theory is dead, long live theory
Kieran
In comments at Scatterplot, Dan Hirschman asks,
A colleague of mine in graduate school interested in social theory claimed there were no longer job postings available for specialists in theory. Instead, budding theorists have to masquerade as ‘cultural sociologists’ or something like it. Does that hold up to your impressions of the Sociology job market? What advice would you give to a budding sociology PhD who wanted to concentrate on social theory?
To which the answer surely is, forget it. To a first approximation, if you want to be a good social theorist in sociology, do empirical research. Here’s a diagnosis from a survey article I wrote a while ago:
[Sociology] is the most heterogeneous social science, which is perhaps another way of saying that it has been less successful at institutionalizing itself as a discipline than its close relatives. … This has not stymied efforts to rally the troops under a single banner. … But these claims have never prevailed in practice. Methodologically, the practice of sociology has always been considerably more heterogenous (and rougher around the edges) than the claims of general theorists would imply. In a similar fashion, sociological theory is better characterized as having its roots in a few intellectual traditions which, while they have often overlapped and interbred, have never succeeded either in subsuming their competitors or expelling them from the disciplinary conversation. The most successful effort (in professional rather than intellectual terms) was the structural-functionalist program of Talcott Parsons … The “orthodox consensus” he helped achieve was brittle and short-lived, however, and even in its heyday was subject to strong criticism …
By the 1970s, the Parsonian project had been rejected within sociology, but no single alternative arose to take its place. Instead, two related trends were discernable. Intellectually sociological theory in this grand style fragmented into several competing approaches. … And while important theoretical work appeared in the 1980s and 1990s, professionally theory began to decline as a specialization in its own right. By the turn of the century, sociological theory remained a standard part of a sociologist’s education but, at least in elite departments in the United States, was in general not taught by researchers who identified themselves as theorists. These changes, however, do not mean the field lacked well-defined research programs and theory groups. The point is that the retreat of grand theorising in the Parsonian mode – where the aim was to integrate the entire field within a single general theory of social action – has meant that the most productive theoretical developments are both better-integrated with empirical research and more focused in their aims.
The citations are in the article.
Which is all well and good, as in my view the accumulation of small studies that at least produce real findings is less of a vice than the elaboration of a vacuous language that cannot explain anything. But of course you’d rather have something other than these two alternatives, which are just our old friends Abstracted Empiricism and Grand Theory by other names. The most productive theoretical work in the field connects strong explanatory ideas with teachable (often in some sense formal) methods you can put to work. A good program will teach theory more as the construction and evaluation of argument than as the exposition of classic texts — or, worse, as the performance of some sort of language game.
I’m not entirely happy with what I’ve written so far because, often, arguments over the value of theory can become a kind of positional struggle where participants signal their commitment to, variously, pragmatically hard-headed applied work, the pure core of the field, the true warp and woof of social reality, contempt for mere quantification, ineffable grasp of the multidimensional qualities of things which by their nature preclude clear expression, or what have you. So my point is more about occupational realities than abstract debates about theoretical vs applied work. To return to the original question, if you’re interested in doing social theory these days you will need more items in your toolbox than your copies of the classics. If you think of social theory in exegetical terms – as the history of theory – those surely aren’t your translated copies, are they? You do at least speak French or German, right? If not, your prospects of really becoming a genuine specialist in this kind of work are pretty slim. Sociology is not the History of Ideas. If you see yourself as doing “pure” theory, without any empirical research or technical apparatus, consider whether this is at least partly conditioned on an aversion to math, a dislike of archives, or revulsion at the prospect of long periods of fieldwork in unpleasant locations. Sociology is not Philosophy, either.
None of which is to deny that it’s extremely useful to have people around the department who can argue you into a corner if they feel like it, and who know an awful lot about the provenance of apparently new ideas in the field.
I saw that post over at Scatterplot, too. But aren’t there still lots of theory jobs, in terms of the courses the hiring department wants taught?
This is coming from my entirely non-scientific reading of job ads as an anxious graduate student, but it seems like theory is high on the list — after stats, of course — of the courses departments most advertise they need taught. Granted, I agree that it’s unlikely that you could write a pure “theory” dissertation these days and get hired, regardless of what classes you could teach. (To think that C. Wright Mills’s dissertation was on pragmatism and sociology…)
Yet, I do think that a “history of ideas” has value in sociology. The new(ish) “Sociology in America” collection put out by the ASA is great, for example. After all, there’s nothing worse than a field that doesn’t reflect on its past as a way to come to grips with its successes and failures. Plus, reflexivity would seem to dictate that we should look at how social science research actually shapes reality, rather than just reflecting it. Of course, I guess that type of critical inquiry brings us into the sociology of knowledge more than “theory,” which probably proves your point…
Grad Student
January 30, 2008 at 5:52 am
If you publish a lot in top journals, you can get a job. But as Kieran implies, it’s much tougher to accrue top journal publications writing theory-only papers. Most papers in AJS, ASR, and the other top sociology journals have an empirical component to them.
