Jeffries Vincent (Editor). Handbook Of Public Sociology

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

2 Chapter 1

practice in which each one can add to the excellence of the others is foun-

dational in transforming the discipline. Focus is thereby placed on the idea

that each form of practice is enhanced by giving attention to the essential

concerns and agenda of the others. Likewise, if the forms become detached

from each other, they move toward diminished performance and possibly

pathology. If public sociology is detached from the other forms of practice,

it too will diminish in validity and effectiveness. If this disciplinary model

is fully integrated into every form of practice, it can lift the science of sociol-

ogy to a higher level of performance in all its aspects.

In this holistic model, a discipline that can come closer to realizing its

most comprehensive potential can be created. For example, how profes-

sional and policy perspectives can mutually enhance each other is illus-

trated in a recent issue of a research journal. At the editor’s request, each

author included in their article a brief consideration of how their research

contributed to “the application of relationship theory and findings to

problems of the real world” (Boon 2008:iii). Positive results of this con-

sideration included a variety of potentially useful practical implications

of research findings, and an awareness of the need for greater attention to

adequately communicating and disseminating the results of research. Such

broadening of perspective and contribution would become routine with the

implementation of the holistic model in practice. Various modifications of

this nature that connect different forms of practice have great potential for

transforming the discipline in a positive direction.

The four sociologies model provides the basis for the emergence of a

community of scholars focused on the discernment of the truth in all its

relevant aspects and applications, and the appropriate dissemination of

that truth to various audiences. This community potentially embraces all

sociologists, both those in academic positions and those in non-academic

positions of various types. The effective path to this positive transformation

of the discipline is the full development and implementation of the model

of four sociologies.

This volume is intended to provide a description and analysis of the ho-

listic sociology model from a variety of perspectives and in a number of dif-

ferent contexts. In part I through part VI of this volume, attention is focused

on the nature of the model itself, how it can be established and perfected

within the discipline, the application of the model in teaching, case studies

of organic public sociology, the use of the model in special fields of sociol-

ogy, and future directions.

This introductory chapter has two major objectives. The first is to pro-

vide a brief overview of each chapter, emphasizing the context of the four

sociologies model. The second is to present the basic themes that link the

chapters into a unified vision of the discipline and its potential future

directions. This extensive demonstration and explication of the holistic so-

2 Chapter 1

Redefining the Nature and Future of Sociology 3

ciology perspective provides a basis for each person to make an informed

judgment regarding its nature, application, and potential.

OVERVIEW OF THE VOLUME

Part I: Exploring and Elaborating the Holistic Model

The characteristics of Burawoy’s four forms model of public sociology

are the foundation of its potential impact upon the discipline. The nature

of each form of sociology, its possible contributions to the system, and

the relationships that exist among the four modes of practice, are major

aspects of the model that are considered and evaluated in part I. Two of

the chapters apply the model to a system of thought, while two suggest

modifications to the model. Another chapter identifies and elaborates is-

sues suggested by the model.

Chapter 2, by Lawrence T. Nichols, describes and explicates Burawoy’s

theoretical model by comparing it with the system of sociology developed

by Pitirim A. Sorokin. Nichols begins by observing that both these scholars

were presidents of the American Sociological Association, were controver-

sial, “expressed profound optimism” in the science of sociology, and “invite

their audience to imagine an alternative future for the field.” In the first

part of the chapter Nichols describes Sorokin’s scholarly career in terms

of Burawoy’s model, showing that his legacy includes major publications

in all four forms of practice. This legacy culminated in Sorokin’s system of

integralism, which is described by Nichols in terms of seven major charac-

teristics. This account of Sorokin’s system of sociology provides the foun-

dation for an imagined debate between Sorokin and Burawoy regarding

the strong and weak points of their respective sociologies. This imaginary

exchange yields the conclusion that both scholars “would have regarded

one another as kindred spirits seeking to reinvigorate their discipline within

a context of perceived professional decline and historical crisis.”

