Abstract
Frontiers of Sociology, edited by Peter Hedström and Björn Wittrock, showcases the current status of sociology by examining its own intellectual and institutional frontiers and by taking stock of its past relative to other disciplinary and scholarly programs. The volume draws on recent advances not only within the sister disciplines such as history, political science, and economics, but also within the cognitive, cultural, statistical, and mathematical sciences. Beginning with a comprehensive introduction by the editors, the book has 20 chapters organized into six sections. This review is presented in two parts. The first part is an analytical summary of the text and context of the book, including the authors’ perspectives; the second part is a critical appreciation of current debate on interdisciplinarity in and around sociology.
The historical legacy and contemporary relevance of the German tradition of historicism and hermeneutics along with the American tradition of pragmatism have been elaborated by Hans Joas. Shunning ahistorical rational justifications of timeless universal values as well as debunking genealogical deconstructions of historical origins, he offers an affirmative genealogy of human rights as a fruitful alternative. He presents timely knowledge on the foundations of human rights and their universal nature. Raymond Boudon explores the question of intellectual origin and their particular conditions that have contributed to the rapid diffusion of cognitive and cultural relativism. American pragmatic philosophy and German hermeneutics find their commonalities in the dialogical conception of understanding action as a mode of interpreting experience. Both have developed important categories – inquiry, meaning, theory, praxis, coping, historicity, lifeworld – and each offers an alternative to more traditional philosophies of science. Boudon and Joas converge in their interest on the emergence and constitution of values both in the daily life and in research practices in sociology.
Sztompka distinguishes two different views on the role of values as sources of bias and as facilitators of ideology. He takes an anti-naturalistic stand and emphasizes the cultural transformative, agental, and reflexive nature of the practices both at micro-processual and at a global level. Most relativists interpret and evaluate such diverse beliefs and practices in relation to local cultural frameworks rather than universal principles. Whereas Joas, Boudon, and Sztompka explore the historical evolution of intellectual traditions of sociological theorizing, the chapters by Goldstone and Rueschemeyer focus on the future intellectual development of sociology amidst its multidisciplinary and multidimensional concerns. Goldstone demonstrates the growth of subfields of sociology in terms of strategic advancement and greater visibility to the public. Rueschemeyer argues that sociology needs to be more open to methodological and theoretical explorations, so that the social sciences can profit from closer collaboration and can strengthen the scope of macro comparative research.
The second section relates to the historical sciences. Wittrock delves into the intrinsic historical character of sociology and discusses the range of advances in the social sciences, which have brought an interplay between cultural crystallizations and of macro institutional trajectories. Eisenstadt looks at the Axial Age and argues that in the middle centuries of the first millennium
The third section deals with the economic sciences. Smelser advances a note of limited optimism about future theoretical syntheses between economics and sociology. The continuing paradigmatic chasm between the two disciplines is due to historical differences in disciplinary and professional identities. Breen delves into the ‘adequacy’ and ‘plausibility’ (p. 209) of closer links between empirical research and formal theory and sees agent-based modeling as an important new addition to the sociologist’s theoretical toolbox. Unlike Smelser and Breen, Swedberg appears optimistic about collaboration between economics and sociology, and explores the importance of Bourdieu’s work on economic sociology.
Wagner opens the fourth section on cultural sciences and argues that the differences in the experience and interpretation of modernity in western and non-western societies are culturally specific, and are defined by space and time and ‘translated into comparative-historical sociology and anthropology, with politico-philosophical sensitivity’ (p. 264). Though Wagner has critiqued Weber, on balance he appears to have restated Weber’s ideal type. Ulf Hannerz’s ‘Geocultural scenarios’ dissects waves of world borders and how current imaginations of cultural flows and influences relate to each other. Thus, today’s theories of deterritorialization, virtuality, hybridity, and creolization may be more at odds with contemporary imaginations in social and political studies than with the classical heritage of sociology and anthropology. Hannerz goes on to explore the possibilities for a transnational consciousness in a world of print capitalism and a variety of hybrid genres. His analysis provides the potential for a geocultural imagination where divisions between centers and peripheries and between dominating powers and subalterns will not be able to resist a global dialogue.
The relationship between sociology and the cognitive sciences, examined in the fifth section of the book, relates to knowledge and logic understood in terms of representational structures of the mind and computational procedures operating around the structures made up of the human mind and simulation machines, respectively. Gardenfors argues that social intentions are supervenient on individual intentions but acknowledges that the causal explanatory efficacy of social intentions does not mean that methodological individualism has to be sacrificed. Rydgren’s specific contention relates to the importance of shared beliefs about the past, and how such beliefs shape individuals’ predictions about future events and their strategies for dealing with new situations. Both Gardenfors and Rydgren look at ‘intersubjectivity’ as a source of mediation between ‘me’ and the ‘other.’ Using computer simulations, Hedstrom argues that society is like a complex dynamic system in which actions and interactions among individuals explain the emergent properties of the system. The common thread among cognitive sociologists is that sociology must take into account the reasons why individuals do what they do, as well as the causes and effects of the actions that these reasons cause.
