Social Problems: Pathways for Transcending Exclusive Sociology

Author(s): Mark Wardell and Anna M. Zajicek

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Social Problems, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Aug., 1995), pp. 301-317
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3096850 .
Accessed: 06/11/2012 11:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press and Society for the Study of Social Problems are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Problems.

http://www.jstor.org
 Social Problems: Pathways for
TranscendingExclusive Sociology*
StateUniversity
MARK WARDELL, Pennsylvania
ANNA M. ZAJICEK, University
ofArkansas

In thispaperwejuxtapose anddiversity
assimilationist arguments foundinrecentmetatheoretical
discus-
sionsabouta crisisin NorthAmerican sociology.Eachargument a verydifferent
identifies yetthe
crisis,
remedies appearsimilar
proposed incertaininstances.
Wesuggest thattheassimilationist
responsetothecrisis
reproducesit,becausethisresponserequires in sociological
exclusivity inquiry. reasoning
Diversity acknowl-
edgesdifferent
formsofinquiry,largelyas representing
situatedactors
indifferentrelations
ofdomination. In
doingso,diversity
reasoningpointstowards howtotranscend because
exclusivity itimplicitly
focusesonissues
relatedtothequestion forwhom?"
"sociology (Lee1976).In thelastpartofthispaper,weofferonepossible
waytoelaborate furtherthepotential
forthistranscendence:
making socialproblemstheexplicit
focusofsocio-
logicalknowledgeandincorporating nonacademic communitiesintosociological
projects.

C.W.Mills's(1959) and Parsons's(1959) appraisalsofNorthAmericansociologymarked

the beginningof discussionsaboutproblemswithincontemporary sociologicalinquiry.A
general consensus now seems to have been reached that sociologyhas been experiencing
times,ifnota crisisofsomesort(cf.Hallidayand Janowitz1992;Vaughan,Sjoberg,
difficult
and Reynolds1993;specialissueofSociological Forum, June1994). Recentdiscussions range
fromspecifying the natureof a crisisand reasonsforits existence,to what remedieswill
eradicateit. Analysestendto followone of two broadarguments, each identifyinga very
differentcrisis.
One argument viewsthecrisisas an abnormalstateofaffairs and relatesitto thearticu-
lationof a dissensusand liberalization emerging withinsociologyat the end of the 1960s
(Ritzer1981; R. Collins1989; Merton1986;Turner1989). Proponents ofthisview specifi-
callycitethe increasing of
differentiation and as
paradigms languages contributing to an in-
tellectualand organizational fragmentation of the discipline. In turn this fragmentation
threatens thescientificstatusof sociology.The remedyforthe crisisconcentrates on stan-
dardizingtheprocessesof producingand legitimating sociologicalknowledge,and thereby
assimilatingthediverseframeworks.
According to thesecondargument, thecrisisofsociologystemslargelyfromthe tradi-
tionalconcernto makesociological inquirya legitimate sciencebecausetheimplementation
ofthatconcernrequiresstandardization and,hence,theexclusionofanalyticaldiversity as a
relevantbasisforunderstanding ofeveryday life(Keller1985;Harding1986a,b, 1991;Agger
1989;Lassman1989).' Bycontrast, a remedyforthiscrisisinvolveschanging and expanding
the discursiverules,therebyfostering differentviewpointsand ways of doing sociology
(Aptheker1989; hooks1989, 1990; Wardand Grant1991).

* We wouldliketo thankToniCalasanti,CarlCouch,GaryFine,GeorgeHillery, MiriamJohnson, TimLuke,

SteveTurner, and twoanonymous at SocialProblems
reviewers comments
fortheirthoughtful on an earlierdraft.An
earlierversionof thispaperwas presentedat the 88thAnnualMeetingsof the AmericanSociologicalAssociation,
August13-17, 1993,MiamiBeach,Florida.Correspondence: Wardell,Departmentof LaborStudiesand Industrial
Relations,The Pennsylvania StateUniversity,
University Park,PA 16802-1602;Zajicek,Department of Sociology,
UniversityofArkansas, AR 72071.
Fayettville,
1. We implicitly
includemethodological
diversityas well,wheremethodrefersto rulesor logicofanalysis.

Vol.42,No.3, August1995
SOCIALPROBLEMS, 301
302 WARDELL/ZAJICEK

Forpresentpurposes,we summarize aspectsoftheassimilationist

specific and diversity
arguments and suggestthatthelatter,byencouraging spacesfordifferent
institutional theo-
rizing,movesin the rightdirection.2 Similarto assimilationist
arguments, however,some
proponents fordiversityreplaceone setof abstractepistemologicalruleswithanother.We
argue thatan epistemological contributes
priority to exclusive
practices,and in turnto a crisis
ofrelevance, becausesuchan emphasisprecludessubstantive answersto thequestion"soci-
ologyforwhom?"(Lee 1976;Gans 1989). Indeed,someobservers maintainthatsociological
knowledge, and sociological
theoryin particular,
at besthavelittlerelevanceoutsideofsoci-
ology(cf.Gitlin1990; Seidman1991b). To transcend epistemologicalpracticesthatexclude
theoretical
diversity,we suggest1) socialproblemsshouldbe theexplicitfocusofsociological
inquiry,and 2) nonacademiccommunities shouldbe incorporated intotheprocessofdoing
sociology.We beginby tracingtheassimilationist and diversity
accountsof,and respective
solutionsfor,theinstitutionaland intellectual
crisestheyenvision.

Two Crises WithinSociology

Differences
betweenassimilationistand diversity
arguments formaroundtwo interre-
lated dimensions:1) the natureof sociologicalknowledge,and 2) the relevanceof that
knowledgefornonsociologists.

The Assimilationist
Diagnosis
Supporters of an assimilationist the currentcrisisas partlya lack of
diagnosisidentify
consensusregardingtheprocedures fortheconstruction
andvalidation ofsociologicalknowl-
edge. As one observernotes:
Consequently,we havetoputup withanappallingamountofbunk(postmodernism,ethnic"stud-
ies,""feminist
methodology,""humanistic "critical
sociology," sociology,"
"ethnomethodology,"
"grounded andthelike)simply
theory," becausewecannotdrawa firm
linebetween whatislegiti-
mateacademic andwhatisnot(Davis1994:188,
sociology emphasisadded).
Assimilationists trace the emergenceof the crisisto its institutional and intellectual
dynamics.3
Turner(1989), forexample,assertsthatthelackofa centralized controloverthe"disci-
pline's"growth stimulated an institutional differentiation-expansionofalternative
journals,
distinctsubfields,and regionalassociations.The new avenuesofintellectual reflect
diversity
a liberalizationof thedisciplinethathas encouragedmanyvarietiesof anti-science and led
thesociological projectas a whole"on thepathto destruction" (1989:421). BehindTurner's
contentions liesa conviction to create".. . a situation
wherethereis a highdegreeofmobili-
zationand controlover resources,particularly material,and organizational
symbolic, re-
sources"in orderto integrate the discipline(1989:420). Specifically,
Turnerrefersto the

2. Thissummarizing processnecessarilymeansindividual willbe placedon one or theothersideof

sociologists
thebasicargument and,in doingso, thediversity withineachsidewillnotbe reflected accurately.Ritzer(1988), for
example,defends a versionofmetatheory thatwouldcullfrom theories
existing andtheory groupsa cognitivemapping
ofvariousaspectsofthesociological enterprisewiththeoutcomebeinga reflexive sociology.In thisway,Ritzerpro-
posesan assimilating process,thoughhissolutiondiffers frommoreblatantcallsforexclusion, suchas Turner(1989)
andDavis(1994). Otherssee thediversity as inhibiting
thedevelopment ofa coretosociological
knowledge butdo not
see anyeasysolutions (Cole 1994). Likewise,thosesupportiveofthediversity
argument varyfromthosewhorecognize
it as a strengthofthesociological projectbutare uncertainhow to be moredefinitive(Molotch1994),to thosewho
havedevelopedelaborate analysisofthepolitical
processesrestricting withinthediscipline
diversity ofsociology(Agger
1989).
3. Variousinstitutional
reasonshavebeenadvancedforthelackofconsensus, includingthelackofa dominant
researchtechnology (R. Collins1994) and theliberalorientation
ofsociologyin general(Turnerand Turner1990).
 Exclusive
Transcending Sociology 303

need forcommondefinitions, commonstandards forjudgingscientific adequacy,and con-

