Search

Time and temporality are common themes in the social sciences and sociology. The sociological literature on time remains solipsistically empirical, while theoretical elaborations are focused on modernity, capitalism, and technology, through notions of speed and acceleration. Although existing studies on time are imbued with political issues and processes, as the subfield that studies relations of power and politics, political sociology has yet to consolidate a temporal lexicon for studying structures of power and political phenomena. This review situates three recent books on time and politics within a broader sociological literature on time and calls for a political sociology of time. I argue that developing a conceptual apparatus that takes time as an element of power is fundamental to building dialogue across the empirical material and across disciplines. I conclude by offering three avenues for the development of a political sociology of time., (© 2022 The Authors. The British Journal of Sociology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of London School of Economics and Political Science.)

The problem of the differentiation of societies is at the core of the sociological imagination about the rise of modernity. In postwar sociology, T. Parsons developed the theory of generalized symbolic media in the mid-1960s to tackle, theoretically and historically, the issue of differentiation. According to him, the interchange media are defined as resources oriented to exchange processes between the subsystems of the social system. Starting with money, Parsons argues that the remaining media (power, influence, and value-commitments) have a set of characteristics defined as common properties for all media. After this first formulation, contemporary theorists such as Niklas Luhmann and Jürgen Habermas have developed and modified the Parsonian theory: Luhmann rejects the idea of interchange and proposes the use of communication; Habermas distinguishes between steering and communication media. In all three cases, the focus of the theory is on the characterization of the strongest dynamics of social co-ordination present in differentiated societies. A major result of these developments is the inclusion of new dimensions on which to conceive the properties of media, not only those of money but also language. Beyond differences, then, it is proposed that there is only one theory of generalized symbolic media which can be understood as a progressive research programme, in Lakatos' terms. Finally, the hand-in-hand evolution between the theory of media and Habermas' and Luhmann's re-conceptualizations on societal differentiation in contemporary societies will also be revealed.

This paper responds to Nick Gane's "Against a descriptive turn". I argue that descriptive research strategies are more open and inclusive than those which purport to be causal where explanatory adequacy is assessed by expert insiders. I also show how open descriptive strategies can assist a wider explanatory purpose when these are conceived in non‐positivist ways. I argue that epochalist sociology lacks an adequate temporal ontology because it collapses descriptive specificity back into overarching epoch descriptions. Finally, I argue that if the entire range of publications associated with the Great British Class Survey are considered, that it has demonstrated a productive way of recognising the significance of class which has facilitated major research advances in its wake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper offers a defence of sociology through an engagement with Actor Network Theory (ANT) and particularly the critique of ‘critical’ and politically engaged social science developed by Bruno Latour. It argues that ANT identifies some weaknesses in more conventional sociology and social theory, and suggests that ‘critical’ and ‘public’ orientated sociologists can learn from the analytical precision and ethnographic sensibilities that characterize ANT as a framework of analysis and a research programme. It argues, however, that Latour et al. have too hastily dispensed with ‘critique’ in favour of a value neutral descriptive sociology, and that the symmetrical and horizontalist approach adopted in ANT is particularly ill‐suited to the development of scientific knowledge about social structures. It argues that a more straightforwardly realist sociology would share many of the strengths of ANT whilst being better able to interrogate, empirically and normatively, the centres of contemporary social power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Field theorists have long insisted that research needs to pay attention to the particular properties of each field studied. But while much field‐theoretical research is comparative, either explicitly or implicitly, scholars have only begun to develop the language for describing the dimensions along which fields can be similar to and different from each other. In this context, this paper articulates an agenda for the analysis of variable properties of fields. It discusses variation in the degree but also in the kind of field autonomy. It discusses different dimensions of variation in field structure: fields can be more or less contested, and more or less hierarchical. The structure of symbolic oppositions in a field may take different forms. Lastly, it analyses the dimensions of variation highlighted by research on fields on the sub‐ and transnational scale. Post‐national analysis allows us to ask how fields relate to fields of the same kind on different scales, and how fields relate to fields on the same scale in other national contexts. It allows us to ask about the role resources from other scales play in structuring symbolic oppositions within fields. A more fine‐tuned vocabulary for field variation can help us better describe particular fields and it is a precondition for generating hypotheses about the conditions under which we can expect to observe fields with specified characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article I consider the impact of social epistemologies for understanding the object of the syringe. My aim is to examine the process through which the syringe transforms from an injecting device to a tool of social and political inquiry. Paying particular attention to the uses of Foucault, Becker, Bourdieu, Freud and Latour in empirical studies of injecting heroin use, I examine the sociology of the syringe through the lens of habit and habitus, discourse and deviance, mourning and melancholia, attachment and agencement. In pursuing the theory behind the object my goal is to address a sociological object in the making. In so doing I show how the syringe has been significant for social research, social theory, and sociology. It is the difference the object makes that this article seeks to describe. In tracing the epistemology of the syringe I show how the object is important not just for knowledge of addiction but sociology itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper re-examines the sociological study of resistance in light of growing interest in the concept of affect. Recent claims that we are witness to an 'affective turn' and calls for a 'new sociological empiricism' sensitive to affect indicate an emerging paradigm shift in sociology. Yet, mainstream sociological study of resistance tends to have been largely unaffected by this shift. To this end, this paper presents a case for the significance of affect as a lens by which to approach the study of resistance. My claim is not simply that the forms of actions we would normally recognize as resistance have an affective dimension. Rather, it is that the theory of affect broadens 'resistance' beyond the purview of the two dominant modes of analysis in sociology; namely, the study of macropolitical forms, on the one hand, and the micropolitics of everyday resistance on the other. This broadened perspective challenges the persistent assumption that ideological forms of power and resistance are the most pertinent to the contemporary world, suggesting that much power and resistance today is of a more affective nature. In making this argument, it is a Deleuzian reading of affect that is pursued, which opens up to a level of analysis beyond the common understanding of affect as emotion. I argue that an affective approach to resistance would pay attention to those barely perceptible transitions in power and mobilizations of bodily potential that operate below the conscious perceptions and subjective emotions of social actors. These affective transitions constitute a new site at which both power and resistance operate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the role of the public sociologist in Great Britain following world war two. The author responds to several criticisms of his former work, and acknowledges that it contained concurrent arguments on British imperial decline, individualism in Great Britain, and a theory of sociology in times of crisis among other arguments. Objections by Neil Smelser that the author hasn't supplied a clear causal relationship between social turmoil and a flourishing sociological dialogue are addressed. Steve Fuller, Philippe Fontaine, George Ritzer and other critics of the author's work are also addressed.

