Search

In 2000, a controversial article about hormones and gender roles was published to stimulate debate about whether and how biological knowledge should be integrated in sociological research. Two decades later, this so-called biosociology debate is more relevant than ever, as biological knowledge has become widespread across societies and scientific disciplines. Hence, we as sociologists are regularly confronted with biological explanations that challenge our own explanations. Whether this happens in the scientific arena, the classroom, media, or even at social events, these situations often force us, individually, to take a stance on whether to meet such explanations with dialogue or opposition. One could therefore expect that sociologists have an interest in discussing these issues with their peers, but their lack of participation in the biosociology debate suggests otherwise. This paper explores possible reasons for this absence and how sociologists' views on biosociology are influenced by key agents – sociological associations and journals. Smith's "A Sacred project of American Sociology", and Scott's "A Sociology of Nothing" served as theoretical tools in the paper. A qualitative content analysis of presidential addresses of four sociological associations was conducted. The analyses suggest that sociologist avoid biosociology for widely different reasons, including fear that biosociology legitimizes oppression. This avoidance is probably reinforced by the leftish politization of the sociological discipline and the rightish politization of society. Overcoming obstacles to engagement in biosociology is required to safeguard the scientific integrity of sociology and enable sociologists to provide relevant contributions to research on the Covid-19 pandemic and climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper deals with the question of the positionality of constructionists. I begin by considering some of the pressures on constructionists to compromise, if not abandon, their neutral stance as disengaged observers of definitional processes. After reaffirming the value of studying definitional processes, without regard for the veracity of claims or even the existence of the putative conditions referenced, I discuss how some ontological and epistemological stances facilitate a focusing of attention on these processes while others are diversionary. I end by making the case for thinking through carefully where we stand, mindful of the consequences as well as our goals as analysts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

George Herbert Mead's social psychology went off in two different directions; one explained the social world in terms of language, the other in terms of (individual) biology. This paper addresses the latter approach, in Mead's early social psychology in terms of instincts and in his later social psychology in terms of fundamental impulses. The approach derives from William McDougall's An Introduction to Social Psychology in 1908 and changed in response to criticism of instincts following World War I by John Dewey, Ellsworth Faris, Floyd Allport, and Luther Bernard, among others. The paper argues that such an approach was a dead end and had to be rejected to allow for a scientific social psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Robert K. Merton (1910-2003) gained renown as a distinguished sociologist, especially in connection with the paradigm of 'structural-functionalism' and he publicly self-identified as a 'structuralist.' This paper calls attention to an emphasis in Merton's work that sociologists have often overlooked, namely, his social psychology. I argue that, throughout his long career, Merton consistently pursued social psychological issues, including how non-logical action, appeals to shared sentiments and collective definitions of situations affect life in organized groups. I shall characterize his earlier analyses as 'Harvard style,' and his later social psychological works as 'Chicago style,' as a heuristic means of calling attention to interesting variations in framing. Merton's formulations have impacted numerous subfields of sociology, and some (e.g., 'self-fulfilling prophecies,' 'the Matthew Effect') remain influential even today. Examining Merton's social psychology will contribute both to a fuller appreciation of his career and also to a more complete history of social science in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Program evaluation is a booming professional field that encompasses a range of social science disciplines. This paper describes one sociologist's experience integrating the sociological perspective into program evaluation research. Examples described include accounting for social capital theory, social identities, and intersectionality. Conclusions discuss the impact of program evaluation research on a sociological evaluation of Black implicit in-group biases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses George Herbert Mead's behaviorism on the basis of Gary A. Cook's George Herbert Mead: The Making of a Social Pragmatist. It links the functionalism of his early social social psychology to the behaviorism of his later social psychology, differentiates his behaviorism from that of John Watson, and points out the influence of John Dewey on both his functionalism and his behaviorism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]