You are on page 1of 12

< More from SAGE eReference

Quick Search

Print

Email

Cite

Further Readings

Related Topics:

NONTRADITIONAL PERSPECTIVES, THEORY, AND METHODOLOGY

Critical Sociology
Critical sociology is an approach to studying society, informed by historical materialism,
which seeks to make problematic existing social relations in order to uncover the underlying
structural explanations for those relations. As such, it can be applied to all areas of
sociological inquiry and is not the study of any subfields within sociology. In each of these
areas, we can identify a critical sociology, one that takes to task the underlying assumption of
the corresponding mainstream sociology. Advocates of a critical sociology argue that
mainstream sociology is, broadly stated, a catalog of what is expected and an explanation for
how individuals act when functioning outside those expectations. For critical sociologists, the
key is how the norms are defined and what constitutes actions by individuals who violate
norms. Where mainstream sociology would see a plane flying out of formation, critical
sociology asks whether or not the formation is flying on course, and who or what determines
the shape and course of that formation in the first place.
There are two very important areas of sociological research taken for granted at present, but
which can easily be identified as the product of a critical sociological lens. The first is the
emergence of class as a research concept, and while still contentious on some level a classbased analysis of society is as important as one rooted in an understanding of social
stratification. In the class model of society, individuals find themselves in structural positions,

and the consequent ability to improve one's social and economic standing is constrained by
the limitations of that structure. Whereas social stratification literature situates each individual
along a continuum within society, the class-based literature is more concerned with how
structural barriers impede progress regardless of individual efforts. This has led to the social
and political activism directed at those political and social institutions reproducing the
inequities within society.
The second major contribution of critical sociology is how we understand economic
development and the relationship between advanced industrial nations and the rest of the
developing world. Theories of modernization were rooted in an understanding of development
based on a premise that all nations must undergo stages of economic and social development
much like that experienced by advanced capitalist nations. Scholars focused on the lack of
efficient bureaucratic structures, incentive mechanisms, rational markets, and labor mobility
as the basis for failed or lagging national development. But critical sociologists posited a set
of theories about the relationship between developing nonindustrial nations and the capitalist
core, challenged the notion of a teleological path to progress, and pointed out that developing
nations were harmed by (and not lagging) the more developed nations. This research gave rise
to discussions of imperialism, the nature of democracy and development, and explorations
into the means by which advanced nations impose bureaucratic solutions (via agencies like
the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund) or intervene politically and militarily to
ensure regimes and economies favorable to advanced capitalist countries rather than
promoting independent economic and social development.
In general, critical sociology can be characterized in two ways. First, those writing in the
critical sociology tradition are generally opposed to functional explanations of how society
works. The second form of critical sociology is more parochial, and emerges out of the
tradition of radical political economy, a tradition that looks more carefully at why society is
designed to generate bad outcomes for many people rather than understanding how bad
outcomes occur in society. While early critical sociology was rooted in the traditions
characterized as Marxism, critical sociology more generally extends beyond the material
concerns of scholars writing in that tradition and embraces questions of power writ large, the
importance of culture, and the nature of social relationships that are not rooted in its material
conditions (e.g., racism and sexism).
Both strands of critical sociology emerge out of the intellectual agenda of critical theory,
although sociologists have expanded the range and scope of inquiry beyond that which is
most commonly associated with critical theorists. The remainder of this chapter briefly
reviews the origins and current directions of critical sociology. In the next section, I explore
the historical roots of the discipline with respect to mainstream sociology. This is followed by
a discussion of the emergence of critical theory and its role in defining the nature of critical
sociology. In the second section, I identify some research within the critical sociology
tradition, the importance of this research, and its impact on the theory and practice of
sociology. In the final section, I offer some insight into the areas of inquiry that will serve as
the focal point of future critical sociology research.

THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS OF A CRITICAL


SOCIOLOGY

To understand critical sociology, it is essential to reflect on sociology as an intellectual


discipline writ large. Unlike other subfields within sociology, critical sociology represents an
approach to sociological inquiry as opposed to being a branch of that enterprise. This is best
understood by looking at the roots of the discipline, and by tracing the intellectual traditions
that gave rise to a critical sociology. It is the reaction to these traditions of scholarship and
social analysis and the consequences for understanding society that give rise to the methods
underlying critical sociological analysis.