The article focuses on the paper "British sociology and public intellectuals: consumer society and imperial decline," by Bryan Turner. Philippe Fontaine reviews the fact that sociologist have failed to document the gradual fall Great Britain from world power status, and discusses R. W. Cornell's views on the connection between empire and sociology. The anti-intellectual sentiment seen by Turner in Great Britain is critiqued, as well as Turner's insistence that social scientists chose certain topics to structure their investigations.

The article presents detailed guidelines for contributions to "The British Journal of Sociology," including contact information, article types, length and format requirements. The journal asks that articles be original work not under consideration by other publications. Bibliographical reference requirements are listed, as well as rules for footnotes, charts and other included materials. Separate regulations are presented for book reviews submitted to the journal. Submissions are typically reviewed by two assessors and an editor.

In this article we are reformulating the theory of reflexive modernization as an empirical research programme and summarize some of the most recent findings which have been produced by a research consortium in Munich (integrating four universities, funded by the German Research Society (DFG)). On this basis we reject the idea that Western societies at the beginning of the twenty-first century move from the modern to the post-modern. We argue that there has been no clear break with the basic principles of modernity but rather a transformation of basic institutions of modernity such as the nation-state and the nuclear family. We would suggest, therefore, that what we are witnessing is a second modernity. Finally, we reform the theory of reflexive modernization in reaction to three uttered objections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents guidelines to contributors of the "British Journal of Sociology." Papers submitted for publication are normally read by at least two assessors as well as by one of the Editors. The Editor's decision will be final. Articles submitted to the journal should be an original piece of work, not been published before, and not being considered for publication elsewhere in its final form either in printed or electronic form.

This article comments on Michael Burawoy's article "For Public Sociology," in volume 56, issue number 2, of the "British Journal of Sociology." Focus is made on two aspects of Burawoy's arguments which would be inaccurate if they were directed to the international community of sociologists: the division of social labor or functional differentiation among the four sociologies; and the nature of the friction among them. Thus, while Michael Burawoy's challenge to sociologists to think constructively and critically about sociology is timely and welcome, his ideas should be discussed in the context of the geographical breadth of the discipline.

