sociology and morality
TRANSCRIPT
SOCIOLOGY AND MORALITY:
THE QUEST TO UNDERSTAND AND THE MISSION OF REFORM
Cyril Ignatius Kendrick
Spartanburg Methodist College
1000 Powell Mill Road
Spartanburg, SC 29301-5899
(864) 587-4252
SOCIOLOGY AND MORALITY:
THE QUEST TO UNDERSTAND AND THE MISSION OF REFORM
ABSTRACT
Many decades of rapid social change throughout Western
societies has yielded dramatically different social
institutional patterns and modes of consciousness that
continue to reshape longstanding relationship between the
individual, their immediate environment, and the larger
society. In turn, the risks and vulnerabilities facing
people have in some respects changed. The recurring morality
debates over many social issues reflect widely varied
efforts from different sectors of society to reconcile the
2
course of social change with larger improvements in the
moral condition of humanity. However, the particular means,
strategies or focal points of reform are partially dependent
on the particular social circumstances at hand. What is
reform in one time period may be the very antithesis of
reform in another. The thesis of this essay is that the
field of sociology needs to reconsider, and broaden, its
approaches to reform to reflect the social crises of our
times and provide a more solid basis through which the moral
condition of humanity can be improved. There is need for a
greater recognition of the limits of the state in improving
human conditions; a greater awareness of the critical
importance of mediating structures and other natural social
clusters to people’s wellbeing, and for internal changes
within the field of sociology to promote more open and
varied approaches to the project of social reform.
PERSONAL REFLEXIVE STATEMENT
3
My interest in the use of sociology for the good of humanity
originates in my developing interest in sociology during
college where the study of the social world was rooted at
least in part in the desire for a better world. My
specialties in social stratification and social policy in
graduate school at Virginia Tech reflected the desire to
couple knowledge with the improvement of the world. This
essay is a reflection on a growing realization that many
efforts of large-scale social reform have great difficulty
leaving a positive and lasting mark because they fail to
address the gathering problems within the constitution of
society itself.
4
SOCIOLOGY AND MORALITY: THE QUEST TO UNDERSTAND AND
THE MISSION OF REFORM
Introduction
The July, 2006 edition of Contemporary Sociology featured “A
Symposium on Morality Battles”, bringing together several
prominent sociologists, presumably to shed sociological
light on the question of morality and the societal good.
Before offering their own insights into the morality
battles, each provided a brief review of books, including
“What’s the Matter with Kansas,” by Thomas Frank; Don’t
Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the
debate,” by George Lakoff; “The Right nation: Conservative
Power in America,” by John Mickelwait and Adrian Wooldridge,
and “It Takes a Family” by Rick Santorum. The scope of the
5
books was considerable, but the focus and parameters of the
essays also reflected the limitations the academic
sociological establishment tends to have in speaking to the
heart of questions of morality.
The insights of symbolic interactionism are most
pertinent here, for understandings of society and
discussions of the project of reform need to be infused with
a broader and more sensitive understanding of the interplay
between morality and social systems. The failure to
recognize the critical importance of natural social enclaves
will radically undermine sociology’s capacity to promote
understanding and serve as a vehicle of human progress.
Drawing more on the insights of symbolic interactionism
would facilitate a sharper understanding of the conceptions
various sectors of society have regarding the
interdependency between rights and obligations, and between
freedom and community.
6
That the field of sociology has been heavily involved
issues pertaining to morality and social progress is hardly
surprising. To their credit, many recognized early on the
soul-destroying potentialities within capitalism. Sociology
was similarly invested in the great progressive struggles of
the 19th and 20th centuries to overcome racism, ethnocentrism
and related bigotries that have shadowed the social
landscape and decimated millions of innocent people. Over
time, however, the very orientation that helped sociologists
square off against these social tyrannies calcified into an
ideological regime discouraging sociological attention to
some important dimensions of social crisis. To analyze
problems within capitalism is well and good, but problems
within contemporary state structures are varied and legion.
By the same token, to draw out what is arbitrary, provincial
or oppressive in traditional social structures is one thing.
To minimize or ignore the vital social functions these
social systems perform is to fail to embrace a fundamental
aspect of social reality and to abandon the very
intellectual foundations of sociology. A similar failure
7
occurs when the sociological gaze is averted from the stark
underside of alternative social structures. If sociology is
to fully engage the moral dimensions of social life and
meaningfully particulate in the public conversation on
progressive humanistic possibilities in keeping with the
best of the Enlightenment project, it must avoid political
capture and all of its attendant rigidity and narrowness.
The Social Problem
Certain developments within contemporary culture and social
institutions underlie the societal struggle over issues of
morality. In particular, the difficulty in asserting a
common moral framework broad enough to claim the allegiance
of a diverse population and yet specific and concrete enough
to fully animate social life is a pervasive crisis. As James
Davison Hunter’s The Death of Character (2000) points out so
vividly, major institutions in our society have been
increasingly unable to articulate a clear vision of
morality, for the very process of speaking in moral tones is
interwoven with creeds, traditions and understandings whose
8
particularistic nature makes them problematic in a social
world increasingly animated with a public ethos calling for
diversity and inclusiveness. Hunter argues that “The social
and cultural conditions that make character possible are no
longer present and no amount of political rhetoric, legal
maneuvering, educational policy making, or money can change
that reality. Its time has passed…Character is formed in
relation to convictions and is manifested in the capacity to
abide by those convictions even in, especially in, the face of
temptation” (2000, xiii).
