deforming theory

In an article published in the ASA's theory section newsletter in August 2005, Stephen Sanderson proposed several measures of theoretical reform. Unlike Swift's, Sanderson's "modest proposal" to reform "theoretical work in sociology" is a response to a pseudo-crisis of the author's own imagination. In form, Sanderson begins immodestly, launching into an unsubstantiated claim for a crisis in the subfield of theory, which includes the enumeration of excessive behaviors among those who work in "social theory" or "classical theory," who may or may not also be prone to the unforgivable error of taking an "anti-scientific" standpoint or incorporating "non-theorists" into the domain of theory work in sociology.

One sign of crisis announced by Sanderson (presumably in order of significance) is "an excessive concern with the classical theorists." Durkheim, a hoary classical theorist, stipulated theory's role in the science of society as (1) defining the sociological object -- social facts -- prior to research and (2) defining the relationships between these social facts. Weber, the builder of ideal types, unfolds an exemplary explanatory framework in the magnificent first chapter of Economy and Society. On both sides of the Rhine, the Durkheimians (lest Sanderson forget the rich studies of Durkheim, Mauss, and Hubert were build upon existing empirical literature from the ethnological field) and Weber were very concerned with the relationship of theory to empirical reality. Hence, Sanderson's argument regarding the "work of the masters" that "it's time to take what is of value, discard the rest, and move on to build new theories that can be tested empirically" simply fails the test of reality; the reality of the actual empirical orientation of the work of Durkheim and Weber.

Another sign of crisis: "An excessive concern with 'chic' European theorists." Things become more unreal when Sanderson suggest that the interest in contemporary European social thought is a matter of fashion. It may be the case that in the heartland of the United States, all things British, French, and German are so exotic that interest in them is suspect of being a superficial attraction. However, in the rest of the civilized world, thinkers like Habermas, Bourdieu, and Giddens are treated as significant contributors to frames of social analysis. To take an empirical measurement of this claim -- in order to satisfy the bias of Sanderson -- one can consult the Social Sciences Citation Index. But, of course, the counter-argument is possible that quantity does not equal quality; however, such a counter-argument, derived from the vantage point of "scientificity," smacks of rank subjectivism, and therefore is a self-negating, performative contradiction.

Another peculiar sign of crisis -- and perhaps the most telling sign of Sanderson's projection -- is a purported "extreme politicization" of theory that has occurred with the emergence of such areas of thought as feminist theory, neo-Marxism, queer theory, and whiteness studies. In fact, Sanderson's own proposal is an act of politicization of the subfield of theory. The scene of a frustrated three year old, who stubbornly and futilely taunts a superior playmate, is enacted at the end of Sanderson's piece, when he says to his erstwhile colleagues in social and classical theory: "go somewhere else to ply your trade and leave the rest of us alone to ply ours."

Based on the principle of hermeneutic generosity, one could understand Sanderson's discomfort with social theory and classical theory as a consequence of misunderstanding, misreading, or lack of reading. Or perhaps European social thought and social theory simply does not play well in the intellectual periphery of the USA.