".
trolling .. monies,clients,facilities, equipment and labor needed to conductintellectual
activity"(1989:420). While Turner appearsexceptionally candid about the conservative ori-
entationunderlying his intentions to introducea more centralizedregime,similarviews
aboutthisnotionofa crisiscan be foundunderslightly differentguises.
In largemeasure,Parsons(1959) anticipated muchoftheassimilationist reasoningwhen
he suggesteda remedyto theproblemshe saw confronting thedisciplinein thelate 1950s.
Parsonsexplicitly calledforpreserving an institutionaland professional distancebetweenso-
ciology, whose audience is other professions, and other professions, whose audiencesare
morepublic.In thisway,he reasoned,thescientific integrity ofsociology couldbe preserved.
SinceParsons,Merton(1967), Gibbs(1972), Blalock(1979), Ritzer(1981, 1990),Alex-
ander(1982), and R. Collins(1986) havelamentedintellectual diversity,and simultaneously
disintegration,withintheoretical discourse.Thoughassimilationists havenotexplicitly advo-
catedtheeradication ofdiversity, theyhavearguedfora synthesis or an integrationofsocio-
logicalinquiry.Assimilation has been defendedon the assumptionthatthe absence of
uniform standards fordevelopingsociological knowledgeencourageda "debilitating faction-
alism"thatpreventsprogressing towardscoherentsetsof abstractconceptsand generaliza-
tions(R. Collins1989:137). Predictions aboundofa declinein thediscipline's status,ifthis
factionalism continues,wherestatusrefers to theacceptanceofsociologybyothersocialsci-
ences,granting agencies,and thelike (cf.Halliday1992).
To overcomefactionalism, assimilationist reasoningstressesadherenceto specificrules
forconducting research,presenting findings, discussing andjudgingothers'works.Concomi-
tantly,debates about the stateof the discipline should centerexclusivelyon what sortof
researchfitsdisciplinarystandards ofvalidity and how to linkthatresearchtogeneralizations
thatwill enablepredictions of socialbehaviorin a varietyof specificsettings(cf.Vaughan
1993 fora moredetaileddiscussionof thispoint).
In general,recentassimilationist discussions have ignoredtheissueofdisciplinary divi-
sions,whileconcentrating on thecrisiswithinthediscipline.Increasing repre-
specialization
sentedby smallassociations(smallerthantheAmericanSociologicalAssociation)and sub-
disciplines,includingappliedsociology, are citedas problematic, whiledisciplinary bounda-
riesareassumedtobe identifiable and desirable.Wheretheclassicaltheorists expressedcon-
cernaboutthecontentas wellas theprocessoftheorizing, assimilationistarguments oftoday
reifyboundariesbetweendisciplines, accepting closuretothatpartoftheprojectdealingwith
the "legitimate" purviewof sociological knowledge.As Agger(1989:67) says:
Astheexpositor ofthepowerofthesocial,Durkheim firstcharged sociologywiththesuppression
ofthehistoricallyutopian,relatingittoinferior knowledge likeartandphilosophy. Thus,sociol-
ogy'ssymptomatic silencesconcern the the
nonsociological, other onsocial
perspectives
disciplinary
things bracketedforthesakeofautonomous development ofsociology.
The Comte-Durkheimianagenda requires that sociology ". . . must be sufficientunto
itself.The othersocialsciencespresumeitsexistence,butitpresumesno otherscienceante-
datesit"(Durkheim[1903] 1982:187). Itssubjectmatterincludesmarkets, patterns
through-
out history,and "psychologysui generis"(Durkheim[1908]1982:247), yet it differs
fundamentally fromeconomics, andpsychology
history, and foremost
becauseitis first about
the social. In thisway,sociology'sdiscursivearenais treatedas finiteand nonexpandable.
Fromthisperspective, thecrisistodayconcernshow to legitimately fillthediscursive
arena,
and assimilationistsassertthe desirability controlto assurethisspace is re-
of centralized
servedforknowledgeofa specific form(Calhounand Land 1988). Ironically perhaps,most
supporters logicwouldacknowledgediversity
of an assimilationist as the quintessenceof a
democratic butas something
society, to be "overcomein thetheoretical realm"(Alexander,
quotedin Ritzer1992:600).
304 WARDELL/ZAJICEK
WereC.W.Millsalivetoday,he wouldno doubtbe as critical ofsyntheticand integrative
effortsto establisha metatheoretical coreas he was of formaltheoretical systemsand ab-
stractedempiricism. According to Mills,theproblems ofNorthAmerican sociologycouldnot
be alleviatedbytrying to establisha consensualwayto rendersociological knowledgelegiti-
mateto otherscientists and governmental agencies.Rather,Millsemphatically arguedthat
continuation ofsuchpractices wouldexacerbatetheproblemssincetheypreventedinquiry
aboutpublicissuesand personaltroubles, theirsimilarities changesand con-
and differences,
tinuities,as seen fromvariousstandpoints.The net resultof thisarrangement, Millsand
othercritics have charged,has been theemergence ofa situationwhereinsociologybecame
not onlya "scienceof leftovers" butalso a bankrupt science(Mills1959; Block1990).
In defenseofthepractical relevancefortheassimilationist Turner(1989) argues
project,
thehistory ofsociological inquiryhas contained a concernfor"ameliorating socialproblems."
Thisconcernbecamelesssalientwiththeerosionofreform movements beforeWorldWarII.
Whiletheimpetusremainsforsociological inquiryto havea practical Turnerreasons
utility,
(1989:431),addressing socialproblemsin an adequatemannerwillbe realizedonlyifsocio-
logicalinquiryis firstintegrated arounda core language,a commitment to science,and a
rejectionof ideologicalinterferences in thescientificprocess.Turner'sviewremainsthatof
theComte-Durkheimian projectand,forproponents ofthediversity diagnosisofthecrisisin
NorthAmericansociology, itremainsabstracted fromthelivedexperiences ofsituatedactors
in relationsofdomination.According to Gitlin(1990:219-20),a positionsuchas reflected in
Turner'sthoughts regarding thepractical use ofsociologicalknowledgeavoidsseriousques-
tionsaboutaccommodations madewith"an inhospitable society"and,thereby, does notac-
the
knowledge politics of value neutrality.

TheDiversity
Diagnosis
The diversitydiagnosisidentifiesthecurrent crisisas a lackofspacefordiversetheoreti-
cal discourse,in particulardiscoursesrepresentative ofsituatedaudiences.Thislackofspace
resultsfroma dominantunidimensional discourseand its technological orientation(Mills
1959;Gouldner1970;Agger1989;Block1990). Wheretheassimilationist diagnosislinksthe
crisisto the explosionof diversity at the marginsof coresociology,the diversity diagnosis
linksittoa dominating centerthatrequiresanynew theoretical approachor studyarea,such
as feminist orAfrican American sociology,tobe synthesized or integratedproperlyas a subset
of sociology.Viewedfromthemargin,efforts to standardize and integratetheoretical dis-
courseappearas politicalmaneuversto silencelegitimate voicesthatoftendelivercriticisms
of conventional sociologyfornot representing adequatelytheexperiences ofpeoplewhose
well-beingdependson others.
This contention reflects observationsmade by manycritics, includingpeople of color,
feminists,
leftists, as well as lesbianand gayactivists.Theylinkthe thrustto dominatethe
institutionalapparatusesofsociologywithseekingapprovalfromaudienceswho oftencon-
trolthe well-beingof others.The imposition of one-dimensional standardsforsociological
discourse, the critics
maintain, the
precludes possibility thatviewsrepresenting diverseseg-
mentsofthepopulationcontainvalidtheoretical claims(Staceyand Thorne1985;P. Collins
1986, 1989; Hess 1990; Seidman1991a; Stanleyand Wise 1991). Assimilationist discourse
specifiestherulesofhow sociological knowledgemustbe made,buttheserulesreflect pre-
sumptions thatpositivist
protocoland white-male metanarratives are theuniversalstandards
forthe evaluationof scholarly work. Thesenarratives, criticshave argued,rationalizeand
legitimizevariousformsofoppression byjoiningthenotionofsciencewiththoseofmascu-
linity(Rich1979;Keller1985),whiteness(hooks1990),Euro-American self(Harding1990;
Mohatny1991; Seidman1991a), heterosexuality (Bunchand Pollack1983; Harding1991;
 Exclusive
Transcending Sociology 305