The Development of Sociology as a Science


Most social sciences have roots that trace back as long as there have been universities and
colleges organized for the study of the world in which people find themselves. While original
scholarship tended to be in the physical realm, scholars and philosophers have long concerned
themselves with the place humans hold in the larger universe, the basis and meaning of love
and politics, and by the 1700s serious inquiries into how society operates, and the relationship
of people and society (for a general review, see Bauman 1976, chap. 1). The publication of
Rousseau's On the Social Contract in 1762 (Barker 1990) anticipated the need of a social
and political order with the authority (as he put it) to impose freedom on individuals. This
work formed the foundation of much of the political philosophy of what has come to be
known as the Enlightenment and prepared the path for the sociological inquiry into the
structure and meaning of society.
Auguste Comte pressed the importance of studying the system of social relations to
understand the political and economic behavior of society. In essence, Comte noted that
society represents a system of layering by which events can only be analyzed once each of the
relationships below the surface is peeled back. Comte stresses the search for empirically
based laws of society from which all other actions can be explained (and as positivism
developed, through which all actions can be predicted). As Burawoy (1998) puts it, due to the
efforts of Comte, Sociology was the last of the disciplines to enter the kingdom of
positivism; from there, armed with superior moral insight, it would rule over the unruly,
creating order and progress out of chaos (p. 12). But perhaps a more important legacy of
Comte emerges in his sense that underlying all action is a natural order of things, and all
social action is either a confirmation of that natural order moving society forward in its
development or a series of actions that result in chaos and failure. As Bauman (1976) points
out, Comte's work can be summarized as a consistent attempt to establish the case for a
social nature which makes its way through the fits and starts of political history (p. 11), and
it is the social scientist who can reveal that nature.
In following the tradition of Comte, Durkheim sought to understand the reasons for unequal
social outcomes and argues for a moral recentering to counter the disintegrative consequences
of the new economic system. Durkheim's development of sociology as a positive science
rooted in the collection of hard evidence led him to uncover the failings of an economic
system that takes away the connection of individuals to society as a whole (found in
preindustrial society) without providing a new moral compass for social action. That compass
will necessarily emerge in the natural order of things, but in the interim Durkheim urges the
state to enact laws ensuring the welfare of society's citizens. To overstate, the system is not
itself the problem.
Max Weber ([1904] 1930) provided an understanding of the requisite forces of reason and
order that are essential to the development of civil society. His theories of bureaucracy,

rational action, and order help us understand how economic rationality must follow the
political rationality reflected in the form of the nation-state. Rules of political action give way
to rules of economic actionindeed, the former paves the way for the latter in the forms of
commercial law, reliable enforcement of contracts, predictable outcomes of the interaction of
individuals in society as they seek economic prosperity. While capitalism represented great
wealth and prosperity, economic advances occur only when a society has developed the social
and political conditions necessary for the orderly and free exchange of the factors of
production.
The sociology that took hold by the end of the nineteenth century was related to the
emergence of capitalism. Weber's work on religion, rationalization, and bureaucracy helped
shape the discipline. Talcott Parsons's translation of Weber's work ([1904] 1930) added a
dimension of functionalism in outcomesthat is, the social reality reflects social needs as
observed. Inequality and inequities arising in capitalism have as much if not more to do with
individual failing rather than structural impediments to the rational order of events or
actions. While Weber gave us a model of society that worked toward efficient operation,
Parsons helped define this operation as a natural state of events and identified the capitalist
system of social relations as the natural evolution of society.
Thus, capitalist society was the natural condition, and sociology represented the science for
understanding how society operated (and implicitly within the perspective that problems in
society were the result of individual failure), which in turn gave rise to a critical and
oppositional voice within sociology. Critical sociology emerged to challenge that view
(Quinney 1979) and to demonstrate that social inequality was not an aberration but itself the
normal outcome of a system predicated on power relationships and competing visions of
social organization, though, as Luhmann (1994) reminds us, we must be ever mindful of how
theory structures the way we examine the world. Levine (2004) outlines some of the political
challenges faced by oppositional voices as they emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, and the
intellectual developments leading to a critical sociological agenda. A discussion of the
intellectual tradition that underpins this critical analysis follows.