I wonder if pure theory would find a wider audience sociology if we had a stronger interest in mathematical/formal approaches. Economics still does a lot of pure theory, but most sociologists wouldn’t recognize it as such because theory gets expressed in equations and proofs. Similarly, in organizational economics you still see pure theorists who stick to formal models.
brayden
January 30, 2008 at 6:34 am
…During the first half of the nineteenth century a new attitude made
its appearance. The term science came more and more to be confined to the physical and biological disciplines which at the same time began to claim for themselves a special rigorousness and certainty which distinguished them from all others. Their success was such that they soon came to exercise an extraordinary fascination on those working in other fields, who rapidly began to imitate their teaching and vocabulary. Thus the tyranny commenced which the methods and technique of the Sciences 4 in the narrow sense of the term have ever since exercised over the other subjects. These became increasingly concerned to vindicate their equal status by showing that their methods were the same as those of their brilliantly successful sisters rather than by adapting their methods more and more to their own particular problems. And, although in the hundred and twenty years or so, during which this ambition to imitate Science in its methods rather than its spirit has now dominated social studies, it has contributed scarcely anything to our understanding of social phenomena, not only does it continue to confuse and discredit the work of the social disciplines, but demands for further attempts in this direction
are still presented to us as the latest revolutionary innovations which, if adopted, will secure rapid undreamed of progress…
http://www.archive.org/details/counterrevolutio030197mbp
Friedrich August von Hayek
January 30, 2008 at 10:51 am
What I like about Hayek’s line here is that, without further context, both advocates and opponents of “pure” theory could claim it supports their view. Advocates of “theory” per se can interpret the passage as saying social science should give up on its positivistic fantasies that in practice yield boring research that yields no true insight into society, and merely mimics the form of actual science. But their opponents could interpret it as condemning the separation of pure theory from experimental or applied work. On this interpretation, the valorization of the pure core, a la theory in the physical sciences, is simply not justified (based on the track record of its practitioners) in the social sciences.
Again, it’s tricky to talk about this because it’s too easy to collapse the discussion into namecalling — “You are a poseur”, “No, you are anti-intellectual.” To be clear, my first refereed publication was a bit of “pure” theory, and I teach theory myself. I think all I’m saying is that while there is clearly a very important niche for pure theory in the field, as a grad student you will be much better off — occupationally and also, I think, intellectually — if you develop empirical research interests that complement or allow you to grow into that niche, rather than have it be the only thing you do.
If nothing else, good theory needs some decent mulch to grow out of. Just look at the early work of people later classed as abstract theorists, especially in the past fifty years: they start out doing empirical projects and work through their thinking in that setting. Bourdieu is the obvious example, and there are many others. One alternative, as Brayden mentioned, presupposes training in more formal methods that is typically not provided in sociology.
Kieran
January 30, 2008 at 1:21 pm
It is clear that the term “specialization” in contemporary sociology clearly refers to a substantive specialization. Being a “specialist” in theory is actually a contradiction in terms, since the word “theory” (without an adjective in front of it like “network”, or “cultural” or “queer”) is tantamount to everything and is equivalent to saying: “I’m not a specialist, I can write about everything and anything” (think for instance, Randall Collins). “Social” doesn’t count since that adjective is co-extensive with the entire subject matter of the discipline (i.e. like a physicist advertising herself as a “physical theorist”).
So yes, if you have an interest in “social theory” there is no reason to drop it (I have an interest in that stuff and I haven’t dropped it), but if you want to make a “living in sociology” (to borrow Stinchcombe’s apt phrase) you better find a substantive specialization and pronto. If you know math or formal logic, you can reconvert your capital and turn into a mathematical sociologist, if math makes your head hurt but you like Dilthey and Gadamer, you can certainly reconvert your capital and turn into a cultural sociologist. It doesn’t matter what, but pick a specialty and go with it. Don’t be fooled by job ads, because those schools hire people like me (and even Kieran!) to teach theory (for instance, when Michelle Lamont conducted a survey of the top ten programs a few years back, she found than only a couple of them had “full-time” theorists (like Charles Camic) actually teaching those courses. The rest had some sort of substantive person doing the job).
Omar
January 30, 2008 at 1:25 pm
My advice when I get these sorts of questions from graduate students: Pursue many goals in your career. You are likely to become known for things that other people want to read and cite. More often than not, that is empirical work. However, we all get 30-40 years to do this sociology thing, and if your aspiration is to leave a legacy of pure theory, then nurture your instincts and perspective and go for it over a your whole career, even if you write a dissertation with an empirical core. (Also, recognize that what counts as theory changes over time. I suspect that orgtheory readers probably consider Harrison White to be a theorist. Most sociologists, however, consider him to be some sort of weird “mathematical sociologist.” So, if what floats your boat is out of fashion, don’t fret.)