Seidman1991b),and relationsof ruling(Smith1987a,b, 1990). Fromthisstandpoint, fol-

lowing the path of assimilationwould compromise the intellectual and moral integrityof
thoseespousinga new theoretical standpoint.
Habermas's(1968, 1973) critical discussions ofknowledge, humaninterests, and thele-
gitimation crisisbetweenthemoutlinedmanycore ideas foundin arguments formoredi-
versetheoretical projects.According to Habermas(1984), thesciencethatshouldbe able to
deal withtheproblemsofsocietyas a wholehas eschewedthisbroaderand moretraditional
task and has uncritically acceptedanalyticaland disciplinary fragmentation of the social
world. The reification of thisfragmentation in theformof rigidly definedand strictlycon-
trolleddisciplinary and sub-disciplinary areas signaledthebeginning of sociology'sintellec-
tual insolvency in relationto itspromise.
DespiteHabermas'sincisiveand inspirational analyses,a contradiction characterizes
the
relationbetweenhisintentand actualaccomplishments. WhileHabermaswantssociologyto
deal withtheproblems ofsocietyas a whole,he tooabstracts hisprojectfromthesubstantive
contentof societyand fromthesocio-biographies ofpeopleentering theideal speechsitua-
tionas well. In doingso, he prescribes theorizing as an institutionalpracticeand describesa
numberof communicative rulesthatpromisea critical, yetcognitively superior,discourse
whencontrasted withmorenarrowly prescribedanalyses.Theseprocedures becometheba-
sis fordeclaringa moraland hence theoretical highground, but without substantiveand
emotional contentas found in the experiencesof people (cf. Meisenhelder1989).
Habermas'sproceduresmostlikelywouldappearmeaningless, ifnot oppressive, to certain
situatedaudiencesfacingalreadyalienatingconditions.Basically,Habermascallsforinstil-
lingsociologywithan emancipatory agenda,buthe excludestheexperiences ofsubordinated
in
peoples society when detailingthat agenda, while excluding all othersociologicalprojects
as unenlightened and unemancipatory.
Discussionsbypostmodernists appearintendedto circumvent thistypeofcontradiction
foundin Habermas'swork.Abandoning thepretenses ofabstract theorizing, metanarratives,
and emancipation, a centralthemein thepostmodernity literatureconcernslocalizedtheo-
rizing,or storytelling. Seidman(1991b:32)arguesthat:
thehegemony ofsociological
theorywithin
sociologyhascontributed
torendering the-
sociological
orists andmaking
insular their andintellectually
products-theories-socially andirrele-
obscure
vanttovirtually exceptothertheorists.
everyone
Similarly,Denzin(1990),whilecriticizingC.W.Mills,callsfora "theoretically minimalist
text"in whichthestoriesaboutordinary peoplearewritten.Maintaining thatclassicalsocio-
logicaltheoryno longerhas relevancein a worldwherethe publicand privateintermix,
Denzinarguesthe minimalist textlimitspreconceptions of socialreality,whileraisingthe
experiences and storiesofpeopleto thelevelofsociologicalknowledgeas represented in the
textswritten Whenwriting
bysociologists. thestories,sociologistsmustbe "evermindful of
the fact"thatwe mightwritea storyabouta different person than the actualsubject and,
hence,we muststay"as closeas possibleto theactualdoingsand experiencesof thosewe
study"(Denzin1990:14-15). A minimalist text,in otherwords,represents situatedindividu-
als, theirviews,feelings,and sensations.
To be sure,postmodernists maintainan allegianceto theirsubjects,stressopen and
friendly relationswith them, and emphasizea moralcomponenttoo,but theprivileging of
the sociologist'stextremainsapparent.According to Denzin (1990:1) as sociologists "We
givea voiceto thesepeople,"and Seidman(1991a:144)maintains that"Wewouldbe a cata-
lystforthe publicto thinkseriouslyaboutmoraland socialconcerns."Thesepostmodern
projectsseemon theone handto broadenthediscursive spacewithinsociologyto includea
diversity of voices,yeton the otherhand theyseem to maintainthe presumption of the
modernist knowledgeis exclusive.Different
projectthatsociological discursiverulesaresub-
stitutedforthose set by sociologistsdemandinga singularvoice, but the tendencyfor
306 WARDELL/ZAJICEK

privileginga particular setofknowledgeclaimswithinsociologyremainsmuchthesame in

thesepostmodernist calls forsituatedknowledge.The insistenceon localizedtheorizing
reachesan extremewherebyan epistemological rule-the smaller,thebetter-excludescer-
taintheoretical projects,such as comparative analyses,as well as communications beyond
the boundariesof strictly definedcommunities.Furthermore, sociologicalknowledgepre-
sumablyrepresents something ofuse to a public,buttheknowledge makersare notaccount-
able to thatpublic,a characteristicreminiscent ofTurner's(1989) recommendation forhow
to amelioratesocialproblems.
We see in mostcritical accountsa deliberate
sociological attempt to bringtheoryto sub-
stantiveissues,to raiseethicat leastto the same levelas theory,and thus,to reaffirm the
missionofthemodernity
critical and
project(cf.Harvey1989;Sjoberg Vaughan1993). How-
ever,ratherthanhighlight theimportance ofcontentwhenjudgingtheadequacyofa partic-
ulardiscourse, manyfollowers ofcritical
thinking proposea different setofabstractedrulesto
governtheknowledge-making process.The rulesor procedures serveas the finalbasisfor
reachinga theoretical synthesis regarding any particular issue,leavingethicand practice,
subject and object,the observer and the observed, separated.In essence,thefirstconcerns
are the boundariesof theoretical discourseratherthanthe experiencesof the people the
theoriesare intendedto represent.Ultimately, theseconcernsleave a broaderpotentialfor
transcending exclusivity underdeveloped. One way to developthispotentialmorefullyap-
pearsin certainfeminist writings.4
Forinstance, PatriciaCollinsnotes(1989) thatinsteadofseekinga consensualdiscourse,
sociologicaltheorizing shouldbe basedon an ethicofcaringthattakesintoaccountthesig-
nificanceand uniquenessoftheothers'insights, and thatis sensitiveto theparticular emo-
tional implications of theirarguments.Fromthisposition,discourseappearsintimately
intertwined withand affected byouremotions.Emotionsarevitalforconstruction and vali-
dationofknowledge, sinceknowledgeitselfis viewedas an interaction betweenwho we are
as "wholepeople"and multifaceted socialpractices(Jaggar1989). The ethicof caring,plus
emotionsincompatible withthe dominantvalues-what Jaggarcalls outlaw emotions-
serveas potentialbuildingblocksfora moreopen and criticaldialogue.The ethicofcaring
and outlawemotionsfocusattention on thesocialprocessesand contentofpeoplein their
livedexperiences, ratherthanon abstracted theoreticalrulesaboutreasoning and inquiryper
se.
WhereHabermasuniversalizes hisdiscursive rules,Collinsand Jaggar movetowardslo-
calizingvalidityclaimsin theexperiences and traditions of specificsocialgroups,and thus
linkthequestion"how"to thequestion"who." Collins,forinstance,reachesintothecon-
textofsocialrelations withinAfrican American communities tobuilda Blackwomen'sstand-
point. Her argumentschallengethe narrownessof assimilationist and many diversity
definitions of legitimate scholarshipbecauseshe wantsto empowerthosewho have never
been represented bythedominantstandards ofscientificrationality.Moreover,she seeksto
enrichsociologicaldiscourseby encouraging thatconcreteexperiences, dialogue,and the
ethicofcaringbe basesforknowledgelegitimation and to reveal"newwaysofknowingthat
allow subordinate groupsto definetheirown reality"(P. Collins1990:222;1986).
In sum,whilemainstream sociology'spower/knowledge discoursehas definedthecrisis
usinga vocabulary ofconsensusand control, criticaldiscoursehas defineditlargelyin terms
of the politicsof silencingalternative voices,impositions on intellectualautonomy,and a
desire/need to redefine therulesofparticipation in sociology-making. The existenceofthis
secondpositionindicatesthatdespitethe discipline'sattemptsat disciplining undesirable
voices,thosevoiceshave nonethelesssurfaced, disclosingcontradictions embeddedwithin

