The Cryptonormative Swamp

a Response to Abbott’s ‘Varieties of Normative Inquiry’

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

How should sociology engage with normative questions? This itself is a normative question, one basic to the character and aims of the discipline, and so perennial.1 It is welcome to see it raised anew by Abbott (2018) in the pages of this journal. Abbott describes the different kinds of normative orientations that populate sociology, and he also criticises them. He suggests that the discipline is laden with unreflective and implicit normative commitments and a creeping (and mostly facile) politicization. He proposes that this situation could be rectified were normative inquiry afforded a central place within sociology. Such inquiry might take two forms: the Bcanonical^ and the Blegalistic^. My purpose here is not to assess Abbott’s position, since I largely support it. Rather I consider the questions of means and feasibility. Abbott’s argument, as he puts it, has strong implications for the discipline and weak implications for individual sociologists. Draining sociology of its normative slurry would require wholesale institutional change. As such, there is little that individual sociologists can do in the short term, since there are no structures to motivate desirable forms of normative inquiry. Though I accept most of Abbott’s premises, I draw a different conclusion. Indeed, Abbott’s premises can just as well imply weak implications for the discipline and strong implications for individual sociologists. What is more, this is the more normatively and practically desirable conclusion to draw. Sociologists can and should contribute to normative inquiry, immediately, since there exists a vast opportunity to do so in a distinctly sociological fashion, as exemplified in the normative sociology of James Coleman.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)448-455
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Sociologist
Volume49
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2018

Fingerprint

sociology
sociologist
normative orientation
politicization
institutional change
commitment

Cite this

@article{12dffbdc1b664336a1048675b6e2ed16,
title = "The Cryptonormative Swamp: a Response to Abbott’s ‘Varieties of Normative Inquiry’",
abstract = "How should sociology engage with normative questions? This itself is a normative question, one basic to the character and aims of the discipline, and so perennial.1 It is welcome to see it raised anew by Abbott (2018) in the pages of this journal. Abbott describes the different kinds of normative orientations that populate sociology, and he also criticises them. He suggests that the discipline is laden with unreflective and implicit normative commitments and a creeping (and mostly facile) politicization. He proposes that this situation could be rectified were normative inquiry afforded a central place within sociology. Such inquiry might take two forms: the Bcanonical^ and the Blegalistic^. My purpose here is not to assess Abbott’s position, since I largely support it. Rather I consider the questions of means and feasibility. Abbott’s argument, as he puts it, has strong implications for the discipline and weak implications for individual sociologists. Draining sociology of its normative slurry would require wholesale institutional change. As such, there is little that individual sociologists can do in the short term, since there are no structures to motivate desirable forms of normative inquiry. Though I accept most of Abbott’s premises, I draw a different conclusion. Indeed, Abbott’s premises can just as well imply weak implications for the discipline and strong implications for individual sociologists. What is more, this is the more normatively and practically desirable conclusion to draw. Sociologists can and should contribute to normative inquiry, immediately, since there exists a vast opportunity to do so in a distinctly sociological fashion, as exemplified in the normative sociology of James Coleman.",
keywords = "Andrew Abbott, Climate change, Cryptonormativity, Deliberative democracy, James Coleman, Normative sociology, Public sphere",
author = "Jensen Sass",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s12108-018-9383-3",
language = "English",
volume = "49",
pages = "448--455",
journal = "The American Sociologist",
issn = "0003-1232",
publisher = "Transaction Publishers",
number = "3",

}

The Cryptonormative Swamp : a Response to Abbott’s ‘Varieties of Normative Inquiry’. / Sass, Jensen.

In: American Sociologist, Vol. 49, No. 3, 01.09.2018, p. 448-455.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Cryptonormative Swamp

T2 - a Response to Abbott’s ‘Varieties of Normative Inquiry’

AU - Sass, Jensen

PY - 2018/9/1

Y1 - 2018/9/1

N2 - How should sociology engage with normative questions? This itself is a normative question, one basic to the character and aims of the discipline, and so perennial.1 It is welcome to see it raised anew by Abbott (2018) in the pages of this journal. Abbott describes the different kinds of normative orientations that populate sociology, and he also criticises them. He suggests that the discipline is laden with unreflective and implicit normative commitments and a creeping (and mostly facile) politicization. He proposes that this situation could be rectified were normative inquiry afforded a central place within sociology. Such inquiry might take two forms: the Bcanonical^ and the Blegalistic^. My purpose here is not to assess Abbott’s position, since I largely support it. Rather I consider the questions of means and feasibility. Abbott’s argument, as he puts it, has strong implications for the discipline and weak implications for individual sociologists. Draining sociology of its normative slurry would require wholesale institutional change. As such, there is little that individual sociologists can do in the short term, since there are no structures to motivate desirable forms of normative inquiry. Though I accept most of Abbott’s premises, I draw a different conclusion. Indeed, Abbott’s premises can just as well imply weak implications for the discipline and strong implications for individual sociologists. What is more, this is the more normatively and practically desirable conclusion to draw. Sociologists can and should contribute to normative inquiry, immediately, since there exists a vast opportunity to do so in a distinctly sociological fashion, as exemplified in the normative sociology of James Coleman.

AB - How should sociology engage with normative questions? This itself is a normative question, one basic to the character and aims of the discipline, and so perennial.1 It is welcome to see it raised anew by Abbott (2018) in the pages of this journal. Abbott describes the different kinds of normative orientations that populate sociology, and he also criticises them. He suggests that the discipline is laden with unreflective and implicit normative commitments and a creeping (and mostly facile) politicization. He proposes that this situation could be rectified were normative inquiry afforded a central place within sociology. Such inquiry might take two forms: the Bcanonical^ and the Blegalistic^. My purpose here is not to assess Abbott’s position, since I largely support it. Rather I consider the questions of means and feasibility. Abbott’s argument, as he puts it, has strong implications for the discipline and weak implications for individual sociologists. Draining sociology of its normative slurry would require wholesale institutional change. As such, there is little that individual sociologists can do in the short term, since there are no structures to motivate desirable forms of normative inquiry. Though I accept most of Abbott’s premises, I draw a different conclusion. Indeed, Abbott’s premises can just as well imply weak implications for the discipline and strong implications for individual sociologists. What is more, this is the more normatively and practically desirable conclusion to draw. Sociologists can and should contribute to normative inquiry, immediately, since there exists a vast opportunity to do so in a distinctly sociological fashion, as exemplified in the normative sociology of James Coleman.

KW - Andrew Abbott

KW - Climate change

KW - Cryptonormativity

KW - Deliberative democracy

KW - James Coleman

KW - Normative sociology

KW - Public sphere

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049115302&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s12108-018-9383-3

DO - 10.1007/s12108-018-9383-3

M3 - Review article

VL - 49

SP - 448

EP - 455

JO - The American Sociologist

JF - The American Sociologist

SN - 0003-1232

IS - 3

ER -