This article points out that Michael Burawoy's call for a renewal of commitment to a public sociology has had a massive impact. Writing in the tradition of C. Wright Mills's clarion call, Burawoy seeks to defend the critical and reflexive role of the sociologist through his or her autonomous engagement in the public sphere of political decision. His argument has had a mixed reception in the United States. For the most part his views have been welcomed as re-emphasizing an important dimension of sociological activity that has, perhaps, been lost or submerged in the current political and financial climate of conservatism and retrenchment. Within the universities, many have found it easier to keep their heads down and get on with purely academic work, lest political involvement bring unwanted attention. Burawoy has been seen as re-asserting the political legitimacy of public participation. In some quarters, however, his views have met with a more negative reaction and have been seen as a scarcely concealed attempt to abandon impartiality and to advocate a leftist radicalism. This mixed reception was, perhaps, inevitable, given the political context in which Burawoy has intervened. He is, necessarily, critical of sociologists, other social scientists, the universities and the other institutions for which sociologists work, and also the wider structures of power in which these are enmeshed.

In this essay I want to address two question marks which arose during my reading of Michael Burawoy's inspiring piece. First, sharing his spirit of recreating the sociological enlightenment by differentiating between different types of public sociologies, I do not share his optimism that sociology can easily become an integral part of public discourse and practice. Second, I don’t think that mainstream sociology is really prepared for this adventure. My argument points in the opposite direction: all the different forms of public and non-public sociology are in danger of becoming museum pieces. Thus, sociology not only needs a public voice, it also needs to be reinvented first – in order to have a public voice at all! [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article comments on Michael Burawoy's article "For Public Sociology," in volume 56, issue number 2, of the "British Journal of Sociology." Burawoy makes a compelling case that these four types of sociology can learn much from one another and that scholars who are simultaneously public, policy or critical sociologists as they are professional sociologists make special contributions to that end. Michael Burawoy's way of thinking about the disciplines is far from completely categorical, yet tends to the categorical at the level of "standpoints": economics studies the world from the standpoint of the market, political science from the standpoint of the state, sociology from the standpoint of civil society.

This article comments on Michael Burawoy's article "For Public Sociology," in volume 56, issue number 2, of the "British Journal of Sociology." The author has some criticism with Burawoy's call for public sociology but only over conceptual categories and matters of tactics. He is in accord with the broad purposes. Burawoy's call for more public sociology is important and timely. Some differences in approach are urged but like all sociologists seeking at once the ever-greater intellectual vitality for the field and a richer public life informed by sociology, the author is in his debt.

This article comments on Michael Burawoy's article "For Public Sociology," in volume 56, issue number 2, of the "British Journal of Sociology." While the author agrees with much of Burawoy's analysis, he addresses two concerns. First, he takes issue with Burawoy's claim that there are four sociologies, each associated with a distinct type of knowledge: professional, critical, policy and public. It is argued that these four types of knowledge are not discrete in the way he contends, and that all four are embedded in any sociological analysis. Second, Burawoy's article and wider research program concern the institutionalization of sociology and its communicative relations with other institutions. It is argued that his research should address the discrepant criteria of relevance and communication logics of different institutions and their implications for the sociological voice. Sociology does not translate easily into the discourses and practices of other institutions, for example the mass media, government inquiries, or the requirements of evidence in law. Sociological communication in these other public arenas may sometimes be impossible. When it is possible, there is often loss of sociological autonomy and influence as the analysis translates into the criteria of relevance and communication logic of the institution concerned.

This article comments on Michael Burawoy's article "For Public Sociology," in volume 56, issue number 2, of the "British Journal of Sociology." Michael Burawoy deserves much credit for bringing the role of public sociology back to the discipline's attention. Public sociologists have always been called for. However, it is hard to recall a time in which they have been more needed but less in evidence than the present day. Burawoy's four-fold typology of sociology is quite useful. A few observations concerning engaging in public sociology are hereby presented. First, one cannot be a public sociologist, and arguably a sociologist of any other kind, without taking a normative position. Second, to be public is to be in politics. And anyone who is or who is contemplating becoming a public sociologist must decide how far along the action chain he or she is willing to proceed. It is then argued that to provide a stronger foundation for public sociology, we need to add policy research to basic research. Finally, what is called for if we are to train and foster more public sociologists is discussed.

