Читать книгу Sociology - Anthony Giddens - Страница 56

In recent years, some sociologists have argued that sociology has not engaged enough with the public and has concentrated too much on internal professional debates. In his presidential address to the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in 2004, Michael Burawoy argued for a new ‘public sociology’ that would forge relationships with audiences beyond the narrow confines of universities. He maintains that the professionalization of sociology in the twentieth century was beneficial, but it also led to sociologists talking more to each other than to the public ‘out there’ (Burawoy 2005).

Burawoy says there are four types of sociology: professional sociology, policy sociology, critical sociology and public sociology. Professional sociology is the conventional, universitybased, scientific sociology which generates large research programmes and bodies of knowledge and provides academic careers. Policy sociology includes all those studies which pursue goals defined by clients, such as funding bodies and government departments looking to tackle social problems. Critical sociology is ‘the conscience of professional sociology’, which points out the questionable assumptions of research projects and professional sociology (Burawoy 2005: 9). Feminist theory is one example of this strand, drawing attention to the gaps in scientific sociology and its unstated biases. Public sociology is the fourth type and is rooted in dialogue. That is, public sociology speaks with social groups such as trade unions, social movements, faith groups and organizations in civil society in a genuine conversation about the future direction of society. In this sense, the suggestion is that a more politically engaged sociology is necessary, though this is not something that all sociologists would support.

For Burawoy and others, public sociology still depends on professional sociology, but the two exist in a relationship of ‘antagonistic interdependence’. Scientific sociology produces research methods, empirical evidence and theories which are necessary for public sociology’s engagement with non-academic audiences. But, unlike professional sociology, the public version opens up a dialogue with those audiences, allowing the discipline itself to be partly shaped by the concerns of non-sociologists.

Critics point out that this is a very stark dividing line. In practice, much of today’s professional sociology already tries hard to engage with participants and outside audiences. There is also much more overlap between the four types described (Calhoun 2005; Ericson 2005). Many feminist studies, for instance, are not simply critiques of scientific sociology but are empirical themselves, using research methods and questionnaires and contributing to professional sociology. Critics also argue that there is a danger that the discipline will become subordinated to the political motives of social movements and activist groups. If the image and reputation of professional sociology is tainted, then it may, paradoxically, have serious consequences for public support for the discipline. And if public sociology really is dependent on the hard-won scientific credibility of professional sociology, it too could suffer.

Nonetheless, in spite of such criticisms, the basic argument that professional sociology has not done enough to engage with public concerns has been quite widely welcomed. The lack of a public presence for sociology is seen as damaging to the public awareness of sociological theories and evidence, which leaves a gap to be filled by other disciplines such as political science, history or psychology. Professional associations, such as the British Sociological Association, have taken steps to encourage their members to develop more of a media presence as an initial move towards raising the profile of sociology in society, and we can probably expect this trend to continue.