**2. Four theories of society**

Sociology is defined as the study of society and hence delivers knowledge of all aspects of social existence, including laboratory, corporate, public, military, academic, legal, and so

Fulfilling the Promise of Sociology: Some Steps for Generating Reflexivity in Organizations 359

situation that is defined by socio-economic inequalities, exploitation, alienation, and other forms of oppression that result from these inequalities. In the Marxist definition, a society at a given time is a reflection of a current state of affairs in an ongoing battle, peaceful or violent clashes, between those who have (or have more) and those who have not (or have less). According to this perspective, economic position determines the social positions of social actors; hence the distinction between the haves and the have-nots; between the powerful and the powerless. Sociology, like any science, is itself organized knowledge that is class-bound. It is a representation of a particular class; as most sociologists are typically lower middle class, sociology typically propagates the knowledge that is characteristic for this class. For Marxist sociologists, the dominant or established sociology is itself a manifestation of the current state of the class conflict; hence the task of the sociologist who has finally understood history, that is, that of class conflict, is to create intelligible reconstructions of class rivalries, and how society is destroyed and recreated through such

Interpretive sociologists provide yet another portrait of society. For them, society is a cultural complex, a mosaic consisting of webs of meanings, symbols, values and beliefs. Religions, companies, universities, sciences, nations, markets, and so forth, are to be understood as dynamic cultural complexes, each having its distinctive set of values that inspire a distinctive type of social conduct. A particular cultural complex usually changes throughout history, and besides, it differs from other cultural complexes at a given moment. What makes a cultural complex be what it is and not that other one? This is what interpretive sociologists try to find out; they endeavour to understand the historically unique about a particular society, as compared with other epochs, but also with other cultural complexes in the same time period. Sociology, like science in general, is itself a cultural expression of a particular cultural complex, and its meaning changes with the mutations of the complex. Twentieth century sociology signified something different from what it can possibly signify in the twenty-first century. In other words, the cultural substance of sociologies, its ideas, language, ways of doing science, worldviews, and so forth, change as the society of which they are part also transforms. Interpretive sociologists

Those four different sociologies have introduced different theories of society, to describe, explain, uncover, reconstruct, criticize or interpret society. The very content and form of 'theory' differs per sociology. For positivist sociologists, given their definition of society as a causal mechanism, theory consists of the modelling of causal relationships, and is presented in the form of variables. The positivist theory of society assumes the form of a collection of variables – like nation, class, religion, age, sex, education, and so forth – that are deemed to be useful in presenting research findings. For functionalist sociologists, theory typically assumes the form of a realist typology or a scheme that provides an abstraction of the organism under investigation. Emile Durkheim's solidarity types (mechanic and organic solidarities), for instance, or Robert Merton's 'local' and 'cosmopolitan' real types, enable functionalist sociologists to grasp distinctions between structures, and transitions from one social structure to another. Functionalist schemes provide a systemic modelling of certain organic functions that a particular society (say, a global capitalist society) must meet to be able to flourish. Marxist sociological theory assumes the form of a critique; it unmasks and criticizes capitalist forces that maintain a capitalist status quo, and hinder the development

try to make sense of such cultural transformations.

conflicts.

forth, types of existence. And hence it delivers knowledge for all agents, be it CEOs of companies, medical doctors in hospitals, legislators in states, consumers in markets, journalists in media landscapes, and so forth. What 'society' actually is, however, and, correspondingly, who or what sociology is to serve with its knowledge, is itself a sociological question to which there are diverse sociological answers. Society itself is a highly loaded sociological concept whose meanings have varied according to historical (typically national and religious) contexts, and have been subjected to debates and contestations. The definitions or understandings of sociology and of society are intimately related and interdependent. Hence, the specific perception of society has implications for the end, content and form of sociology. At the same time, the different types of sociology, as they have historically developed, determine the ways in which sociologists who adhere to them define and study society; in other words, the type of sociology determines the sociological vision of society. Furthermore, the definitions of sociology and the selfdefinitions of sociologists have implications for the ways in which they do their research, that is, for the development of concepts, for the methods used and the selection of data (Ossewaarde, 2012).

