The Crisis in Sociology

[rousseau]

After a number of years reading History, I switched gears a while back and started looking at Sociology. For the most part I've read the major thinkers and not much else. I've enjoyed most of the titles I've picked up, but as I continued I started to notice a complete void of references to biology, evolution, and genetics in the work I was reading. After a while this stopped looking like a minor omission, and started looking like a serious gap in the theory of the field. How can we build coherent theory without reference to evolution, which is the central heuristic of living things?

So recently I fielded a question to some sociology graduates - how integrated is biology and evolution in the theory of the past few decades. It was an honest question, because I don't know much about the field post 2000. I had one person respond who came back to me with this book:

Crisis in Sociology

Apparently others have perceived this problem as well. From the description of the book:

Crisis in Sociology presents a compelling portrait of sociology's current troubles and proposes a controversial remedy. In the authors' view, sociology's crisis has deep roots, traceable to the over-ambitious sweep of the discipline's founders. Generations of sociologists have failed to focus effectively on the tasks necessary to build a social science. The authors see sociology's most disabling flaw in the failure to discover even a single general law or principle. This makes it impossible to systematically organize empirical observations, guide inquiry by suggesting falsifiable hypotheses, or form the core of a genuinely cumulative body of knowledge.

Absent such a theoretical tool, sociology can aspire to little more than an amorphous mass of hunches and disconnected facts. The condition engenders confusion and unproductive debate. It invites fragmentation and predation by applied social disciplines, such as business administration, criminal justice, social work, and urban studies. Even more dangerous are incursions by prestigious social sciences and by branches of evolutionary biology that constitute the frontier of the current revolution in behavioral science. Lopreato and Crippen argue that unless sociology takes into account central developments in evolutionary science, it will not survive as an academic discipline.

Crisis in Sociology argues that participation in the "new social science," exemplified by thriving new fields such as evolutionary psychology, will help to build a vigorous, scientific sociology. The authors analyze research on such subjects as sex roles, social stratification, and ethnic conflict, showing how otherwise disconnected features of the sociological landscape can in fact contribute to a theoretically coherent and cumulative body of knowledge.

It's an interesting problem. With technology being the way it is we feel like we know so much, but I think what we're discovering recently is how little we know, and how underdeveloped some of our major theories are.

 

[rousseau]

After following a bunch of academics for a few weeks, I'm starting to wonder if another major problem is job security in academia. It doesn't sound like it's easy to find well-paid work in social science. Likely even harder to risk a tenuous living by trying to completely upend your own field.

 

[Politesse]

After following a bunch of academics for a few weeks, I'm starting to wonder if another major problem is job security in academia. It doesn't sound like it's easy to find well-paid work in social science. Likely even harder to risk a tenuous living by trying to completely upend your own field.

You don't go into this job for the perks, that's for sure.

 

[steve_bank]

Part of it may be publish or perish for academics. They have to come up with something to write about.

Sociology has always been fuzzy to me. Ill defined. On TV and radio there is a ongoing stream of sociological anlyasis by academics. Someoe with a PHD teachibf at an out of the way unknown college. Mostly on the left leaning outlets like NPR.

Anybody can draw a conclusion based on a set of premises and it is hard to put it on a scientific basis. Psychology does have an experimental aspect as does political science.

I believe Critical Race Theory originated with a book by an academic and it took root.

Areas like cultural anthropology seem more rigorous.

Back in the 80s there were complaints about a rise in soft PHDs in areas like sociology, cultural studies, wome's studies and so on lacking academic rigor.

 

[rousseau]

Part of it may be publish or perish for academics. They have to come up with something to write about.

I eventually picked up the book I mentioned in the OP from the library, and one major factor seems to be people who reject biological determinism. If you connect the dots with scientific fact then we land on some premises like ~ gender roles, male aggression, economic hierarchy etc ~ are all unchangeable parts of our society.

Obviously a lot of people don't like assumptions like these, so the environment people are publishing in is politically charged. IOW, it makes it difficult to just follow the science as it were.

As I learn more from following sociologists on social media, apparently this is an issue that's been addressed in the philosophy of social science: whether social scientists should be critical and try to enact change or not. The book above addresses exactly that - that this approach basically just results in confusion and an incoherent science.

The more I learn about Sociology and many of the people employed in it, the more I'm convinced that a lot of them don't really understand evolution or how it works. Which strikes me as a problem when you're researching human behavior.

 

[Politesse]

Sociologists don't train in evolutionary studies, it's not a part of their discipline. But by the same token, most biologists know jack shit about cultural studies. They tend to surprisingly shaky on social neuroscience as well, unless it is their specialization. Anthropologists study both, but we are a rapidly shrinking and politically beset discipline.