This article comments on Michael Burawoy's article "For Public Sociology," in volume 56, issue number 2, of the "British Journal of Sociology." Contrary to Burawoy, it is not that it is necessary to provincialize U.S. sociology but, rather, to recognize its "provincialism" and to pursue strategies which may open and expand it to other forms of sociological knowledge with mutual benefit to sociologists and their publics in the United States and elsewhere. The task is not an easy one and has many other dimensions which cannot be developed here. However, as he rightly notes, it is those with power who are best placed to develop strategies to further this process. Already initiatives involving groups such as the International Sociological Association, as well as the American Sociological Association, have commenced with the intention of strengthening the ability of sociology to address the major social needs of our time. The hope now is that these can be enhanced and extended.

This article comments on Michael Burawoy's article "For Public Sociology," in volume 56, issue number 2, of the "British Journal of Sociology." Michael Burawoy has presented 11 theses on public sociology. Some of his main claims can be summarized in three statements: public sociology is part of a four-fold bundle of disciplinary activities; public sociology is important and should be made stronger and developed as an integrated part of the discipline; and public sociology requires well functioning publics. Comments are made on: academic institutions as bundles of activities; the nature of public sociology; and why and how dissemination and public discourse should be made stronger.

This article comments on Michael Burawoy's article "For Public Sociology," in volume 56, issue number 2, of the "British Journal of Sociology." The goal to convert the discipline into "a new policy science" of the Mertonian sort is likely to be subverted by the very complexities of the worlds we analyze. Advances in this direction will be more craft than science, made on a case by case basis. But in making these advances, professional sociology, with its rigorous methods, cumulative knowledge base, theories and concepts, insights, and legitimacy, is indisputably central to both public and policy sociology.

This article responds to Craig Calhoun and other critics of the author by defending the seriousness and coherence of public sociology as a distinct realm within a national and global disciplinary division of sociological labor, and as an antidote to external subversion. Two visions of the public sociologist are two visions of social change; the one riding on the claimed universality of intellectuals, the other riding on the organization of subaltern groups. For the traditional public sociologist the privileged site is the university, while civil society is the locus of misrecognized suffering; for the organic public sociologist civil society is the source of insight into what is and what could be, insight excavated and elaborated by the sociologist. This gives two divergent visions and divisions of sociology as a field of power. In the conception of traditional public sociology the danger comes from the invading forces of mass media, consultantships, technocracy, commodification and politicization of the university, refracted within the field of sociology as the subjugation of the academic to the extraacademic. In the conception of the organic public sociology domination appears as rationalization. Here the danger comes from science itself, such as neoliberal economics that imposes a singular model on all, precisely because it does not acknowledge the critique of its theoretical foundations or the lived experience of the people its theorizes.

The aim of this journal is to provide a medium for the publication of original papers covering the entire span of sociological thought and research. The editor is particularly keen to publish work on current developments in research and analysis. All contributions, correspondence and books for review should be addressed to The British Journal of Sociology, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London. Papers submitted for publication are normally read by at least two assessors as well as by one of the editors. The editor's decision will be final. A decision of an article will usually be sent to authors within four months of submission, however, whilst every effort will be made to follow this practice, it should be understood that there may be circumstances where this will be difficult to guarantee. Articles submitted to the journal should be an original piece of work, not been published before and not being considered for publication elsewhere in its final form either in printed or electronic form.

Responding to the growing gap between the sociological ethos and the world we study, the challenge of public sociology is to engage multiple publics in multiple ways. These public sociologies should not be left out in the cold, but brought into the framework of our discipline. In this way we make public sociology a visible and legitimate enterprise, and, thereby, invigorate the discipline as a whole. Accordingly, if we map out the division of sociological labor, we discover antagonistic interdependence among four types of knowledge: professional, critical, policy, and public. In the best of all worlds the flourishing of each type of sociology is a condition for the flourishing of all, but they can just as easily assume pathological forms or become victims of exclusion and subordination. This field of power beckons us to explore the relations among the four types of sociology as they vary historically and nationally, and as they provide the template for divergent individual careers. Finally, comparing disciplines points to the umbilical chord that connects sociology to the world of publics, underlining sociology's particular investment in the defense of civil society, itself beleaguered by the encroachment of markets and states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a note to contributors to "The British Journal of Sociology." The aim of the journal is to provide a medium for the publication of original papers covering the entire span of sociological thought and research. The editor is particularly keen to publish work on current developments in research and analysis. All contributions, correspondence and books for review should be addressed to The British Journal of Sociology, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE. Papers submitted for publication are normally read by at least two assessors as well as by one of the editors. The editor's decision will be final. A decision of an article will usually be sent to authors within four months of submission, however, whilst every effort will be made to follow this practice, it should be understood that there may be circumstances where this will be difficult to guarantee. Articles submitted to the journal should be an original piece of work, not been published before and not being considered for publication elsewhere in its final form either in printed or electronic form.