Chapter 3, by Raymond A. Morrow, is intended to “offer some construc-

tive suggestions for revising and reframing the original model.” A review

and evaluation of the debate regarding Burawoy’s four form model provides

the basis for five steps proposed to reconstruct the model. The first step

involves eliminating the instrumental-reflexive distinction. The second step

is to replace critical sociology with a broader and more inclusive category

of social theory. The third reconstructive step is to reformulate the idea of

professional sociology to emphasize a variety of explanatory strategies. The

fourth step is to recognize basic divisions within policy sociology between a

pragmatic orientation directed toward particular ends and a broader orienta-

tion directed toward more radical and visionary changes. Finally, the fifth

4 Chapter 1

step is to recognize that social theory, professional sociology, and policy

and public sociologies are the conditions for institutionalizing sociology

as a field of knowledge that can inform a “process of humanization and

democratization.”

Chapter 4, by Joe Feagin, Sean Elias, and Jennifer Mueller, offers “several

criticisms and modifications” of the four form model. Most fundamentally,

a basic model that combines professional and policy sociology into “main-

stream sociology” and combines critical and public into “critical public

sociology” is presented. An opposition between these two forms, both

historically and in terms of their adherents and purposes, is posited. Criti-

cal public sociology is viewed as a “countersystem” that has existed since

the start of the discipline. This countersystem tradition identifies social

injustices, documents them empirically, and describes their basic socio-

logical nature and relation to the general society and culture. This “morally

guided” tradition is oriented to visions of a future society characterized by

“egalitarian resource access, democratic pluralism, and social justice.” So-

ciology is seen as a vehicle for more fully realizing these alternatives to the

current state of society.

In chapter 5 Wendell Bell addresses “two missing links” in the discus-

sion of public sociology and the other forms of practice. These essential

and inherent issues are how “sociologists as social scientists enter into public

dialogues” regarding “what the future outcomes of actions, events, and

processes could or will be” and “what defines a good society and what val-

ues ought to be served.” The future perspective inevitably involves choices

among alternatives, and various sociological methods can be adapted to

study both possibilities and consequences. This future perspective also

involves judgments regarding the good. Various sources indicate consider-

able agreement on universal values. The method of epistemic implication

constitutes an objective method for examining these value assertions. By

contributing more complex and rigorous thinking to public debates about

the future and about the good, public sociologists can help create a situa-

tion in which “people could imagine a better world that was truly possible

and design the actions that would create it.”

Vincent Jeffries describes the social thought of Pitirim A. Sorokin in

chapter 6. His writings span the four forms of practice and are “the ideal

exemplar for illustrating the validity and analytical power” of the four form

model of public sociology. Sorokin’s professional sociology is innovative,

comprehensive, and supported by historical and comparative research. It

includes the idea of an integral ontology and epistemology that incorpo-

rates philosophical and religious ideas within the sociological frame of

reference. Sorokin’s critical sociology derives from this professional base,

and is directed toward both sociology and the general society. It includes a

critique of existing conditions in both spheres and the formulation of posi-

Redefining the Nature and Future of Sociology 5

tive alternatives. Sorokin’s policy sociology is directed toward realizing the

positive vision of an integral order in which altruistic love and solidarity

are increased in society. These three sociologies provide the basis for a pub-

lic sociology that “provides a compelling and relevant message admirably

suited to dialogue with the public about a better world and how it can be

achieved.”

Part II: Establishing and Perfecting the Model

The chapters in part II consider various measures that will contribute to

the establishment of public sociology and the development of its potential.

Topics are diverse, including necessary changes in the discipline itself, stan-

dards to evaluate public sociology, writing for the public, and recapturing

the perspective of the sociological imagination. The common theme that

unites the chapters is the conditions necessary for the development of pub-

lic sociology, both within the discipline and in terms of its effectiveness in

society.