4. Notall feminist transcend

writings exclusiveapproachesto producing knowledge.See Hawkes-
sociological
worth's(1989) critical
assessment ofthreefeminist
approaches.
 Exclusive
Transcending Sociology 307

thepracticesof disciplining. Indeed,manyalternative voiceshave been raisedin directre-

sponse to the conventional approach'sinadequateunderstanding of thediversityofpeople,
its
plus understanding of the nature of socialproblems, especially those thathave emerged
sinceWorldWarII. Wherethe diversity argumentstressesthatsociologicalmethodsand
knowledgewillbe enhancedthroughstudiesof relationsofdominationas socialproblems,
the assimilationistargumentstressesthatsociologicalknowledgehas littleto gain by such
studiesand has littleto offeramelioration effortsuntilmoresociologists practicea set of
commonprinciples.
Discoursesthatdeconstruct therulesbuttressing assimilationist theorizingalso have ac-
knowledgedthe interrelations betweentheorizing and ethics,whileattempting to de-reify
theboundariesamongthesocialsciences.5 Theseendeavorsoffer a promiseforfurther tran-
scending exclusive sociologyby elaboratingmore inclusive rulesfor theoretical
discourse. If
the intellectualroots of criticalsociologicalinquirystem from the experiencesof
subordinated groups(cf.Castoriadis 1976-1977;P. Collins1990) and,if,"Thereis now good
reasonon bothempiricaland conceptualgroundsto arguethatmodernscienceis ofa piece
withmoderntechnology and thecentralvalues,interests, and structures ofthemorepower-
fulclassesin modernsociety"(Restivo1988:213),thediversity diagnosisofthecrisispoints
in the direction of how we mightgetbeyondexclusivepracticeswhen makingsociological
knowledge. To elaboratethepotential ofa socialproblems focus,anothermajorstepmustbe
takenbeyondexpandingtherulesofdiscourse.As impliedbyPatriciaCollins,thecontentof
knowledgemustbe elevatedto a levelofimportance at leastcomparable to,ifnotabove,the
processofmakingthatknowledge.

Pathways forTranscendingExclusive Sociology

Diversityvisionsofsociology-making signala movement away fromexclusivetheoreti-
cal discourse.By de-centering the dominantmodesof knowledgeproduction and creating
spaces forsituatedand historically diverseknowledge,the sociologicalprojectexpandsits
potentialto enablepeople"toformulate theavailablechoices,to argueoverthem-and then,
theopportunity to choose"(Mills1959:174). However,thecreationofmorearenasforpar-
ticipationin thetheoreticalenterprise,whilenecessary, fortranscending
is notsufficient ex-
clusivesociology.As in thecasesofHabermasand somepostmodernists, expandedspacefor
participationcan result,and to somedegreehas resulted, in thereproduction ofissuesrelated
to theprocessoftheorizing, namely fromwithin which discursive can
fields one bestspeak
aboutand forparticular of
groups people? (See also Hawkesworth 1989 and Lemert1992.)
Such discussions focusmoreon processthancontentbecausetheyconcentrate on delineat-
ing epistemological rulesby whichto regulateknowledgemakingand claimsto cognitive
validity.As a consequence,boundariesamongtheorists, and betweentheorizers and their
situatedaudiencesas well,are morelikelyto becomereifiedand remainexclusive.
A relevantsociology-a sociology whoseroleis toproduceknowledgeaboutand address
socialproblemswithinvarioussocieties-mustmakea deliberate to incorporate
effort those

5. Critics
recognize theneedto rewrite and rethink thenormative assumptions ofhistory(Aptheker 1982;Gid-
dings1984; Scott1986, 1987),laborhistory (Baron1991),political-economy (Ward1984, 1988; Smith1989; Block
1990),politicalscience(Fraser1989),anthropology (Lamphere1987),and othersocialand physicalsciences(Keller
1985) in generalso as to includetheexperiences ofheretoforeexcludedand ignoredsocialgroups.Atthebottomofa
varietyoftheseaccountsis thedesiretoconnecttheseemingly disparatesocialrealms,and toconstruct that
a discourse
enablestransgressing thereified boundaries amongthem(Mills1959;Agger1989;Harvey1989; Block1990; Smith
1990). Theemergence ofthesecritiques,and especiallya feminist
critique, effects
allowsus to lookbeyondthestifling
ofmainstream discourse. thefeminist
Specifically, critiquepointsto thefactthatthevocabulary ofthedominant dis-
courseeithersilencedwomen'sissuesaltogether or epitomizeddualistic
divisionsbetweenprivate/public,
family/state,
production/reproduction, in bothinstancesreproducing women'ssubordination in society.
308 WARDELL/ZAJICEK

hurtbystructures ofinequality intotheprocessesbywhichthosestructures analyticallyare