This article examines the usefulness of the article "Sociology and Political Arithmetic: Some Principles of a New Policy Science," by Lauder, Brown, and Halsey, to social researchers working in government. The synergy between the vision of a new policy science and the work of government analysts to improve the quality of evidence underlying government policy and strategic development, is considerable. The central argument of the article, that sociology needs to be more policy-oriented whilst at the same time challenging government policies and holding them to account, articulates well the important role that independent social science should play in contemporary democratic societies.

This paper comments on an article by Lauder, Brown, and Halsey, that deals on a political arithmetic to make sociology useful. These are some of the significant issues raised in the article: 1) relationship between social science and policymaking; 2) association between quantitative and qualitative approaches in social science, and; 3) need for policy research to draw on many disciplines. However, while raising important questions, there are some major uncertainties surrounding the authors' argument. They announce that they are to advance the position that sociology needs to develop an approach to research which focuses on fundamental social problems. But what they are proposing is not really new, since much sociological research has been concerned with fundamental social problems.

Ethnic diversity poses some problems to contemporary states, problems which should be either acknowledged, contained, or ignored. More confusingly still, all three responses are entirely plausible and to a certain degree even called upon at once. This is because both diversity and states are inherently complex and multifaceted things that may enter into multiple and often incompatible engagements and combinations. A minimal ambiguity of diversity is to comprise both negatively valued inequalities that arise from immigrants' ethnicity, race, or national origins and a positively valued ethos that surrounds these markers. In this article, the author further explores the relationship between ethnic diversity and the state.

This article presents a response to Allon J. Uhlmann's article "The Sociology of Subjectivity, and the Subjectivity of Sociologists," which compares divided and multiple subjectivity on the subject of equality and gender. The central and positive assertion of Uhlmann's article is the necessity of treating subjectivity and practice as inseparable, and the superiority of conceiving of multiple subjectivities. Much of his argument is implicitly developed through a critique of Australian family sociology, especially as exemplified in the book "The Double Life of Family."

This paper examines two significant moments in sexual minority citizenship in England and Wales in relation to one of the Marshallian sets of rights, namely, civil or legal rights, focusing specifically on the Sex Offences legislation and policing practices. The first moment that will be examined here is the process whereby homosexual acts were decriminalized in the 1950s and 1960s: here special attention will be paid to the recommendations made by the Wolfenden Committee. The second moment is one we are currently experiencing, which is associated with the inclusive policing of sexual minority communities (especially lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities) under the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and in the review of Sex Offences, especially in the consultation paper (Home Office 2000) and White Paper (Home Office 2002) associated with this review. Privacy and toleration dominate the first moment, at the same time it shall be demonstrated that privacy is also central to the British Sexual Citizenship literatures that have emerged in sociology in the post Wolfenden context. However, as the title suggests, the second moment under examination points to the emergence of a rather more extensive sexual minority citizenship beyond the boundaries of ‘homosexual privacy’ (which British Sexual Citizenship Studies is not currently engaging with) and perhaps even beyond the boundaries of toleration through ever more ‘inclusive’ policing strategies and through the review of sex offences in which many discriminatory laws are being ‘de-homosexualized’. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ever since the appearance of Vanek's pioneering article in 1974, there has been a controversy about whether ‘labour saving’ domestic appliances actually save labour time. Vanek argued that time spent in housework had barely changed since 1926, despite the diffusion of practically every known domestic appliance over this period. Gershuny and Robinson challenge Vanek's ‘constancy of housework’ thesis, arguing that, between 1965 and 1985, domestic technology has significantly reduced the weekly hours of women's routine housework. Although there is much talking past each other, none of the protagonists in this dispute have any direct data about which households own or do not own domestic appliances. Instead, they all rely on the passage of the years as a proxy for ownership of domestic appliances, since a higher proportion of contemporary households now own domestic appliances. The Australian 1997 Time Use Survey (Australian Bureau of Statistics 1998b) is rare among official surveys, as it simultaneously provides detailed information on time spent in housework and an inventory of household appliances. The analysis of this data show that domestic technology rarely reduces women's unpaid working time and even, paradoxically, produces some increases in domestic labour. The domestic division of labour by gender remains remarkably resistant to technological innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper comments on the article "Appliances and Their Impact: The Ownership of Domestic Technology and Time Spent on Household Work," published in the September 2004 issue of "The British Journal of Sociology." The authors of the previous article reopen the old controversy over the domestic labor paradox. They deploy evidence which directly connects household ownership of domestic equipment to household members' time allocations, suggesting paradoxically that possession of household equipment in effect adds to domestic labor rather than reducing it. However, it is observed that there is a methodological trap, a confusing evidence of cross-sectional differences between people for historical change in people's behavior.