The very act of passing on morally authoritative
traditions requires a group or institution to place itself
at odds with major social currents of the day. At the
sociological level, morality requires basic agreement on the
constitution of good character, which by definition requires
limitations, social binds and social obligations within a
system. The price of articulating character and morality is
the enforcement of definitions of the good and the
maintenance of social boundaries involving the emotional
9
burden of stigma, shame and guilt. Unfortunately, teaching
“values” outside of an authoritative social institutional
creed or narrative that reflects, articulates, and renders
the tribal lore meaningful, is doomed to be ineffective.
Consequently, as Hunter’s research demonstrates, modern
‘character education’ programs generally fail to achieve
their goals, and over time, tend to dissolve into values
subjectivity.
Hunter’s death of character thesis strikes at the heart
of the modern social crisis and should rightfully recognized
as one of the classic sociological works of our times.
Morris Berman strikes a somewhat related theme in his
insightful and provocative The Twiliight of American Culture (2000)
which explores what is essentially an energetic hollowness
at the heart of contemporary society. From the economic
realm flows the hypercommercialized “McWorld” of upbeat,
energetic commercial consumerism devoid of larger purpose.
And from the educational and other elite realms comes an
ideological postmodernism, a “philosophy of despair
10
masquerading as radical chic”, Berman notes, leaving us
mired in a swamp of mindless diversity largely unwilling or
unable to pass on the classics of Western Civilization. A
socially necessary self-criticism - an extremely vital
component of Western Civilization - degenerates into a
denial not only of that which is true, but the very ideal of
truth itself. Like many ideological prisons, postmodernism
begins with some important truths; the idea that a text may
be interpreted in more than one way; that minorities have
been socially and intellectually excluded, and that the
intellectual project occurs within political frameworks. The
central problem is that of allowing this program to
degenerate into a denial of truth, a denial of intrinsic
meanings to texts, and ultimately, a denial of Canon itself.
And through this, postmodernism denies history and
civilization, and along with it, the very basis for
meaningful social criticism and genuine reform. According to
Berman this corporate/postmodern world order leaves us mired
in a “vital kitsch” where commercial energy, fueled by
globalization, thrives without any genuine substance.
11
Berman’s analysis, like that of Hunter, and work by James Q,
Wilson (1996; 2002), underscore the point to the irony that
major components of contemporary social crisis flow from
some of the same moral and humanitarian achievements that
liberated people from prejudice, discrimination and other
repressive social structures.
There are others, particularly, some astute observers
from outside sociology and academia more generally, who
remind us of our tendency to see ourselves through a prism
of decline and crisis. In his unique and insightful On
Paradise Drive (2004), David Brooks points to the persistence
of societal vitality and purpose amidst perennial forecasts
of decline: “Obviously, huge problems remain, but if you go
back and read the leading social scientists of the past few
decades, you are struck by the fact that they were
invariably too pessimistic, too stuffed with gloomy
predictions and forebodings of catastrophe, the vast
majority of which never came true. America is a country that
goes every year to the doctor and every year is told that it
12
has contracted some fatal disease – whether it is
conformity, narcissism, godlessness, or civic disengagement
– and a year later, the patient comes back with cheeks still
red and muscles still powerful. The diagnosis is just as
grim, and the patient is just as healthy” (p. 113). Brooks
sees a culture that has changed in many respects, still
spiritual, if less traditionally religious, and more open
and tolerant of diverse lifestyles; and yet, a culture still
carrying many of its essential social characteristics. Above
all, he sees a culture of aspiration and achievement where
individualism and the quest for material gain is part of a
never-ending search for the good life, a state of cosmic
bliss that is more existential than material.
Has society lost the very foundations through which
character and morality more generally can be articulated? In
many respects, the social conditions supporting broad
understandings of the social good have weakened, but
substantial patterns of reneweal and remoralization appear
as well. Is there a mindless hollow hyperactivity at the
13
heart of society? To some extent. Is there an agreed-upon
social framework by which we can build character and make
sufficient claims on one another that are concrete enough at
the societal level? Perhaps not. At this point in time, the
very process of creating a system of normative standards,
universal enough to gain widespread social acceptance, and
yet somehow still able to escape serious challenge from
radical multiculturalism in the social sphere and civil
libertarianism in the legal sphere, is problematic to say
the least. In distinct and unique ways, both Hunter and
Berman articulate essential aspects of our societal struggle
over morality. These are difficult times for those looking
for a clear morally authoritative voice through which social
problems could be identified and solutions implemented. And
yet, clearly, one of the remarkable realities of the past
three decades is the growth and persistence of various
movements that defy these larger developments in the
interest of articulating and reinforcing creeds of a
particularistic nature. The resurgence and vitality and
social impact of forms of orthodox Christianity in both
14
Catholic and Protestant forms provide perhaps the best
example. In a related vein, the vows of abstinence made, if
not necessarily kept, among many young people, and the
vigorous presence of groups such as the Promise Keepers
similarly point to the continued striving towards clear and
often rigorous standards of morality. The ongoing prominence
of human rights organizations also testifies to enduring
concerns over morality. Yet in all of these cases, the
morality claims compete with opposing claims as well as a
more general social ambivalence across society.
Berman’s analysis here is especially relevant and
timely, for he couples a rather dim assessment of our
current social conditions with a compelling, if
controversial argument for what he terms the “monastic
option”. In this scenario, surrounded by a collapsing
culture or a McDonaldized world of vital kitsch, people
sharing an appreciation for an art-form, social practice or
lifestyle consciously carve out networks of shared interest
through which they share, appreciate, and ultimately
15
preserve, the treasures of civilization. The monastic option
not only characterizes a variety of responses to the current
situation, but finds historic precedents reaching far back
in time. Morris notes: In the case of the twilight phase of
Rome, there was a monastic “class” – a tiny handful of
individuals – who saw that they could not reverse these
trends but that they could do their best to preserve the
treasures of their civilization, the ways of thinking and
living that might be appreciated in another healthier era”
(2000, p. 69).