Critical Theory and the Emergence of a Critical Sociology


One of the central pillars of sociological analysis is found in the writings of Karl Marx.
Writing at a time when capitalism's transformative power and its ability to generate great
wealth was first taking hold, Marx's agenda was to examine how this system worked, how it
was different from what came before it, and where a society driven by what he called
capitalist social relations was heading. Building on the intellectual traditions of social and
political theory, political economy, and within the emergent scientific sociology of Comte,
Marx developed a critical theory of society. Earlier forms of utopian socialist writings,
scientific political economy, and critical philosophy had as not yet identified either the nature
of the class society or the mechanisms that defined capitalism as a social and economic
system of human activities. The collected works of Marx brought to the fore issues of
alienation, the appropriation through new social relations of the means of production and
thereby of the profit of human labor, and the importance of the social and political institutions
developing in tandem with the development of capitalism as a globalizing system of
production. It was this critical theory that went beyond the notion of a value-free empirical
exercise designedas early sociologists attempted to doto provide an objective description
through data collection and analysis. For Marx and those who followed, the task of critical

theory was to situate knowledge within the set of social realities and values of society for the
purpose of challenging and negating the status quo.
The motivation of the philosophical impulse we have come to understand as critical theory
was, in large part, the result of scholars working in what has collectively been called the
Frankfurt School (see, e.g., Bauman 1976) who argued that science and technology had
become the new religion of capitalist society (see Rockwell 2004 for the Hegelian roots of
Marx's thinking and its role in the development of critical theory). Much as Marx wrote about
the reification of commodities, that is, the commodity became divorced from its producer and
thereby gained value in its own right, so too have knowledge and culture become objects
with their own standing rather than part of the society that created them.
The process of reification of culture created a new form of culture that undermined the
potential for revolutionary action. Moreover, according to Marx, this process of reification
applies to all human experience. As a result, advances of capitalism into the twentieth century
closed off the possibility of critical thought as intellectual work became dominated by a
fetishism of facts. This positivism accorded facts an illusionary objectivity and
independence from the social relations in which they were produced (see Ray 1990). The
resulting agenda in the period between the two world wars and the development and
emergence of European fascism (preceded as it were by the proletarian revolution in Russia,
but the defeat of all other revolutionary worker movements in Europe), was one of unpacking
the relationship between the development of the capitalist system and the potential for
enlightened and emancipatory social change. As Ray (1990) points out, The project of
Critical Theory has been to develop ways of thinking so subversive of dominant legitimations,
that to understand them is to resist them (p. xviii). Critical theory built on Marx's material
analysis and made important inroads into the role of culture and science in the reproduction of
these reactionary ideologies (Scott 1978).

Toward a Critical Sociological Methodology


With its intellectual debt to critical theory, critical sociology emerged in the 1960s and 1970s
as a challenge to mainstream sociology and as a means to assess the role that capitalism
played in determining the structures, relationships, and systems within the American society.
For these scholars, many were graduate students at that time, the discipline of sociology was a
bourgeois science serving as an apology for the status quo rather than a force for analysis of
what was wrong with Western society. That is, critical sociologists argued that mainstream
sociology was a discipline driven by the need to identify and rationalize the existing social
relations as empirically observed working of some natural order in the evolution of society.
The fetish of knowledge and the cult of data obscured the way that society was in fact a
construction of a particular historic economic system.
Critical sociology is first and foremost informed by a historical materialist approach to
understanding society. Specifically, this is the application of Marx's analysis of the capitalist
system to the examination of historical development. While the political economists who
preceded Marx focused on understanding the historical roots of contemporary society as the
key to unlocking how society functioned in its present day, Marx argued that to treat social
history prior to its present moment as external facts is to miss the fundamental relationship
between the past and the present. It is precisely how history is implicated in the contemporary
material relationships of the present that will unlock our understanding the social processes in
force at the present. To assign events prior to any era as some prehistory is to mistake the