It is often assumed that in the historical transformation to modern industrial society, the integration of women into the economy occurred everywhere as a three-phase process: in pre-modern societies, the extensive integration of women into societal production; then, their wide exclusion with the shift to industrial society; and finally, their re-integration into paid work during the further course of modernization. Results from the author's own international comparative study of the historical development of the family and the economic integration of women have shown that this was decidedly not the case even for western Europe. Hence the question arises: why is there such historical variation in the development and importance of the housewife model of the male breadwinner family? In the article, an explanation is presented. It is argued that the historical development of the urban bourgeoisie was especially significant for the historical destiny of this cultural model: the social and political strength of the urban bourgeoisie had central societal importance in the imposition of the housewife model of the male breadwinner family as the dominant family form in a given society. In this, it is necessary to distinguish between the imposition of the breadwinner marriage at the cultural level on the one hand, and at the level of social practice in the family on the other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper a ‘signal crimes’ perspective is outlined in an effort to unpack the relationships between experiences of crime and disorder, and perceptions of criminogenic risk. Grounded in symbolic interactionist sociology, and developing a social semiotic understanding of risk perception, it is a perspective that focuses upon processes of social reaction and the ways in which people interpret and define threats to their security. It is proposed that people interpret the occurrence of certain incidents as ‘warning signals’ about the levels of risk to which they are either actually or potentially exposed. These signals tend to take the form of signal crimes and/or signal disorders and are important in terms of how social space is symbolically constructed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Charles Wright Mills's arguments in The Sociological Imagination are very popular and this paper focuses on the biographical context in which his programmatic statements were occasioned. This breaks new ground by locating The Sociological Imagination and earlier programmatic statements in the professional and personal travails that motivated them. This approach is adopted in order to display the intersection between biography and sociology in Mills's life and career, a feature that he made a central part of sociology's promise. The paper utilizes this approach to reflect on the reasons why The Sociological Imagination became so popular and was able to transcend Mills's general unpopularity at the time of his death: and as part of the explanation of why the dismissal of the book on its publication contrasts with the contemporary view, enabling it to transpose successfully to a time significantly different than at its writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The focus of this paper is on the notion of ‘addictive consumption’, conceived as a set of discourses that are embedded within wider socio-historical processes of governance and control. It examines the discursive convergences and conflicts between practices of consumption and notions of addiction, which it notes are consistently represented in terms of the oppositional categories of self-control vs. compulsion and freedom vs. determinism. These interrelations are explored with reference to the development of notions of addiction, and their relation to shifting configurations of identity, subjectivity and governance. Finally, it suggests that the notion of ‘addiction’ has particular valence in advanced liberal societies, where an unprecedented emphasis on the values of freedom, autonomy and choice not only encourage the conditions for its proliferation into ever wider areas of social life, but also reveal deep tensions within the ideology of consumerism itself.