Chapter 7, by Herbert J. Gans, focuses on changes that need to be made

in the discipline of sociology for public sociology to flourish. These changes

are “urgent” because “the active development of public sociology is essen-

tial to the healthy future of the discipline.” Public sociology is sociological

writing that is intended for an audience in the general public. Its primary

purpose is to assist its readers in understanding the society they live in. So-

ciology needs to produce “eye-opening” studies that are “original, insight-

ful and attention-attracting empirical and theoretical research on topics

useful and relevant to all parts of the general public.” Such “topic-driven”

studies will foster the growth of public sociology. Another needed disciplin-

ary change is the creation of a varied incentive structure to encourage the

practice and publication of public sociology. In graduate education needed

changes include partial curriculum tracks for public sociology, and collabo-

ration with disciplines such as journalism and the humanities.

The goal of Norval D. Glenn in chapter 8 is “to formulate a set of sug-

gested standards for distinguishing between good and bad public sociol-

ogy.” These are stated in terms of what the individual sociologist “can do to

foster good public sociology.” Ultimate values are ends that do not depend

on beliefs about empirical reality, while relative values do. Science cannot

assess ultimate values, but sociologists are involved in the assessment of

derivative values in terms of their relation to ultimate values. Thus, two ba-

sic standards are that the public sociologist can devise and assess means, or

derivative values, in terms of their effectiveness in realizing ultimate values.

In doing so, however, only tentative commitments should be made to de-

rivative values. Other standards include avoiding taking positions to please

others, opposing unwarranted claims, communicating both the potential

6 Chapter 1

contributions of sociology and the limits of its knowledge, being motivated

by the attempt to make the world better, engaging in effective communica-

tion, and protecting the credibility and respectability of sociology.

Chapter 9, by Damon Mayrl and Laurel Westbrook, confronts the practical

issue of how to do public sociology by “introducing a series of concrete pro-

posals about how to write public sociology.” The foundation of successful

public sociology is accountability. This orientation involves being respon-

sible to publics and “is achieved by making a good-faith effort to engage

with chosen publics in an attitude of mutual respect.” Accountability has

three components: dialogue, relevance, and accessibility. Dialogue involves

incorporating non-academic opinions in shaping context, approaching a

topic with terms that are part of the public debate, and presenting data in a

manner publics can independently evaluate. Relevance involves both dem-

onstrating the utility of sociology in increasing understanding, and making

abstract concepts concrete and meaningful. Accessibility means writing in

a form the public is familiar with. Each of these components are illustrated

by excerpts from exemplars of public sociology. For public sociology to suc-

ceed, graduate education needs to give more attention to writing.

In chapter 10 Frank Furedi suggests that public sociology can contribute

greatly to the content of discourse in the public sphere. To realize this po-

tential “one of the main purposes of public sociology has to be its commit-

ment to rising to the challenge of recapturing the sociological imagination.”

Certain problematic viewpoints must be recognized. First, the disparaging,

patronizing, and elitist attitudes toward the general public often held by

academic intellectuals must be resisted. Rather, there should be an effort

to present a sociological view of the world to wide and diverse audiences.

Second, there is a prevailing cultural belief that individual distress is best

understood in emotional and therapeutic terms, and as a product of the

choices and internal life of the individual. This must be replaced with a

sociological perspective that enables individuals to view their experiences

in a historical and social context that gives them meaning. This creates a

worldview that “can encourage purposeful public activity and the exercise

of agency.”

Part III: Teaching and Public Sociology

Students are the most numerous public that sociologists regularly com-

municate with regarding sociological knowledge and understandings. In

part III the chapters consider the relation between teaching and public so-

ciology at the high school and university levels, respectively. The chapters

identify and analyze both separate and combined influences of the four

sociological perspectives on teaching. At both levels of teaching, the holistic

nature of the public sociology model is illustrated.

