Abstract
Sociology as a discipline has no shortage of theories that scrutinize society or empirical studies that detail aspects of the social world. Yet this sociology can feel prematurely pre-packaged and tidy. Introductory textbooks proclaim that the sociological founding fathers have already asked all the important questions. Once inside, we follow prevailing sociological rules for professional success. We search for sub-disciplinary corners where we can make our ‘unique’ contribution to an already established field. By settling into this ostensibly finished field, one wonders whether we may be settling for less than sociology’s potential. Disciplinary sociology can seem finished before we arrive.
In What Use is Sociology?, Bauman peels back this hegemonic veneer, asking not what counts as sociology, but rather, what use is sociology? Via this shift, he encourages sociological practitioners to move beyond being blind followers of the latest sociological trends. Instead, through self-reflexive analysis of his own work, Bauman provides a rare backstage glimpse into an engaged sociology that places people’s concerns at its centre as central to its mission.
An engaged sociology aims not simply to describe the social world from a safe disciplinary distance, but rather engage the social world through interpretations that people find useful. Using the term emancipation as a vision for this kind of engagement, Bauman offers the following response to whether this kind of vision is still useful during times when it seems so unattainable: ‘there is no sufficient, let alone necessary, reason to take emancipation off the agenda. If anything, the contrary is the case: the noxious persistence of social ills is one more and clearly powerful reason to try still harder’ (p. 45).
It is one thing to argue in favour of an engaged sociology whose utility lies in its ability to unravel important social issues. It is another to provide insight into how a conceptual shift toward engagement might catalyse new ways not just of thinking about sociology, but also in doing it. Here Bauman’s discussion of sociological hermeneutics provides a conceptual roadmap for sociology with important methodological implications. By adding the qualifier ‘sociological’ to hermeneutics, Bauman builds upon classical hermeneutics of theology, philosophy and literary criticism that make actual texts the focus of interpretation, to examine social phenomena using hermeneutical techniques. Stated differently, sociological hermeneutics refers to interpretation, not just of texts, but rather society as text.
Bauman’s sociological hermeneutics can be read as a methodology that places interpretation, not at the margins of sociology as one possible outcome of research, but squarely in the middle of sociology. Interpretation of the social world, not conquest, constitutes the primary task of sociology that aims to be useful to the people who experience a specific society. Sociology must take on hard topics, often going to unsafe places, because this is where human beings reside. Just as people make choices and pursue strategies based on where they are socially located, so too must sociology.
An engaged sociology grounded in sociological hermeneutics is unlikely to win fans among elites. Bauman is not naïve about how difficult and potentially dangerous this kind of sociology might be for those who practice it. Three themes stood out for me.
First, what constitutes engaged sociology in situations of uncertainty, inequality and change? Bauman does not grapple directly with these themes, yet I read this text as suggesting that relevance might provide an intellectual compass for sociology. Relevance may no longer be a trendy term, but the necessity of meaningful ideas to help us live our lives will never go out of style. After decades of classroom teaching, I find that the best sociological material is that which my students find to be ‘relevant’. Relevance is not achieved, but rather constitutes a goal to which we aspire.
Second, what risks are involved in making sociology relevant? Bauman recognizes that striving for relevance when it is out of favour carries risk. In some parts of the world, interpreting society’s social ills can get intellectuals persecuted or killed. Here, Bauman offers some sage advice about intellectual survival in times of strife. Ironically, engagement need not mean a visible, vocal presence for sociology. Sharpening interpretive lenses can require holding back in order to preserve the possibilities for sociological hermeneutics. Bauman offers the case of Theodor Adorno as an archetypal politically-savvy intellectual who pursued this strategy: Such self-inflicted seclusion is not . . . an act of treachery; neither a sign of withdrawal, nor a gesture of condescension . . . Neither did it signal an intention to break off communication – only the determination to protect the ‘truth’ of human prospects of emancipation against the threat of being ‘undermined’. (p. 47)
Keeping an intellectual and political distance paradoxically can thus be an act of engagement.
Third, if sociological hermeneutics can be dangerous, often with modest prospects for success in the here and now, why do it at all? Why do this work if it does not have immediate relevance? These questions have special resonance within the contemporary neoliberalism’s audit culture of measuring sociology’s disciplinary worth by expecting a payoff in the immediate or not-too-distant future. Bauman’s discussion of the ‘message in a bottle’ provides an especially useful metaphor for sociology. The significance of the metaphor lies not in the message itself, but rather in preserving the process of producing both the message and the bottle. Throwing the bottle into the sea, not knowing where it will go, hoping that others will pick up, reinterpret and continue on, lies at the heart of sociology.
Bauman is hopeful about sociology. So am I. Doing engaged intellectual work in a context of deeply entrenched social injustices requires an ongoing practice of critique. It’s easy to become jaded and discouraged by the magnitude of the interpretive challenge. Yet Bauman’s carefully argued, gentle yet still-hopeful analysis of the possibilities of sociology reminds us of the significance of our intellectual work. If Bauman has managed to use a sociological hermeneutics to produce incisive critique that is infused with hope, perhaps then so can we.