Search

There are, of recent, expressed concerns, albeit small in number, about the failure of sociology to 'engage with the wider society'. Implicit and explicit in the concerns is the suggestion that sociology is no longer as exciting as it was during the period of the struggle against apartheid. The period of apartheid was taken as one of the 'rise' of sociology because of sociology's engagement with the political issues of the day. This paper argues that the assumed 'rise' and 'fall' of the discipline in South Africa can better be characterised as the visibility of sociology in the 'public'. It is argued that the decades 30s. 40s and 50s were decades of success for sociology just like the 60s, 70s and early 80s that some point to as the period of 'rise' of the discipline The earlier decades saw the ascendancy of positivism, and sociology of that period contributed in great measure to the construction of apartheid, which was subsequently dismantled with contributions from sociology, specifically, the Marxist sociology. If there is therefore a 'fall' of sociology, it is the 'fall' of a theoretical perspective in sociology. However, given the call for a 'critical edge' in the discipline, it is suggested that such an edge would need to start from the classroom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept canon is increasingly used to refer to the core concepts, texts, theories and authors in scientific and artistic disciplines. This article examines the appropriateness of this term when used in the social sciences generally and in sociology specifically. It argues that in terms of a strict definition of 'canon' sociology does not have a canon and cannot be regarded as a canonical discipline. The concept of a 'compilatory' discipline is introduced and discussed via references to the sociological catalogue and the knowledge/power relations that account for the form and structure of the catalogue. Arguments for regarding sociology as a compilatory rather than a canonic discipline are advanced and some consequences of this are explored through a discussion of the debates and struggles that were waged over the sociology curriculum during the apartheid years and more recently. The paper concludes with a call to South African sociologists to recognise the compilatory nature of the discipline and to meet the challenges this implies in the contemporary context and for the renewal of sociology and social transformation in South Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociology as a scholarly vocation within the university in South Africa is bedevilled with the claims of its demise. Both the discipline and a cross-section of its practitioners seem beset with 'status anxiety' and what I call 'status ambiguity.' In this presidential address, delivered to the 2005 Congress of the South African Sociological Association (SASA). I examine these claims. The paper examines the sources of the anxiety. It argues that the claims of sociology's death are grossly exaggerated, as Mark Twain might have put it. I argue that if we were to operate on a wider canvas we might have persuaded ourselves to the position that the ebbs and flows in a discipline like sociology are not evidence of 'death', 'fall' or whatever else we might want to call it: it is not even an evidence of a discipline that is yet to attain maturity. The key to doing 'sociology beyond despair' and the recovery of disciplinary nerve requires a commitment to endogeneity, with a distinct commitment to epistemic intervention in global sociology: it requires us to take our locales seriously: it requires us to take ourselves seriously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]