Search

Although sociologists in Britain have debated the nature of their field's relationship with biology since the late nineteenth century, interest in the full range of responses has only grown in recent years. This paper contributes to the spirit of historical revisionism by turning to the work of the biologist and first director of UNESCO, Julian Huxley (1887–1975). Paying particular attention to the doctrine he called ‘scientific humanism’ and his ideas about a biosocial agenda separate from the priorities of biology itself, the paper uses historical tools to address a concern that has frequently cast a shadow over debates about biosocial science: does it interfere with the progressive agenda sociologists have traditionally seen themselves as contributing to? The paper argues that Huxley's work is evidence that biosocial science is compatible with progressive goals and that recent developments in biology mean it may be the ideal time to reconsider long-standing attitudes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses on sociology and the study of human non-human animal relations. Using as a catalyst referees' comments on a previous paper about experiments using non-human animal subjects, in this present paper three problematics are identified and discussed. These problematics centre on the 'acceptable' content of sociological inquiry, the 'permissibility' of advocacy-oriented sociology, and the 'admissibility' of non-human animal-advocacy to advocacy-oriented sociology. The three problematics are explored through the lens of reflexive and critical sociology. Two central questions are raised: first, should sociology include the study of non-human animals and secondly, can sociology advocate for non-human animals? The paper concludes with an affirmative response to both of these questions. The paper ends by stressing that sociology has so much to offer the study of human non-human animal relations. Professional sociologists have a key role to play in enabling this work to move from margins to centre in published sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sleep is essential for our health and well-being but it has, historically, been the subject of little sociological study. Yet sleep is not, as common sense would have us believe,‘asocial inaction’. Like our waking lives, it is a time of interaction. The sociology of sleep presently exists in a state similar to the early stages of development of the sociology of the body, waiting for something like) typology of body action, which served as a heuristic guide through which action and its multifaceted components could be understood. This paper argues that one productive analytical framework is to adapt)‘male body schema’ for the sociological investigation of sleep. This revolves around four interrelated forms of embodiment: normative (opinions and perceptions about healthy sleep behaviour); pragmatic (‘normal’ as related to social role); experiential (feelings related to sleep); and visceral (the biological body and sleep). The possibilities this model provides for the sociology of sleep is illustrated in the paper through the analysis of a case study of sleep negotiation between a couple. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The human body has in recent years become a ‘hot’ topic in sociology, not just in empirical research but also in sociological theorizing. In the latter context, the body has been variously a resource for broadening the parameters of traditional sociological thought deriving from the nineteenth century, and for overturning that paradigm and fundamentally reorienting the assumptions and concepts of sociological thinking. Attempts to abandon the old paradigm and foster a new one through the means of thinking about bodies are many and manifold, and in this paper we trace out the intricate history of moves towards a ‘corporeal sociology’. We identify the dilemmas that have attended these developments, especially as concerns the ways in which new modes of thinking sociologically have tended to founder over the classical sociological dichotomy between social structure and social action. Through tracing out the various moves and counter-moves within this field, we identify a central contradiction that affects all contemporary sociological practice, not just that dealing with the body: an oscillation between judging the utility of conceptual tools in terms of criteria derived from the discipline of Cultural Studies, and evaluating the arguments created by those tools on the basis of the incompatible criteria of classical sociology. The paper challenges sociologists to choose one set of’criteria or the other, for sociological practice cannot be based on both such antagonistic paradigms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Epigenetics has considerable potential to transform social science by embedding mutually regulative reciprocal connections between biological and social processes within the human activities it studies. This paper highlights common epigenetic methods and outlines practical considerations in the design of ‘social epigenetics' research addressing the identification of biomolecular pathways, statistical inference of causality, conceptualization of the environment as a biochemical event, heritability of epigenetic alterations and intergenerational accountability, and concept of time implied by attempts to capture complex, non-linear gene-environment interactions. Finally, we reflect on the social epigenome as a conceptual space and try to identify barriers to translation, and practical and ethical issues raised by epigenetics research. In