Tag: Society

A Response to Abrutun’s ‘Why Not Affectivism?’

See sethabrutyn.com Why Not Affectivism? April 29, 2024

What does Abrutyn see as a key issue in sociology today? Interestingly, he argues that sociological explanations are derived rationally from inspirations of our field’s Founding Fathers, and that these are unrealistically rational and insufficiently affectual. I find this a very interesting statement as it addresses a central aspect of how we undertake sociological analysis.

This has made me think about what the sociological writing I do involves and how the profession rewards some kinds of writing with publication and recognition, while offering no interest in some other field. This makes us think, as Abrutyn already does, about other fields of natural and social science. For obvious, and selfish reasons, I start with my own work which is on people’s personal lives. People’s relationships, successive generations, and the influence of these on society is clearly sociological. Their families and private lives are obviously not politics or economics. As interpersonal relationships and as synchronized generational mobilizations, they are not psychology either. Incidentally, academic psychology departments typically see themselves as medical and biological scientists, and not as social science at all.

So how does the branch of sociology I am working in fit in with Abrutyn’s concerns? First, it is important to remind ourselves that the Founding Fathers of sociology had absolutely nothing to say about the family. Feminists know that Martineau wrote about private lives, and that Marianne Weber wrote about marriage, before organizing Max’s stuff. But there can be no argument that, in my field, an excessive rationality from the founding fathers influenced the current sociology of personal life. Indeed, the reverse is true; interpersonal relationships are not lacking in strong feelings or can be discussed without emotions of attraction and rejection (Moore 1998), desires (Hey 1997), or discussion of personal and group affect in courtship patterns (Grazian 2007, Bogle 2008).

But let’s look at the broad influence and status of this field. Sociology in North America generally seems not to be interested at all in this area. The ASA has no stream in Youth, Generations, and Life Course. It is as though people have nothing interesting sociologically going on as they grow up, or as different generations influence society. A quick look I made at sociologists’ careers in youth studies, particularly in research on girls, show that these, almost universally women, authors are very rarely able to continue an academic career in this. They leave academic sociology, or shift into fields such as education, culture, or ethnicity. Important theoretical studies appear to be forgotten (Patterson 1998).

All this tells me that personal life, growing up, and families is a very low status topic and not at all admired as a field within sociology. It tells me that American sociology doesn’t like feelings, nor the challenge it involves of conceptualizing affect as a source human action. A lot of this supports what Abrutyn is saying, but, in the case of personal life the absence of affect comes not from what the Founding Fathers said, but rather what they omitted.

A bigger challenge may involve why the sociological profession prefers ‘roles’ in formal organizations that use rules and rationality, rather than ‘relationships’ chosen by mutual attraction that rely on the affects of feelings and sustained commitment.

Government as Law or Listening to People?

The recent strikes in France against Macron’s perfectly reasonable plan to raise the retirement pension age, again pose the question of how good Continental ‘governance by rational law’ really is. The alternative is expressed by the English-speaking countries that operate by business style contracts, a reduced kind of law, and by listening to complaints that are based in actual lifestyle. Brexit and the recent battles, with Macron and Barnier, over how the UK should continue to interact with continental Europe, illustrate all the mutual incomprehension that arises from having two different systems behind the activities of government.

Recent strikes across France show what goes wrong when governments use a political approach based on law. The policy behind it appears absolutely clear; and to its fans, this looks a very rational way of proceeding. But Hugh Schofield (BBC News 7th March 2023) reveals the ugly underside of this. All political gains from government policy are seen by their beneficiaries as eternal political rights, which need to be defended forever by violence if necessary. Schofield refers to the French Revolution as a foundation of this. Flexibility, compromise, and updating, because times and conditions have changed, all become impossible. What first appeared as rational turns into street battles between right and wrong.