Redefining the Nature and Future of Sociology 7

In chapter 11 Michael DeCesare examines the relation between the four

forms of practice in the context of high school sociology. One-third of a

million high school students take a course in sociology in any given year.

He develops the central thesis that “without the strong presence of profes-

sional sociology, the other three types cannot and will not be developed in

high school sociology courses.” The foundational content of professional

sociology is viewed as theory, methods, and the history of the discipline.

Evidence is presented that indicates that levels of training and of knowledge

and the understanding of professional sociology are low among teachers of

sociology in high schools. Actions that could be undertaken by the Ameri-

can Sociological Association to begin to correct this situation are described.

A dramatic example of “what could be” is provided by a study conducted

by students of attitudes toward bullying. Findings were presented to a panel

and the assembled student body with the purpose of stimulating discussion

and formulating effective policies to reduce bullying and violence.

The relation between the four sociological perspectives and university

teaching is the focus of chapter 12, by Caroline Hodges Persell. The chapter

elaborates in various ways the idea that the “articulation of four types of

sociology raises a series of questions and issues for the teaching of sociol-

ogy.” Persell first draws upon various sources, including a study of peer

designated leaders within the discipline, to describe how sociologists teach

from each perspective in the typology. Both what sociologists include in

their teaching, and how they involve students, are described for each type

separately. The possible contributions and pathologies of each type as they

may occur in teaching are analyzed. The second part of the chapter focuses

on the systemic and interdependent nature of Burawoy’s disciplinary model

as it is applied to teaching. The different possible relationships among the

four forms of practice are carefully analyzed in terms of both tensions and

synergies. Finally, the implications of the model for developing teaching

resources and curriculum are considered.

Part IV: The Practice of Organic Public Sociology

The case studies in organic public sociology presented in the chapters of

part IV contribute to a common theme of the dynamic interdependence of

the four forms of practice. Various specific examples are presented of how

a particular form initiates or shapes the content and emphasis of another

form. The idea of sociology as a holistic system that lifts the discipline to a

higher level of practice through the vehicle of the four forms is aptly illus-

trated in the contexts of different projects in chapters 13 through 17 (and in

chapter 19 in part VI). The last chapter in part IV focuses on an account of

some of the problems that can intervene in the transition from professional

to public sociology.

8 Chapter 1

In chapter 13 Elizabeth Dermody Leonard describes a project that “be-

gan in the world of professional sociology, evolved into organic public

sociology as well as into a form of policy sociology, while critical sociology

informed its evolution.” The research base is data gathered from women

sentenced to prison for killing their abusive husbands. The study yielded

certain “categories of experience” pertaining to both the women’s self-

perceptions, and their contacts with the police and courts. A critical per-

spective of realizing justice emerged from the research as it “became infused

with the moral sense that this knowledge could and should be used for

public education as well as for convicted survivors and others like them.”

The power of the narrative accounts led to the production of a play, set in

a parole hearing, in which quotes from inmates were integrated into the

script to tell the women’s stories. The play became public sociology in per-

formances for the prison population. Research findings influenced policy

makers to propose legal changes in cases of spousal abuse, and form the

basis of policy recommendations.

In chapter 14 Lina Hu gives an account of a “project that not only neatly

fits in the four categories of sociology, but also promotes the integration

of the four sociologies.” The “Baigou Project” began as an investigation of

the genesis and nature of the bag industry in northern China. Results indi-

cated that five basic features of factory organization combined to produce

substandard and dangerous working conditions for the migrant workers

in the industry. On this basis the project was changed into an initiative in

policy sociology to better the conditions of the workers by informing them

of provisions of the labor law. Limited results showed the need for a more

extensive project in organic public sociology. A night school with a library

and courses in English, computer skills, and the labor law was established

to raise the class consciousness and self-confidence of the workers. Critical

sociology played a major role throughout the project. It “reinforced the

moral stances” of the researchers, provided guiding principles and stan-

dards of evaluation, and inspired the evolvement of the project from pro-

fessional to policy to public sociology.