The Sociological Problem
What the ideal sociological response should be to a complex
and fractured social world marked by substantial ambivalence
and multiple social worlds is less clear. The thesis of this
essay, however, is that sociology needs to cast a wider net
in exploring the various social, economic and religious
underpinnings of contemporary moral problems. Towards the
larger project, the field needs to change in two fundamental
ways: First, sociology needs to become much more aware of
16
its own ideological suppositions. And secondly, sociology
needs to become more open to the various consequences -
especially unintended consequences – of its own recommended courses
of action. Both of these changes are necessary for the field
to avoid political capture.
At the heart of the moral crisis today is a collision
of distinct social worlds making it socially and politically
difficult for society to move convincingly towards either of
two social objectives residing often within distinct
segments of the population; first, to preserve the best of
the past while secondly; leaving people free to choose, and
to explore, alternative paths that elements of social
modernity either allow or encourage. Preserving the enormous
benefits brought by the Judeo-Christian tradition and the
Enlightenment and many traditional social forms is an
important objective to many, and it would be good for the
field of sociology through its disciplinary focus and energy
to retain a stronger connection to the importance this
cultural inheritance to many people’s wellbeing. A second
17
objective - retaining and building upon social tolerance and
the recognition of social diversity – has solid roots within
both the Enlightenment and classical forms of the Judeo-
Christian tradition, but increasingly includes movements and
developments in tension or conflict with those traditions.
For much of the Twentieth Century, most of the reformist
energy in sociology, from the Chicago School to the Harvard
School and beyond worked strongly in favor of breaking down
many of the ancient bigotries that have decimated the lives
of so many, and certainly this record should be recognized
among the laudable contributions of scholarship to the human
condition. But as the Twentieth Century wore on the
definitions and understandings of social tolerance and
diversity coming from the field of sociology and progressive
circles were increasingly in tension with, even at odds
with, the norms and values of moral communities that sustain
civil society. The narratives coming from various strands of
radical sociology increasingly denied the legitimacy of any
basic ordering principles underlying social life. In other
cases the radicalization of tolerance and diversity caused
18
it to collapse into itself in the form of a new system of
particularism which then imposes itself on natural
communities and traditional social enclaves. This new system
of particularism can also embody what is variously referred
to as reverse ethnocentrism or reverse Jingoism. To the
extent the radical narratives influenced social
institutions, they became carriers of social change ushering
many Western societies sharply towards what Richard John
Neuhaus (1984) terms the naked public square in which the
separation of church and state is increasingly reinterpreted
by various elites as grounds for the subordination of church
to the state, and ultimately the privatization of religion
and morality. And into this naked public square comes the
will to power as the dominant mode of social discourse.
Recognizing and managing the tensions between these two
modern impulses – within the field of sociology and for
society as a whole – is now a central challenge. To retain
both intellectual honesty and the best of the reformist
tradition, it is absolutely essential for the field of
19
sociology to continue to recognize and build on the
essential reformist achievements of past century while
acquiring a greater understanding and sensitivity to the
capacity of vehicles of tolerance and diversity to
themselves become powerful new regimes of orthodoxy,
crushing the freedom of individuals, enclaves and
organizations to articulate and follow their own vision, as
people from a variety of social clusters now believe to be
the case. Successfully navigating these waters is absolutely
essential if sociology is to grow as a field and achieve its
rightful position at the center of societal conversations
over social realities and future possibilities.
One plausible option for the field of sociology has
always been the value-free, verstehen approach associated
with, among many others, Max Weber among classical thinkers
and Peter Berger among contemporaries. Here the challenge is
to provide penetrating and articulate accounts of the
development and current state of these various social
worlds; to explore the processes underlying the shift from
20
clear powerful systems of moral ideas to a society marked by
a highly attenuated social reality, or the simultaneous
presence of multiple social realities (Berger, Berger and
Kellner, 1981). But the case can also be made that knowledge
is inevitably political, or alternatively, that knowledge
ought to be values-based and problem-centered if improving
the human condition is the overriding goal. And so, a second
response, the critical-praxis approach, takes the field - or
individual sociologists - along a clear path of moral
definition, whether that of C. Wright Mills’ radical
critique of capitalism and concentrations of power, Joseph
Varacalli’s (2000) critique of secular-liberalism and call
for a renewal within Catholicism, or other. But there are
problems with the critical-praxis model. If the field
strikes out collectively, there is the issue of the
marginalization of those forms of sociological analysis
falling outside those ideological strictures. If ideology is
freely chosen at the individual level, there remains the
challenge of allowing distinct or competing ideologies a
presence at the table, less sociology degenerate into
21
sectarian partisanship. Radically diverse values frameworks
also require that attention be paid to the danger of losing
a common ground of empirical knowledge at the center of the
field.
Perhaps, a third approach of bounded objectivity,
combining the first two, where critical analysis and
advocacy is buttressed with clear statements of values and
assumptions along with full disclosure of methodology might
guard against the perceived limitations of either approach.
Certainly this approach would find a fair amount of support
from academics, and it seems at least intuitively the case
that many sociologists would agree with such a
characterization of their own work. And yet the condition of
academic sociology today provides little support for the
hope that norms of bounded objectivity alone would protect
the field from intense partisanship and intellectual self-
ghettoization. And the reason for this is that the social
powers of definition and the tribal capacity to screen out
ideas that thwart emerging ontological preferences within an
22
academic field are sufficiently strong to overpower the
self-correcting possibilities of contrary sociological
analysis. What Peter de Leon (1988) and Hank Jenkins-Smith
(1989) each concluded at a much larger level about the role
of policy analysis in the political process seems to apply
fairly well to the relationship between detached,
‘objective’ social research and the direction of the field
of sociology, and that is that politics dominates analysis.