English speaking countries, correctly see the advantages of their approach. Compromise and adaptation help things to move along more smoothly. They can change with the times in small, aggregating steps. There does exist, of course, an inherent disadvantage to this unwritten process. It is, definitely, less rational in that, at no point, is it necessary to put in writing, or to conceptualize in any broader way, what is going on. The English-speaking countries are notoriously bad at explaining themselves, to their own people and to outsiders. While explanations won’t stop the on-going, low level Mandevillean grumbling and complaining, serious minded audiences could usefully be told the underlying purposes and success rates of the various projects going on in the English-speaking system. A prime example comes from the advocates of Brexit who seem unable to explain its potential usefulness. Brexit may add resilience to the economy, diversity in industries, and robustness in employment, all of these being gains from avoiding the Continent’s legal absolutism.

So do we prefer the rigidity of everything signed as an international treaty (Macron, Merkel)? Or do we like inattention to detail (Johnson), or lost in detail (May)? Viewed within the current political scene, there appears to be no good choice. Fortunately, modern countries don’t rely only on the political sphere. Lots help comes from other sources – the economy and, even more, from a country’s sociology.

All three social science systems work by listening to people. Each has its own method for doing this. What picture and results they give us depends on how much time and effort society has put into the different zones of politics, economics, and sociology. Which best expresses the material reality of how people are living? Which of these should we be listening to most? These are big, yet to be decided, questions of social science that take us beyond particular politicians and specific moments in history.

Why Can’t I See Society?

Here’s how I think people see things. We can see people as individuals but we can’t see ‘society in these people.’ I can see myself; I’m a person and the individual aspects of myself are clear to me. But I cannot see any society within me or showing up in my actions – whatever is going on kinda looks like it’s me as an individual. So, if society exists, why can’t I see it?

Let’s ask a parallel question, one that is about another feature of modern life – the economy. Can you, or anyone else, really ‘see the economy?’ We buy things; everybody buys stuff. But does all the buying by people and the selling by businesses really add up to something we can call ‘an economy’?

Most people today do believe that something called an economy really exists. This contrasts with the widespread doubt felt whether our society is any more than a nominal term – a shorthand for certain trends but which doesn’t actually exist as one, coherent thing.

In the past, the economy was not recognized as existing either. Back then, it wasn’t as highly developed as it is today and that didn’t help. But it, in the past, it was also true that people didn’t know where to look for what was economic. Where can you see the economy? What subsequently changed to make it believable?

The answer is that the economy has been given indicators that show how it is alive. Great effort has gone into data collection and this has resulted in well recognized indicators that measure revealing summaries of many recurring economic activities. We hear about prices, learn about its growth, and watch its sectors expand or contract. All these facts are revealed to us as trends because the measures are made repeatedly – again and again, at great expense, and with wide agreement about what they are studying. The result is that ordinary people can see the economy; we learn about its aggregate behavior in inflation, growth, and the rise or decline of whole industries.

Over time we discover whether the economy is growing, shrinking, or failing. The relevant measures are constructed repeatedly, a fact that involves a big commitment from social science. It is this which lets us see trends over time. Despite having no center – you cannot walk up to the economy’s castle, see its temple, or learn its commandments – but thanks to publicly available measurements, we see the evidence of the economy as a living entity in our country.

Social scientific measuring has given visibility to the economy. We can now see the living, breathing presence of this amorphous thing in our lives. We all believe the economy is real. But what about society? Is that doomed to be be forever invisible and unbelieved? Could society be real too?

My contention is simple. I have come to the conclusion that when we get around to collecting the equivalent data for society, people will see it too as a living reality around us. Being composed of small actions, being large and amorphous – these are not insurmountable obstacles to becoming visible. Someday we will be able to visualize our society; I am sure this can be done. In future, we will recognize society at work in our own lives and see its effects in the people around us. When that day comes, we will thank a new generation of social scientists for putting so much effort into finding and publicizing the data that is most informative and revealing.

