The Fate of Sociology

I am a sociologist.  I make no bones about it.  Despite the fact that I am part of a tiny conservative minority within my discipline, I am proud to be studying what makes human societies tick.  The way we interact is so complicated that it is a challenge to unravel the intricacies.

Moreover, the details of how we deal with each other are far from trivial.  Their impact on how we cooperate and what we can collectively achieve is profound.  If we do not understand these, we are bound to veer off into egregious dead ends.  Not only will things go wrong; they can go dangerously wrong.

Sadly, many contemporary sociologists are not social scientists.  They are not so much interested in investigating social truths as in promoting the agendas they brought with them when they entered the field.  Accordingly, if they do research, it is advocacy research.  They employ the trappings of science to legitimize their prior commitments.

Who am I talking about?  Why, it is those feminists who are out to smash the male hegemony.  It is those class warriors who are set on toppling the economic elites.  It is those minority members who see discrimination under every bush.  Most of these folks are out for revenge.

Ask almost anyone what sociologists believe and the answer will be the same.  A majority of these academics are thought to believe that society is permeated by oppression.  Privileged individuals, whether they are male, wealthy, white, or straight, are allegedly conspiring to keep their victims in bondage.

What is more, most sociologists purportedly want every well-meaning person to join their crusade to overthrow these villains.  Only then will we, as a group, achieve the equality that is our due.  Only then will we effectively collaborate for our shared benefit.

Nonetheless, matters are not that simple.  A cartoon universe, in which everyone is divided into good and bad guys, is belied by the complexity of the world we inhabit.  As adults ought to discover, we humans are ménage of contradictory impulses.  We are far from straightforward creatures.

Nor do we always wear our motives on our sleeves.  Indeed, what we want and how we intend to get it is often invisible.  Sometimes our desires are unconscious.  We literally do not recognize them.  At other times, they are disguised.  We try to fool ourselves—and others—into believing we are better than we are.

In any event, despite our intelligence, we frequently do not see what is there to be seen.  Even when reality is rubbed in our noses, we cling to socially acceptable rationalizations.  At moments like this, genuine sociology can come into play.  It can piece the veil that shields us from unpleasant facts.

Let me provide an example.  For years Americans have sought to improve the quality of childhood education.  We have also attempted to promote democratic values.  To this end, trillions of dollars were poured into reforming the schools.

But has this worked?  Did, for instance, spending more on impoverished school districts raise their achievement levels?  Almost everyone assumed this had to provide improved results.

And yet social research, starting with James Coleman, demonstrated that there is no correlation between the dollars expended and the amount students learn.  It seems as if there should be, yet there is not.

The strongest connection is actually between the attitudes of parents and the accomplishments of their youngsters.  Not surprisingly, the greater the emphasis mom and dad place on learning, the greater the effort Johnny is apt to make.

But how do we compensate for parents who disparage education?  How do we help their offspring get what is not available at home?  The answer has been to ramp up school budgets. 

All of this, however, has been of little avail.  Learning has not improved.  Why?  Because teachers cannot substitute for parents.  They cannot provide the love and security of a stable family.  And yet the myth persists.  Most people still believe that fancier educational facilities will have the desired effect. 

Sociology could set them straight.  Much could be learned if it returned to being a social science, as opposed to an ideological plaything.  This, at least, is my hope!

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University