**8. Conclusion**

In this chapter it has been argued that a key problem in sociology, as in any science, is that sociologists are all too often unaware of the ambivalence of their theorizations of society since they all too often fail to take into account the ambiguity inherent to social existence. In this sense, scientific activities can fail to fulfil their promise of enlightenment, that is, the promise of the liberation from ignorance, and instead reinforce ideologies, sociology's mortal enemy; as well as the enemy of genuine innovation, renewal and revitalization. The deliberate or unconscious ignorance of ambiguity leads to the imposition of models of society on social existence, through bureaucratic implementations and enforcements. In order to develop a truthful sociology or genuine scientific knowledge, that is, one that is true to its own promise, scientific processes such as enquiry, argumentation, clarification and reflection cannot be separated from a broad erudition, empathic understanding and sociological wisdom; only then can sociology be kept out of bureaucratic structures of organizations, in which ambivalence and ambiguity are denied. Instead it must promote dialogue, both within science and within the organizations of society at large, as the appropriate social form for doing sociology. It is the only form that prevents sociologists from alienating themselves from social life, and consequently, from contributing towards reification.

Only through dialoguing is it possible to develop degrees of reflexivity, and to keep theory or theorizing about society, and practice or the social consequences of theory together. Only through dialoguing can sociology manifest, and realize its commitment to the European values of Socratic reason and freedom. At the same time, this commitment is a sine qua non if sociology is not to become the handmaid of power holders; and used as a lethal instrument for manipulating (rationalizing) social existence and for promoting some ideological form of existence in states, corporations, civil society, families, and so forth (like promoting a neo-liberal way of living). In his call for strengthening what he calls 'public sociology', Michael Burawoy (2005a) has ardently voiced the need to reconcile the different sociologies in new sociologies needed for new worlds. Burawoy stresses the urgent need for sociology's presence in the publics, in particular in protest movements that organize themselves to resist neo-liberalized bureaucracies. And indeed, in global capitalist worlds, as contrasted with the more democratic worlds, the social foundations or preconditions for being and doing sociology, and for generating reflexivity, are shaky; universities, in such contexts, tend to become dependent on, and inseparable from, ideological entities. Such entities create their own priorities in which the public mission of representing and realizing both Socratic reason and freedom of action is ignored. The European values are, as always, at risk in social existence, and sociologists face a tough battle to contribute towards the creation of reflexivity, the intellectual sensibility behind theory and practice, so much needed to defeat ideologies and live up to the promise of sociology.