The Sociologist in Despair

At university as an undergraduate, I thought that since the founding fathers Marx, Durkheim and Weber said nothing about sociologically important topics like marriage (the family), society being sociological (as distinct from just political-economic), and because it didn’t yet exist, the popular-culture-using generation … because of these absences, I entered this profession believing that it was my job to provide sociological bases for all these things.

I set to work. I studied the economic and social history that created modern society. I theorized and conceptualized, fitting pieces to together and throwing out ideas that didn’t fit. And finally, I had what I considered a worthwhile contribution to the sociology of society – I wanted to talk about all the stuff that was previously missing from our explanations.

But when I lifted my head up from my work and looked around I found that none of my topics appeared in sociology at all. The American Sociological Association* has no sections on society or on generations. Introductory textbooks have nothing constructive to say about wedding and marriage, generations as popular culture are absent, and nothing can be found suggesting that society as a whole is sociologically constructed.

From the absence of these topics in the profession, am I right to conclude that sociologists really aren’t interested in these questions? Do academics not want to listen to something new or to consider what has been left out of the profession? If so, it rather looks as though I have wasted my time. Today, the profession sends the message that my work is irrelevant and useless. Intellectually speaking, this means logically that my work deserves to go unpublished and unnoticed and I should despair. The current anti-Trump and anti-Brexit concerns do not explain sociology’s professional avoidance of love, generations and big sociology. These weren’t discussed under previous presidents or in earlier decades either.

It seems one must despair of sociology. I should add that my personal life and career are going fine; I’m a grandfather and employed at a university. My despair is logical and confined to intellectual endeavours to change social science. Apparently, I was wrong to think that sociology knew it needed improvement. On the contrary, the profession evidently doesn’t want to discuss its own deficits; it certainly presents no forums for doing so.

I’d like to be proven wrong. I hope we soon see throngs discussing new areas of sociological understanding. But at this moment the evidence of our profession makes for despair and, if enthusiasm for new learning ever arises, this seems a long time off in the future.

*The British Sociological Association has no streams on these topics either.

Do We Live in the Dark Ages of Social Science?

Society holds a strange ontological status. People know it exists but no-one can define it.

Margaret Thatcher’s famous comment, that “there is no such thing as society,” appears to address the first statement but is actually an affirmation of the second. We cannot collectively explain anything, blame or praise, by using a concept we cannot define. The notorious student essay, that beings ‘In today’s society,’ we know is off to a bad start because it’s going to try to explain our shared life from a causal force, society, which lacks any agreed definition. So this attempt at explanation simply cherry picks some favourite attributes to explain everything … or, more likely, the phrase ‘in today’s society’ is a discursive way to avoid the fact that we know nothing about what our collective life really is.

This is a serious problem for everyone. It puts social science in its own Dark Ages, a place where academic studies go on but nobody can explain the past, act in the present, or predict the future. For studying society, current social science is the equivalent of living in a climate without having any weather forecasting service. We record past weather statistics; we report on what is actually happening; and we make guesses about the future. But in no way can current social science venture any ‘societal weather forecast’ – however close in the near future or unreliable. We currently live in a social science Dark Age because this kind of prediction cannot be attempted at all.

The reason for this is that we don’t know where to begin. With what facts could we start to build a model of social life? We don’t know what our subject matter is. Progress is confounded by the lack of any working definition of ‘society.’ Meteorology has air, humidity, temperature, pressure, and the surface of the Earth. These result in very complex effects but at least weather forecasters know what they are dealing with. It’s not magic being released out of a bottle; the problem of prediction is limited to forces they already know about. Weather scientists are able to move on to the next step which is lots of time-contingent data collection, followed by modeling of this data by computer algorithms.

I am perfectly aware that human beings are different from the planetary atmosphere and that modeling human behaviour is different from natural science. Human beings can do things that are entirely new; this makes prediction of social phenomena harder. On the other hand, social scientists get information from their subject matter; human beings communicate about what they are planning and this makes social prediction easier than that faced by natural scientists. So, overall, which is easier to predict, the natural or the social? Nobody today knows the answer to this question for one simple reason. Social scientists haven’t even tried to do their part.

