Talk:Public sociology

Revised the slur into a critique, and put up some actual content. Sorry it's Berkeley-centric. It's just a start, needs your help.

I was working on NPOVing this when you beat me to the punch. The revisions are decent, I think, although it definitely still needs fleshing out. I would consider excising the link to Contexts magazine. I'm not familiar with the magazine, but it seems to be a "general perspectives journal" rather than one specific to public sociology. I also think it's relevant that the 2004 ASA conference had a "Public Sociologies" theme ([1]) since the creator of the article seemed to upset with attempts by Burawoy and others to "sway" the ASA. Some reference to this might reasonably be integrated. Shotput 06:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, the editors of Contexts as far as I know identify with public sociology, and I think the journal represents one part of the pub soc current. Zerozombie 21:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am disappointed that there is so little recognition that public sociology, the best kind at least, is dedicated to Marxism and socialism, as Burawoy reminded us in his advocacy of sociological socialism.

Sigh. I know, I would love Sociology so much if it were not as a practice so heavily intertwined with such a repugnant political system. Kade 18:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

revisions

I have:

attempted to establish sections where knowledgeable people can elaborate both on what public sociology is/does and on criticisms of it; obviously these need much elaboration
rewritten most of the "'real' sociology isn't informed by politics" type statements or removed them to the criticisms section
I really don't think it's some kind of conspiracy or new development that many sociologists apply Marxist thinking to social problems
similarly, it doesn't look as if public sociology is "recent"; certainly, there is the notion of public engagement in the writing of Marx, Du Bois and as noted in the revisions, Mills and Bellah.

I also think that some kind of corroboration of the statement that the ASA is being torn asunder because of the public sociology debate would be useful. I left it in however because I have no idea what goes on at the ASAs. --Birdmessenger 18:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

editing Deflem's additions

Most typically, public sociologists are leftist, sociological radicals of a predominantly Marxist variety.

Please provide evidence for this assertion.

  "public sociology today emerges as a defensive outpost against the tyranny of the unconstrained market and the unlilateralist state -- both at home and abroad... We are sociologists who identify with the resilience of civil society... Working with the positive moment of civil society, sociology defends its own very existence, but at the same time defends the interests of humanity. Sociologists of the world unite for a renascent civil society – a vibrant, participatory, global counter-hegemony!"...

I do not believe that this adds to our understanding of the scope of public sociology.

But, also of course, the reactionary United States of America defends the idea of sociology as science. (source: Public Sociology Alive!).

This is unclear.

Critiquing certain actions taken under the banner of public sociology in the American Sociological Association, Deflem has also unmasked the political trickery that went into the Association passing political resolutions. "Based on a misguided call for sociologists to engage in a debate on ethical values," Deflem argues, "sociologists have more than ever before opened the door to be chastised for doing things they simply are not meant to do. When it comes to values, sociologists can claim no expertise, for in ethical debates all members of society can freely and equally participate... Among the participants of democracy there are no experts... But instead of searching for the truth in matters of society, public sociologists are engaged in an ethical discourse as a foundation for their work. Sociologists are now encouraged to inject their ethics in their work and to draw conclusions not on the basis of evidence and research, but on the basis of the rightness of certain ethical ideas. (Deflem, The War in Iraq and the Peace of San Francisco, Peace, War and Social Conflict newsletter, 2004).

I think a lot of this repeats what is said in the paragraph above. Perhaps someone could summarize it and make it a conclusion to the criticism section.

Also--aren't there other critics of public sociology out there? If so, wouldn't it strengthen the criticism section to include them alongside Deflem?

response to: editing Deflem's additions

[sorry, I initially did not see how to make additions to the discussion, and I started editing in the page -- I will make my comments below)

1)

about "Most typically, public sociologists are leftist, sociological radicals of a predominantly Marxist variety.

Response by Deflem: The leftist nature of public sociology refers to the Burawoy school of public sociology. Burawoy has written about this in at least two of his papers, the one appearing in from the Left and the one in Critical Sociology, where he refers to 'democratic socialism' and 'sociological marxism' as public sociology. True, not all public sociologists are necessarily marxist (also, not all marxists are not public sociologists), but clearly it is the Burawoy school that has led to the popularity of public sociology today. Incidentally, the term was orginally coined by Herbert Gans in a different meaning. I will put that in the entry.

2)

about "Sociologists of the world unite for a renascent civil society – a vibrant, participatory, global counter-hegemony!"... I do not believe that this adds to our understanding of the scope of public sociology.