Four major and influential types of sociologists, and hence sociologies that define society in radically different ways can be distinguished. Positivist sociologists perceive society as mechanically governed, in line with Newtonian physics. Society is a complex of social relationships and historical developments that obey certain laws, just as physical things are ruled by the law of gravity. Along this line, there is no fundamental distinction between social mechanisms and natural mechanisms: both nature and society are causal complexes. Hence, in their view, the task of sociology defined as an objective, value-free and accurate instrument is to reconstruct these laws and explain social relationships as well as social conflicts in terms of causes. It confines itself to what is perceived as the material or empirical world, similarly to natural scientists; in this sense, positivist sociologists accept the approach or method of modern natural sciences as authoritative. They also tend to devote much time and energy to the refinement of scientific methods, particularly quantitative methods, which enable them to explain social mechanisms in more accurate ways (Levine, 1995: 96).

Functionalist sociologists see society as an organism, a metaphor borrowed from biology. Hence, society is not simply passive matter (like a stone) that undergoes certain laws of necessity, but is a living body consisting of organs that are all indispensable, and whose good functioning is essential to social existence in states, corporations, NGOs, hospitals, families, universities, and so forth. When functions are not fulfilled, for instance, when parents or families fail to bring up their children, scientists fail to grasp realities, police fails to create a safe and secure environment, or companies fail to generate jobs and profits, social order, and hence solidarity, tend to be undermined. Thus understood, sociology is itself an essential organ of society, having the function of discovering the functions of social organs, and hence, that which makes society be structured or ordered. The social function of sociology is therefore to acquire scientific knowledge about what makes social existence cohere, and hence, directly and indirectly, to prevent society from being destroyed by civil wars and revolutions, the prices of ill-functioning.

Marxist sociologists radically distinguish themselves from their positivist and functionalist counterparts in their perception of the inevitability of conflicts. They theorize society in the light of what they see as the history of class conflict; hence, living-together is a conflict

forth, types of existence. And hence it delivers knowledge for all agents, be it CEOs of companies, medical doctors in hospitals, legislators in states, consumers in markets, journalists in media landscapes, and so forth. What 'society' actually is, however, and, correspondingly, who or what sociology is to serve with its knowledge, is itself a sociological question to which there are diverse sociological answers. Society itself is a highly loaded sociological concept whose meanings have varied according to historical (typically national and religious) contexts, and have been subjected to debates and contestations. The definitions or understandings of sociology and of society are intimately related and interdependent. Hence, the specific perception of society has implications for the end, content and form of sociology. At the same time, the different types of sociology, as they have historically developed, determine the ways in which sociologists who adhere to them define and study society; in other words, the type of sociology determines the sociological vision of society. Furthermore, the definitions of sociology and the selfdefinitions of sociologists have implications for the ways in which they do their research, that is, for the development of concepts, for the methods used and the selection of data

Four major and influential types of sociologists, and hence sociologies that define society in radically different ways can be distinguished. Positivist sociologists perceive society as mechanically governed, in line with Newtonian physics. Society is a complex of social relationships and historical developments that obey certain laws, just as physical things are ruled by the law of gravity. Along this line, there is no fundamental distinction between social mechanisms and natural mechanisms: both nature and society are causal complexes. Hence, in their view, the task of sociology defined as an objective, value-free and accurate instrument is to reconstruct these laws and explain social relationships as well as social conflicts in terms of causes. It confines itself to what is perceived as the material or empirical world, similarly to natural scientists; in this sense, positivist sociologists accept the approach or method of modern natural sciences as authoritative. They also tend to devote much time and energy to the refinement of scientific methods, particularly quantitative methods, which

enable them to explain social mechanisms in more accurate ways (Levine, 1995: 96).

wars and revolutions, the prices of ill-functioning.

