if sociology sucks, why do economists keep on doing it?

You know that joke about the cranky restaraunt customer? “The food is terrible – and the servings are so small!” That summarizes the relationship between economics and sociology. Here’s a few observations:

• Max Weber, an economic historian, defects from the mainstream of the day and becomes a founding figure of sociology.
• Talcott Parsons, a Harvard economist, defects from the mainstream of his day to become a towering figure in the sociological profession.
• Gary Becker, a neo-classical economist, makes it cool for economists in the 1960s to study stuff like race and marriage, long as you call people’s choices “taste” and “preferences.” Gets a Nobel prize for doing so.
• In the 1990s, Steve Levitt becomes the poster child of economics by hooking up with sociologists and policy folks to do theory lite applied stats on sociological topics, like crime.
• After Levitt, economists stampede to sociology and churn out paper after paper of theory lite, stats intensive analysis of sociological topics. In econ, sociology is called “applied micro.” Sociology is a bad, bad word.
• In the 2000s, George Akerlof, a Nobel winner, finds out that “identity” is the new black.

Just the other day, Bryan Caplan wishes that he could call himself a sociologist, if it weren’t for the annoying folks who already use the word. As loyal readers know, I welcome any person who works on important topics that constitute modern sociology. I just wish we’d get a little more love from the customers who regularly dine at our restaraunt!