Search

This article presents the author's comment on researcher David Sciulli's paper about the continental sociology of professions. Sciulli has criticized the social history of the professions, claiming that it is not able to provide a definition of a professional that distinguishes it from that of an expert. He instead suggests a return to a sociology, able to produce a concept of profession applicable in any historical configuration. Providing a definition of profession that remains valid outside the temporal dimension requires a person to look into its essence. Sciulli argues that it was the painters and sculptors of the French monarchs, assembled in an academy founded by Henri IV, who drew up the first curriculum of learned instruction in Western history, which were based on examinations and merit-based standards for entry and advancement in any occupational field. Traveling back in time in search of the genesis of particular forms may provide crucial analogical results that induce research to move in unexpected directions.

Earlier attempts to define visual sociology have acknowledged that there is no real need to define visual sociology other than for bureaucratic legitimization: heads of departments want to see on paper what their staff members are teaching and what their students are studying; chairmen of research committees want to feel comfortable that research money is well spent. In a world of words, visual sociologists can do their work only to the extent that visual sociology is recognized by men of letters. This description is at least imaginative, but it limits the label of visual sociologists to those interested in photography. Michael Hill takes a broader view. He accentuates the relationship between sociologists and the visual arts, by defining the field as: "Exploration of the reflexive relationships between social structures, on the one hand, and the choice, apprehension, perception, cognition, and creation of visual imagery, on the other." There is no doubt that many other definitions and descriptions can be formulated and will be formulated in the future. It should be clear, however,that definitions, besides being instrumental in the communication between scholars, may also have a stultifying effect.

Much energy in economic sociology is expended on showing that core assumptions of microeconomics are too short sighted. It is assumed that sociology provides a better background for analysing and understanding economic institutions than economics itself. This is certainly true, but has led economic sociologists to treat economic theory as the ‘other’ of economic sociology. Thereby, the disciplinary boundary between economics and sociology is reproduced where economic sociology is understood the application of the ‘sociology tradition’ to economic phenomena. This article suggests a change of perspective: economic sociologists should treat economics as an endogenous part of its enquiries, but not to examine what economic theory is, but what it does, i.e. how economic theory shapes the economy. This requires introducing the study of language, concepts and semantic distinctions as an inherent part of economic sociology and its focus on the ‘social’ construction of economic institutions. Ultimately, this suggestion reorients our focus away from ‘authors’ to ‘concepts’. In other words, if economic sociology wants to take the ‘sociological’ and linguistic turn in social theory with its focus on language seriously, it needs to redefine its boundaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]