The paper reveals contemporary transformations of the interaction between Islam and secular states from opposition to engagement. In-depth ethnographic evidence challenges the predominant juxtaposition of Islam against the secular state. Following micro-sites of interaction between the Gülen movement and the state from Turkey to Kazakhstan, my fieldwork revealed a continuum of engagements between them. The paper analyses the engagements ranging from contestation and negotiation to co-operation. The case illustrates the extent to which scholarly interest in opposition and clash has left a wide-ranging variety of state-Islam interaction understudied with regard to civil society. It also reveals the conditions under which effective Islamic horizontal organizations have provided the platforms of vertical engagements with the secular states. The major argument of the paper is that both civil and uncivil outcomes in the Muslim world are primarily shaped by the nature of state—Islam interaction. The evidence suggests that the key to understanding the relationship between Islam and civil society is the state.

This paper studies the impact of social class and education on political orientation. We distinguish the ‘old’ middle class from a new class of social/cultural specialists. However, the difference in their political orientation may especially be related to the level and field of education; the new middle class is more highly educated and often in fields of study that extensively address social competencies, characteristics independently affecting political outcomes. Analyses on Dutch data showed that education is more important in the prediction of ‘cultural’ liberal issues than social class. Economically-oriented issues are more strongly affected by social class. This means that interests of the new middle class are served by liberal standpoints relating to a strong government and income redistribution policies, but not relating to cultural issues.

The career experience of men and women in British university sociology since 1950 is compared, using published data for the whole group and fresh data from a sample of departments. It is shown that, when like is compared with like, the outcomes for men and for women have not been as different as is often suggested; family reasons were more salient in women's careers, but in the end have not made much difference to their destinations. But the proportions of women recruited have varied over time, and the experience of both sexes has been strongly influenced by historical factors affecting different periods. Within the constraints which those have imposed, individuals have not all made the same choices, and that too has affected the outcomes.

In this era of reflexive sociology it is commonplace that subjectivity is of great sociological concern, and that the comprehension by social researchers of their own subject position is essential. Still, old habits die hard. Focusing on selected texts in the sociology of the Australian family, this paper traces the effects of failing to focus the sociological gaze on subjectivity and its variation across society. Highlighted are some patterns of analytic misconstruction of subjectivity, especially the substitution of measurement for a theory of practice, and the projection by sociologists of their own class-specific subjectivity onto society at large. Ultimately, this misconstruction turns works like those discussed in this paper into a powerful denial of alternative subjectivities, and a reinforcement of the socially dominant perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper advances the position that sociology needs to develop an approach to research which focuses on fundamental social problems. In doing so it shares many of the intellectual values and goals of political arithmetic while seeking to move methodologically beyond it. Since such problems are complex they will require, typically, interdisciplinary input and a concomitant approach to the development and appraisal of theories. We are not, therefore, advocating the primacy of sociology but arguing that it has a distinctive part to play in addressing the fundamental problems of the twenty-first century. However, a policy-oriented sociology has also to take up the task, so clearly defined by the tradition of political arithmetic, which is to hold governments to account. Consequently a central principle of a new policy science is that it should contribute to democratic debate about policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper comments on that article "Sociology and political arithmetic: some principles of a new policy science," by Hugh Lauder, Phillip Brown and A.H Halsey in this issue of "The British Journal of Sociology." Two key issues are addressed in a selective way. First, what is and what should be the role of social science, and sociology in particular, in informing policy making. Second, what is the wider role of social science in facilitating the democratic debate, and in holding policymakers to account. Too little social science research is directed at important issues Incentives in academia are not well aligned to achieving socially optimal goals, whether that be for inter-disciplinary working or policy influencing behavior.

This paper comments on that article "Sociology and political arithmetic: some principles of a new policy science," by Hugh Lauder, Phillip Brown and A.H Halsey in this issue of "The British Journal of Sociology." The article's main point is that sociology is more open than the other social sciences and therefore more suited to open democratic public debate At the same time the authors argue that openness must not be confused with epistemological relativism because that simply produces argument without any basis for closure except by exhaustion. What is welcome is the argument that policy debates need to engage the wider public The authors' ideal of "political arithmetic" has a democratic pedigree that can hardly be gainsaid.