Evidence on contemporary sociology, such as that of
Horowitz The Decomposition of Sociology (1994) indicates the
preponderance of various radical narratives and agendas have
crowded out a calmer, more dispassionate, and empirically
grounded search for sociological understanding. More
recently, survey research from Klein and Stern (2005) on the
explicitly political aspects of this reveals stunningly
lopsided political orientations. The overall data for six
academic fields showed 80.4 percent reported having mostly
supported Democratic Party candidates compared to 7.87
percent who reported having mostly supported Republicans.
23
Ratio analysis disaggregating by field showed Anthropology
and Sociology to be the most liberal by far with Democrat-
to-Republican ratios of 32-1 and 28-1 respectively,
composing a larger reality which Klein and Stern
dispassionately characterized as one-party rule.
. At this point, the field of sociology does not seem to
have taken these issues head on in a formal, or de jure way,
And yet, collectively, it can be argued that sociology has
de facto placed itself clearly within a broad framework that
could be described as ontologically postmodern and
progressive-left. However, the social underpinnings of the
various ideological, political and lifestyle enclaves to be
found throughout society today are sufficiently diverse and
complex that sociology’s narrow ontological strictures
inhibit the capacity of the field to understand, much less,
respond, to those social conditions. As it stands, we are
left with a dominant pattern characterized by a hyper
skepticism towards - traditional systems of social authority
and social control and other realms of middle class morality
24
more generally, coupled with a postmodern statist
ontological framework favoring an increasingly central role
of the state and its attendant systems of social
engineering. This in turn inhibits the exploration of the
dilemmas and possibilities existing within various social
systems ranging from family, to religion to ethnic cultures
and many varieties of mediating structures which are so
essential to social wellbeing. Central to this has been a
pervasive reluctance or unwillingness to acknowledge the
importance of social systems in shaping social wellbeing,
and correspondingly, the role of their weakening in creating
social vulnerability.
Towards Greater Self-Awareness
Oppression narratives within sociology tend to come in
forms sharply critical of traditional structures and systems
social authority, particularly those relating to family,
religion, education, and middle class social systems more
25
generally. Within the reformist tradition in sociology, some
forms of intellectual challenge can readily be defended. In
particular, the challenge against entrenched systems of
racial and ethnic discrimination, overly narrow, restrictive
gender roles and the various bigotries that were the focus
of civil rights struggles of the Twentieth Century come to
mind. Which is to say, there is a well-accepted tradition
within sociology of asserting the moral components of social
conditions, particularly as it relates to exposing what is
arbitrary or oppressive in a system of social authority;
hence sociology’s historical tendency to champion the
underdog. But clearly discernable in sociology today is a
position relative to authority structures that is often
sufficiently reactionary as to undermine the capacity to
address the necessity of social authority in social systems
and explore the benefits these same systems can and do
provide to people. Without breadth and sensitivity to the
costs and benefits of various social arrangements, a solid
understanding will not be gained, and no adequate basis will
exist to allow social possibilities to be meaningfully
26
explored. Where problematic aspects of social structures
connected to the ideological agenda of progressivism –
whether governmental failure, anomie, or troubles within
postmodern education, or other – cannot be explored, a
disconnect will exist between institutional sociology and
important sources of human suffering and vulnerability.
Ironically, the field of sociology, built in large measure
through the need to examine social systems and study
patterns of shared meanings and purpose, has in its current
ontological emphasis, disassociated itself from so many of
the systems of social connectedness upon which social life
depends, averting its gaze from any negative consequences of
the collapse of social authority systems and creeping moral
ambiguity.
Through these mechanisms, the unchecked politicization
of social analysis continues to overwhelm the capacity of
the field to do precisely what it must absolutely do to
remain true to its primary calling; to interpret, and to
understand society. If sociology cannot create a larger body
27
of systematic social analysis providing larger reference
point for debates and deliberation, it must at least
consciously insert greater ideological diversity and
openness into its deliberations to gain the insights these
infusions of ideas would provide the field. Failing to
address these shortcomings seriously undermines the
intellectual foundations of the field, leaving important
problems and issues unexplored. This, in turn, weakens
sociological credibility in speaking to the moral condition
of society and exploring avenues of social progress.
Liberation Myths
There is a strong, if unwitting, tendency within the field
towards the tacit acceptance of the ‘unencumbered self’,
diagnosed in American culture of the latter 20th Century by
Robert Bellah in Habits of the Heart (1985 ), where the social
self increasing floats outside the web of bonds and
affiliations, its appetites and whims increasingly
unrestrained. When social institutions are often
characterized through the lens of oppression, it is easy to
28
regard the free-floating character as an escapee from a
social prison rather than an agent of social breakdown. But
social reality is less forgiving. In their classic, The
Homeless Mind, (1974) Berger, Berger and Kellner point out
the problems in the liberation myths so pervasive in many
circles today: “It seems clear to us that the unrestrained
enthusiasm for the total liberation of the self from the
“repression” of institutions fails to take account of
certain fundamental requirements of man, notably those of
order – that institutional order of society without which
both collectivities and individuals must descend into
dehumanizing chaos” (1974, p. 95).
