Search

This paper examines the Chicago sociologist William F. Ogburn's (1886–1959) views about technological unemployment, which were intimately connected to his analysis of the social impacts of technological developments and resulting social problems due to cultural lag. We trace the development of his views as seen through his well‐known 1922 book, Social Change with Respect to Culture and Original Nature, his important contributions to the President's Research Committee on Social Trends (1933), and his lesser‐known pamphlets designed for a broader audience—Living with Machines (1933), You and Machines (1934), and Machines and Tomorrow's World (1938). He used these pamphlets to educate the public about the dangers of new machines and technological unemployment. In doing so, he drew upon sociological analysis in his professional scholarly writings and his long‐standing personal interests in social betterment and social reform. Our analysis also calls into question the adequacy of existing scholarship on Ogburn that has emphasized his commitment to a statistical, dispassionate, and "objectivist" approach to social science research. We call for a revised, richer, and more complex view of Ogburn's work and legacy as one of the nation's leading social scientists during the first half of the 20th century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents comments of various sociologist on issues related to sociology, presented in the American Sociological Association (ASA) roundtable conference. On the question of general agreement of sociologists on what and how to study, Stanford M. Lyman commented that much of conventional sociology has abandoned the discipline's original interest in providing an empirically-tested theory of social reality in the name of a reified conception of methodology. On another question related to conception of order, Herbert Blumer said that, from the standpoint of symbolic interactionism, human group life is a process in which objects are being created, affirmed, transformed and cast aside. Guy Oakes, commented on Weberian rule.

This issue of "Sociological Inquiry" presents a new and rather exciting feature which I believe will be of great interest to the readers of this journal. They are, for the first time, publishing the winning paper of the Alpha Kappa Delta (AKD) undergraduate paper competition. The editorial advisory board strongly recommended publishing the winning paper as "Sociological Inquiry" is, after all, the official journal of AKD, the international sociology honorary society. They also know that many of their subscribers are students. The editor hope that they enjoy this rather unique look at an aspect of human society that has been virtually untouched by sociologists. As they read this article, he hope also that they come away with a sense of satisfaction with knowing that the next generation of sociologists is being well trained in their discipline. Recognizing that much of this behavior has little to do with intended suicide, and cannot necessarily be linked to other pathologies, Sarah Hodgson interviews individuals who engage in this type of self mutilation through online chat rooms. Her analysis reveals several layers of learning that take place, as well as numerous mechanisms that are employed to maintain their credibility in a society that otherwise stigmatizes such behavior.

The purpose of this article is to reconsider partnership and parenthood in post-transitional societies from the viewpoint of sociology. As is well known, after the end of the Baby Boom, albeit with variations in the tempo and the level, a considerable decline in fertility has occurred in industrialized countries. Furthermore, this decline has occurred in tandem with the transformation of partnership such as an increase in the number of cohabited couples. The causes and effects of this decline in fertility have hitherto been studied by social scientists such as economists and demographers. Although the family has been one of the main research interests for sociologists for a long while, the changes in partnership and fertility behavior in developed countries have not been sufficiently argued from the perspective of sociological theory on family. In this article, we will initially compare and contrast two changes in fertility patterns: the first of these is the fertility decline that occurred around the latter half of the nineteenth century; the second is the change that has been observed in industrialized countries since the second half of the 1960s. We will then discuss the difference between economic and ideational approaches in the explanation of partnership and fertility changes. Finally, we will examine the convergence and the divergence theories on family change. This article will conclude with an emphasis on the importance of the middle-range theories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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." 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." 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.

This article explores the conceptualization of nature in environmental sociology, with emphasis on the sociological investigation of nature conservation. In doing so, it aims not only at making an inventory of concepts in environmental sociology, but also at adding to its theory. Most contributions to environmental sociology bracket environmental issues and nature conservation issues or, gray and green issues together, and mainly focus on the gray environmental problems of emission of pollutants, production of waste, and depletion of energy and raw materials. Correspondingly, nature or natural environment is taken in a broad sense that is comparable to physical environment. This broad conceptualization of nature is in need of differentiation and theoretical elaboration, if environmental sociology is to clarify issues in which the valuation of nature itself is a core problem. Nature conservation issues typically fall into this category. The main part of this article presents an analysis of different concepts of nature in environmental sociology. For the purpose of this analysis, the author takes environmental sociology in a comprehensive sense, incorporating not only authors that identify themselves as environmental sociologists, but also other social scientists that have contributed to the social theory of environment.