order for social epigenetics and social science to contribute to the emergence of this putative ‘science of social science’’ and to capture meaningful human experience they will both need to change significantly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses criticisms of a number of papers (Vogler and Pahl, 1993, 1994; Vogler, 1994) in which we attempted to explore the relationships between money, power and inequality within marriage. Subsequent criticisms have mainly centred around the concept of power that we used in those papers. It has been suggested that we either lacked a theory of power (Rottman, 1996) or that our conceptualisation of power as control over decision making was too limited (Shove, 1993). I would argue however, that while it was not made explicit in our original papers our findings point towards a more general theory of power in the household, namely to a modified version of Lukes' three dimensional model of power. While we initially conceptualised power as control over decision making (Lukes' first dimension of power) our findings also show the importance of ideological and cultural factors (Lukes' third dimension of power) as both a cause and a consequence of the allocative systems couples use to organise money within the household. More theoretically, I also suggest that discourses about money within the household may be part of, and operate in a similar way to discourses of decision making at the broader political level. It may therefore be possible to conceptualise the different ways of managing money within the household as mini political systems akin to different sorts of democracy at the broader political level, and with similar consequences for gender relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that the existing sociological literature on the learned professions and on scientific occupations has developed in ways that are now theoretically unproductive. One symptom of this dead-end is the failure of sociologists of the professions to include research on scientists in their discussions and vice versa. A second symptom is the lack of attention to the implications of the work of Jamous, Peloille, and Bourdieu in both the sociology of scientists and of professions. The third symptom of the malaise is the failure to generate sociologically plausible explanations for the marginalisation of female entrants to science and the professions. The paper argues that a novel direction for sociological argument can be derived by remedying the three symptoms simultaneously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper critically scrutinizes the thesis put forward by Jennifer Platt in a recent article in The Sociological Review about the general relation between theory and method, based on her investigation of the specific example of functionalism and survey research in post-war US sociology. The present paper questions the extent to which Platt's analysis and general conclusions mask important levels of connectedness between theory and method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The task essayed in this paper is a discussion of problems encountered, and solutions arrived at, during the course of the project.
The qualifications are necessary at the outset. Firstly, the demands of the 'problem and solution' approach encourage the deployment of the 'chronological lie'. Some, even much of what I discuss was only perceived in terms of problem and solution after the event. Secondly, there are many research situations where, one might say, a kind of 'principle of complementarity' obtains--that is where, when a solution to one sort of problem is approached closely, another sort of problem inevitably increases in magnitude. In the latter part of the paper certain problems will be discussed in these terms. That discussion looks at ways of optimizing the inevitably approximate fit between an external reality and what is observed. However, it should be noted that other interpretations of these observational problems are possible? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to investigate and criticise, from the standpoint of certain subsequent developments both in Marxist theory and in the state of intellectual dispute in sociology, one of the most eloquent and much-discussed statements of the situation in the sociology of the late sixties: Alan Dawe's 'Two Sociologies'.[2] I shall argue that Dawe does correctly identify two major tendencies in sociological thought, but that these tendencies are not, as Dawe seems to have supposed, either mutually exclusive, or jointly exhaustive of the theoretical space open to social theorising.[3] I shall try, in other words, to argue that Dawe's 'two sociologies' are better understood as variant forms of one sociology, and also that fundamental alternatives to this 'one sociology' exist and are beginning to be explored. Further, I aim to show, within the limits of a paper of this length, that there are fundamental defects in each of the variant forms of sociology which Dawe identifies, and, finally, that the links Dawe supposes to exist between epistemologies ('meta theory') and traditions of substantive enquiry are misconceived in his paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, the theoretical approach to the concept of lone motherhood is adopted from ‘new’ family sociology where families are understood to be dynamic processes constituted by webs of relationships. I analyse life stories written by lone mothers in order to examine the meanings that they give to their lone motherhood in relation to their larger family context. This approach reveals that, along