The Homeless Mind was one of the major, if largely
ignored, warnings of the problems of many forms of modernist
analysis, sociological and otherwise, where the capacity to
recognize the social constructedness of social life evolves
into an ontological framework in its own right that treats
social forms as relative, while failing to acknowledge the
many presumptions running through its own frameworks. A
29
critical problem within sociological discourse today is a
reluctance to acknowledge that social wellbeing depends
heavily on intact social institutions and their enduring
social patterns and systems of social authority – even when
those very patterns and systems of social authority flow
from moral frameworks many sociologists may personally feel
very distant from, even critical of. The result is a
sociological retreat from the necessity of civil society.
What begins as a rightful attempt to identify oppressive
features or practices within mainstream/mainstreet social
life, can if unchecked by norms of objectivity or balance,
evolve into the pervasive tendency to treat social
institutions and culture in the negative, as patterns of
provincialism to be deconstructed or escaped from. The
complex costs and benefits of particularistic social systems
are often unexplored in this setting. Lacking in some of
this radical sociological discourse, then, is framing
strategy able to recognize or articulate meaningful moral
frameworks upon which social institutions can be built.
30
This imbalance within the field can be seen through the
shortcomings of academic sociology in encountering a series
of developing problems over recent decades. One area has
been the strong tendency to either glamorize, or merely
ignore the negative consequences, for adults, and
especially, children, of major changes in family life
associated with divorce, non-marital childbirth,
cohabitation and the pervasive sexualization of society, as
Norvall Glenn’s (1997) survey of marriage and family
textbooks demonstrates. Traditional structures are
problematized while serious problems within alternative
arrangements –so inconvenient to theoretical and ontological
purity – receive very little attention. While many problems
existed within a variety of traditional families, empirical
evidence also points to the critical role of marriage,
marital fidelity, and a solid, intact, authoritative
structure within the family in promoting various forms of
social wellbeing for children and adults. (McLanahan and
Sandefur (1995) Waite and Gallagher (2000), Popenoe, (1996),
31
Wilson, (2003), Whitehead, (1996) Thomas and Sawbill,
(2005).
Another major area of difficulty has been a
selective view of poverty and welfare dependency which
rightfully acknowledges the role of structural factors such
as low wages, unemployment, and discriminatory barriers in
generating poverty in the modern world, but which
unfortunately minimizes factors relating to lifestyle,
subculture and personal behavior. Textbooks and the focal
point of sociology classes and ongoing research pointed
overwhelmingly to the role of discriminatory barriers, and
increasingly, economic barriers under contemporary
capitalism as central to poverty and welfare dependency (see
Kerbo, 1991) Rossides (1976) Waxman (1983), Feagan (1975),
Wilson, 1980; 1987 and 1996). Other favorites brought in
from outside the field were books by Michael Harrington,
Francis Piven and James Cloward, Michael Katz, and David
Ellwood. Clearly, social science data can and does point to
the major historic role discrimination has played in
32
blocking opportunities for certain racial and ethnic
minorities and shaping the large disparities observed in
income, wealth and occupational data sets. And yes, basic
features of contemporary capitalism underlie sharp
differences in such data across the population more
generally. But increasingly major features of the poverty
during this period – often overlooked within sociological
circles - is the dramatically important role of cultural
patterns, peer group patterns, family breakup, and
increasingly, non-marriage in producing poverty, the
dramatically different patterns observed even between groups
who have faced serious and pervasive discrimination (see
Sowell, and even dramatically different patterns within the
same group that has faced serious discrimination (see
Sowell, 1999; 2005) Wilson, 1996; Banfield, 1974). The
reluctance to apply the skeptical glare of social science to
problems associated with contemporary alternative lifestyles
or postmodern institutions is to overlook some important
sources of the most heart-wrenching suffering and social
disadvantage to be observed throughout society today.
33
By the same token, in the couple of decades leading up
to the large federal welfare reform initiative of 1996, the
idea that governmental programs of assistance might even
unwittingly have dependency-inducing incentives was largely
off the horizon of most sociological consideration, despite
substantial evidence from other researchers such as Edward
Banfield, (1974), Lawrence Mead (1986), Charles Murray
(1985) and others. Moreover, the prospect that welfare
mothers themselves might find the movement into the labor
force rewarding and meaningful – which Cherlin’s research
(2004) indicates - was similarly not often considered. The
political and ideological need to cast these women as
victims seemed to overwhelm the capacity to fully examine
the women’s actual experience of the world.
Statism and the Flight from Unintended Consequences
A closely related phenomenon within the symposium and
throughout the field of sociology more generally is an
overemphasis on the state. To some extent, this
34
preoccupation is partially justified by the increased role
the state plays as societies modernize and become increasing
complex. In their varied and distinct ways, the founders of
sociology pointed to this tendency. And sociology, to its
credit, has recognized the important role the state can play
in shaping a better world through systems of social
security, civil rights and so forth. On the other hand,
social circumstances and capacities within cultures and
social institutions play a critical role in shaping all
manners of social issues, particularly those pertaining to
morality and humanitarian concerns. In essence, the state
cannot raise children or provide the deeper intrinsic
meanings to social life that families, networks, groups and
organizations and all the various mediating structures can.
The state is very circumscribed in its ability to instill
meaning and purpose. And a variety of scholarship points to
the increasingly limited capacity of the state to address
many of the complex problems of today, for many reside in
broader cultural problems as scholars like Hunter and Bellah
point out, and others are connected to the weakening of
35
families and the various mediating structures that help
connect individuals to society, as the research such as that
of Berger and Neuhaus (2000), Wilson (2000), and DiIulio
demonstrates. More generally, the role of the state in
educating children and building good neighborhoods and vital
communities, while more than negligible, is nonetheless,
secondary to cultural forces, ethnic cultures and the
patterns of social institutions and various other social
circumstances well beyond its direct control.