dissectedand reassembled.Thisinvolvement shouldcoverthe entirerangeof sociological
inquiry,fromconception to validation.Thoughnotfreeofshortcomings (Acker,Barry,and
Esseveld1991), knowledgeproducedin thisway would involvea dialogueto learnmore
about people and the conditionsof theirlives. Theorizing would be generatedand legiti-
matedin relationtoparticular social-historical and
groupings theirrelativesocialdependence
vis-A-vis othersocialgroupings, notin relationto abstracted, self-contained setsofrules.Ac-
countability also wouldbe reconfigured so as todeliberatelyincludethepeoplesoftheworld
who are administrated, educated,medicated, regulated,managed,and marketed to byinhu-
mane and undemocratic organizations (Crozier1973). In thisway,new knowledgebases
would be introduced, whileaccountability wouldbe expandedto includeaudiencesabout
whomtheinquirywas intendedto understand and help,allowingsociological knowledgeto
be subjectedto testsofmeaningful significance,plustheoretical and empirical significanceas
well. None of thesestepswould precludecomparative or criticalanalysesfromremaining
key elementsin sociologicalinquiry.Rather,theseelementsprovideadditionalbases by
whichto judge the relativesignificance of sociologicalknowledgegeneratedin a particular
contextand, thereby, expandtheknowledgeofavailablechoicesoverwhichto argue.
Thisnotionofincorporation impliesmuchmorethansimplydiscarding obscureand ab-
stractlanguagefromsociologicaldiscourseand replacingit witha morepubliclyaccessible
language(cf.Sica 1992). Developinga languageintendedto givethepublica voicemightbe
a worthwhile project,but,ifsucha projectproceededwithouttheincorporation ofthatpub-
lic,a new intelligentsiacouldeasilybe theoutcome.Agger,forexample,callsupon sociolo-
giststo "writeas iftherewerean intelligent publiccapablenotonlyofunderstanding what
we are sayingbutjoiningus in community-building dialogue"(1991:128,emphasisin origi-
nal). Responding to Agger'scall withoutfirsthavingmechanisms thatenablethepublicto
speakand to be heardwouldassume1) sociologists have something to offerthatpublic,2)
thepublicwants/needs whatwe havetooffer them,and 3) sociologists aremorallyobligedto
initiatedevelopment ofa languageforthepubliceven thoughthatpublicmaynotpresently
understand theimportance for,orthecontentof,sucha language.Effectively, theabsenceof
thepublic-or publics,as thecase mightbe-during theprocessofdevelopingthis"public"
languagemeansthe projectremainsdetachedfromthe politically weak constituencies in-
tendedto benefitfromit. Thisprocesscouldyieldanotherpatronizing and abstracted dis-
courseand reproduce thereified boundariesbetweenpublicand "intellectual" communities.
Further,the languagebuildersmightcome to assumetheyoccupya moralhighground
withinsociology and drawnewand exclusiveboundaries aroundvarioustheoretical projects.
As Smith(1993:189)maintains, a focuson discourse"legitimates thespeaker'sclaimforthe-
ory'sauthority," but it does not addressthe "livedworld." To avoid patronizing and dis-
empowering gestures, we mustfindwaysto facilitate communication betweenbothsides.
For example,severalrecentpublications have includedcommentsfromthosewho are
thesubjectsor subjectoftheresearch.Stacey(1990) askedtwoofherresearchparticipants
to readherbookand discussitscontentwithher. She was interested in learningthedegree
to whichtheparticipants saw themselves accuratelyportrayed in herwordsaboutthem.The
discussionappearsas an epilogueto thebookand,to a certaindegree,servesas a checkon
Stacey'sreporting ofthetwowomen'sfamilystories.Liebow(1993) incorporates thecom-
mentsoftwohomelesswomenfromhisstudy,plusthecomments ofa director fromone of
thehomelessshelters he frequented. Thecomments appearas footnotes throughout thetext.
Liebow(1993:xvii)states:
Manyoftheunusedcomments from allthreewereanecdotal confirmationsofassertionsandinter-
pretationsinthetext.I triedtoinclude thosecomments
especially thatdisagreedwiththetextor
withone another,or thatoffered
a different
perspective.
 Exclusive
Transcending Sociology 309
In thisway,Liebowprovideshisresearch a directrolein interpreting
participants hisdataand
writing the discussion of those data,without diminishing hisrole as observer. By incorporat-
ingthesesometimes lengthy notes,Liebowalso expandedthereaders'knowledgeand under-
standingofhomelesswomen. Cobble(1993),inhervolumeon womenand unions,provides
extensivespaceto unionmembers(womenand men),plussomeacademics,to commenton
theresearchpresented in variouschapters.The commentators' remarks appearat theend of
each sectionin thebook and are intendedto locatethe contentsof the sectionin a larger
perspective, assessingthevalidityof thearguments, thepolicyand researchimplications of
the chapters, and theoversights ofthechapters.
Collectively,theseexamplesmay not represent earth-shaking innovations.Theydo,
nevertheless, pointto an uncommonwayofmeaningfully incorporating thoseaboutwhom
the researchwas conductedin orderto assessthe validityof the research.To thatdegree,
theyare waysto actuallyincorporate thepublicand to simultaneously enrichtheresearch
process.
An organizationally moreambitiousexampleof incorporating the publicinto the re-
searchprocesscan be foundin the"LosAngelesManufacturing ActionProject"sponsoredby
theDepartment ofUrbanPlanningand theCenterforLaborResearchand Educationat the
University of California-Los Angeles.Thisprojectrepresents a participatory researchprocess
involvinglaborand community leaders,graduatestudents, and faculty.Thevariouspartici-
pantsworktogether as a team,discussing theinformation needed,designing and collecting
the information, and interpreting the information. The potentialoutcomesof such a par-
ticipatoryprocessrangefromcommunity and laborleaderslearninghow to conductresearch
and analyzefindings to academicresearchers gaininganalyticalinsightshavingtheoretical
import;fromsocialchangebeingcoordinated by people in the community usingtheirre-
searchresultsto the development of scholasticknowledgegroundedin the experiencesof
thosepeoplein thecommunity.
Obviously, notall sociologists, especiallythoseadvancingassimilationist arguments, will
be convincedthattheincorporation ofsituatedaudienceswillenhanceeitherthenatureof
sociologicalknowledgeor itsrelevanceto nonsociologists-even iftheyagreedwiththein-
tentofsucha project(cf.Davis 1994). Theirobjections mostlikelywouldfollowarguments
previouslyadvanced. First,manysociologists mightwell contendthatthe argumenthere
will lead to a special-interest-group sociology,wherea new theory, paradigmor narrative,
would be advancedforeach new interest group. Sociologists,forexample,would choose
theirfavoritegroupto represent, and thenconstruct a new theoryqua ideologyforthat
group.The outcomeofsucha situation, thesecritics
mightcontinue, wouldbe further theo-
reticalfragmentation, combinedwithan augmentedpoliticalization of sociologicalinquiry
and theoretical validation.Wouldnottheend resultbe theoretical chaos? A secondobjec-
tionmightbe builtontothe first.Wouldnot a socialproblemsfocusfortheorizing further
discreditthesociologicaldiscipline as a wholewithinacademicand otherpublicand private
institutionsupon whichsociologists depend? We addressbothobjectionsin turn.
A concernthatsociologicalknowledgewould merelyreflectdifferent interestgroups
does not adequatelyacknowledgethehistory specialinterestshave played the develop-
in
mentofsociological knowledge.Whether advancingan argument thatsociologywas a bour-
geoisieideologythatemergedwithintheconfines ofcapitalisthegemony(Therborn 1976),or
suggesting sociology has been the product of whitemen (Harding 1986b; P. Collins 1989),it
remainsthatsociologicalknowledge, especiallycoresociologicaltheory,has a longstanding
omissionofclassreproduction, patriarchal maledomination,
structures, and racism.Indeed,
manypresent-day sociologists, likemanyresearchers in othersocialand physicalsciences,
directlyor indirectlyconsultand do researchforsomeofthemorepowerful organizations in
310 WARDELL/ZAJICEK

society,buttheseorganizations and theirmanagersare notrepresentative oftheracial,gen-

der,class,and age diversitywithinsociety.Incorporating a largernumberofdiversified audi-
enceswho findtheirinterests represented in sociological
knowledge, then,wouldnotbreak
the tradition of special-interest
sociologyand its concomitant politicsof validation,but it
might break from the"cameralist" traditionofsystematically excludingfromrepresentation
in sociologicalknowledgethosewho do notgainfrompreserving thestatusquo.
To be sure,through mechanisms ofincorporationand a focuson socialproblems, more
sociologistswould come face-to-face witha diversityof audiences,especiallythosewhose
qualityoflifedependslargelyon theactionsofotherswithinrelations ofdomination.While
relationsof dominationare quitevariedand verycomplex,theyare not so arithmetically
numerousor sociologically divergent as to resultin theoretical chaos (cf. Smith1992).
Rather,through incorporation oftheseaudiences,sociological knowledgewouldrepresent a
morecoherent viewofsocialrelations, butthecoherencewouldbe groundedon livedexper-
iencesratherthansynthetic or integrativepracticesof abstracted thoughts.The intercon-
nectedness amongclass,gender,race,and sexuality, alongwithwork,family, economy,and
statepolitics,will have to be confrontedifsociologicalinquiryis to have any relevance forthe
subjectsof oppressive relations.By confronting theinterconnectedness of thesesocialphe-
nomena,thebarriers existing betweensociological and methodologies,
specialties as well as
betweensociologyas a disciplineand othersocialsciences,mightwellbe seen as impeding
theadvancement of analyticalreasoningas well.
A secondobjectionagainsta socialproblems focusmightbe thatitwouldexacerbatethe
perception of sociology as a less legitimate thanothersocialsciences.Recentas-
discipline
saultson departments of sociologyat Washington University, the Universityof Rochester,
San DiegoState,and YaleUniversity, amongseveralothers,mightwellbe usedto strengthen
thisargument.Implicitly, thisargumentsuggeststhatifsociology'sproductswere of any
value,itspublicstockwouldrisewithdemandforthoseproducts.On theotherhand,the
assaulton departments ofsociology actsdirected
parallelsadministrative at similardisciplines
in recentyears(cf.Kaufman1993),suggesting thepublicstockofthesedisciplines mightbe
in questionlargely because,contrary to thepast,theproducts they deliverare increasinglyof
littlevalue even to the morepowerfulsectorsof society.Fromthisperspective, then,the
longstanding concernforscientific legitimacy,at theexpenseofresearching socialproblems,
mightwellhavecontributed to thegrowing irrelevance products.6In essence,
ofsociological
theobsessionto be recognized as a science,ifnotthescienceofsociety, mighthavefallenfar
shortof theintendedmark.
Becker(1971:181)characterizes thisobsessionas "imperialistic
ambitions" in searchofa
"superordinatescience" and associatesit with Comte and Ward and those who followedtheir
paths. By contrast,Becker saw the works of Veblen, Small, and Mills as offeringa more
relevantproductforsocietybecause theirapproach was broad. On thispoint, the words of
Albion Small, some 80 years ago, could easily have been writtentoday when he said:
The indicated functionofsocialscienceis to be thechieforganof socialself-examination....We
are in dangerofmistaking capitalismmitigated forcapitalism
bypatriarchalism in princi-
corrected
ple. In no periodofhistoryhas itbeenpossibleforsocialscientists
toperform morefundamentally
constructive publicservicethanpresentconditions throughoutthe worlddemand. To seize the

