Abstract
This book’s central theme is indicated in the subtitle: sociology throughout its history has been characterised by the tension arising from the attempt, on the one hand, to establish objective social facts and the use, on the other, of sociological ideas and insights in pursuing ideologically motivated goals. In the Introduction, the editors suggest why this entanglement is inevitable: ‘sociology, to have autonomy, cannot depend on external normative ideas. To do so would collapse it into ideology. But at the same time, normative ideas are both its subject matter and the motivation for its problem formation’ (p. 11).
As well as the Introduction, jointly authored by the editors, the book contains 11 chapters providing a variety of perspectives by individual authors from several countries. Each chapter is well worth reading on its own, while the chapters taken together address the book’s central theme, though some more explicitly than others. Some provide historical overviews of various periods and sociological topics, which are interesting in their own right and which contribute to helping readers understand how the objectivity–ideology tension arose. The authors mostly appear to favour the objectivity side of the argument, insofar as there are two sides (it is obvious throughout the book that there is no clear-cut divide, and that various currents exist within each group), while clearly being well aware of the difficulties in establishing objectivity and remaining neutral vis-à-vis one’s research subject.
The chapters by Hammersley (Chapter 8, ‘Sociology as a profession in a post-truth world’) and Turner (Chapter 11, ‘The two parts of sociological objectivity’) are perhaps the ones addressing the book’s central theme most explicitly, as well as being the most expressly critical of what may be described as ideological tendencies in sociology. Hammersley uses the sociology of professions as an example to demonstrate how the rejection of the possibility of objective truth is closely connected with ideological thinking, and he undertakes a compelling analysis of internal contradictions in ideologically driven arguments: even as the possibility of establishing objective social facts is being denied in such arguments, the (factual) existence of inequality, discrimination and oppression is assumed. Calls for action then follow from these ‘facts’, which are presumed a priori. He notes that sociologists’ taking an ideological stance is particularly dangerous in the current post-truth climate since, in order to overcome societal divisions, it is crucial that facts are established in a non-partisan way. Turner, in a similar vein, uses the history of the study of African Americans’ life situation to show how ideology has been in danger of interfering with establishing objective social facts and with the analysis of this group’s social circumstances. Like Hammersley, he comments on the selective use of social facts chosen to fit an ideologically motivated case, and, in an interesting and well-argued discussion, he draws attention to what he describes as two traditions: one seeks to understand a situation by drawing on general patterns, the other’s aim is more ideologically driven. They differ in whether blame is assigned as part of the analysis: in the former, causal analyses of how social problems arose are conducted without seeking to blame anyone for the current state of affairs, whereas in the latter, once individuals and/or specific social groups to blame for the problems experienced by those who struggle against oppressors have been identified, the end point of the analysis is reached.
Why should it matter that there is an internal struggle among sociologists, with some studies motivated more by ideological aims and others more by establishing factual understanding? The book does not answer this question explicitly, though it seems to me that one conclusion to draw from the authors’ discussions is that it matters enormously since there is only a limited amount of funding for universities and other social science research institutions for which the two types of research compete. In addition, there is a danger that what funding there is will be further reduced if sociologists are no longer perceived to be objective and committed to factual description and analysis at a time when ‘there is a desperate need for social scientists to engage in careful investigation and assessments of factual evidence relevant to the policy issues that divide communities’ (Hammersley, p. 149).
Thus, this is a timely and important book, both for its central theme and the wider implications, reflecting, as it does, broader societal developments such as the existence of fake news, a climate of post-truth and the dominance, at times, of ideologically motivated policy rather than policy based on factual analysis (a recent example in the UK is Liz Truss’ ill-fated attempt to impose an ideologically driven version of market-oriented policy against economic advice). While the book’s authors largely do not actually offer predictions on or prescriptions for ‘The Future of Sociology’ explicitly, they provide a diagnosis of the present state of the field, based on insightful analyses of historical developments and current debates. Insofar as the book does address the future, it paints a fairly bleak picture of sociology being in crisis, subject to internal divisions, and at risk of becoming irrelevant because sociologists are unable to convince the general public of the subject’s usefulness.