To be fair, it is certainly the case that to some
extent, we use the levers of the state, its laws,
regulations and policies not only instrumentally, to achieve
particular ends, but also symbolically as an expression of
broader purpose or meaning that such ends are supposed to
embody. But the foundational concepts of sociology along
with an empirical analysis of social conditions today
require a stronger emphasis on cultural conditions, ethnic
cultures, religion and various systems of social meaning as
critical forces shaping human behavior and social conditions
36
more generally. Much of what can or ought to be done to
address social problems or build a better world lies beyond
the direct influence of the state. Here again, is the strong
tendency within sociology towards a posture of hyper
skepticism towards traditional social structures and
institutions with a lack of interest in the problems of
emergent alternative social forms.
Along with an exaggerated role assigned to the state in
addressing social problems, is a lack of attention by many
sociological reformers to the real problems created by the
state itself and its various forms of social action. A
careful policy analytic look at evaluations across many
areas of public policy action provides more than ample
reasoning to adopt a far more skeptical tone on the role of
the state than is generally the case in sociology today. But
doing so would bear out quite well Max Weber’s contention
that unintended consequences are the norm, rather than the
exception in human social action. By the same token, it
would do the field tremendous good at this point to explore
37
more fully why conscientious researchers from many
backgrounds find ample evidence, whether one agrees with
their conclusions or not, that the progressive expansion of
the size and scope of governmental activities not only fails
to solve many problems, but in fact create many more.
Amitai Etzioni is to be commended for his efforts to
bring moral discourse back into society and into the
sociological lens itself in The Spirit of Community and other
works. In the symposium, he suggests a new common ground
called the “fairness agenda”. Perhaps it isn’t a bad start,
but it fails to provide that minimal framework that would
help it gain larger support. Fair in what way? Fair to whom?
What costs are acceptable to society in producing a given
unit in fair outcomes? Living in the Age of Entitlement, and
possessing by far one of the costliest health care systems
in the world, what price should be paid to insure the 44
million? Are we willing to cut health expenditures
elsewhere? As the research of Evans, Barer, Marmor and
associates has clearly indicated for some time now, so much
38
of what shapes the health of people lies far outside the
traditional institutional medical realm, and much of the
most needed reform that would improve health today lies in
the general realm of social patterns, lifestyles and modes
of consumption (Evans, Barer and Marmor, 1994). Research in
health economics indicate that continued increases in health
care expenditures eventually move into the flat-of-the curve
where further increases yield ever-diminishing health
returns, and eventually may actively undermine health by
siphoning off funds that would produce health returns
outside of the traditional medical system.
The Warnings of the Reformers
The problems within many aspects of the progressive agenda
have been apparent to a variety of the reformers themselves,
who in moments of reflection have given voice to the effects
of unrestrained social liberalism or the paralyzing effects
reform movements that harden into doctrinaire orthodoxies
effectively sealed off from internal challenge. Former New
39
York governor Mario Cuomo has been one of the perceptive
voices from within the progressive movement pointing to the
emergence of serious contradictions. In his 1995 reflection
on public life Reason to Believe, Cuomo points first to
strategic errors “In those instances where interests
collide, the flashpoints where those who have little feel
threatened by those who have less, we Democrats have not
worked hard enough at finding ways to harmonize the
competing interests. All too often we have let the political
process respond to the loudest scream” (1995, p19). But as
he continues, he points to more basic problems that strike
towards the perceptual problems that grew within progressive
circles: While correctly recognizing the social and economic
conditions that provide fertile ground for the weeds of
crime and other social pathologies, we have too often given
the impression that we sought to “understand” rather than
condemn antisocial and criminal behavior” (1995, p.19).
Along with this, Cuomo maintains, has been a tendency to
defend social programs based on their good intentions rather
than their track record, in essence, aggressively promoting
40
governmental activism while failing to stand up against
governmental failure and inefficiency. In the heat of
battle, whose side the program was supposed to be supporting
became more important than its actual effects on those
people, or its societal costs. And naturally, this played
into the hands of critics who charged that government cannot
address problems and should not try.
Underneath these political problems, Cuomo rightfully
identifies some cultural problems that the progressive
movement became too closely identified with: “A new, eager,
freer, explorative culture arose that inspired some positive
things like greater environmental awareness, but also
spawned many excesses rooted in disrespect for authority and
for hard work. “Do your own thing” became the password…..An
advertising-driven consumer culture exalted immediate
gratification above the traditional virtues of discipline
and self-restraint.” (1995, p. 24).
41
The danger of closed systems was a focal point of
former Senator Gary Hart, in his reflections on public life
and the project of reform, The Good Fight (1993). In essence,
effective reform demands the capacity to break apart closed
systems that aren’t working well, while simultaneously
making sure one’s own framework doesn’t harden into a closed
system in its own right, thus ceasing to be an agent of
meaningful reform: “The job of the reformer is reverse that
of a plumber; it is to introduce treachery into closed
systems. Closed systems may be required for the elimination
of waste, but they are an anathema to the ongoing, ever-
changing, experimental search for truth and justice” (1993,
p.23). Hart points to the relevance of earlier periods of
reform such as the New Deal for our times: “the principle
lesson of the period was this: What is reform in one era may
become the antithesis of reform in another. The fallacy is
in the worship of methods. All human institutions, whether
political, economic, or religious, convert innovation to
orthodoxy and demand obedience. But the very essence of
innovation or reform is unorthodoxy” (1993, p.97).
42
In a subsequent book, The Patriot, Hart points to a solid
understanding of a society as a prerequisite to successful
reform: “Realization of national renewal is critically
linked to an accurate interpretation of the national
character – whether we are a mere collection of self-
interested individuals (or, at best, tribes) or a true
nation, a community with collective interests in prosperity,
security, and the quality of our lives” (1996, p. 33). The
radicalization of the field of sociology has undermined its
capacity to tap into the center of national character and
illuminate future possibilities.