I would not recommend social media as an ideal means of studying academic life.

 

[rousseau]

Sociologists don't train in evolutionary studies, it's not a part of their discipline. But by the same token, most biologists know jack shit about cultural studies. They tend to surprisingly shaky on social neuroscience as well, unless it is their specialization. Anthropologists study both, but we are a rapidly shrinking and politically beset discipline.

Yea, I was starting to get that sense. Even as someone who studied, very specifically, the human body about 15 years ago I don't feel like I came away with a solid understanding of evolution. To me, studying the mechanics of society without understanding the underlying mechanics of biology seems like a major problem. Like a fundamental problem.

As far as I'm aware Giddens' The Constitution of Society is one of the most recent grand theories in Sociology, and honestly, it seems pretty bland to me. I get that it's a politically charged discipline, but I find it pretty shocking that the word evolution might not have been mentioned in it at all.

 

[Politesse]

as someone who studied, very specifically, the human body about 15 years ago I don't feel like I came away with a solid understanding of evolution.

15 years ago, we knew very little about some of the elements of evolutionary theory as it is studied now! I was in the middle of my own studies around that same time, and throughout my grad school years, watched the field change in front of my eyes as epigenetic research and the experimental capabilities of CRISPR technology plowed right through nearly everything we thought we knew. And in the human sciences, the complete sequencing of our genome went from being an exciting one time accomplishment to an almost routine (albeit expensive) field technique.

Interesting times.

As far as I'm aware Giddens' The Constitution of Society is one of the most recent grand theories in Sociology, and honestly, it seems pretty bland to me. I get that it's a politically charged discipline, but I find it pretty shocking that the word evolution might not have been mentioned in it at all

Books of "grand theory" have become rare.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yea, I was starting to get that sense. Even as someone who studied, very specifically, the human body about 15 years ago I don't feel like I came away with a solid understanding of evolution. To me, studying the mechanics of society without understanding the underlying mechanics of biology seems like a major problem. Like a fundamental problem.

Very similar to what used to be the norm in medicine. Doctors were keen on pills and procedures and operations but knew jack squat about nutrition and prevention. Thankfully that is changing, probably largely due to access to information, the internet.

 

[Elixir]

The thing about "understanding" evolution is that it's not a thing separate from anything else in the universe. It's a thing that happens, inexorably like the collapse of a cloud of interstellar dust. And it "creates" (results in) transformations just as dramatic as a cloud of dust into a galaxy of stars. So when Rousseau says "studying the mechanics of society without understanding the underlying mechanics of biology seems like a major problem" that is an understatement worthy of a Brit.
Thing is though, the underlying biochemical mechanics of evolution are as complex as terrestrial biology is old. The best we can do is to understand that it exists, and that we can examine parts of it to make sense of certain biological outcomes.

 

[rousseau]

The thing about "understanding" evolution is that it's not a thing separate from anything else in the universe. It's a thing that happens, inexorably like the collapse of a cloud of interstellar dust. And it "creates" (results in) transformations just as dramatic as a cloud of dust into a galaxy of stars. So when Rousseau says "studying the mechanics of society without understanding the underlying mechanics of biology seems like a major problem" that is an understatement worthy of a Brit.

It's interesting that anyone studying biology has no choice but to get a primer in rudimentary physics and chemistry. There really is no former without the latter. But one can study the emergence of biology into society without any of the three?

It's a pretty good tell of where we're actually at with some of these disciplines.

Thing is though, the underlying biochemical mechanics of evolution are as complex as terrestrial biology is old. The best we can do is to understand that it exists, and that we can examine parts of it to make sense of certain biological outcomes.

You can likely get enough about evolution from a Sociologists perspective without understanding the underlying biochemistry. For example, heuristics like behavior and anatomy conferring a return on energy expenditure. That strikes me as something a Sociologist should know. Or concepts like the biological imperative.

But to have absolutely no training in it at all is quite the gap.

 

[Politesse]

It's interesting that anyone studying biology has no choice but to get a primer in rudimentary physics and chemistry. There really is no former without the latter. But one can study the emergence of biology into society without any of the three?

If you're studying human society seriously, you need to have a grasp of physics, biology, and chemistry anyway. We are made of stuff, and so is all of our stuff, and so is all the stuff we talk about (linguistics is the highest pinnacle of all the sciences if you ask me). But it's true, we don't always treat it that way. I mean hell, what would happen if my department up and decided that all of our students needed to take both statistics and the algebra-calculus track, or both the earth sciences and the chemistry "pathway", thus extending the length, cost, and difficulty of their degree immensely? We would have no new majors the next term, I'll tell you that. The three people left would become Renaissance persons capable of wonders, but then the department would fold. So instead we give them an option, and hope they make good choices relative to their future research concentrations. It is not ideal, but in a society that barely tolerates the existence of the social sciences let alone encourages their study, it's the best we can really do without going extinct altogether. Our culture is in danger of altogether losing its ability to seriously pursue this entire class of subjects, for a host of reasons.