This paper takes issue with Stehr and Grundmann's argument in this journal that sociology's poor record of contribution to practical knowledge results from sociologists' misguided attachment to the idea that social phenomena are peculiarly complex, and so peculiarly resistant to efforts at practical knowledge formation. Stehr and Grundmann develop their thesis by contrasting sociology to economics, claiming the latter's superior methods and disciplinary cultures enable it to contribute more successfully to solving practical problems. We argue that Stehr and Grundmann's comparison of the relative success of economics and sociology as policy sciences underestimates the extent to which the complexity argument has been destructive of economics' capacity to contribute practical knowledge, and overestimates the importance of disciplinary methods and cultures in explaining the use of economics in policy making. Further, we argue that the 'complexity argument' can contribute to better policy making, by virtue of its capacity to highlight the dangers of simplistic or fundamentalist solutions to social problems with complex causes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the proposition that twinship is an irreducibly social phenomenon. Gender, age, birth order, socio-economic status and other variables are considered, along with the role of different patterns of socialization as these affect twinship. It is argued that, to a very large extent, from conception. through gestation, childbirth and subsequently childhood and adolescence, the social processing and regulation of social members take place in unitary terms and that therefore twins (and higher multiples) are an anomaly in relation to such processes. Twins' reactions to stigma, stereotyping and labelling are explored as an integral aspect of the social structuring of twinship. The role of the twin, as distinct from the role of the non-twin, is examined in the context of cultural expectations of twinship regarding similarity of identity and similarity of behaviour. Subsequent or concurrent processes of differentiation between twins are also examined. The article concludes with suggestions for further analyses of twinship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses failure of social theory. Social theory has failed intellectually, yet by most academic and popular standards it continues to attract all the trappings of success. To furnish an answer one must examine the nature of social theory itself, explore the character of its failure and seek an understanding of how, nevertheless, it continues to attract approval. In the latter respect a sociological account of the functions which social theory plays in both intellectual and practical life is required. Rather than targeting social theory in the round one shall critically review aspects of social scientist M. Castells' volume "The Rise of the Network Society." Castells' writings would be endorsed by most social scientists as an exemplar of what is usually termed social theory. That the book is successful is beyond all doubt; first published in 1996 it has already been reprinted four times and attracted rave reviews from other social theorists. Furthermore, Castells appears to have attracted much attention outside academic circles. He was appointed to the European Commission's High level Expert Group on the Information Society and, was sought by the Russian political authorities to advise on similar matters.

The debate between the advocates of sociological individualism and those of holism has been pervasive in the development of social theory. This debate is often situated in the false problems of sociology, since it is seen as a particular form of the perennial and irresolvable dilemma between social nominalism and realism, as well as between freedom and determinism. Nevertheless, the debate is far from over within contemporary sociology and other social science, as indicated by the resurgence of individualism in rational action theory and its repudiation by holistic social theories. The aim of this paper is to identify some modern variations on this theme as well as to discern certain common tendencies of two seemingly opposite theoretical perspectives, viz. the convergence upon a normative solution to the problem of social order. This convergence is therefore denoted normative convergence between sociological individualism and holistic sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Critics of the interdisciplinary enterprise of historical sociology commonly contend that the narrational accounts of past social phenomena provided by historians are inadequate to the task of theory-building and testing. In support of this negative assessment, opponents will adduce informational deficiencies in the available data (the standard positivist appraisal of historical evidence), or cite the interpretive anarchy that seemingly prevails at the narrative phase of emplotment (the skeptical, postmodernist contention that historiographic texts ‘construct’ rather than veridically represent the events they artfully contrive to signify). Both of these lines of criticism are unbalanced, and therefore seriously misleading as regards the epistemic foundations of historical-sociological inquiry. The ‘social authenticity’ and ‘informational density’ of historical evidence does allow for veridical reconstructions of the past, while the reflexive interpretive protocols of source criticism and the sociology of knowledge can be deployed to provide warrant for discriminating arbitrations between competing theories and narratives. The various epistemological deformations in the study of human affairs that have been encouraged by the old idiographic-nomothetic polarity — chronic ahistoricism within the social sciences, the atheoretical predilections of much conventional historiography — are rectifiable through the consolidation of a fully integrated sociological history, a unified and inclusive historical social science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The sociology of the next century is likely to differ from that of the twentieth century. The current situation and the future prospects of sociology are assessed by spelling out the trajectory over the past century of sociology's predominant assumptions about the character and direction of the social world and of its own task of cognition. Sociology is located in three spaces of identity: a space of disciplines, a stage of everyday practice, and a space of imagination and investigation. From the cosmological, epistemological, and spatial trajectories some indications of a new, very different future of sociology are given. Finally, a way of preserving and developing the legacy of first century sociology is presented, in the form of nodes of knowledge, central to a 'typical' sociological approach to the social. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]