In Contemporary Sociology’s symposium on morality (2006)
Laura Grindstaff correctly points to the importance of
framing in public life. This critical aspect of public life
has been well articulated by De Leon (1988), Jenkins-Smith
(1989), Smith, (1991), and especially, Majone, (1989) and
Fischer and Forrester, (1993). While it certainly is
legitimate for Grindstaff to explore strategies by which the
43
Democratic Party could better express its ideas and plans to
the American people, it would have benefited the symposium
if framing advice for other political groups – left and
right – had also been explored; and better, if greater
exploration had been taken into why conservatives like Rick
Santorum defend many traditional social structures.
Future Possibilities
The proper role of ideology and advocacy within sociology
will continue to divide many people thoughout the
discipline. Building a stronger anchoring in the verstehen
interepretive tradition and engaging in non-ideologically
binding analysis of social systems is one plausible approach
recommended in distinct and unique ways by Peter Berger and
Irving Horowitz. Sociology focuses on understanding modes of
consciousness and patterns of behavior. And yet the
acceptance of everything from reformist to radical critiques
will obviously be articulated very effectively as a means of
linking knowledge to purposeful social action which is
intended to help people. To the extent this second
44
understanding continues to be heavily present, it will be
essential for the field to more consciously preserve an
ideologically open environment within the discipline to
prevent orthodoxy – progressive-left, or any other - from
silencing dissenting ideologies or ignoring research that
challenges the dominant narratives. Failure along these
lines is one of the surest ways to eclipse the sociological
imagination.
If it truly is the strong consensus within sociology
that ideology necessarily permeates analysis, then several
developments ought to be encouraged. First, steps must be
taken to allow divergent ideologies a greater presence at
the table, lest sociology continue to operate as a quasi
political party. Achieving standards of democratic practice
within the profession is one laudable aspect of this. But
another benefit, would be the great potential for divergent
ideologies to bring into the field various empirical
knowledge that otherwise would not enter. Secondly, at a
more general level, sociologists should be encouraged to
45
more openly state the ontological assumptions underpinning
their work. And of course, greater ideological diversity
within the field would have the strong tendency to
facilitate both of these developments.
There is a strong case that must be made that much
social innovation, change, or mere preservation - that
maintains or uplifts the moral condition of humanity - can
come from, and very often, must come from, the small enclaves
through which people experience their world. Towards this
reality, the field of sociology needs to pay more attention
to issues related to civil society, that web of
affiliations, traditions and local institutions standing
between the solitary individual and society. And
sociologists might also look much more carefully at the
implications and possibilities of ideas like Berman’s
monastic option, both in terms of its empirical value in
explaining some contemporary developments, and as a
legitimate social response to current conditions. An
invasive, overarching state and the nihilism and banality of
46
postmodern social structures both diminish the human
condition and threaten to eclipse the very processes
necessary for people to improve, defend, or reclaim their
social world.
Another much needed development would be for the field
to look more openly and forthrightly into empirical
research, some of which has come out of the policy sciences
for many years, examining the consequences, intended or not,
of the various programs and policies associated with the
progressive agenda. A central problem progressive
sociologists must confront is the frequent ineffectiveness
of many public policy measures designed to substantially
improve various human outcomes and human conditions. This
would also be an excellent time to look more closely at Max
Weber’s idea that unintended consequences are the norm,
rather than the exception, in human social action, and to
adopt a more reflective posture.
47
REFERENCES
Banfield, Edward C.The Unheavenly City Revisited, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1974.
Bellah, Robert N., and Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler and Steven M. Tipton.Habits of the Heart, University of California Press,1985.
Berger, Peter L., and Hansfried Kellner.Sociology Reinterpreted: ‘An Essay on Method and Vocation’.
Berger , Peter L., and Brigitte Berger and Hansfried Kellner.The Homeless Mind: ‘Modernization and Consciousness,’ Vintage Books, 1974.
Berger, Peter, and Richard John Neuhaus.“To Empower People: From State to Civil Society”, in The Essential Civil Society Reader, Don Eberly, Editor, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000.
48
Berman, Morris.The Twilight of American Culture, W. W. Norton & Company, 2000.
Brooks, David.On Paradise Drive, Simon & Schuster, 2004.
Cherlin, Andrew, 2004, “The Consequences of Welfare Reform for Child Well-being: What Have We Learned So Far and What are the Policy Implications?”, August, Paper Presented at the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting.
Contemporary Sociology, “A Symposium on Morality Battles: Looking Back to Look Forward,” July, 2006, Vol. 35, No. 4.
Cuomo, Mario.Reason To Believe, Simon & Schuster, 1995.
Dafoe-Whitehead, Barbara.The Divorce Culture, Vintage Books, New York, 1996.
---------------“Life Without Children”, in The State of Our Unions 2006, The National Marriage Project, Rutgers University, 2006.
DeLeon, Peter.Advice and Consent: ‘The Development of the Policy Sciences,’ Russell Sage Foundation, 1988.
DiIulio, John J., Jr.“The Urban Church: Faith, Outreach and the Inner-City Poor”,in The Essential Civil Society Reader, Don E. Eberly, Editor, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000.
Eberly, Don E., 1994, “Beyond Governmentalism: The Diminishing Possibilities of Public Policy”, in Building a Community of Citizens: Civil Society in the Twenty-First Century, Edited by Don E. Eberly, University Press of America.
49
Edin, Kathryn, and Maria Kefalas, 2005, Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage, University of California Press.