Steve Morgan
January 30, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Isn’t a weird mathematical sociologist just a subset of the theorist category?
brayden
January 30, 2008 at 3:21 pm
For you and me, of course. For others (whom I shall not name!), mathematical sociology is not genuine sociological theory. It is just applied math.
Steve Morgan
January 30, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Kieran: “If you see yourself as doing “pure” theory, without any empirical research or technical apparatus, consider whether this is at least partly conditioned on an aversion to math, a dislike of archives, or revulsion at the prospect of long periods of fieldwork in unpleasant locations. Sociology is not Philosophy, either.”
It’s interesting that you mention that. I know that in a lot of countries, sociology is viewed as a sort of philosophical take on society, a la Marx. Sociology as a discipline of model building and testing, like economics or chemistry, simply doesn’t exist for many folks. And we reinforce that idea with courses that focus on Marx, Weber, etc, even though we earn our keep with empirical research.
fabiorojas
January 30, 2008 at 6:30 pm
two thoughts:
1) does anyone seriously think an ex nihlio 2008 curriculum would have mandatory classical and contemporary theory? that we continue this ancestor worship a full generation after the end of Parsons is a beautiful illustration of path dependency.
2) the thing i find distinctive about our discipline is not the lack of a grand unified theory, but the mandatory ginormous lit reviews which i personally find excruciatingly tedious to write. in the unlikely event that we had a renewed push for capital-T theory, it might inevitably only add another layer to this problem and take us further in the direction of novela-sized journal articles. on the other hand, it’s conceivable (though i’m skeptical) that THEORY could give more coherence to /the literature/ and streamline the process of situating one’s own findings within it.
gabrielrossman
January 30, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I know that in a lot of countries, sociology is viewed as a sort of philosophical take on society
That’s pretty much how I was trained as an undergrad.
Kieran
January 30, 2008 at 8:27 pm
@Gabriel: does anyone seriously think an ex nihlio 2008 curriculum would have mandatory classical and contemporary theory? that we continue this ancestor worship a full generation after the end of Parsons is a beautiful illustration of path dependency.
Actually, yes, though I don’t think this makes me a 4th year cadet hazing the new cadets for fun and profit. Substantively, there are some things that I want sociologists to know (e.g., commodity fetishism, historical materialism, substantive v. procedural rationality). And there is a baseline language and set of assumptions that you probably share with me and others ’round these parts that make the more interesting stuff a) more interesting; and b) not requiring a re-inventing of the wheel. There’s value as well as problems associated with instilling normative isomorphism, no?
And normally, I’m a pragmatic theoretician myself, so take this for what it’s worth..
Peter
January 30, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I’ll side with Peter – the classics are a good way to introduce ideas about class, institutions, community, etc. that are lingua franca in contemporary sociology.
The hard part is convincing people to be empirical – to think of this not as abstract philosophy, but a science with falisfiable hypotheses.
fabiorojas
January 30, 2008 at 10:06 pm
@fabiorojas: It’s interesting that you mention that. I know that in a lot of countries, sociology is viewed as a sort of philosophical take on society, a la Marx.
Sorry for my ignorance, and my bad english; but I cannot react reading this.
The work of Marx is vast, and in it, you can find anything. Pure philosophy, but also empirical research. Reading “The Capital” is hard because it mix social theory, economics theory and empirical observations. The misinterpretation about Marx born when everybody know his way-of-think, but nobody have really read something of him, or maybe have read only the Manifest.
The issue Theory vs. Reality it’s old.
Theory and Data are strigly interconnected, without theory the sociology simply doesn’t work. No matter about the form that assume the theory, if has the appearance of a mathematical equations, or an ethnographic research.
Working only with data without a theory is stupid, because it doesn’t give any sense to reality.
The artist formerly know as Friedrich August von Hayek
January 30, 2008 at 11:37 pm
peter and fabio,
i don’t disagree that theory (especially classical theory) has a useful function in providing a common vocabulary. (i’m especially fond of substantive/procedural rationality, which i saw beautifully illustrated the other night in “bridge on the river kwai”). however, there are lots of things that potentially serve useful functions like providing a common vocabulary. most obviously the classical and biblical canon served this function among all educated people until the 1940s, but i don’t think we’d want to add a semester on moses, thucydides, and cato to accompany the one we have now on weber, marx, and durkheim. basically, i think there is an issue of opportunity cost, especially when you consider issues like time to degree. given that we have finite time with both our grad and undergrad students i would replace emile durkheim with herbert simon in a heartbeat.
gabrielrossman
January 31, 2008 at 12:10 am