6. Kaufman(1993) arguesthatthelast40 yearsofindustrial relationsresearchin theUnitedStateshave been

bya schismbetweenthosewhoseektobuildtheory
characterized on thebasisofpositivist
epistemology and thosewho
seektobuildknowledge inordertosolveproblems.Liketheinstitutional basesofsociology, thoseofindustrial
relations
haveerodedin recentyears.Kaufman maintains thatat leasttwoimmediate responses arerequiredto rejuvenate and
salvagethe industrial project.First,a problem-solving
relations focusmustpreoccupy all research,
and second,the
barriers
institutional separating interested
sociologists in issuesoflabor,work,and industry, forexample,fromecono-
and historians
mists,politicalscientists, withsimilarinterests mustbe dismantled.Kaufmanstrongly believesboth
eventsmustoccurin orderto improvetheknowledge base and thepotentialto solvecritical
problems relatedto em-
ployment relationships.
 Exclusive
Transcending Sociology 311
wemustlearnhowtorelegate
opportunity bothsurface
phenomenaandesoteric totheir
subtleties
place,and we mustconcentrate
proportional ourforcesuponradicalproblems(Small1912-
1913:469).
The concernforexternallegitimation, however,revealsa deep-seatedsocial dynamic
withinsociologythateschewsSmall'surgingto "seizethe opportunity. . .[to focus].. .on
radicalproblems."Thepopularity oftheParsons-Merton projectduring cold-warmental-
the
ityof boundarymaintenanceand integration attested, forsome sociologists, to the accept-
ance ofsociologybythelargeracademicand state-bureaucratic communities, yetthisproject
in no way dealtwiththeradicalproblemsofsociety.By contrast, thedisciplinary offspring
pouring out of sociologyand intodepartments of rural sociology,socialwork,criminal jus-
tice,familyand childstudies,urbanstudies,women'sstudies,African and African American
studies,as wellas laborstudiesand humanresources wereresponsesto real-life problems, if
not radicalproblems, thoughthesenew fieldsare seen as symptomatic ofthedisintegration
of thediscipline(Turner1989).
Insteadoflamenting thisoutwardmigration as a drainofknowledge and talent,oras the
disintegrationof sociologythe discipline, it shouldsignala need to openlydiscusswhat,
where,and forwhomsociologicalknowledgecan be and shouldbe useful(Lee 1976; Gans
1989). Thesediscussions cannotoccuramongtheprofessionals alone. Theymustinclude
thosepeoplewho ultimately willuse sociologicalknowledgeto solvetheirreal-life problems.
Engagingin dialogueswiththeintenttohelppeoplebetterunderstand theconditions oftheir
livesmightnot destroythe intellectual and institutional barriersseparating theorygroups,
and socialsciencedisciplines.Such communication,
specialties, however,would introduce
subjugated knowledges intosociologicalinquiry and to thatextent aid the transcending of
exclusivesociology.In thatregard,thesedialoguesmightmoveus a stepclosertowardsthe
democratization ofsociologicaltheoryas well.

Conclusion

In general,we side withthe diversity criticsin the debatesabout the currentstateof

sociologicalinquiry. Further to
attempts synthesize, or otherwiseestablisha uni-
integrate,
formprocedurefortheorizing seem destinedto becomeself-validating claims,and, thus,
claimsofbeingtherightful heirto theComteanassimilationist project.Indeed,assimilation-
ist projectsreflecta politicsof exclusionbased on imagesof cognitivesuperiority. When
coupled with institutionalleverage, these claims to cognitivesuperioritycontribute to the
construction and reproduction ofa diversified marginalia.Marginalvoicesmeanwhileseek
autonomyfromassimilationist scholarship, thereby challenginganew thecognitive authority
ofallegedlyuniversalstandards ofscientific rationality. RandallCollins(1989) voicesa valid
concern.Politicalfeudsbetweentheoretical groupsdo wreckhavocwithinprofessional orga-
nizationsand departments ofsociology alike. Similarly, tenurenarratives,editorial
decisions,
and governance ofprofessional societiesreflect strugglesoverclaimsoftheoretical validation.
Collinsand othersfavoring synthesis, uniformity, orintegration,though,mayhavethecause
forthesestruggles all wrong.Viewedalternatively, theseare notjust ideologicalstruggles,
sincetheyinvolvethosemarginalto,and thosein controlof,certainmaterialand symbolic
resourcesnecessaryforcarrying out sociological inquiry(Nashand Wardell1993). Turner's
(1989) proposalto further centralize theseresources wouldundoubtedly deepenthesestrug-
glesifit wererealized.
Proposalsto liberalizethediscursive rulesfortheorizing and to expandthespace avail-
able formorediversetheoretical interests, in particular forthosenotpreviously represented
in thehistory ofsociologicalthought, represent a turntowardsdecentering sociologicaldis-
course.Thisturn,however,couldeasilydead end in abstracted, claimsofthe
self-validating
312 WARDELL/ZAJICEK

sort foundin assimilationist argumentsforstandardizing theoreticaldiscoursearound a

metatheory or metalanguage.Ourproposalforexplicitly focusing on socialproblemsin the
formof relationsof domination, and forincorporating the people hurtby thoserelations,
represents onlyone way to avoidtheideologicaltrapofself-validating claims,whileat the
same timeformulating sociologicalknowledgehavinga practicalutilitywhereitsvalue is
assessedexternalto thosewho are theagentsofsocialcontrol.
Ofcourse,we are notnaiveenoughto thinkthatourproposalwillbe rapidlyendorsed
by sociologists in the UnitedStates,despitethe popularity of similarproposalsin South
Americaand EasternEurope. A call to focussociologicaltheories,and sociologicalinquiry
generally,on dissecting relationsofdomination and on enhancingthequalityoflifeofvic-
timsofdomination, willbe ignored, ifnotresisted, bymanyincluding somecritics ofassimi-
lationistprojects.Was not the sociologyof sociologymovementin the 1960s and 1970s
counteredby a new assimilationist surgein the 1980sto fillthe "interregnum"? Then,as
now,do notsociologists in theUnitedStatespracticetheirsociological skillswithina materi-
ally-orientedsocietywheretheyhopeto remaingainfully employedbecauseofthoseprofes-
sionalskills?Giventhevarietyof institutional settings whichsociologists
in work,and the
concomitantly diverseways those institutions are materiallyembeddedwithinsociety,
launchingand sustaining a movement to transcend exclusivesociologywillencounteremo-
tionalresistance basedon fearoflosingthetangibleadvantagesthataccompanythesecurity
ofgainfulemployment. Importantly, thisresistance-political in nature-shouldserveas a
signto thosewho resistthenotionthattheoretical validationis a politicalprocess.Indeed,
democratization ofsociological theory, werethatevera reality, wouldnoteliminatethepoli-
ticsofvalidation, but itwouldeliminateexclusionbased on self-privileging criteria.
The processof transcending exclusivesociology, then,mustincludecriticaldiscussion
aboutspokenand unspokenassumptions, explicitand implicit conclusions, in additionto the
ethicalelementsoftheoretical content.As a process,thismeansmorethansimplychoosing
sidesorengagingin reflexive sociology; itmeansdiscussing whysomesidesaremoredeserv-
ingofsupportthanothers,and itmeansdiscussing whichethicalstancesaremorelegitimate.
Still,in orderto transcend exclusivesociologywe mustgroundthesediscussions in thereal-
lifeproblemsofvarioussocialgroups.We mustenterthepublicdomainand facethechal-
lengesfoundthere,challengesthatquestionthesymmetry and neatnessofmanytheoretical
projectsthathavebeenformulated, butnevertheless willenableus tobeginto provideinclu-
sive as well as substantive answersto thequestion"sociology forwhom?"
Such an encounterwiththepracticalworldcannotoccurwithouttheoryservingas a
guidingforce,butrelevantand meaningful theorycannotexistwithoutthesameencounter.
Sociological theorists historicallyhave been the guidingforceforsociologicalinquiry,and
thatroleis no less important today,althoughitmaybe in somedoubt. Veblen,Small,and
Millsshoulderedthetaskofoutlining wayssociological knowledgecouldbe meaningful and
relevantto peoplein concretesettings, buttheydidnotobsessabouthow to makesociologi-
cal knowledgemeaningful and relevantto othersociologists.They took the latterfor
granted.
Thus,letting thecontentofsocietyorganizesociological knowledge, wherepolitics, eco-
nomics,history, and sociality,or,race,class,gender,and sexuality are notneatlyseparated,
and wherepersonaltroublesand publicissuesbecomeentangledin a sociallabyrinth, we
mightwell restore"an essentialtoolofthesociological imagination and a featureofall clas-
sicsin socialscience"(Mills1959:8). And,quitepossibly, whilethepoliticaldivisionsacross
theoreticalprojectsmightnotbe eliminated as sociologistsseekto advancesolutionsto real-
lifeproblems, a hope,at least,wouldexistthata socialproblems focuswouldfostera sociol-
ogythatgained.analytically fromunderstanding thediversity ofsociallife.
 ExclusiveSociology
Transcending 313