Eggebeen, David J., and Daniel T. Lichter.“Race, Family Structure, and Changing Poverty Among AmericanChildren,” American Sociological Review, 56(6):801-817.
Etzioni, Amitai.“Values and the Future of American Politics, in “A Symposiium on Morality Battles: Looking back to Look Forwward”, Contemporary Sociology, July, 2006, Vol. 35, No. 4.
Evans, Robert G., and Morris L. Barer, and Theodore R. Marmor, Editors.Why Are Some People Healthy And Others Not? The Determinants Of The Health Of Populations, Aldine De Gruyter, 1994.
Feagin, Joe R. Subordinating The Poor, Prentice-Hall, 1975. Fischer, Frank, and John Forrester, Editors.The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis And Planning, Duke University Press, 1993.
Frank, Thomas.What’s the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won The Heart of America, Metropolitan, 2004.
Glenn, Norval.“A Critique of Twenty Marriage and the Family Textbooks,” Family Relations Vol. 46 No. 3, (July, 1997), pp. 197-208.
Grindstaff, Laura.“The Facts Unframed Will Not Set you Free”, in “A Symposium on Morality’s Battles: Looking Back to Look Forward”, Contemporary Sociology, July, 2006, Vol. 35, No. 4.
Harrington, Michael.
50
The Other America, Penguin Books, 1962, 1988.
------------------------The New American Poverty, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NY, 1984.
Hart, Gary.The Good Fight, ‘The Education of an American Reformer,’ Random House, 1993.
--------------The Patriot, ‘An Exhortation to Liberate America From The Barbarians,’ The Free Press, 1996.
Horowitz, Irving Louis.The Decomposition of Sociology, Oxford University Press, 1994.
Hunter, James Davison.The Death Of Character, Basic Books, 2000.
Hymowitz, Kay S.“How Welfare Reform Worked”, City Journal, Spring, 2006.
Jenkins-Smith, Hank C.Democratic Politics and Policy Analysis, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1990.
Katz, Michael B.The Undeserving Poor, Pantheon Books, NY, 1989.
Kerbo, Harold R. Social Stratification and Inequality, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1991.
Kimball, Roger.The Long March, “How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America”, 2000, Encounter Books, San Francisco. Klein, Daniel B., and Charlotta Stern.
51
“How Politically Diverse Are The Social Sciences and Humanities? Survey Evidence From Six Fields”, in Academic Questions, pp. 40-52, Vol. 18, Number 1, Winter, 2005.
Magnate, Myron.“The war on Poverty at 40: We’ve Learned What Uplifts and What Doesn’t”, City Journal, Summer, 2004.
McClanahan, Sara, and Gary Sandefur.Growing Up With a Single Parent, Harvard University Press, 1994.
Mead, Lawrence.Beyond Entitlement, The Free Press, New York, 1986.
Majone, Giandomenico.Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process, Yale University Press, 1989.
Murray, Charles.Losing Ground, Basic Books, Inc. 1984.
Nuechterlein, James.“What’s Right with Kansas”, First Things, 151, March, 2005.
Neuhaus, Richard John.The Naked Public Square, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,1984.
Piven, Frances Fox, and Richard A. Cloward.Poor People’s Movements, Vintage Books, NY, 1979.
Popenoe, David. Life Without Father, The Free Press, 1996.
Pressman, Jeffrey L., and Aaron Wildavsky.Implementation, University of California Press, 1973
Rector, Robert, and Patrick F. Feagan.
52
“The Continuing Good News about Welfare Reform”, The heritage Foundation, February 6, 2003.
Rossides, Daniel W. The American Class System: An Introduction to Social Stratification, University Press of America, 1976.
Schlesinger, Arthur, M. Jr.The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society, 2nd Edition, W. W. Norton and Company, 1998.
Sigle-Rushton, Wendy, and Sara McLanahan.“For Richer or Poorer? Marriage as an Anti-Poverty Strategy in the United States,” Population-E, 2002.
Smith, James Allen.The Idea Brokers; ‘Think Tanks and the Rise of the New Policy Elite,’ The Free Press, 1991.
Sowell, Thomas.The Economics of Politics and Race, Quill, New York, 1983.
-----------------The Quest for Cosmic Justice, Touchstone Books, 1999.
--------------------Black Rednecks and White Liberals, Encounter Books, 2005.
Thomas, Adam, and Isabel Sawbill.“For Love and Money? The Impact of Family Structure on Family Income,” The Future of Children, Vol. 15, No. 2, Marriage and Child Wellbeing, Autumn, 2005, pp. 57-74.
“For Richer or Poorer: Marriage as an Antipoverty Strategy,”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21 (2007): 4.
Varacalli, Joseph A.Bright Promise, Failed Community, Lexington Books, 2000.
53
Waxman, Chaim, I.The Stigma of Poverty, Second Edition, Pergamon Press, 1983.
Waite, Linda J., and Maggie Gallagher.The Case for Marriage, Doubleday, 2000.
Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe.The Divorce Culture, Vintage Books, NY 1996.
Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe and David Popenoe.“The State of our Unions 2006”, The National Marriage Project, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 2006.
Wilson, James Q.The Marriage Problem, ‘How Our Culture Has Weakened Families,’ HarperCollins, 2002.
--------------------Interview With Peggy Noonan, in “On Values: Talking With Peggy Noonan”, Films for the Arts and the Humanities, 1996.
Wilson, William Julius.The Declining Significance of Race, 2nd Edition, University of Chicago Press, 1980.
--------------------------The Truly Disadvantaged, University of Chicago Press, 1987.
--------------------------When Work Disappears, Alfred A. Knopf, NY, 1996.
54