**7. Locating reflexive sociology in society: The alliance with publics**

Sociologists can contribute to the construction and destruction of social worlds; they are involved in transforming daily life and in creating a new society, new ways of making the European values flourish (Gouldner, 1973: 105). If sociology is to have value as a representation of the European values in society, that is, is to be constitutive for people's self-understanding, self-organization and self-government, then it must enter public debates and inform public opinion in all realms of social existence. In this way, the dialogue between sociologies is extended to a public dialogue, in which sociology is a partner; such a public

Fulfilling the Promise of Sociology: Some Steps for Generating Reflexivity in Organizations 371

C. Wright Mills (1956: 274) notes that 'the decline of politics as genuine and public debate of alternative decisions' that Michael Burawoy (2005b) also witnesses, is the result of the bureaucratization of social existence, in which the European values increasingly lose their authority, and reflexive science is no longer supported by social (dialogical) conditions. With the decline of publics, that is, the decline of (the intellectual and moral substance of) democracy, Socratic reason tends to be eluded, and hence sociology tends to lose its capacity or possibility to influence public issues of structural relevance. The decline of democratic politics, that is, the decline of genuine and public debate, and consequently the decline of reason and the rise of mindlessness, ideology and phobia, leads Alvin Gouldner (1973: 167- 8) to conclude 'it is the quality of *mind*, not politics, that confronts us with the deepest abyss'. As publics (and hence democracy) decline and bureaucracies rise, bureaucratic concerns, in particular, corporate and military interests, come to dominate social existence. Mills (1956: 304) notes how corporate strategies, marketing, publicity, entertainment, bribery, intimidation, secret surveillance and so forth, often based on misuses or abuses of sociology, all reinforce the destruction of democratic publics and the enforcement of bureaucracies – organizations in which the governed are perceived as passive workers,

consumers, spectators, clients or property owners, instead of as political actors.

and less oppressive.

Since a dialogical sociology is dependent on the publics in order to safeguard the European values, it first has to revive the very conditions that make the development of publics possible. Hence, bringing sociology to the publics, to extent the promise of sociology to non-sociologists (not to live of sociology, but to live up to the promise of sociology in publics), goes hand in hand with the revival of the publics, that is, of the revaluation of the European values of reason and freedom. This revival becomes all the more urgent as trust in bureaucratic elites is lost, (early) modern bureaucratic structures in states and corporate sectors (particularly in the capital sectors) tend to dysfunction, and public anxieties and moral panics tend to spread with increased mindlessness of managers, professionals, citizens, and so forth. Reflexive sociology is significant in organizations in the sense that it organizes mindfulness, enabling its holders to become aware of the bias in planning, strategies and designs, in close tension with the objects they are dealing with; and to identify the values at stake when using their models, formats, methods, jargons, approaches. Dialoguing in publics fulfils the promise of sociology within the confines of organizations in the sense that dialoguers, in practicing the dialectic or friendly art of dispute, are, in the construction of their planning, strategies and designs, able to perceive and think beyond the actual, conventional and established understanding and expected, forecasted or hoped future. Also, dialogues propel stakeholders towards changing, creating new realities – realities in which reason and freedom may come to play a greater role in management and organization, so that organizations may be experienced as less stupefying

Richard Sennett (2008: 33) observes that, ultimately, publics also support better corporate performances, turning organizational existence into a more mindful and liberating experience for stakeholders. Sennett gives the example of Nokia, which, in order to generate technological innovation, instituted the dialogue as organizational form. Its management created a dialogical community, a public, including its engineers, salespeople and designers, who were invited, as individual employees, to formulate their issues in their own terms, to consider extremes, and to challenge and dispute experts and superiors. Management recognized the ambiguity of the boundaries between business units, as more than technical information was needed to make new worlds of technology. It increased social and mental

sociology is no longer simply the affair or possession of some intellectual elite, but becomes the potential source of civic education for both rulers – politicians, governors, legislators, judges, administrators, managers – and ruled – citizens and employees. Reflexive or dialogical sociology can contribute towards a reasonable social cohesion, for instance, by revealing the solidarity structure. If this is a task for sociology, its call or promise, then sociological and social lives cannot be lived separately; hence, sociologists cannot live in their academic ivory towers. But at the same time, they cannot become civil or corporate servants, at the service of the ruling powers. In this sense, their roles are not given, fixed or certain; they, or more precisely, their ideas – for which they assume responsibility – have to permeate social structures, including political ones, without giving the reason and freedom.