Functionalist sociologists see society as an organism, a metaphor borrowed from biology. Hence, society is not simply passive matter (like a stone) that undergoes certain laws of necessity, but is a living body consisting of organs that are all indispensable, and whose good functioning is essential to social existence in states, corporations, NGOs, hospitals, families, universities, and so forth. When functions are not fulfilled, for instance, when parents or families fail to bring up their children, scientists fail to grasp realities, police fails to create a safe and secure environment, or companies fail to generate jobs and profits, social order, and hence solidarity, tend to be undermined. Thus understood, sociology is itself an essential organ of society, having the function of discovering the functions of social organs, and hence, that which makes society be structured or ordered. The social function of sociology is therefore to acquire scientific knowledge about what makes social existence cohere, and hence, directly and indirectly, to prevent society from being destroyed by civil

Marxist sociologists radically distinguish themselves from their positivist and functionalist counterparts in their perception of the inevitability of conflicts. They theorize society in the light of what they see as the history of class conflict; hence, living-together is a conflict

(Ossewaarde, 2012).

situation that is defined by socio-economic inequalities, exploitation, alienation, and other forms of oppression that result from these inequalities. In the Marxist definition, a society at a given time is a reflection of a current state of affairs in an ongoing battle, peaceful or violent clashes, between those who have (or have more) and those who have not (or have less). According to this perspective, economic position determines the social positions of social actors; hence the distinction between the haves and the have-nots; between the powerful and the powerless. Sociology, like any science, is itself organized knowledge that is class-bound. It is a representation of a particular class; as most sociologists are typically lower middle class, sociology typically propagates the knowledge that is characteristic for this class. For Marxist sociologists, the dominant or established sociology is itself a manifestation of the current state of the class conflict; hence the task of the sociologist who has finally understood history, that is, that of class conflict, is to create intelligible reconstructions of class rivalries, and how society is destroyed and recreated through such conflicts.

Interpretive sociologists provide yet another portrait of society. For them, society is a cultural complex, a mosaic consisting of webs of meanings, symbols, values and beliefs. Religions, companies, universities, sciences, nations, markets, and so forth, are to be understood as dynamic cultural complexes, each having its distinctive set of values that inspire a distinctive type of social conduct. A particular cultural complex usually changes throughout history, and besides, it differs from other cultural complexes at a given moment. What makes a cultural complex be what it is and not that other one? This is what interpretive sociologists try to find out; they endeavour to understand the historically unique about a particular society, as compared with other epochs, but also with other cultural complexes in the same time period. Sociology, like science in general, is itself a cultural expression of a particular cultural complex, and its meaning changes with the mutations of the complex. Twentieth century sociology signified something different from what it can possibly signify in the twenty-first century. In other words, the cultural substance of sociologies, its ideas, language, ways of doing science, worldviews, and so forth, change as the society of which they are part also transforms. Interpretive sociologists try to make sense of such cultural transformations.

Those four different sociologies have introduced different theories of society, to describe, explain, uncover, reconstruct, criticize or interpret society. The very content and form of 'theory' differs per sociology. For positivist sociologists, given their definition of society as a causal mechanism, theory consists of the modelling of causal relationships, and is presented in the form of variables. The positivist theory of society assumes the form of a collection of variables – like nation, class, religion, age, sex, education, and so forth – that are deemed to be useful in presenting research findings. For functionalist sociologists, theory typically assumes the form of a realist typology or a scheme that provides an abstraction of the organism under investigation. Emile Durkheim's solidarity types (mechanic and organic solidarities), for instance, or Robert Merton's 'local' and 'cosmopolitan' real types, enable functionalist sociologists to grasp distinctions between structures, and transitions from one social structure to another. Functionalist schemes provide a systemic modelling of certain organic functions that a particular society (say, a global capitalist society) must meet to be able to flourish. Marxist sociological theory assumes the form of a critique; it unmasks and criticizes capitalist forces that maintain a capitalist status quo, and hinder the development

Fulfilling the Promise of Sociology: Some Steps for Generating Reflexivity in Organizations 361

prejudices, and taken-for-granted truisms, which are often inherent to the social condition in which sociologists find themselves. The technological orders, solidarity structures, class conflicts and cultural complexes of the positivists, functionalists, Marxist and interpretive sociologists respectively typically rest on the nation or class conflict as immediate context. As long as sociologists are glued to their own research traditions, they will be incapable of transcending their prejudices. Ulrich Beck and Edgar Grande (2010) note that as most sociologists, through their prejudices and old routines, theorize society as a nation, which implies that they non-reflexively collect data at the national level, typically to be able to continue with their cross-national comparisons (Chernilo, 2011). Such un-scientific malpractices in scientific research enforce the national prejudice, and maintain established categories as well as dominant theories of society, as if they were the only possible ones.