References

Acker,Joan,KateBarry,and JohannaEsseveld
1991 "Objectivityand truth:Problems in doingfeminist research." In Beyond
Methodology: FeministScholarship as LivedResearch,eds. MaryMargaret Fonowand
JudithA. Cook,133-153. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press.
Agger,Ben
1989 Socio(onto)logy: A DisciplinaryReading.Urbana:University ofIllinoisPress.
1991 "Theorizingthedeclineofdiscourseor thedeclineoftheoretical discourse?"In
CriticalTheoryNow,ed. PhilipWexler,118-144. London:The FalmerPress.
Alexander, Jeffrey C.
1982 Theoretical Logicin Sociology.Volume1: Positivism, and Current
Presuppositions,
Controversies. Berkeley: UniversityofCalifornia Press.
Aptheker, Bettina
1982 Woman'sLegacy:Essayson Race,Sex,and Classin AmericanHistory.Amherst:
University ofMassachusetts Press.
1989 Tapestries ofLife:Women'sWork,Women'sConsciousness, and theMeaningofDaily
Experience.Amherst: University ofMassachusetts Press.
Baron,Ava
1991 "Gender& laborhistory: Learningfromthepast,lookingto thefuture."In Work
Engendered: Towarda New History ofAmericanLabor,ed. AvaBaron,1-146. Ithaca:
CornellUniversity Press.
Becker,Ernest
1971 The LostScienceofMan. New York:GeorgeBraziller.
Blalock,HubertM.
1979 "Dilemmasand strategies oftheoryconstruction." In Contemporary Issuesin Theory
and Research:A Metasociological Perspective,eds. WilliamE. Snizek,Ellsworth R.
Fuhrman,and M.K. Miller,119-135. Connecticut: GreenwoodPress.
Block,Fred
1990 Postindustrial A CritiqueofEconomicDiscourse.Berkeley:University
Possibilities: of
California Press.
Bunch,Charlotte, and SandraPollack,eds.
1983 LearningOurWay: Essaysin Feminist Education.New York:The CrossingPress.
Calhoun,CraigJ.,and KennethC. Land
1988 "Editors'introduction." Contemporary Sociology18:475-477.
Cornelius
Castoriadis,
1976-77 "On thehistory oftheworkers'movement."Telos(Winter):3-42.
Cobble,DorothySue, ed.
1993 Womenand Unions:Forging a Partnership.Ithaca,N.Y.:ILR Press.
Cole, Stephen
1994 "Whysociologydoesn'tmakeprogress likethenaturalsciences."SociologicalForum
9:133-154.
Collins,PatriciaHill
1986 "Learning fromtheoutsiderwithin:The sociological ofBlackfeminist
significance
thought."SocialProblems33:S14-S31.
1989 "Thesocialconstruction ofBlackfeminist thought."Signs14:745-773.
1990 BlackFeminist Thought:Knowledge,Consciousness, and thePoliticsof
Empowerment. Boston:UnwinHyman.
Collins,Randall
1986 "Is 1980ssociologyin thedoldrums?"American Journalof Sociology91:1336-1355.
1989 "Sociology:Proscience or antiscience?"AmericanSociologicalReview54:124-139.
1994 "Why the social sciences won't become high-consensus,rapid-discoveryscience."
SociologicalForum9:155-177.
Crozier,Michel
1973 by RupertSwyer.New York:The VikingPress.
The StalledSociety,translated
314 WARDELL/ZAJICEK

Davis,JamesA.
1994 "What'swrongwithsociology?"SociologicalForum9:179-197.
Denzin,NormanK.
1990 "Presidential
addresson thesociological imagination revisited."The Sociological
Quarterly 31:1-22.
Durkheim, Emile
[1903] "Sociologyand thesocialsciences."In The RulesofSociological Methodand Selected
1982 Textson Sociologyand itsMethod,ed. StevenLukes,175-208. New York:The Free
Press.
[1908] "Themethodofsociology."In The RulesofSociologicalMethodand SelectedTextson
1982 Sociologyand itsMethod,ed. StevenLukes,245-247. New York:The FreePress.
Fraser,Nancy
1989 "Women,welfareand thepoliticsofneedsinterpretation." In Politicsand Social
Theory,ed. PeterLassman,104-122. London:Routlege.
Gans,Herbert J.
1989 "Sociologyin America:The discipline and thepublic."AmericanSociologicalReview
54:1-16.
Gibbs,JackP.
1972 SociologicalTheoryConstruction. Hinsdale,Ill.:The DrydenPressInc.
Giddings, Paula
1984 Whenand WhereI Enter:The ImpactofBlackWomenon Race and Sex in America.
New York:BantamBooks.
Gitlin,Todd
1990 "Sociologyforwhom?Criticism forwhom?"In Sociologyin America,ed. Herbert J.
Gans,214-226. AmericanSociological Association Series. NewburyPark,
Presidential
Calif.:Sage Publications.
Gouldner, Alvin
1970 The ComingCrisisofWestern Sociology.New York:BasicBooks.
Habermas,Jiirgen
1968 Knowledgeand HumanInterests, translatedbyJeremy J.Shapiro.Boston:Beacon
Press.
1973 Legitimation byThomasMcCarthy.Boston:BeaconPress.
Crisis,translated
1984 The TheoryofCommunicative Action.VolumeOne: Reasonand theRationalization of
Society.Boston:BeaconPress.
Halliday,TerenceC.
1992 "Introduction: Sociology's professionalism."
fragile In Sociologyand Its Publics:The
Formsand FateofDisciplinary Organization, eds. TerenceC. Hallidayand Morris
Janowitz, 3-42. Chicago:University ofChicagoPress.
Halliday,TerenceC., and MorrisJanowitz, eds.
1992 Sociologyand ItsPublics:TheFormsand FateofDisciplinary Organization. Chicago:
University of ChicagoPress.
Harding,Sandra
1986a The ScienceQuestionin Feminism.Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversity Press.
1986b "Theinstability oftheanalyticcategoriesoffeminist theory."Signs11:645-664.
1990 "Takingresponsibility forourown gender,race,class:Transforming scienceand the
socialstudiesofscience."Rethinking Marxism3:8-19.
1991 WhoseScience?WhoseKnowledge?: Thinking FromWomen'sLives. Ithaca,N.Y.:
CornellUniversity Press.
Harvey,David
1989 The ConditionofPostmodernity: An EnquiryintotheOriginsofCulturalChange.
Cambridge: Blackwell.
Hawkesworth, MaryE.
1989 "Knowers,knowing, known:Feminist theoryand claimsoftruth."Signs:Journalof
Womenin Cultureand Society14:33-57.
Hess,BethB.
1990 "Beyonddichotomy: Drawingdistinctionsand embracing differences"Sociological
Forum5:75-93.
 ExclusiveSociology
Transcending 315