The need for sociology to become socially relevant is now being articulated by professional sociologists. While the doctrine that the discipline should be value-free allows sociologists to serve and promote the social values of others, a vital sociological endeavor requires more. Classic sociology was value-relevant. To be socially relevant, it is essential that the discipline become consciously value-relevant, not value-free. For sociology to distinguish important from unimportant social problems and actions requires judgments of relative social value. What social theory, what social policies, and why? Significant sociology analyzes the consequences of social structure, forces and change. This cannot be done in a value-free context, especially so for sociologists who are interested in matters of social policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

African American sociologists are beginning to confront the use of "African American/Black" as a homogeneous sociological category. In doing so they are laying the ground for improvements in social scientific research in general One aspect of that improvement involves the use of people of African descent as subjects for theoretical statements about humanity at large rather than merely about other African descendent populations. Another aspect involves confronting the extensive segregation within the discipline around the research done by African American scholars. This introduction discusses the implications of these issues for African American scholars and for the discipline as a whole. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Calling attention to the relatively few contributions made by sociologists to the study of nuclear issues, a political scientist suggests a number of areas and questions that sociology may be particularly well equipped to deal with. The study is divided into a canvas of questions that come from the first 45 years of the nuclear age, and then assesses the questions that may emerge in an evolving "post-Cold War" era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The original young Turks, political reformers and ardent nationalists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, gave a term that for some time has had a wide and varied usage. In America, voices of young Turks have often been heard and sometimes heeded, in political parties, Congress, labor unions, professional and scholarly organizations. Frequently young Turks are taken to be merely youthful dissenters or youngsters on the rise. In the 1970s, Marxism and neo-Marxism flourished in history and the social sciences, especially among graduate students and young academics. Marxist sociologists are young Turks only in a restricted sense. The main target of their revolt lies in the area of scholarship, not in the organizational status quo. In research and theoretical writings they are bent to demonstrate the scientific validity of a Marxist approach and to challenge opposing conceptions and findings.

This article focuses on the sociology of science. The sociology of science is well established as a specialty in research and in teaching. When something is widely defined as a social problem in modern Western society, it becomes a proper object for study. And science is now considered by many to be, if not a social problem itself, the cause of significant social problems. Concern about science from a sociological perspective has produced the development of a specialty that, characteristically, has followed paths similar to the development of scientific specialties generally. At the beginning, the primary theoretical perspective involved what has come to be called Mertonian sociology of science. Mertonian sociology of science is based on the idea that the social institution of science can be studied as any other social institution. As an institutionalized activity, science has goals and proceeds, through the various social processes, to realize its goals. This conception naturally leads to a variety of questions familiar to all sociologists.

According to many, sociology is facing a crisis of relevance. Of particular concern is sociology's inability to impact policy. Sociologists, who should be the go‐to on major policy issues have been sidelined as other social scientists take up roles as policy advisors. Recent efforts aimed at encouraging public engagement have focused on disseminating research and producing more policy‐relevant knowledge. These are welcome resources, but they reflect a deep ambivalence toward policy sociology and a tendency to conflate participation in public discussions with policy impact. In contrast, this essay draws on recent findings about the power of policy experts to develop an organic policy sociology. Organic policy sociology depends on co‐designing and carrying out research with policymakers with whom we share critical and professional commitments. By working collaboratively with policymakers, sociologists can foster equity‐promoting policy, change how policymakers understand social problems, and improve how citizens experience policy on the ground. To that end, I offer six orienting strategies for developing and maintaining organic policy sociology projects, from finding the right partner to assessing the impact of our work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article comments on the topics discussed in this issue. Sociology is a discipline born out of social change and upheaval. It is also a discipline traditionally seen to have a role in helping us understand the world around us and even contributing to those improvements emerging as a consequence of this understanding. Whether or not this is achievable and desirable is the subject of controversy within the discipline with some believing it to be an impossible, even futile, ambition. There is a view that sociology has forgotten about social issues, lost its critical edge and in so doing lost its public voice. These were all issues raised in last year's debate on the relationship between sociology and government. Public sociology was also the theme of the American Sociological Association's annual meeting in 2004. In his Presidential address Michael Burawoy stated that "More than ever the world needs public sociologies, sociologies that transcend the academy and engage wider audiences." Whether they are successfully doing so is open to debate.