The social cannot become a science until its subject matter is defined. Professional social scientists still haven’t discovered what society is. Data could be collected but we are not doing this on the scale and in time-sensitive speed needed because we do not know what we are looking for. And we aren’t continuously running predictive models on our computers because we haven’t collected the relevant data about society. So we truly are in the Dark Ages of social science. We haven’t reached the starting point of being a science.

This is not because nothing is going on. Social scientists are working hard at researching and publishing. The problem is that their work is scattered into various mutually incomprehensible disciplines. We do not know whether these various fields are the cause or the symptom of not knowing how to collect together the information from different academic professions.

Let’s return to the fundamental challenge of defining society. The professions cannot agree on what society is as a whole thing; but they do provide plenty of components they believe exist within society.

Everyone agrees that society has, within it, a ‘polity’; we can all see government.

And we know that society has an economy. We know this because we measure the GDP and we can add in government expenditures – all using money currency. So we can know that US GDP is a bit over $18 trillion and that of China about $11 trillion. The economy is an illuminating example of what social science can do. Collectively, we have put the money and effort into continuous collection of economic data and whole industries are devoted to analyzing this information and predicting the future. In contrast, it is clear that an equivalent effort has not been put into studying society’s non-economic features.

And third, we know that society contains other areas of life that are outside both polity and economy. These are various and lack any unifying feature. As a result, various academic disciplines look at them, usually with unique approaches. Psychology looks a feelings but typically ignores other people and rejects the idea of studying people’s social roles in society. Demography looks quantitatively at populations as defined by biology and institutions; this means reporting fertility, nuptuality, morbidity, mortality and migration. Ethnographers ignore this and describe small pieces of current living with lots of descriptive detail. Unfortunately, this ignores all the big features of society such as its historical evolution, polity, economy, demographics and popular culture.

So, in this chaos of non-communicating disciplines, academic social scientists live in little villages ignoring each other and occasionally vying for dominion over others … which is exactly what we would expect to find in the Dark Ages. Nothing has risen up to the level of a unifying civilization. This is how far social science is behind the times.

The fact is that I, personally, have, for many years, been working on a definition of society. I’ve created one now which could be neater and appears rather complex. This is because it describes society in term of four sub-concepts that themselves need explanation to sociologists and to other social scientists. These new concepts still need defining and a lot of explaining to others will be needed. I am still optimistic that I can provide a good working definition of today’s society.

Does this mean progress is near at hand? Other social scientists, in their various fields, are no more aware of the missing definition than are lay people in the general public. In fact, non-professionals are, in many ways, ahead of what academic social scientists are able to acknowledge. This is the problem of ‘academic professional lag’ by which professors, in their private lives, are doing things that orient themselves to society which they cannot acknowledge in their professional writing and teaching. Currently, much that is practiced as part of society is inadmissible as professional social scientific truth. Consider marriage. Most educated people do marry in their private lives but nothing about this exists in social scientific publications. Again, consider generations. Academics are as ready as any lay person to recall what it meant to be ‘a child of the 90s.’ And they identify their formative decade as using Myspace before Facebook existed. But none of this time-contingent object-based knowledge will appear in their publications. As yet, key elements of social life cannot be connected, by any disciplinary field, with social scientific concepts of society.

This is why, officially speaking, society still does not exist. Still today, no academic sociologist can give you a definition of society that could be recognized as ‘American society,’ for example. Here’s a checklist of what such a definition should include to distinguish it from cave dwellers or ancient Babylon; polity, economy, ethnography, demographics, media culture and all the other unnamed stuff that holds large complex societies together. The presence, in the mind of one isolated speculative thinker, of a plausible definition of modern society isn’t going to lift social science out of its Dark Ages any time soon. Something big will have to come along to shake up a lot of people’s ways of thinking – not least within the walls of academia where science is supposed to dwell.