In chapter 15 Stephen Cornell examines the evolving interdependence

of the forms of sociology in continuing research studies of Indigenous

Nations that began in 1986. The first study compared American Indian

Nations in terms of their economic development. Results show that suc-

cess in economic activity is influenced by sovereignty, capable internal

governance, and a cultural “match” of formal governance and informal

understandings. A public dialogue regarding the results with Native leaders

and communities led to new research directions. The continuing “two-way

educational process” of organic public sociology became a “joint intellec-

tual effort in which we and they together engaged in figuring things out.”

A reciprocal policy sociology developed in which “each party draws on the

Redefining the Nature and Future of Sociology 9

other’s expertise to produce policy insights and solutions.” In early stages

of the project critical sociology prompted questioning of the norms that

social science should be detached, and that the only role of Indian publics

should be passive. The critical perspective later emphasized legitimacy and

Indigenous culture in a manner that challenged aspects of federal policy

and its assumptions regarding Indigenous peoples.

In chapter 16 Pamela E. Oliver describes a project of organic public

sociology that involves engaging diverse groups in dialogues regarding

racial disparities in imprisonment. The centerpiece of the project is the

presentation of statistical data that demonstrates this disparity. The find-

ings “told people things they did not know and forced people to confront

the problem.” The interdependence of the forms of sociological practice is

shown in the history of the project that began in 2000. A critical sensibil-

ity that “high Black imprisonment rates are bad and cause problems” gave

impetus to applying professional skills of assembling and analyzing data to

understand why. Presenting statistical data to publics of diverse concerns

and backgrounds requires particular modes of presentation. Interpretations

of racial disparities that are clearly supported by the evidence provide for

authoritative presentions. In the case of ambiguities or contested issues,

audiences can be told that “everyone needs to take responsibility for his or

her part” in the problem. Formulating policies to alleviate the problem de-

pends on information, is difficult, and requires working with and listening

to others in various publics.

Chapter 17, by Ruth Horowitz, is an ethnographic account of the author’s

experiences as a public member of state medical licensing and disciplinary

boards, and her related research. Service on such boards is organic public

sociology and can readily be combined with professional sociology by

engaging in ethnographic research of the public situation. A major focus is

describing how “professional sociology contributes to public sociology and

vica versa.” Thus, working as an organic public sociologist in the position of

board member provides insights for professional sociology, ethnographic

research skills provide facility for understanding the social situation of the

board activity, doing organic public sociology provides research opportuni-

ties not otherwise available, and research improves awareness of needed

changes. The general mission of public members of medical boards is to

protect the public. This role is approached from “a critical stance as a prag-

matist” to work for changes that are possible, even if limited. Data based

analysis can contribute to recommendations regarding board policy. The

chapter shows how “an ethnographic project provides one methodology

for the four sociologies to exist within one project.”

In chapter 18 Bill McCarthy and John Hagan “explore some of the dif-

ficulties sociologists encounter in doing public sociology.” Reactions to re-

search by Hagan and colleagues on deaths in Darfur provide an illustrative

10 Chapter 1

case study. These authors combined data from two earlier studies to pro-

duce a more accurate estimate of mortality. In a follow-up study, additional

data were added to obtain a still better estimate. Reactions to these, and

other, estimates of mortality provide the basis for identifying four problems

that limit the effectiveness of public sociology. These are the lack of con-

sensus on moral issues among multiple publics, the failure of scholars to

agree on the interpretation of research findings, the power of governments

to reject views not in accord with goals of the state, and the inconsistency of

the media in reporting and evaluation. The effectiveness of public sociology

can best be enhanced by “sociologists’ efforts to strengthen the discipline

and to increase public awareness of our increasing sophistication.”