Reflexive sociologists perceive the ideological bias in so many theories of society as fundamentally anti-sociological. There is no room for ideology in sociology; or, as Alvin Gouldner (1976: 19) puts it: 'sociology and ideology are competitors'. Beck and Grande (2010) seek to transcend the ideological bias of nationhood in sociological research – 'methodological nationalism; as they call it – in sociological conceptualization. Instead, they propose a 'methodological cosmopolitanism' that takes into account globalization processes at work to cosmopolitanize national existence in worldwide organizations, particularly transnational corporations, global media, NGOs and virtual networks like Facebook and Youtube. Methodological cosmopolitanism, they hope, should enable sociologists to reflect upon social processes – particularly globalization processes – that, precisely because of the dominion of the national categories, have been neglected in established theories of society. This cosmopolitan turn in sociology does not mean that the nation-state, or class for that matter, is no longer relevant in conceptualizations; but it does imply that the established sociological categories of social existence are insufficient to take into account globalizing processes that cut through, and undermine, all previously (historically) established collectivities. Society is re-theorized as a world society, which involves clashing cultures and

Methodological cosmopolitanism does try to transcend, to some extent, existing scientific demarcations, and in this sense, questions some existing ideological biases and (typically class-based) prejudices. However, even cosmopolitan theories of world society are not exempt from ideological commitment. Very much like their nationalist predecessors, they also have too little room for the ambivalence inherent to the theorizing about society. Reflexive sociologists emphasize that in theorizing society, ambivalence is to be embraced, as something inevitable because of the intricacies of social life. The uncomfortable possibility of having to assign a social experience to more than one category, be it nation, class or world, is thereby denied (Bauman, 1991: 1). On a more fundamental level, then, the task of sociology, as Robert Merton (1976: 54) puts it, is 'to lay siege to the problem of ambivalence', which is not the same as trying to conquer it. Rather, Merton sees it as an urgent matter to make the very problem of ambivalence a sociological issue. A class consciousness, for instance, insufficiently understands the wide variety of social experiences, and fails to see the paradoxical tendencies of various, clashing social processes at work in the becoming of societies. Prevailing theories of societies tend to reify, that is, objectify abstract concepts such as nationalism, socialism or cosmopolitanism; or else, they take these for granted. In sum, reflexive sociology rejects all ideologies as scientific obstructions or diseases of the mind.

rationalities and multiple modernities.

of a working class consciousness. Hence, bourgeois ideologies like (neo-) liberalism, nationalism and cosmopolitanism are denounced. For interpretive sociologists, theory consists of ideal types that enable sociologists to empathically interpret the cultural meanings of social experiences, and to make sense of phenomena via the application of ideal types. Interpretive sociology has emerged from Kantian idealist thought and, correspondingly, rejects the materialist and realist ways of theorizing.

In their approaches to societies, these sociologies tend to discern and stress diverse dimensions of social life, and evaluate them differently. Positivist sociologists focus, in their own materialist theory of contemporary society, primarily on the economic and technological aspects, which it perceives as determinants of (material) progress. Hence society is modelled as an industrial (either capitalist or socialist) nation, one in which positivist scientists, engineers, bureaucrats are powerful actors of social control, and machinery and policy are key institutions. For functionalist sociologists, it is especially the increasingly complex solidarity structure that is relevant. In the functionalist theory of contemporary society, society is perceived as an individualized (typically capitalist) nation, in which rights, contracts, commerce, interdependencies, trust, and reciprocities are key elements that make modern social bodies flourish. In Marxist sociology, the economic and technological dimensions of society are strong determinants, just as in the case of positivist sociology, but unlike the latter, it appraises them differently. Capitalism is the breeding ground for revolutions, which will only cease when a historical condition of absolute social equality has been reached, and the distinction between rich and poor has been abolished. As far as interpretive sociologists are concerned, it is culture that is of primordial importance for social existence in organizations. Hence, the cultural complex that is called society – typically a nation – is actually threatened by anti-cultural or nihilistic forces like technology, industry and bureaucracy. Contemporary society shows tendencies towards cultural regress, a condition that Max Weber grasps in the metaphor of the 'iron cage', which refers to the imprisonment of dwarfed individuals by systems of technical control.


Fig. 1. The four sociologies