with the concept ‘family’, the category ‘lone motherhood’ can be questioned. The life stories show that as with all families, the representations of ‘the lone mother family’ vary. Lone motherhood emerges less as a distinct family form and more as an experience coloured by the lone mother's position in a web of family relationships, as well as her place in her broader personal, social and historical context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years there has been a growing interest in the sociological study of environmental issues. One area in which this is evident is in the application of social scientific methods in social impact assessment (SIA): the study of the anticipated social impact of proposed changes to the environment. This paper addresses one aspect of the debate about appropriate methods for SIA; whether, and how, to include the expressed views and perceptions of those who will be affected. It is argued first that although SIA ostensibly deals with the social effects of projects there is a tendency for assessments to avoid any detailed consideration of the ways in which people are affected. Instead there is an emphasis upon technical and economic considerations. When assessments do attempt to incorporate the perceptions of local people they typically do so through some form of attitude research. However if language is viewed as a form of social action rather than as a detached commentary on reality there are radical implications for the methods traditionally used in SIA to gauge people's views and attitudes. I conclude by outlining an alternative to the traditional practice of viewing peoples' accounts as a repository of their attitudes, arguing that they might be more profitably used to explore how social impacts are socially constructed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years writers in the field of the sociology of gender have turned to psychoanalysis for insights into the psychological dimensions of female sexuality. The same insights are now being applied to the analysis of masculinity. This paper argues that the full advantages of this are undermined by the adoption of an object-relations perspective which restores the social determinism from which many such writers seek to escape. This argument is pursued through a detailed analysis of one recent text in the field -- The Sexuality of Men (eds) A. Metcalf and M. Humphries (1985) -- but is applied more widely to the treatment of sexuality in the sociology of gender. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many writers hold that research method is necessarily determined by theory, and it is common to suggest the relationship between functionalism and survey method in post-war US sociology as an example of this. This paper questions the extent to which that method and that theory were in reality meaningfully associated, and argues against the position that theory and method are in general invariably connected in the way suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most curious omissions in the sociology of work and occupations is what would seem to be one of the most basic questions: When is an occupation an occupation? While there have been recent attempt to explore the issue by examining the history of census categories,[1] these represent the end-point of the process at which new occupations receive official recognition and legitimation. My purpose in this paper is to discuss how occupations form and come to be recognized as such. The creation of health visiting between 1850 and 1919 will be taken as a case study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The argument of this paper is that the recent preoccupation of practitioners in social history and sociology with structuralism has obscured from view a convergence of interests that has been gathering pace since the mid-1970s. There has been a shift from indifference to cautious amiability in the mutual relations of sociologists and social historians or, more precisely, a greater interest by each group in what the other produces. However, practitioners in each discipline tend to regard their counterparts in the other merely as manufacturers of convenient wares. The details of how these wares are produced, it is conveniently assumed, have to remain a craft mystery. On each side there is, in Britain at least, the rather patronising attitude which the gentleman adopts towards his chemist. To parody the relationship: sociologists 'need' social historians to provide convenient summaries of relevant historical data; social historians 'need' sociologists to supply conceptual 'gadgets' to help put shape into their analyses. In fact, exchange relations of this kind are of greatly diminished value if they do not grow out of overlapping strategies for producing knowledge and a sense of the problematical which is to some degree shared. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social inequality has been overwhelmingly studied from the perspective of those who are deprived and disadvantaged. The emphasis, accordingly, has been on lack of wealth, status and power. However, social inequality equally implies privilege and this has received little serious attention. Indeed, in the literature of sociology there are relatively few extended references to it.[1] With few exceptions those that exist tend to treat it unproblematically and often pejoratively. Thus the possessors of privilege are frequently cast as the villains of the piece and, even where the underdog has privileges in the sense of legal rights, these are commonly exposed as illusory or detrimental to his interests.