Sociologists, therefore, not only endeavour to understand the world, but also to make it liveable, while being extremely vigilant of the ideological snare that can underlie ambitions to change the world or to solve problems. A dialogical sociology presumes democracy or publics (Ossewaarde, 2007a; Ossewaarde, 2010b). The latter concept, coined by C. Wright Mills, can be defined as dialogues organized in society, institutions or situations in and through which people can publicly express and receive opinions, and respond. Through such interaction, it is expected that they are able to form informed, reasonable opinions, independently of prevailing systems of authority, so that the force of the better argument comes to reign (Mills, 1956: 303-4). Publics are not so much concrete places or organizations as opportunities for coming together, for conversing and disputing, for realizing the promise of sociology in concrete situations of work, citizenship, consumption, and so forth, and thereby make their qualities of mind, their reasoning, publically relevant (Habermas, 2001: 27). Publics are based on the assumption that knowledge can be acquired through dialogical interactions in organizations, through friendly disputes in which people are actively involved, learns to listen and speak, critically and reflectively. It is, of course, also assumed that people have an active commitment to European values; the contrary namely guarantees mass events in which all sorts of unreason, such as populism and demagogies, can triumph in organization and management. Publics open dialogical opportunities for informed discussion about pressing problems, provoking conversation and deliberation, triggering real innovation and renewal. They enable people, say employees, with opposing values and different points of view to converse with each other, facilitating mutual understanding and compromise, and respect, tolerance, fair-mindedness and the willingness to be persuaded and change one's mind (Goldfarb, 2005: 282; Smith, 2009: 94).

Mustafa Emirbayer and Mimi Sheller (1999: 155) note that 'publics signify rational-critical argumentation and collective will formation regarding the paths along which the state, economy, and civil society itself are to develop.' Publics, thus understood, somewhat resemble ancient Greek city-states (re-publics); they constitute the substance of any democratic society. Examples of publics include open assemblies, town meetings, conferences, citizen juries, random samplings that bring a diversified body of citizens (typically between 12 and 160 citizen) to discuss public (especially controversial) issues (Smith, 2009: 28; 79). Such publics constitute countervailing forces against bureaucratic machineries. The absence of publics in society is a sign of a lack of democratic substance, of the underrepresentation of the value of reason, the representation of unreason (in the form of ideologies, reifications, phobias and hysterias), and the presence of power concentrations. In other words, the absence of publics signifies the absence of European values in social conduct and in organizations.

