Abstract
The book under review attempts to recall certain contributions to sociology that have been ‘forgotten’ by the discipline and its practitioners. It is a combination of intellectual and disciplinary history that tries to do sociology of sociology. In accomplishing this task, the editors have invited contributions on 11 scholars including a contemporary Scottish philosopher. The chapters cover Raymond Aron (France, 1905–1983), Robert Bellah (USA, 1927–2013), Eric Fromm (Germany, 1900–1980), Viola Klein (Austrian, based in UK, 1908–1973), Olive Schreiner (Lesotho, 1855–1920), Lucien Goldmann (France, 1913–1970), GDH Cole (UK, 1889–1959), Gabriel Tarde (France, 1843–1904), Alasdair MacIntyre (Scotland, b. 1929), Cornelius Castoriadis (born in Constantinople, based in France, 1922–1997), and Norbert Elias (born in Prussia, based in Amsterdam, 1897–1990). These contributions do not suggest that these scholars should be canonized, but that they should be examined at two levels – the possibilities of methodological furthering of sociology as a discipline and how to frame and advance ideas within the profession of sociology.
‘Failures’ are understood as those figures that have been forgotten but were influential in their time. Criteria for selecting the above-mentioned sociologists are not elaborated by the editors. However, the types of failures are discussed, and the range of possible ways for a scholar to be forgotten are mentioned. The volume does not limit itself to forgotten or failed sociologies. One sociologist, Norbert Elias, who was neglected in the past by the practitioners but has been revived in recent discussions and debates, is also included here.
The merit of the volume lies in the insights it provides to the readers on the processes of being ‘forgotten,’ ‘neglected,’ or ‘sidelined.’ For example, the chapter on Robert N Bellah tries to delineate the factors responsible in making a text an icon in a field. By comparing Robert Bellah’s Beyond Belief: Essays on Religion in a Post-Traditional World (1970) and Clifford Geertz’s The Interpretation of Cultures (1973), it is shown how two texts that were published at the same time received different treatments. The chapter on Raymond Aron problematizes the idea of being a sociologist. By locating Aron in the particularities of the British and French intellectual environments it is demonstrated how a scholar and his work is received by his or her colleagues. In his assessment of Aron, Peter Baehr thinks that Aron’s political position (liberal-conservative in a leftist discipline), his clear prose style (which is not expected of French thinkers by the British), and his broad interests that cannot be classified under a single rubric led to his decline as a sociological thinker. The above-mentioned analyses and demonstrations along with other chapters constitute the heart and soul of the volume. They are not only important in evaluating the state of the discipline but also act as a template for present and future scholars in presenting their works and themselves in what Andrew Abbott would call the ‘chaos of the discipline.’
The main contention of the editors is that sociology as a discipline has restricted itself to Marx, Durkheim, and Weber and the dialogues with them. This approach, what the editors understand as the ‘process of successively restricting sociology to the winners, impoverishes sociology’s claim to be a form of historically reflexive knowledge’ (p. 3). It is contended by the editors that there is ‘amnesia’ in the discipline that fails to record the ‘uneven processes and struggles of sociology’s own making as a form of disciplinary knowledge’ because it is ‘obscured and largely forgotten’ (p. 3).
There are two women, Klein and Schreiner, among the 11 scholars who have been recovered, and all except Schreiner were either based in the United States or in northwestern Europe. It should be noted that the geographical locations of these scholars are significant because they are the theaters of the dominant discourses in sociology. In addition, Schreiner and Tarde were contemporaries of Emile Durkheim (France, 1858–1917) and Max Weber (Germany, 1864–1920). To extend the point, two of the most influential figures in institutionalizing sociology and framing the trinity of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber are generally understood as Talcott Parsons (1902–1979) in the United States and Anthony Giddens (b. 1938) in the UK.
Recent discussions on ‘globalizing’ or ‘decentering’ sociology have suggested incorporating moments in the history of the discipline from outside the dominant frames of theory. It is in this context that the edited volume makes an interesting contribution. Thinkers within the geography that has dominated sociology as a discipline, but so far ‘forgotten,’ are recalled and reinstated, thereby furthering the project of sociology as a self-reflexive discipline. However, in labeling this exercise as ‘amnesia’ of the discipline, it provokes one to ask certain critical questions. How will the volume and its editors confront those sociologies and sociologists that were and are part of ‘uneven processes and struggles of sociology’s own making’ in other geographies? At present, we have various initiatives within the discipline like the Journal of Classical Sociology or ISA Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions, which try to give sociology a pool of scholars that were hitherto ignored or forgotten.
Furthermore, there are multiple registers for recording the history of sociology – e.g., national traditions, regional traditions, subdisciplinary traditions – in this context, some of the thinkers (and their works) that have been neglected by ‘sociology’ may find a place in these registers. In framing the recovery of sociology’s history in terms of ‘forgotten’ scholars and scholarships, the book is an exciting endeavor. However, the volume fails to clarify what it understands sociology as a discipline to be and does not offer clarity on what constitutes, or ought to constitute, sociology. In addition, I propose that there may be a need to enlarge the ambit of sociological amnesia in order to include thinkers from the nondominant geographies to fully complete the project of sociology as a self-reflexive discipline.