Two decades ago, the anthro department at my college pushed the idea of making ENGL 100 a pre-requisite for our introductory courses on biological and cultural anthropology, reasoning that our book-heavy curriculum makes success without a sufficient command of the language impossible. The curriculum committee turned us down. These days, we could never even entertain the idea of introducing such a requirement, legislation having cut remedial math and english offerings almost entirely away from degree programs and thus overcrowding the credit-bearing courses to such an extent that most students take "introductory" math and english during their final semester with us. And we are under intense pressure from the state to eliminate most books from the curriculum altogether. How do you build a utopian, science-minded but humanities-conscious social science department on such a foundation? You can't. In the current enrollment crisis, sociology is easily the hardest hit of all the departments on campus, with history and philosophy trailing right behind. Anthropology, geography and political science aren't feeling much better despite having better numbers; a lot of ours are pre-pandemic students finishing out their AAs. Society is wagering heavily on the proposition that only the STEM and business fields will be needed in the World of Tomorrow, with no central social services to suppport them. Time will tell if they were right I suppose, but ask any historian what usuallly happens when empires start suppressing the arts and humanities disciplines, and you'll get a grim answer.

 

[rousseau]

It's interesting that anyone studying biology has no choice but to get a primer in rudimentary physics and chemistry. There really is no former without the latter. But one can study the emergence of biology into society without any of the three?

If you're studying human society seriously, you need to have a grasp of physics, biology, and chemistry anyway. We are made of stuff, and so is all of our stuff, and so is all the stuff we talk about (linguistics is the highest pinnacle of all the sciences if you ask me). But it's true, we don't always treat it that way. I mean hell, what would happen if my department up and decided that all of our students needed to take both statistics and the algebra-calculus track, or both the earth sciences and the chemistry "pathway", thus extending the length, cost, and difficulty of their degree immensely? We would have no new majors the next term, I'll tell you that. The three people left would become Renaissance persons capable of wonders, but then the department would fold. So instead we give them an option, and hope they make good choices relative to their future research concentrations. It is not ideal, but in a society that barely tolerates the existence of the social sciences let alone encourages their study, it's the best we can really do without going extinct altogether. Our culture is in danger of altogether losing its ability to seriously pursue this entire class of subjects, for a host of reasons.

Two decades ago, the anthro department at my college pushed the idea of making ENGL 100 a pre-requisite for our introductory courses on biological and cultural anthropology, reasoning that our book-heavy curriculum makes success without a sufficient command of the language impossible. The curriculum committee turned us down. These days, we could never even entertain the idea of introducing such a requirement, legislation having cut remedial math and english offerings almost entirely away from degree programs and thus overcrowding the credit-bearing courses to such an extent that most students take "introductory" math and english during their final semester with us. And we are under intense pressure from the state to eliminate most books from the curriculum altogether. How do you build a utopian, science-minded but humanities-conscious social science department on such a foundation? You can't. In the current enrollment crisis, sociology is easily the hardest hit of all the departments on campus, with history and philosophy trailing right behind. Anthropology, geography and political science aren't feeling much better despite having better numbers; a lot of ours are pre-pandemic students finishing out their AAs. Society is wagering heavily on the proposition that only the STEM and business fields will be needed in the World of Tomorrow, with no central social services to suppport them. Time will tell if they were right I suppose, but ask any historian what usuallly happens when empires start suppressing the arts and humanities disciplines, and you'll get a grim answer.

That's fair, and good insight. The world's changed so much over the past few centuries that I don't know if there's real precedent for the current situation in academia or the economy. More generally North American and European prosperity has likely just peaked, so there's more pressure on our generation to find employment requiring hard, material skills that solve real problems. I don't know if that's a slight against the social sciences, the easy money's just dried up.

My thinking about the above situation is that the causation would be reversed - when you have no more time for the arts and humanities that's signalling an already existing, more serious problem. But you have lost a tool-set that would otherwise exist if you could afford it.

I haven't heard anyone explain the field from the perspective of enrollment, but I have heard a lot of talk about job security (or lack thereof) among faculty. Two sides of the same coin that maybe imply we're a little further past crisis?

 

[Politesse]

That's fair, and good insight. The world's changed so much over the past few centuries that I don't know if there's real precedent for the current situation in academia or the economy. More generally North American and European prosperity has likely just peaked, so there's more pressure on our generation to find employment requiring hard, material skills that solve real problems.

For the Chinese, yes.