relationship of those events to current behavior and sows the seeds of missing the critical
dimensions of contemporary social relations. As he writes about Adam Smith, What Adam
Smith, in the true eighteenth-century manner, puts in the prehistoric period, the period
preceding history, is rather a product of history (Marx 1973:156). Simply put, Marx argues
that in Smith's search for the essence of the modern economy he sets aside the social
relationships that gave rise to that modern economy.
Smith focuses on explaining the particular operation of capitalism, production, and the
creation of wealth, but for Marx that analysis is doomed by Smith's failure to understand the
ties to precapitalist production. Differentiating use value from exchange value, Marx argues
that both always existed so long as humanity exerted itself with regard to nature (i.e., trying to
change nature through production) but the particular aspect of contemporary (i.e., capitalist)
social relations is precisely the history of how exchange values become appropriated by some,
and through that appropriation some members of society exert control and power over others
in society. Marx (1973) goes on to explain the connection between history and material
reality:
Relations of personal dependence (entirely spontaneous at the outset) are the first social
forms, in which human productive capacity develops only to a slight extent and at isolated
points. Personal independence founded on objective [sachlicher] dependence is the second
great form, in which a system of general social metabolism, of universal relations, of allround needs and universal capacities is formed for the first time. Free individuality, based on
the universal development of individual and on their subordination of their communal, social
productivity as their social wealth, is the third stage. The second stage creates the conditions
for the third. Patriarchal as well as ancient conditions (feudal also) thus disintegrate with the
development of commerce, of luxury, of money, of exchange value, while modern society
arises and grows in the same measure. (P. 158)
Out of this development, according to Marx, all other social, political, and ideological
institutions and perspectives emerge, each subject to the requirement of the material
conditions dominant in any era and each subject to transformation as those material conditions
change. It is a mistake, as many have done, to reduce Marx to an economic determinist
analysis of society even as Marx focuses on the material relationships extant within society.
Rather, critical sociologists, following Marx and critical theorists, argue that one cannot
understand the complex relationship between what Marx calls the base and superstructure
the material reality of how society organizes production and the complex set of social,
political, and ideological institutions that govern and maintain that social organization of
productionunless one also understands the historically specific forces that drive the
emergence of contemporary society.
Unlike mainstream sociology, which takes society as given, tries to catalog its various
activities and relationships (albeit an important task in its own right), and measures progress
toward some naturally determined ideal, critical sociologists take society's existing
relationships as both the product of its past and the source of its futureand it is only through
proper understanding of how society came to be will we be able to address how to influence
change toward a more progressive and positive vision for the future. To paraphrase Marx,
mainstream sociologists have only to interpret the world; the point for critical sociologists is
to change it. It is through the historical materialism of critical sociology that an understanding
of how society operates is possible, leading to a program for change.

THE CURRENT STATUS OF CRITICAL SOCIOLOGY


Initially, critical sociologists asked questions relating to the outcomes that we experience, and
the historical conditions that drive contemporary social outcomes. Furthermore, there was
interest in creating a theoretical frame that would lead to identifying the means for
establishing some ideal state of being. The social unrest of the 1960s and the increasing
intellectual dissatisfaction with the extant sociological explanations caused many sociologists
to look toward critical theory to inform their analyses. With a focus on the nature of the
capitalist system and a debt to the writings of Marx (see especially Marx 1964, 1967, 1972),
critical sociologists and radical economists embarked on a detailed exploration of the role that
the capitalist system played in defining and determining the nature of production and work
(Thompson 1964; Braverman 1974; Burawoy 1979; Edwards 1979), the nature of class
structure (Zeitlin 1970; Wright 1979), the nature of the state (Poulantzas 1978; Wright 1978;
Block 1987; Esping-Anderson 1990), the emergence and role of ideology (Gouldner 1970,
1973; Ollman 1971; Marcuse [1941] 1977), the nature of education and the reproduction of
social relations (Bowles and Gintis 1976; Apple 1979; Willis 1981), the creation of urban
space (Edel 1973; Harvey 1973, 1982), the nature of public sector fiscal policy (O'Connor
1973), the nature of organizations (Clegg 1975; Clegg and Dunkerley 1977; Bradley and
Wilkie 1980), the nature of international capital and worldsystems (Baran and Sweezy 1968;
Wallerstein 1974, 1976; Chase-Dunn 1989), the nature of Third World development (Frank
1966), the role and structure of the ruling class (Therborn 1976, 1978; Domhoff 1978), and
the nature of culture and religion (Tawney [1926] 1958; Eagleton 1976; Berger [1972] 1977).
Later, scholars who asked how race, gender, and other forms of inequality persisted even
under supposedly liberating and often Marxist analyses posed challenges to critical theorists
and many critical sociologists. In the introduction to her book, Lydia Sargent (1981) exposits
many of the contradictions and theoretical considerations that confronted women engaged in
progressive politics throughout the 1960s and 1970s. One of the more important assaults on
the limitations of a purely materialist, Marxist, analysis of society comes from Heidi
Hartmann's (1981) well-titled essay on the unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism. In
this essay, and the debates that followed (see Sargent 1981; Sergent 1981 for early
compendiums on this work and reactions to Hartmann's premises), Hartmann questions
whether we can safely assume that all forms of power inequality (coming, as it does, at the
height of the Women's Movement) can be addressed through an analysis of a society rooted in
traditional Marxian concerns of class struggle and the appropriation of the means of
production. Simply put, Hartmann asks, why should we assume that by simply addressing the
social consequences of a particular economic organization of social relations we will remove
the gender-based inequality in contemporary society? Unwilling to give up her Marxian roots,
Hartmann nonetheless acknowledges that there are legitimate questions raised by feminist
scholars.
Nancy Fraser (1985) more pointedly takes critical theory to task, and by extension critical
sociology, when she identifies the failure of critical theory to consider gender inequality in its
exploration of oppression and inequities within capitalist society. She argues,
A critical social theory frames its research program and its conceptual framework with an eye
to the aims and activities of those oppositional social movements with which it has a partisan
though not uncritical identification. The questions it asks and the models it designs are
informed by that identification and interest. (P. 97)

