago, a student asked me why
there
was a Psychology Today but no Sociology
Today,
no vehicle for systematically getting
sociological
insights into the popular media. It still is
a
very good question. In the professing model of
sociology,
service begins to look like extending our
teaching
far beyond the walls of the classroom and
publishing
through a much wider range of outlets
and
media. Intentionally constructing sociology to
support
informed public social action requires
breaking
down the barriers we have erected
between
the ways we develop and communicate
knowledge.
It integrates the pieces of our scholarly
lives.
It
would also bring us together as sociologists. Our
discipline
divides us into subareas, but the work of
supporting
social action requires us to work
together.
Any aspect of social life is a complex of
relationships
between individual actors with their
own
consciousness, biography, and interests that
are
located in specific relationships within particular
organizational
constraints and within larger
institutional
practices, all of which are embedded in
a
history. Thus, it takes many sociologists operating
on
diverse levels of analysis with different
conceptual
foci to construct the basis for a useful
account
of a social phenomenon or problem
(Sprague
and Zimmerman 1993). In trying to figure
out
our individual pieces, we will have to listen to
and
learn from scholars whose work now seems
remote
from or perhaps even irrelevant to ours. The
complexity
of social life has given rise to our
diversity;
the problem is a point where we all
intersect.
Sociology
is what we make of it; we impose the
standards
of our discipline on one another. We can
begin
re-making ourselves every time we evaluate a
CV,
or review a paper, or work on our own
scholarship.
We can insist on clarity, creativity, and
usefulness
more than on quantity and mystification.
We
can begin reorganizing how we teach one
classroom
exercise, or op-ed piece, or school
board
meeting at a time, and we can support each
other
in these efforts both intellectually and
materially.
We can seriously test the hypothesis that
work
in different substantive and methodological
corners
than the ones we occupy is essential to our
understanding.
Academic sociologists can define
teaching
introductory sociology or periodically
working
outside the academy as important to
professional
development. We can use our
professional
meetings to facilitate interaction, even
team
building, among those whose primary energies
are
devoted to research or to teaching or to
working
in the applied arena. What will bring us
together,
if we dare to try it, is a shared and
collaborative
focus on informing social action.
*I
would like to thank Judy Howard, Margaret Greer,
Jennifer
Glass, Gary Brunk, Barbara Risman, and Don
Tomaskovic-Devey
for their thoughtful and useful
suggestions
about how to improve this essay.
References
Cancian, Francesca. 1985. "Gender
Politics:
Love and Power in the Private and Public
Spheres." Pp. 253264 in Gender and the
Life
Course, edited by Alice S. Rossi. New York:
Aldine.
and Stacey Oliker. Forthcoming. For Love and
Money: A Gendered View of Caring. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1991. Black Feminist
Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the
Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge.
Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge:
Selected Interviews and Other Writings
1972-1977, edited by Colin Gordon. New York:
Pantheon. Glenn, Evelyn N. 1992. "From
Servitude to Service Work: Historical
Continuities
in the Racial Division of Paid Reproductive
Labor." Signs: Journal of Women in
Culture and
Society 18:1-43. Goldschmid, Charles and
Everett Hughes. 1980. Passing On Sociology:
The Teaching of a Discipline. Washington DC:
American Sociological Association/Teaching
Resources Center. Habermas, Jurgen. 1971.
Knowledge And Human Interests. Boston:
Beacon Press.
hooks, bell. 1994. Teaching To Transgress:
Education As The Practice Of Freedom. New
York: Routledge. Keller Evelyn Fox. 1985.
Reflections on Gender and
Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Mies, Maria. 1986. Patriarchy and
Accumulation
on a World Scale: Women in the International
Division of Labor. Atlantic Highlands, NJ:
Zed
Books. Oakley, Ann. 1974. The Sociology of
Housework. New York: Pantheon.
Smith, Dorothy E. 1990. The Conceptual
Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of
Knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press. . 1987. The Everyday World as
Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston:
Northeastern University Press.
Sprague, Joey. 1997. "Holy Men and Big
Guns:
The Can [n]on in Social Theory." Gender
f9
Society 11: 88-107.
Sprague, Joey and Mary K. Zimmerman. 1993.
"Overcoming Dualisms: A Feminist Agenda
For
Sociological Methodology." Pp. 255-280
in
Theory on Gender/Feminism on Theory, edited
by Paula England. New York: Aldine.
Reproduced
with permission of the copyright owner.
Further
reproduction or distribution is prohibited without
permission.