sociology is no longer simply the affair or possession of some intellectual elite, but becomes the potential source of civic education for both rulers – politicians, governors, legislators, judges, administrators, managers – and ruled – citizens and employees. Reflexive or dialogical sociology can contribute towards a reasonable social cohesion, for instance, by revealing the solidarity structure. If this is a task for sociology, its call or promise, then sociological and social lives cannot be lived separately; hence, sociologists cannot live in their academic ivory towers. But at the same time, they cannot become civil or corporate servants, at the service of the ruling powers. In this sense, their roles are not given, fixed or certain; they, or more precisely, their ideas – for which they assume responsibility – have to permeate social structures, including political ones, without giving the reason and freedom. Sociologists, therefore, not only endeavour to understand the world, but also to make it liveable, while being extremely vigilant of the ideological snare that can underlie ambitions to change the world or to solve problems. A dialogical sociology presumes democracy or publics (Ossewaarde, 2007a; Ossewaarde, 2010b). The latter concept, coined by C. Wright Mills, can be defined as dialogues organized in society, institutions or situations in and through which people can publicly express and receive opinions, and respond. Through such interaction, it is expected that they are able to form informed, reasonable opinions, independently of prevailing systems of authority, so that the force of the better argument comes to reign (Mills, 1956: 303-4). Publics are not so much concrete places or organizations as opportunities for coming together, for conversing and disputing, for realizing the promise of sociology in concrete situations of work, citizenship, consumption, and so forth, and thereby make their qualities of mind, their reasoning, publically relevant (Habermas, 2001: 27). Publics are based on the assumption that knowledge can be acquired through dialogical interactions in organizations, through friendly disputes in which people are actively involved, learns to listen and speak, critically and reflectively. It is, of course, also assumed that people have an active commitment to European values; the contrary namely guarantees mass events in which all sorts of unreason, such as populism and demagogies, can triumph in organization and management. Publics open dialogical opportunities for informed discussion about pressing problems, provoking conversation and deliberation, triggering real innovation and renewal. They enable people, say employees, with opposing values and different points of view to converse with each other, facilitating mutual understanding and compromise, and respect, tolerance, fair-mindedness and the willingness to be persuaded and change one's mind (Goldfarb, 2005: 282; Smith, 2009: 94). Mustafa Emirbayer and Mimi Sheller (1999: 155) note that 'publics signify rational-critical argumentation and collective will formation regarding the paths along which the state, economy, and civil society itself are to develop.' Publics, thus understood, somewhat resemble ancient Greek city-states (re-publics); they constitute the substance of any democratic society. Examples of publics include open assemblies, town meetings, conferences, citizen juries, random samplings that bring a diversified body of citizens (typically between 12 and 160 citizen) to discuss public (especially controversial) issues (Smith, 2009: 28; 79). Such publics constitute countervailing forces against bureaucratic machineries. The absence of publics in society is a sign of a lack of democratic substance, of the underrepresentation of the value of reason, the representation of unreason (in the form of ideologies, reifications, phobias and hysterias), and the presence of power concentrations. In other words, the absence of publics signifies the absence of European values in social

conduct and in organizations.

C. Wright Mills (1956: 274) notes that 'the decline of politics as genuine and public debate of alternative decisions' that Michael Burawoy (2005b) also witnesses, is the result of the bureaucratization of social existence, in which the European values increasingly lose their authority, and reflexive science is no longer supported by social (dialogical) conditions. With the decline of publics, that is, the decline of (the intellectual and moral substance of) democracy, Socratic reason tends to be eluded, and hence sociology tends to lose its capacity or possibility to influence public issues of structural relevance. The decline of democratic politics, that is, the decline of genuine and public debate, and consequently the decline of reason and the rise of mindlessness, ideology and phobia, leads Alvin Gouldner (1973: 167- 8) to conclude 'it is the quality of *mind*, not politics, that confronts us with the deepest abyss'. As publics (and hence democracy) decline and bureaucracies rise, bureaucratic concerns, in particular, corporate and military interests, come to dominate social existence. Mills (1956: 304) notes how corporate strategies, marketing, publicity, entertainment, bribery, intimidation, secret surveillance and so forth, often based on misuses or abuses of sociology, all reinforce the destruction of democratic publics and the enforcement of bureaucracies – organizations in which the governed are perceived as passive workers, consumers, spectators, clients or property owners, instead of as political actors.

Since a dialogical sociology is dependent on the publics in order to safeguard the European values, it first has to revive the very conditions that make the development of publics possible. Hence, bringing sociology to the publics, to extent the promise of sociology to non-sociologists (not to live of sociology, but to live up to the promise of sociology in publics), goes hand in hand with the revival of the publics, that is, of the revaluation of the European values of reason and freedom. This revival becomes all the more urgent as trust in bureaucratic elites is lost, (early) modern bureaucratic structures in states and corporate sectors (particularly in the capital sectors) tend to dysfunction, and public anxieties and moral panics tend to spread with increased mindlessness of managers, professionals, citizens, and so forth. Reflexive sociology is significant in organizations in the sense that it organizes mindfulness, enabling its holders to become aware of the bias in planning, strategies and designs, in close tension with the objects they are dealing with; and to identify the values at stake when using their models, formats, methods, jargons, approaches. Dialoguing in publics fulfils the promise of sociology within the confines of organizations in the sense that dialoguers, in practicing the dialectic or friendly art of dispute, are, in the construction of their planning, strategies and designs, able to perceive and think beyond the actual, conventional and established understanding and expected, forecasted or hoped future. Also, dialogues propel stakeholders towards changing, creating new realities – realities in which reason and freedom may come to play a greater role in management and organization, so that organizations may be experienced as less stupefying and less oppressive.