Why, she then asks, does critical theory (represented in the writing of Habermas) fail to
examine or even acknowledge the domination of females by males? Following what might
broadly be called a critical sociology, Fraser explores the problem of capitalist exploitation
and offers us the distinction between public and private spheres as a way of grasping the
nature of gender inequality. Gender-based workplace inequality persists and takes on new
forms (see Roberts 2004 and the other essays in Gottfried and Reese 2004). In a similar vein,
scholars brought questions of race as well as gender to bear (HillCollins 1990) as they took
radical and mainstream scholarship to task for its primary focus on material conditions, class
structure, and capitalism as an economic system.
The importance of a class versus status approach to the problems of the day can be seen in the
ongoing discussion of the importance and impact of race in our society. In this important work
on the consequence of racial inequality, Wilson (1978) articulates an argument that African
Americans suffer because they are trapped in the lowest strata of our society. A history of past
oppression and unequal treatment due to the scourge of racism and slavery may explain the
underlying basis for their status, but it is not an explanation for the continued poverty they
face. Wilson looks instead to a failure of African Americans to secure the necessary attributes
that accounts for their lower status. The legacy of racism is economic distress and persistent
poverty, but the solution cannot lie simply with legislation outlawing racism. For Wilson,
there is a declining significance of race, and it is the creation of an emergent middle class
(more accurately, a middle-income strata) that will alleviate the plight of African Americans.
In response, Marable (1983) offers a class-based analysis of the African American experience,
and much as Gunder Frank did with developing countries Marable posits a competing theory
of failed economic growth and persistent poverty as the result of capitalist social
development. It is the lack of control over the means of production and their class position
that relegates African Americans to the bottom layers of society. Race helps explain why
African Americans fill the ranks of society's poor, but it is the fundamental relationships
within capitalism that keep working people poor. No significant change will occur as the
result of the creation of an African American middle class in much the same way that the
emergence of a middle class writ large cannot alleviate the struggles of working people
everywhere.
The debate continues, and much the same way that Hartmann raised concerns about whether a
purely Marxist analysis can get to the roots of gender-based social inequality, critics look at
the problem of race in the U.S. society. A recent example is Leonardo's (2004) inquiry about
whether there may well be an unhappy marriage of Marxism and race theory, in this case as it
pertains to our understanding of why educational policy seems to regularly fail inner-city
minority children. Leonardo posits that discussions looking mainly at the way education
reproduce class positions (Davies 1995) fail to take into account the decidedly racial pattern
of low performance, but race-based explanations are not enough when one considers rural
poverty and low educational attainment in the society as a whole.
Although Marxist analysis remains important, critical sociology has moved well past its roots
as primarily a critique of the social order in the exploration of extant power relationships
existing within a society organized under the principles of capitalist social relations. The state
of contemporary critical sociology is strong; the topics explored are increasing broad as
scholars revisit old themes of colonialism and the origins of European capitalism (von der
Heydt-Coca 2005), education under a changing capitalist system (Monahan 2005), the role of

sociology as a politically engaged discipline (Burawoy 2005), and religionwhether looking