Part V: Special Fields and Public Sociology

Sociology has traditionally been divided into general and special sociolo-

gies. The first studies the structures and processes that are common to all

sociocultural phenomena, the second the characteristics of a special class of

sociocultural phenomena. In part V public sociology and the holistic four

form model are examined in relation to six special fields of sociology: social

movements, human rights, forgiveness, globalization, altruism, and futures

studies. The chapter on social movements is also an additional case study

in organic public sociology.

Chapter 19, by Robert Kleidman, explores the question of how “social

movement scholarship and activism inform and improve each other.” Per-

tinent literature is supplemented by the authors’ experiences working with

community organizations. Engaged social movement scholarship is organic

or “grassroots” public sociology and involves “creating dialogues between

scholars and activists around vision and values, analysis and strategy.” In

this process of interaction synergies are evident among the four sociolo-

gies. Both professional and policy sociologies are improved when scholars

“partner” with activists to develop understanding and formulate strategy.

Public sociology can contribute to a critical perspective by encouraging

the community to “develop more explicit visions of the future, a deeper,

more sociological analysis of the present, and more long-term strategies.”

Policy and public sociology each benefit when scholars relate to organizers’

concerns, and thereby establish the trust necessary for dialogues regarding

assumptions. Engaged organic sociology improves professional practice “in

terms of data, methods, and theory” and informs critical sociology. Three

areas of tension among the forms of practice are also considered.

In chapter 20 Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann describes the field of human

rights within the framework provided by the four sociologies model. Hu-

man rights are “rights that all human beings are entitled to, merely by virtue

of being human.” Their most prominent enumeration is in the United Na-

Redefining the Nature and Future of Sociology 11

tions International Bill of Rights. Human rights are typically a dependent

variable in professional sociology. The circumstances of how they are real-

ized or violated is a basic explanatory focus. Sociological concerns such

as culture, class, status, and power are important in understanding these

outcomes regarding human rights. In critical sociology, “the international

law of human rights provides a common standard of achievement” that

can be applied to all types of societies. The field of human rights provides

policy sociology with “many debates about human rights to which sociolo-

gists can contribute, by using their professional standards to research policy

questions.” In the dialogues of public sociology “universal principles of hu-

man dignity and human rights” are likely to have resonance. Increasing the

knowledge of human rights and international law among diverse groups

can be an important contribution of public sociology.

Chapter 21, by Samuel P. Oliner, gives an overview of the study of for-

giveness as a special field of sociology. Forgiveness is typically preceded by

apology and ideally leads to the goal of reconciliation. Altruism appears

to be a primary independent variable in the process moving from apology

to forgiveness to reconciliation. The forgiveness process can take place at

both interpersonal and intergroup levels. Considerable scientific knowl-

edge exists regarding interpersonal forgiveness and its many benefits. The

study of intergroup forgiveness is relatively new, but case studies illustrate

its different forms and positive outcomes. The four types of sociology “are

the foundational basis for the sociological study of apology and forgiveness

and could lead to a more caring society.” Professional sociology provides

valid evidence about the forgiveness process. Policy sociology can incor-

porate these findings in pro-social training programs in public and private

organizations. Critical sociology provides the “moral vision” that explains

the importance of forgiveness “on a grand scale.” The task of public soci-

ology is “to publicize the important findings and relevance from which

society can benefit.”

Chapter 22, by Saskia Sassen, examines the sociology of globalization

and the potential contributions of public sociology to that field of study.

The project of public sociology is to confront some of the dominant public

viewpoints regarding globalization and to produce “an alternative narra-

tive” that is enabling to those who are defined as powerless. In so doing

public sociology can “open a window to the possibility of novel types of

public imaginaries and new possibilities for the making of the political.”

For example, internationalism can be refocused by the narrative of public

sociology on “such causes as human rights, the environment, and a more

socially just economic development.” The structural context of this oppor-

tunity for public sociology to critically remap interpretations is that some

components of the national and the global coincide. As a result, globaliza-

tion is significantly shaped within nations. Four types of these dualistic