Richard Sennett (2008: 33) observes that, ultimately, publics also support better corporate performances, turning organizational existence into a more mindful and liberating experience for stakeholders. Sennett gives the example of Nokia, which, in order to generate technological innovation, instituted the dialogue as organizational form. Its management created a dialogical community, a public, including its engineers, salespeople and designers, who were invited, as individual employees, to formulate their issues in their own terms, to consider extremes, and to challenge and dispute experts and superiors. Management recognized the ambiguity of the boundaries between business units, as more than technical information was needed to make new worlds of technology. It increased social and mental

Fulfilling the Promise of Sociology: Some Steps for Generating Reflexivity in Organizations 373

Agger, Ben (2008) 'Political Sentences: Anti-Intellectualism, Obscurantism and

Bachika, Reimon and Markus S. Schulz (2011) 'Values and Culture in the Social Shaping of

Bauman, Zygmunt (2003) *Liquid Love: On the Frailty of Human Bonds*. Cambridge: Polity

Beck, Ulrich and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim (2002) *Individualization: Institutionalized* 

Beck, Ulrich and Grande, Edgar (2010) 'Varieties of Second Modernity: The Cosmopolitan

Burawoy, Michael (2005a) '2004 American Sociological Association Presidential Address:

Burawoy, Michael (2005b) 'The Critical Turn to Public Sociology', *Critical Sociology* 31 (3):

Chernilo, Daniel (2011) 'The Critique of Methodological Nationalism: Theory and History',

Couldry, Nick (2009) 'Does "the Media" Have a Future', *European Journal of Communication*

Emirbayer, Mustafa and Mimi Sheller (1999) 'Publics in History', *Theory and Society* 28 (1):

Goldfarb, Jeffrey C. (2005) 'Dialogue, Culture, Critique: The Sociology of Culture and the

Gouldner, Alvin W. (1973) *For Sociology: Renewal and Critique in Sociology Today*. London:

Gouldner, Alvin W. (1976) *The Dialectic of Ideology and Technology: The Origins, Grammar and* 

Habermas, Jürgen ([1962],2001) *The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry* 

Horowitz, Irving Louis (1993) *The Decomposition of Sociology*. Oxford: Oxford University

Levine, Donald N. (1985) *The Flight From Ambiguity: Essays in Social and Cultural Theory*.

Levine, Donald N. (1995) *Visions of the Sociological Tradition*. London: University of Chicago

Lynd, Robert S. ([1939], 1970) *Knowledge for What? The Place of Social Science in American* 

Merton, Robert K. (1976) *Sociological Ambivalence and Other Essays*. New York: The Free Press.

Mills, C. Wright ([1959], 2000) *The Sociological Imagination*. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ossewaarde, Marinus (2007a) 'Sociology Back to the Publics', *Sociology* 41 (5): 799-812.

*into a Category of Bourgeois Society*. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

New Sociological Imagination', *International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society* 18:

Turn in Social and Political Theory and Research', *British journal of sociology* 61 (3):

*Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences*. London: Sage.

For Public Sociology', *The British Journal of Sociology* 56 (2): 259-294.

Polymorphous Perversity', *Sociological Inquiry* 78 (3): 423-430.

Bauman, Zygmunt (1991) *Modernity and Ambivalence*. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bloch, Ernst (1983) 'The Dialectical Method', *Man and World* 16: 281-313.

the Future', *Current Sociology* 59 (2): 107-118.

**9. References** 

Press.

409-443.

313-326.

145-197.

281-292.

Press.

Press.

Allen Lane.

24 (4): 437-449.

*Thesis Eleven* 106 (1): 98-117.

*Future of Ideology*. London: Macmillan.

London: The University of Chicago Press.

*Culture.* Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Mills, C. Wright (1956) *The Power Elite*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

uneasiness, urging people to use a variety of viewpoints, to release imaginations and clear the ground for new beginnings, for re-arrangements. Ericsson, by contrast, proceeded in a bureaucratic, un-reflexive and un-playful, manner. In order to generate innovation, it formulated a problem and divided it into parts, rigidly organized the exchange of information among competitive offices in its established organizational formats and rigid procedures. Without confronting real issues, offices protected their turf, hoarding information. Hence, Ericsson proved less renewing.