[2] In order to contribute to the understanding of privilege in general, and thereby social inequality, this paper will consider the privileges of the professions.[3] This is because professions are examples of privilege not only in the sense of being privileged occupations, but also in the sense that the elites of professions are an integral part of the dominant elites of society.[4]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though necessarily selective, I want to present a biography of the research which principally focusses on 24 families with an epileptic child, to illustrate changing perspectives, emergent problems and some of the solutions, or attempted solutions, to overcome them, indicating my position then as it was; and how, in the light of an examination o[ the data, revisions in procedures and interpretations were required. In particular, the paper focusses on the problems of making sense of extensive data, much of which is biographical, collected on one of these families. Analysis of these accounts suggests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on issues and prospects related to the sociology of Wales. In Britain, the political successes of nationalist parties in the nineteen-seventies, and the ensuing debate about devolution, have given new confidence to those working in the periphery that their contribution to social science need not be automatically relegated to the category of the quaint and parochial collection of more tassels from the Celtic fringe. It is a propitious time to consider the condition of sociology with regard to peripheral areas of Britain, and the publication of a new collection of research papers affords the opportunity to do so for Wales in particular.

This paper argues that two models of illness can be identified within Parsons's paradigm--a structural model focusing on illness as incapacity for rle performance and a psychodynamic model focusing on illness as motivated deviance. Medical sociology, it will be said, has overlooked the psychodynamic or deviance model while recognizing and criticizing the structural or incapacity model under the misplaced label of deviance. It will further be ventured that while some elements of these two models can easily be fitted into a conservative view of medical practice, other elements are more difficult to reconcile with conservatism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article raised some issues concerning the interpretation of Wittgenstein's work and the relevance his ideas might have for the social sciences, especially for sociology and anthropology. Clammer argues that Wittgensteinianism produces paradoxical conclusions by, on the one hand, rendering sociology impossible while, on the other, logically requiring it but yet providing no clue as to what sociological course we might chart. In reaching this, as he himself admits, preliminary conclusion, Clammer addresses problems raised by Wittgenstein's notions of 'language game' and 'forms of life' and their possible implications for the autonomy of belief systems, the relativity of rationalities and the consequences of both of these for understanding alien cultures. His paper raises important issues about the interpretation of Wittgenstein's position which I would like to consider. Also I want briefly to suggest that there are sociological practices consistent with the ideas contained within Wittgenstein's later work. I do not particularly want to argue that Wittgenstein should be henceforth treated as one of the Founding Fathers of sociology, simply that his work can be taken as an important source of inspiration for certain kinds of sociological work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to provide an analysis of the content and methodological function of Durkheim's theory of human nature. Such attention as this topic has already received in the secondary literature has usually been a by-product of a concern with other, more salient aspects of Durkheim's sociology, such as his theories of suicide and anomie. As a result, his conception of man has not received the detailed examination that has been accorded to these other dimensions of his thought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The papers in this issue of Sociological Review derive from a Workshop sponsored by the Sociology and Social Administration Committee of SSRC, exploring current practice and problems in the handling of qualitative data. It was felt that the time was opportune for some attempt to gather together ideas about the analysis of qualitative or interpretative material, and a reappraisal of the relationship between theory and methodology in the use of this type of data. Because it was thought that these issues could be best explored in the context of specific research projects, rather than simply discussed in the abstract, the core papers of the Workshop consisted of ten project presentations. These, all projects funded by SSRC, were selected as having representative or specially interesting methodological features. The grantholders were asked to prepare a paper to a common pattern, discussing the aim and design of the project, the relationship of concepts and data, and methods of analysis. The intention was to avoid, as far as possible, detailed descriptions of findings, and also discussions of the practical problems of methods such as interview or observation which were thought to be well covered in the existing literature. It was hoped that the focus could thus be placed on the intellectual, rather than the practical, problems of qualitative research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]