Turner at the PSA, 1989

Reading through some material for a theory course, it’s good to see that my doubts about the relevance and methods of sociology are shared — indeed, they have been for some time. Take this quote from the 1989 presidential address to the Pacific Sociological Association by then-president Jonathan H. Turner:

Sociologists want recognition, prestige, money, students and influence, but we do not want to organize, symbolically unify, and materially endow ourselves in a manner that can make sociology a more potent force. We prefer, instead, to renounce those who see themselves as scientists; and we embrace every trendy idea, from the latest Marxist diatribe to the most vague Franco thesis. We tolerate just about every point of view, no matter how imprecise and noxious. And we are colossally smug about this, even as we whine about our lack of recognition. Sociology cannot have it both ways. We cannot be a big brokerage confederation of very different thinkers and, at the same time, be taken very seriously.

Turner sees sociology as a “humane science” constructing patterns of social organization, a position which has problems of its own. Are sociologists scientists? I’ve heard arguments from both sides, such that right now, I’m really not sure whether I consider myself a practitioner of science or not.

Where I do agree with Turner is in his critique of specialization — whereas some see this as a boon, a sign of the freedom to pursue one’s interests, for him it signifies a highly fragmented discipline. I cannot help but agree. Even now, I am told to “narrow down”, to specialize. Of course, one cannot hope to be an expert on everything, but I don’t think this is justification for becoming merely a “master of your domain”, sequestered in your own interests. Is sociology just a loose descriptor for the methods employed by individuals working on increasingly obscure and specialized research questions?

What are our goals, and what justifications can we provide for our own work — which historically, has failed to contribute much to any real social change? Sociology is a mess, and it might be beyond fixing. I can only say for myself that I hope in continuing on to graduate studies, I do not simply throw up my hands and decide that living with that mess is easier than trying to deal with it head on.

The Hidden Privilege

When I first started studying sociology, something that stuck out to me was the idea of structural discrimination and privilege. My characteristics of “straight”, “white”, and “male” intersect to place me at a historically privileged place compared to other, continually disadvantaged groups. It was not the idea that racism and sexism existed that I was having difficulty with — it was identifying my supposed privilege in my own experiences.

Much of my time in the public school system was, as I recall, characterized by abuse by my peers. This took many forms — namecalling, exclusion, beatings, and so forth. Of course, as the old adage goes, kids can be quite cruel to each other. However, the result of my negative experiences was that I didn’t see myself as privileged, or as anything except a target — for things like my small size, uncommon hairstyles, and manner of speech. Looking back, I was the target of much of my peer group’s attacks and abuse, and that’s why I had difficulty with the concept of “social privilege”.

Now, I can see that despite these individual problems, my status as part of a traditionally powerful group afforded me many opportunities which might be different for others. Even these schoolyard attacks reflected greater trends in society. Most insults thrown around at the time implied that the recipient was homosexual or feminine — often conflating the two. Even going into middle school, my friends had begun to accept hegemonic masculinity, and watch vigilantly against perceived threats to their “straightness” or “maleness”.

So, what’s the point of this story? Well, as Homer Simpson once said: “I like stories.” But Homer also said, perhaps more relevantly, “I’m a white male, aged 18 to 49. Everyone listens to me, no matter how dumb my suggestions are.”

If you are white, or male, or straight, or anything else that has traditionally held power — then these characteristics can give you an (often unseen) advantage over other people. If you are many of these things (as I am) then you have on your side the culmination of years of racism, sexism, and heterosexism. The most insidious thing about this privilege is that it is difficult to see from the inside. I couldn’t see beyond my personal situation to how I was really privileged in society for arbitrary reasons unrelated to my own worth or contributions. Separating out what is unfairly given to us by privilege and what we have actually learned is often difficult but it is something that must be done.

Sociology can help us understand privilege, but there is even another situation at work here. In doing research, we all must be reflective of where we are coming from. If we come from privilege, this may colour our work — in our choice of topics, theoretical concerns, and methods. It’s questionable to what extent objectivity is even possible given this statement. But if we are at least aware of our own situation, we can attempt to realize how it affects us through out work.

This is why we still need feminism, affirmative action, and so forth. I would like to believe that if societal privilege were not so well camoflauged, we would not. But as it is, many privileged people believe that programs to counteract discrimination of various kinds are not necessary. Obviously, there are people who are aware of their power and would like to hold onto it. Many though, I think (and hope) are simply not aware of the invisible structures governing inequality. Learning to see these structures is difficult, but it is the first step towards change.