Amidst controversy over the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of sociology, the final section of the book establishes tighter links between sociology and the mathematical and statistical sciences. All three chapters here exude optimism, through different lines of argument, about derivative causal explanation in social sciences. Christofer Edling identifies many important institutional and intellectual barriers to the development of formal theory in sociology by taking an insider’s perspective on six of the leading mathematical sociologists. There are few members in the clan of mathematical sociology largely due to a lack of pre-entry background mathematical knowledge, post-entry motivation, and technical training. Many may not agree when the author writes that ‘the proper use of mathematics is not a question of choice. When the problem is formulated precisely enough, the use of mathematics is unavoidable’ (p. 365). Although emphasizing the relative bearing of social theory and empirical research, Sorensen argues for the importance of stochastic process models over ‘unreasonable’ ad hoc statistical models for causal explanations of social mobility and social change. He appears too forceful when he argues that ‘much can be done simply using what is available in the main software packages and explained in their manuals without understanding the mathematical rationale’ (p. 397). In fact, software packages are chosen before they are applied in establishing a causal explanation, and regardless of the problem under investigation, time and place, the rationale of the study, and the design of the research. Blossfeld enters the current debate on various types of causal explanations (e.g., causation as robust dependence, causation as consequential manipulation, and causation as generative process). He votes for causation as a generative process that unfolds in time and space, and argues that non-experimental social research can lead to ‘results that have different degree[s] of plausibility’ (pp. 4–9).
In essence, the multidimensional character, institutional strategies, and professional multidisciplinary concerns of sociology in the new millennium have expanded its borders. The efforts of the editors to fortify the current redemarcated frontiers of sociology are commendable, there are a few problems, however.
First, is it moot if the frontier of sociology is fortified or fragmented? The use of the plural ‘frontier(s)’ suggests its multidimensional nature. The editors’ attempt to fortify the frontier of sociology confronts an array of fragmented views that current sociology generates while attempting to integrate studies on society and human relations. Such confrontations are variously reflected in academic sociology in general and research articles in particular, some of which find a place in the book under review.
Second, sociology’s origins in philosophy and the humanities are still evident in binary tensions between society and the individual, quantitative and qualitative sociology, positivist and interpretive sociology, ideographic and nomothetic character, and objectivity and subjectivity. Because sociology maintains a strong affiliation to such opposing dimensions, its fragmented character stands in the way of the aim of fortification.
Third, the development of sociology was part of a more general trend toward the development of discrete scientific disciplines. It is obvious that many sister disciplines have contributed to the growth of sociology. In turn, sociology’s contribution to the enrichment of other disciplines should not be overlooked. The present book, however, largely consolidates materials on the former and neglects the latter. Scott argues that the expansion of professional sociology ‘has been marked by a tendency towards the fragmentation of its disciplinary concerns. Those working in whole subject areas that began as specialties within professional sociology have built links with others interested in the area and have split off to form separate and distinct disciplines’ (Scott, 2005: 5). The intellectual content of professional sociology continually restructured, reformed, crystallized, expanded, and then differentiated from the parent discipline. Rural development, educational studies, criminology, health studies, business studies, labor welfare and industrial relations, social work, gender studies, media studies, and many others have all grown at the expense of sociological specialties.
Fourth, many of the ‘specialized’ disciplines are eclectic or synthetic in character, whereas others explicitly embrace a ‘multidisciplinary’ or ‘interdisciplinary’ identity. Further, critics today embrace intellectual autonomy as an ideal practice for any discipline, but maintain their reservations when they raise the issue whether something of value may be lost as disciplinary boundaries blur. Being skeptical about the distortion of boundaries of disciplines is not desirable if intellectual autonomy brings a positive synthesis of facts and views from different disciplines. Smelser (2002: 652) argues that ‘[a]ll the social and behavioral sciences have lost structure on account of their increased internal differentiation of subfields; their diversification of theoretical and subparadigms; their importation and exportation of concepts, models and methods; and their hybridization, which melds elements from several disciplines and creates a new branch of inquiry.’ A vivid revelation of such a sentiment is made when John Holmwood (2007: 63) writes ‘because our field is contested, we have problems in carrying our knowledge into the public arena and having its claims accepted or its legitimacy unquestioned. We share spaces as sociologists, but we do not need to share assumptions.’
Finally, it may be stressed that an interdisciplinary approach remains an old issue but always presents new challenges as an academic agenda. It is interesting that funding agencies are fascinated by the concept and become enthusiastic when deciding on sponsored research or action projects. It is pertinent to maintain that interdisciplinary involvement increases the richness and diversity of attempts to construct theories to which, obviously, sociologists make substantially contributions. On the other hand, such involvement risks the increasing cognitive distance that separates sociologists from the trends of the core discipline. Thus, doubts are frequently raised if the debate over the inclusion of an interdisciplinary approach in sociology may ever be resolved. Attempts to realize this challenging goal should include understanding the dynamic mechanisms of multiple systems and levels of analyses as well as comprehending the rising permeability of boundaries of different interactive disciplines. This may lead to identifying areas of theory building and undertaking research that may profit from cross-disciplinary collaborations. Ultimately this will lead to explore common threads.
The present work is a valuable source on the interdisciplinary and multidimensional characteristics of sociology. I hope that the editors of the book take up a project on the contribution of sociology toward the development of other disciplines – an area that will be interesting as well as useful.