to its roots (Goldstein 2005) or its current challenges (Langman 2005).
Critical sociologists continue to engage our understanding of race, how it is conceptualized
and how it must be analyzed apart from concepts found in classical Marxism (see Coates
2004). In particular, they raise questions about the role race plays in social policy in the era of
globalization and neoliberalism (Brewer 2004) and the continuing role race plays in both
repression and resistance within advanced capitalist societies (Arena 2004). Critical
sociologists turn their gaze on the emergence of a so-called new international order or perhaps
another new international order looking at the nature of oppression and resistance
(Podobnik and Reifer 2005). Gianpaolo (2005) examines how workers outside of this country
react to the conditions formulated by our economic and social policies and the way these are
projected in the rest of the world. In addition, critical sociologists wonder how these new
systems project the opportunity for new form of social resistance and new kinds of student
movements (Ross 2005).
Still rooted in a concern over oppression and inequality driven by Marx's analysis of
capitalism, critical sociology has embraced postmodernism, feminism, and cultural criticism
to name but a few approaches to understand the way in which the existing social relations
shape power and define its consequences. As the recent collection of essays in Pfohl et al.
(2006) demonstrates, there are significant links between the history of a society, the culture
that emerges, and the power relationships that result, all of which go beyond situating these
processes within capitalism. But at the same time, as Shor (2006) argues, these social
outcomes cannot be separated from the underlying material conditions in existence. Reactions
to these conditions generate social movements that resist the power inequities in both the
economic and the cultural realm (Gamson 2006).
Critical sociology is more than a subdiscipline; it is an approach to how one understands and
investigates social processes and phenomena. It helps generate the subjects of inquiry as well
as formulate the underlying assumptions of that analysis. For example, Gurr (1970) gave us
an explanation for social unrest that was rooted in the notion of individual failure, a society
where individuals who cannot succeed resort to the mob mentality and strike out in their
frustration. Its underlying assumption about society borrows from a Durkheimian sensibility
that each of us has a place and only our lack of adjustment will drive us to do irrational and
unreasonable acts. By contrast, Tilly (1978) offers a more structural understanding of the
nature of power and the resources that accrue as a result, and looks to the organization of and
organizations within society as the reasons for social unrest and resistance. Borrowing from
both a Weberian view of the rational mobilization of resources to explain organizational
capacities and constraints and a Marxian understanding of class structure and role of political
power, Tilly offers what might be called a critical sociological explanation of the same
phenomenon. More recently, Buttel and Gould (2005) use the critical sociological lens to
examine the growing international social movements that arise in response to corporatism and
the threat to the environment globally.
Critical sociology exists to counter those who serve as apologists for the existing social order.
That is, perhaps, overstating the underlying intellectual motivation of mainstream sociology.
However, as long as there are social outcomes dividing rich and poor, the powerful from the
powerless, and oppressors from the oppressed, there will be a critical sociology. And as long
as sociological analysis seeks to understand these differences through measurement and
description rather than change the difference as part of the enterprise of sociological

investigation and analysis, uncover the mechanisms that perpetuate these differences, and
expose the social order that give license to some segment of society to benefit at the expense
of the rest of society, there will always be a critical sociology.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR A CRITICAL


SOCIOLOGY
The twenty-first century poses several significant challenges for sociology in general,
challenges that will more readily be addressed from a critical sociological perspective that is
uniquely suited for looking into the future (Cooke 2004). These changes are rooted precisely
in the transformations of capitalism within each country and overall as the international
system of production develops into a global economy. These include questions of citizenship,
identity politics, and the transformation of social policies to address these challenges; the
increasing dismantling of the social welfare function of industrialized nations; the emergence
of increasing risk in everyday life as the meaning of work changes; the continued legacy of
postcolonialism as new forms of nationalism emerge in response to intensified globalization;
and the transformation of the economy from a predominantly industrial system of production
to one commonly and in turn called a service economy, an information economy, and now a
knowledge-based economy. Let us consider each one for a moment.