hooks,Bell
1989 TalkingBack:Thinking Feminism, Thinking Black. Boston:SouthEnd Press.
1990 Yearning:Race,Gender,and CulturalPolitics.Boston:SouthEnd Press.
Jaggar,AlisonM.
1989 "Loveand knowledge:Emotionin feminist epistemology." Inquiry32:151-176.
Kaufman,BruceE.
1993 The Origins& EvolutionoftheFieldofIndustrial Relationsin theUnitedStates.
Ithaca,N.Y.:ILR Press.
Keller,EvelynFox
1985 on Genderand Science.New Haven:YaleUniversity
Reflections Press.
Lamphere,Louise
1987 "Feminism and anthropology: The struggle to reshapeour thinkingaboutgender."In
The ImpactofFeminist Researchin theAcademy, ed. Christie
Farnham,11-33.
Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press.
Lassman,Peter
1989 "Introduction:Politicsand socialtheory."In Politicsand SocialTheory,ed. Peter
Lassman,1-11. London:Routlege.
Lee, AlfredMcClung
1976 address:Sociologyforwhom?"AmericanSociologicalReview41:925-
"Presidential
936.
Liebow,Elliot
1993 TellThemWhoI Am:The LivesofHomelessWomen.New York:The FreePress.
Lemert,Charles
1992 limit:Theunsolvedriddleofthestandpoint."Sociological
"Subjectivity's Theory
10:63-72.
Meisenhelder,Thomas
1989 "Habermasand feminism: The futureofcriticaltheory."In Feminism and Sociological
Theory,ed. RuthA. Wallace,119-132. NewburyPark,Calif.:Sage Publications.
Merton,RobertK.
1967 On Theoretical Sociology:FiveEssays,Old and New. New York:The FreePress.
1986 "Comments."In Approaches to SocialTheory,eds. SiegwartLindenberg, JamesS.
Coleman,and StefanNowak,58-69. New York:RussellSage Foundation.
Mills,C. Wright
1959 The SociologicalImagination.London:OxfordUniversity Press.
Mohatny,ChandraTalpade
1991 "Underwesterneyes:Feminist scholarship and colonialdiscourses."In ThirdWorld
Womenand thePoliticsofFeminism, eds. ChandraTalpadeMohatny,AnnRusso,and
LourdesTorres,51-79. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press.
Molotch,Harvey
1994 "Goingout." SociologicalForum9:221-239.
Nash,BradleyJr.,and MarkWardell
1993 "Thecontrolofsociological theory:In praiseoftheinterregnum." SociologicalInquiry
63:276-292.
Parsons,Talcott
1959 "Someproblemsconfronting sociologyas a profession." AmericanSociologicalReview
24:547-549.
Restivo,Sal
1988 "Modernscienceas a socialproblem."SocialProblems35:206-225.
Rich,Adrienne
1979 On Lies,Secrets,and Silence,SelectedProse,1966-1978.New York:W.W.Norton&
Co.
Ritzer,George
1981 Towardan Integrated SociologicalParadigm:The Searchforan Exemplarand an
ImageoftheSubjectMatter.Boston:Allynand Bacon,Inc.
1988 metatheory:
"Sociological A defenseofa subfieldbydelineationofitsparameters."
SociologicalTheory6:187-200.
316 WARDELL/ZAJICEK

1990 "Thecurrent statusofsociological The new syntheses."

theory: In Frontiers
ofSocial
Theory:The New Syntheses, ed. GeorgeRitzer,1-32. New York:ColumbiaUniversity
Press.
1992 Theory,
Sociological ThirdEdition.New York:McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Scott,JoanW.
1986 "Gender:A usefulcategory ofhistoricalanalysis."AmericanHistorical Review
91:1053-1075.
1987 "Women'shistory and therewriting ofhistory."In The ImpactofFeminist Research
in theAcademy, ed. ChristieFarnham,34-50. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press.
Seidman,Steven
1991a "Postmodern anxiety:The politicsofepistemology." Theory9:180-190.
Sociological
199lb "Theend ofsociological theory: Thepostmodern hope." SociologicalTheory9:131-
146.
Sica,Alan
1992 "Therhetoric ofsociologyand itsaudience."In Sociologyand ItsPublics:The Forms
and FateofDisciplinary Organization, eds. TerenceC. Hallidayand MorrisJanowitz,
347-372. Chicago:University ofChicagoPress.
Sjoberg,Gideon,and TedR. Vaughan
1993 "Theethicalfoundations ofsociology and thenecessity fora humanrights
perspective."In CritiqueofContemporary AmericanSociology, eds. TedR. Vaughan,
GideonSjoberg,and LarryT. Reynolds, 114-159. Dix Hills,N.Y.:GeneralHall,Inc.
Small,AlbionW.
1912-13 "Thepresentoutlookofsocialscience."American Journalof Sociology18:433-469.
Smith,DorothyE.
1987a "Women'sperspective as a radicalcritiqueofsociology."In Feminism and
Methodology: SocialScienceIssues,ed. SandraHarding, 84-96. Bloomington: Indiana
UniversityPress.
1987b The Everyday Worldas Problematic: A Feminist Sociology.Boston:Northeastern
University Press.
1989 "Feministreflectionson politicaleconomy."Studiesin PoliticalEconomy30:37-59.
1990 The ConceptualPractices ofPower:A Feminist SociologyofKnowledge.Boston:
Northeastern University Press.
1992 "Sociologyfromwomen'sexperience: A reaffirmation." Theory10:88-98.
Sociological
1993 "Highnoon in textland: A critiqueofClough."The SociologicalQuarterly 34:182-192.
Stacey,Judith
1990 BraveNew Families:StoriesofDomesticUpheavalin LateTwentieth Century
America.New York:BasicBooks.
Stacey,Judith,and BarrieThorne
1985 "Themissingrevolution in sociology."SocialProblems32:301-316.
Stanley,Liz,and Sue Wise
1991 "Feminist research, feministconsciousness,and experiences ofsexism."In Beyond
Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as LivedResearch,eds. MaryMargaret Fonowand
JudithA. Cook,265-283. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press.
Therborn, Goran
1976 Science,Classand Society:On theFormation ofSociologyand Historical Materialism.
London:NLB.
Turner, Jonathan H.
1989 "Thedisintegration ofAmerican sociology."SociologicalPerspectives32:419-433.
Turner, StephenPark,and Jonathan H. Turner
1990 An InstitutionalAnalysisofAmericanSociology.NewburyPark,Calif.:Sage.
Vaughan,Ted R.
1993 "Thecrisisin contemporary Americansociology: A critiqueofthediscipline's
dominantparadigm."In CritiqueofContemporary AmericanSociology, eds. TedR.
Vaughan,GideonSjoberg,and LarryT. Reynolds,10-53. Dix Hills,N.Y.:GeneralHall,
Inc.
Vaughan,TedR., GideonSjoberg,and LarryT. Reynolds, eds.
1993 CritiqueofContemporary AmericanSociology.Dix Hills,N.Y.:GeneralHall,Inc.
 ExclusiveSociology
Transcending 317

B.
Ward,Kathryn
1984 Womenin theWorldSystem:ItsImpacton Statusand Fertility. New York:Praeger.
1988 "Femaleresistance The Igbowomen'swar of 1929." In Racism,
to marginalization:
Sexism,and theWorldSystem, eds. JoanSmith,JaneCollins,TerenceK. Hopkins,
and AkbarMuhammad,121-136.New York:GreenwoodPress.
B., and LindaGrant
Ward,Kathryn
1991 "Coauthorship,gender,and publications In Beyond
amongsociologists."
Methodology: as LivedResearch,eds. MaryMargaretFonowand
FeministScholarship
JudithA. Cook,248-264. Bloomington: IndianaUniversityPress.