I will write some spontaneous thoughts I had on this issue recently. It’s possible that my opinions will change as I become less ignorant of my discipline. In any case, I’ll continue on here.
I have found myself having to engage with a lot of academic theory recently. This makes sense since I’m currently a graduate student in Sociology (for better or worse).
Classes in sociological theory have to be taken. Friendly discussions about theory are had with students and faculty. Even in classes that are more empirics-focused, theory comes into the conversation.
When I hear people talk about academic theory, I would say I enjoy it (for the most part).
I wrote “for the most part” in parentheses above, because I’ll sometimes be frustrated by the way people view and engage with theory.
To illustrate what I’m thinking, I’ll start with sharing a scenario I’ve found myself in quite a few times.
.
I often get asked what I studied for my undergraduate degree (or during my undergraduate years, what I was studying)
As I answer, I mention that I did (or was doing) a minor in philosophy.
This is usually then followed by a question: Oh, cool! Who’s your favourite philosopher?
I have had a hard time directly answering this question.
That’s because I never viewed philosophy in that way. That one’s interest in philosophy is to be motivated by a thinker whom one likes the most.
I didn’t get interested in philosophy because I enjoyed reading one particular person like Kant or Hume, or someone else. It wasn’t the ideas of one specific thinker that drew me to the discipline.
I studied philosophy because I appreciated the subjects that it dealt with. Ethics, the self, meaning, logic, epistemology, politics.
Hence, I would much rather prefer if someone asked me: What areas in philosophy do you like to study and think about? What topics drew you into philosophy?
These are types of questions that I typically ask people. In my mind, they’re more useful in trying to figure out what a person’s interests are and what motivates their engagement with the discipline. All while not being restricted by what the well-known philosophers chose to study.
From what I’ve gathered in talking and being friends with people in other disciplines, I don’t think this is an issue many other people have to deal with.
I’ve never seen a biology student being asked: Who is your favourite biologist?
Or an economics student being asked: Who is your favourite economist?
Or a political science student: Who is your favourite political scientist?
The same can’t really be said about a philosophy student and, what I am now, a sociology student.
.
In sociology, there tends to be great emphasis placed on the thinkers themselves.
Sociological theory will often revolve around particular thinkers (e.g. Durkheim, Marx, Bourdieu, etc.) Their history/background. Their mode of thinking. Their observations.
Sociologists will pay reverence to these thinkers. Constantly reference them to make their own work appear more valuable.
To me, his focus on thinkers only appears to be worthwhile to those who are in the ivory tower of sociologists, and those who aspire to be.
To further develop this point: when I ask an engineering student to explain a particular concept or mechanism, they will almost never give me the name of the researcher/thinker who developed it.
And why should they? I would hardly care about the names of the engineers. Names that I will likely soon forget anyway.
What I would really care about is the concept itself that they’re telling me about. The explanations for how an aspect of the world works that they’re sharing with me.
The same thing applies when I speak to a political science student. A biology student. A business student. And so on.
And I keep this in mind when I speak to people as a sociology student.
The names behind a particular idea or explanation don’t matter much, especially to those outside the discipline. Again, the person I’m talking to will probably forget the names anyway.
What they will really focus on and remember is the concept itself. The explanation of the social world. Whether or not the idea helps them better themselves or the people around them. And that’s what ends up being the meat of our discussion.
The non-sociology people care about the ideas themselves, not the names of (often privileged) individuals who died long ago and/or will never meet.
A concept can appear to be true or valuable, without a person knowing which particular theorist developed the concept.
Of course, this isn’t to say that knowing about the thinker in particular isn’t important at all. A thinker’s history, background, and social position can definitely impact the work they produce. The aspects of the world they focus on, and how they go about thinking about them and presenting them.
And a student or academic should certainly cite the name of the person whose work they’re using.
But this wouldn’t negate the point just mentioned, which is that the validity of an idea doesn’t depend on the thinker themselves. We can establish how true a sociological concept is, regardless of who its originator is.
.
Since my undergraduate years, I have always found it a little unsatisfying that courses in sociological theory are usually structured around studying specific theorists.
Having weeks on Durkheim, then weeks on Marx, Bourdieu, and so on.
Instead of having weeks on particular substantive topics or issues, and having different theorists being talked about in a given week.
These classes are often more about the history of sociological theory, than the content and applicability of the theory itself.
I think that’s fine for people who are interested in the history, in the study of particular figures.
But I’m willing to bet that the majority of people who study sociology are not too excited by that. For they care little about revering people who are now too dead to care that their work is being read. You can ensure people outside of sociology care even less.
Bottom line: I see an emphasis on concepts over thinkers when I speak to people in other disciplines. And I wish I saw this more in sociology (though you certainly do see it in some spaces).
.
I’ll move on to a couple of other points about theory that I’ll discuss more quickly.
.
I hope it’s clear by now that I think it’s important to be able to communicate sociological theory to those outside the discipline.
After all, our field of study has to do with human behaviour and social life, which has implications for everyone. And everyone thinks about the subject matter to some extent.
With that in mind, sociological theory should be able to resonate with people and accurately describe their social experiences. It should be grounded in people’s lived realities.
It shouldn’t be overly abstract or outlandish to the point where an outsider cannot grasp the concept.
If an average person cannot link the concept to something in their own social life or what they observe in the social world, the theory has little to no value.
Otherwise, the theory is just ‘cloud theory’, detached from the experiences and perspectives of those on the ground, and living only inside the mind of the theorist and the very small group of thinkers who already agree with their mode of thinking.
One should not try to make the data from our social world fit the theory we conceive. Rather, we should create a theory based on the data itself. And one way to test for that is to ensure the theory can generally resonate with people.
.
Relatedly, a theorist should emphasize clarity over complexity. If an average person can hardly understand the ideas being conveyed, there’s little point in sharing those ideas in the first place.
Even if the theory or argument is wrong or inaccurate, it is at least giving something to the reader or listener to grapple with in their mind. They can decide whether they agree or disagree. And then it can push them to think more about the issue and potentially develop a better theoretical explanation.
As opposed to having theory that meanders and has too many moving parts, to a point where it’s unclear to a reader whether they themselves agree or disagree with it.
.
Finally, theory should appear valuable to those who are not theorists themselves.
And things that most (if not all) people value are moral and/or political ends. Improving people’s material conditions. Treating people with kindness. Protecting them from danger. And so on.
A thinker should be cognizant of these things as they work.
We are social beings. And as a collective, we have decided it’s best to think beyond our individual selves and act with the interests of others in mind.
In our actions, we’re all (or at least should be) trying to make a positive impact on people, whether it’s with a partner, a friend, family, community, or society broadly.
Likewise, when we theorize about the social world, it should be motivated by a desire to change it for the better.
This doesn’t mean one is expected to fix the world’s problems with a scholarly book or article. Or that every single theorist needs to be an activist as well. That would be too unrealistic.
But nobody should forget that we are moral beings who have responsibilities to be considerate to one another.
And that should be reflected in our theorizing.
That way, an outsider can likely see the utility in the theory. And maybe somebody may be inspired by a piece of theory to engage in some moral action, whether that be big or small.
.
I realize this post went on for longer than I had anticipated. So I’ll summarize the key, rant-like points I made about sociological theory.
- The names of thinkers matter very little, for it is concepts themselves that most people care about
- Theory should be clear enough to be understood by a non-theorist
- Theory should be grounded in people’s lived experiences and it should be able to resonate with people outside the discipline
- Theory should be created with a desire to change the world for the better, even in a small way
My Sporadic Thoughts 
Leave a comment