I haven't heard anyone explain the field from the perspective of enrollment, but I have heard a lot of talk about job security (or lack thereof) among faculty. Two sides of the same coin that maybe imply we're a little further past crisis?

Indeed. I don't think many faculty at the fancier institutions spend a lot of time worrying about enrollment! But I see it as a worrying sign. It is also the case that a wave of departmental coalescence and collapse is likely, sooner rather than later, if veterans of the system are correct about the warning signals thereof. I've been told quite frankly by my supervisor that my (tenured) job is in danger, and that may be coloring my subjective judgement. But I also know that I am not alone in this.

 

[bilby]

When I was applying to universities back in the mists of the 1980s, there was a small but vocal group of advisers that were pushing for people to take degrees in fields with a direct path to a well paid career.

More numerous, but beginning to be overwhelmed by the former group (who had serious influence in the Thatcher government) were advisers who wanted me to pursue a degree in a field that was seen as likely to generate interesting research opportunities (my father was by far the most influential person in this group, and ultimately I chose Molecular Biology for this reason, largely due to his advice).

Few and far between were people who advised studying something you found interesting and engaging. I probably should have listened to that group.

 

[Politesse]

When I was applying to universities back in the mists of the 1980s, there was a small but vocal group of advisers that were pushing for people to take degrees in fields with a direct path to a well paid career.

Very much the focus of the Healthy Workforce Initiative that is influencing nearly everything in the States right now. It's not that I don't want students to get jobs after school, but I do have some critiques concerning what they consider an employable degree.

 

[bilby]

When I was applying to universities back in the mists of the 1980s, there was a small but vocal group of advisers that were pushing for people to take degrees in fields with a direct path to a well paid career.

Very much the focus of the Healthy Workforce Initiative that is influencing nearly everything in the States right now. It's not that I don't want students to get jobs after school, but I do have some critiques concerning what they consider an employable degree.

Work is part of life. But it's not, and shouldn't be, all of life.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Part of it may be publish or perish for academics. They have to come up with something to write about.

Sociology has always been fuzzy to me. Ill defined. On TV and radio there is a ongoing stream of sociological anlyasis by academics. Someoe with a PHD teachibf at an out of the way unknown college. Mostly on the left leaning outlets like NPR.

Anybody can draw a conclusion based on a set of premises and it is hard to put it on a scientific basis. Psychology does have an experimental aspect as does political science.

I believe Critical Race Theory originated with a book by an academic and it took root.

Areas like cultural anthropology seem more rigorous.

Back in the 80s there were complaints about a rise in soft PHDs in areas like sociology, cultural studies, wome's studies and so on lacking academic rigor.

I know somebody who got a master's degree in sociology. They ended up working for a state prison system. That is what a sociology degree can get you. Trying to decide which lunkheads can be rehabilitated with expensive programs and who would end up being a waste of resources. A frustrating job.

 

[bilby]

I believe Critical Race Theory originated with a book by an academic and it took root.

I believe every idea in the history of science originated with a book (or at least a paper) by an academic that took root.

 

[Politesse]

When I was applying to universities back in the mists of the 1980s, there was a small but vocal group of advisers that were pushing for people to take degrees in fields with a direct path to a well paid career.

Very much the focus of the Healthy Workforce Initiative that is influencing nearly everything in the States right now. It's not that I don't want students to get jobs after school, but I do have some critiques concerning what they consider an employable degree.

Work is part of life. But it's not, and shouldn't be, all of life.

Some factions within the government regard recreation and personal enrichment as things which are great if you can afford them, but that should never, ever be supported by public monies. A Wall of Separation between eudaimonia and state, if you like. The only good purpose of the common educational budget is job training as regards students and easily quantifiable "products" as regards state sponsored research. It's one of the few things that Centrist Democrats and Centrist Republicans can still bear to agree on, so the philosophy is spreading widely.

And I wouldn't be so offended by all of it if they didn't regard such a dangerously narrow spectrum of professions as "meaningful work". They'll never say it to your face, but race and class are factors here. Wealthy kids are still allowed to study "for fun", of course (or take classes with real books) because it's daddy's money, not the taxpayer's. But if you're poor, we're rapidly driving toward a situation where the government hands you a list of acceptable majors... for your own good, I'm sure. Sociology might be on that list at some schools, but never at a community college for the same reason as anthropology: the counselors are under pressure to advise kids to study degrees that will be finished in two years and get them a job out the gate. An AA in Soc means nothing, you need an MSW to practice most forms of social work in the US. So it would be fine to major in Sociology at, say Stanford University. But not at your local community college, where a whole bunch of smiling, well-intentioned people are going to try and talk you into something more "practical".

While social services positions in the state die for lack of recruitment, or drain their budgets hiring from overseas because where else can you find a qualified psychologist these days?