Response by Deflem: This is a quote from Burawoy that clearly shows his marxism (the last line of the quote).

3)

Also--aren't there other critics of public sociology out there? If so, wouldn't it strengthen the criticism section to include them alongside Deflem?

Response by Deflem: Yes, there are quite a number of critics of public sociology, judging from the support I get. But few are as vocal as me, I suppose, and many agree with much or most of what I have written. Among the other critics, one might add James Moody, who has a relevant powerpoint online. I will add that to the entry if you wish.

The rest is OK. All in all, the entry is reasonably well balanced, not entirely what I wished for, but probably all I can expect.

That last is probably a good sign. As far as I can tell from hanging around here, we should all end up somewhat unsatisfied but willing to accept the results. If I'm understanding you correctly, you want to distinguish betwenn Burawoy's "public sociology" and other uses of the term that you feel have no connection. Is that right? Personally, I think that's an excellent idea.--Birdmessenger 18:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revising the revisions...

Yes, there are at least two other usages of the terms that have no real connection to Public Sociology today: 1) public sociology as the term was originally coined by Herbert Gans, and 2) public sociology as it was used in the title of the book by Ben Agger. I will add both to the entry.

I also suppose, given the contentious nature of the debate surrounding the nature and objectives of public sociology, that some discointent from all sides on the entry may be the best indication that it is a good entry. :)

updates

I added the references to Herbert Gans and Ben Agger.

Somebody had shifted part of the text, for reasons I cannot imagine, which I put back in its original spot. Perhaps this entry itself proves what a battle ground Public Sociology has become.

R.B. Smith

I've removed the reference to "R.B. Smith" and the "public sociology alive" website, since it seems irrelevant to this page. Who is R.B. Smith? What has R.B. Smith written about public sociology beyond what is available on that website? What are the indicators, if any, that R.B. Smith has anything other than a virtual existence?

Whoever it is, the page seemed to be tongue-in-cheek. Lenin's sociological shoulders aren't giant. I couldn't tell if "RB" was praising Marxism as a resolution to the wayward scienticity of the twentieth century, or mocking the ideological idiocy that public sociology might well be. ;) Airumel 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History and more

Added section on history of the term, to provide historical perspective. Added more on the variety of criticisms that have circulated. Changed the opening lines of this article to more accurately reflect one of the most common meanings of public sociology (see the "Theme Statement" of the 2004 ASA meetings).

public sociology today

Added a section on public sociology today, and changed scope to 'elaboration and diffusion' (a section which could itself be elaborated to include other visions of what public sociology is and how it should be pursued).

Given the fact that it was his ASA presidency that generated debate over public sociology, there is good reason to think that Burawoy's basic definition of public sociology constitutes the working definition of public sociology for a great many American sociologists (whether or not they agree with him that 'public sociology' should in fact be be promoted).

Furthermore, the definition currently included in the "public sociology today" section, and ascribed to Burawoy, was the personal statement Burawoy wrote prior to his election. This statement was circulated to all ASA members. Absent a substantial ASA survey on attitudes towards and understandings of public sociology, this is the best evidence we currently have regarding (a) what ASA members think public sociology is; (b) the number of ASA members who support "public sociology" thus defined.

redefinition

Regarding this sentence: "It is less a body of empirically based methods and theories aimed at discovering how the world works, and more a movement that entails the idea that sociologists should tell us not just what is but what ought to be."

Source this please. Provide a citation. If it is going to be included in the first two lines of the article, it needs to be backed up by evidence that some is actually seeking to coherently defend such a conception of "public sociology".

i'll reword and source. removing that important element, and refocusing PS as some vagugely stylistic choice, is a dodge of what PS is really trying to do, whatever your opinion of it. PS is more than a style; it's about the content and purpose of sociology. will fix. Airumel 22:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

added the indication that public sociology is normative, to indicate that it is frequently not simply a stylistic choice, but a set of assumptions about what sociology ought to do -- namely, not simply produce knowledge that is limited to the academy, but seek to move beyond the academy to engage broader publics. that is the basic assumption common to nearly every understanding of public sociology.

This entry is becoming more and more absurd at times... In any case, public sociology is not normative because it entertains a conception of what sociology ought to be (which sociology would not do that?), but because it is explicitly engaged in promoting political-normative ideas and insert those ideas into the practice of sociology (hence, it is an activist sociology, not a form of sociologicalactiism).