Citizenship and Identity Politics


As the recent rioting in France, reminiscent of the racial rioting in the United States during the
late 1960s, points out, industrial nations in both Europe and North American are increasingly
becoming multiethnic and diverse (see Fasenfest, Booza, and Metzger 2005 for a discussion
of ethnic and racial transformation of U.S. cities) due to internal migration and immigration
from the periphery. While this has provided labor in many sectors for many decades, not only
in Europe but also among low-wage work in the United States, there is an increasing need to
find ways to redefine citizenship and belonging. The French rioting was as much about
cultural difference as it was about social exclusion, and in Germany there is the irony that
greater liberal freedom has resulted in more traditional religious communities to impose
restrictions not possible in their home countries (e.g., among the Turkish community). Critical
sociology will bring an understanding of both social and economic processes rooted in the
historical development of these migrations, situated in the cultural resistance of the host
countries struggling to maintain old definitions in a new cultural environment.

Dismantling Social Welfare


We are not strangers to fiscal crisis or fluctuating economies and downturns that put pressure
on our social resources. But as the economy changes in fundamental ways, traditional social
welfare functions are increasingly eroded in a permanent manner. For some countries, like the
United States, these functions were weak at best; for other countries (e.g., Europe and Japan),
they were part of the social fabric (whether more formal as in Europe or informal as in Japan).
As the work of Gottfried and O'Reilly (2004) points to, not only does the social welfare net
fray but also there are clearly gender (and race) dimensions of these changes. Critical
sociology will permit an exploration of the underlying historical basis for these welfare
functions as a way to understand the particular pattern of their dissolution.

Emergence of a Risk Society

The important work of Ulrich Beck (1992) has pointed out that even as economic growth of
the economy overall reaches record levels (true throughout the 1990s), individuals were
increasingly uncertain and uncomfortable with their status in society. Firms gradually moved
away from models of employee loyalty leading to lifetime employment and toward a pattern
of fluid labor forces laid off and hired back as the market and product cycles demanded. As
the national economy was increasingly enmeshed in a global economy, workers are pressed to
be more flexible in order for the firm to be more competitive. Young people especially look
for new models for their work lives, coming under increasing pressure as a result of the
absence of a path for their future (Powell and Edwards 2003). For most workers that means
less pay, loss of benefits, and greater insecurity. Critical sociology will provide a window into
how to understand these changes and how to mobilize for greater security and economic
stability.

Postcolonial Resistance and Globalization


The much publicized (and growing international) resistance to events like the meetings of the
World Trade Organization and the World Bank highlights the nature of resistance not just on
the national level but as the product of international coalitions seeking to alter the pattern of
decline and immiseration that follows. Critical sociologists (see, e.g., the collection of essays
in Podobnik and Reifer 2005) are increasingly looking at how resistance has been transformed
and projecting what new arenas of opposition will emerge in response to this social and
economic transformation. While even mainstream sociology acknowledges that there are new
challenges, most of the time this is seen as the cost of the global transformation of the
economy. Critical sociology argues that the form and extent of that transformation is a
function of particular social forces rooted in capitalism, and that alternative visions are
possible.

Post-Fordist Economic Transformation


The transition of our economy has been a long and somewhat drawn out process. The first
stages of this transformation are the well-researched periods of rust-belt deindustrialization as
industry either moved away from or simply closed older operations in traditional industrial
cities. Not just the decline of older cities like Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Youngstown in the
United States but also the shuttering of mills in the United Kingdom and the decline of the
Ruhr Gebeit in the western regions of Germany demonstrate that this was a global process of
change. Some places remade themselves by focusing on services and high technology, some
by becoming centers of financial operations. But this last decade has witnessed two
fundamental changes: many of these so-called high-tech and service work is leaving the
industrial nations for the developing world, and many of the traditional industries are
becoming transformed permanently. In the first instance, we have heard much about India,
Malaysia, and the Philippines, and in the second, even though automobile production remains
robust in the number of automobiles produced and sold, the global work force employed in
making cars has dropped dramatically as a result of automation, new production techniques,
and new materials. Critical sociologists are just beginning to explore what is meant by good
jobs, how these changes will alter our understanding of work, and perhaps how this
transformation may well alter the very social fabric we have woven for the past 100 years.
The future is unclear. Critical sociology, so long as the future is driven by a capitalist social,
political, and economic logic, may well be the best way of exploring the present to understand
the future.

DAVID FASENFEST Wayne State University Further Readings

Entry Citation:
"Critical Sociology." 21st Century Sociology. 2006. SAGE Publications. 16 Mar. 2009.
<http://www.sage-ereference.com/sociology/Article_n60.html>.

Encyclopedia Home
About SAGE eReference
Site Help
Contact Us

SAGE Publications, Inc.

You might also like