**5. Sociological dialoguing: The scientific activities of contradiction, negation and critique**

Sociology, like all social activity, can best be compared with movement; it moves in and through dialogues, through the contests of clashing theories of society. The recognition of the contradiction between theories is a starting point of sociological development, at least as far as the more reflexive forms of sociology are concerned. It is the first dialogical activity, a scientific activity that pushes sociologists to move, intellectually speaking, beyond their own theories and methods, towards a more truthful understanding of society and its features. The contradictions between the theories of society are, accordingly, not something that sociologists must get rid of to arrive at a better comprehension of society. Instead, to hold incompatible sociological theories in tension is to appreciate sociological otherness, which is a prerequisite for organizing a dialogue in the first place. As Richard Sennett (2008: 6) puts it, good science does not settle a question or solve a problem: instead, it unsettles, bequeaths disquiet, invites argument. Sociological dialoguing is a deliberate attempt to unsettle research conclusions. This scientific activity is a fight against all simplifications and

practices and social contexts that sustain the theories or obstruct the dialogue. Conversing sociologists cannot tolerate any preconceived view or conceptual foundation on which society, and hence sociology, rest. The practice of dialogue can therefore recall and confirm the inseparability of theory (modelling of society) and practice (shaping society in accordance with such models); in other words, sociologists are made aware of the social consequences of their practices, which is to say that they develop reflexivity in their mindsets. Indeed, sociology not only entails theorizing society, but also shaping it; and, since all theories of society have a practical implication for governing societies, sociologists must, according to reflexive sociologists, assume responsibility for the practical ends to which their theories and research findings are used (Gouldner, 1976: 182). In other words, reflexivity entails that sociologists are obliged to make sense of their own work. They cannot legitimately do their scientific work and then leave it to the public to deal with their

Doing reflexive sociology, accordingly, requires an awareness of the possible practical implications of theories and methods, of the possible ways in which sociology or research can be used or misused by others, in particular by elites who are most powerful in shaping society. Reflexive sociological research, in order to be as free as possible from blind spots, moves in a sort of spiral or pendulum between the study of society and its elements (empirical objects), and sociological dialogue, and back to the same study with renewed minds. Such is the core of reflexive sociology. Reflexivity means that sociologists are aware of their own subjectivities and social backgrounds, represented in their own research, and are conscious of how they participate in constructing their own research objects (Gouldner, 1973: 105). Such reflexive self-examination is one of the virtues that are the prerequisites for a fruitful dialogue. Reflexivity demands from sociologists that they be willing to live in intimate tension with the social things they speak and write about, therefore excluding all forms of complacency and desire for absolute certainty. Clearly, such a sociological virtue, just as sociological knowledge, can only be striven after without the illusion of ever

**5. Sociological dialoguing: The scientific activities of contradiction, negation** 

Sociology, like all social activity, can best be compared with movement; it moves in and through dialogues, through the contests of clashing theories of society. The recognition of the contradiction between theories is a starting point of sociological development, at least as far as the more reflexive forms of sociology are concerned. It is the first dialogical activity, a scientific activity that pushes sociologists to move, intellectually speaking, beyond their own theories and methods, towards a more truthful understanding of society and its features. The contradictions between the theories of society are, accordingly, not something that sociologists must get rid of to arrive at a better comprehension of society. Instead, to hold incompatible sociological theories in tension is to appreciate sociological otherness, which is a prerequisite for organizing a dialogue in the first place. As Richard Sennett (2008: 6) puts it, good science does not settle a question or solve a problem: instead, it unsettles, bequeaths disquiet, invites argument. Sociological dialoguing is a deliberate attempt to unsettle research conclusions. This scientific activity is a fight against all simplifications and

scientific results (c.f., Sennett, 2008: 5).

possessing it completely.

**and critique** 

reductions of paradoxical, moving, and ambiguous reality in scientific modelling and analysis (Ossewaarde, 2010a).

The reflexive sociologist who recognizes the irreconcilable contradictions between the various sociologies, between their peculiar concepts, jargons, methods, mind-sets, worldviews, and so forth, can choose to draw on all these traditions to form an own scientific approach to social life. This is not exactly the same thing as eclecticism since the European values freedom and reason, and more specifically, the sociological traditions that represent them, remain the most authoritative in such acrobatic exercises. In any case, the reflexive sociologist knows why the functionalist sees society as an organism, and on which assumptions this rests; the same reasoning holds for the other sociologies. Though it is incoherent to say that all these perspectives are equally 'true', the sociologist can use certain insights and languages in particular cases. Hence, the positivist concept of causal mechanism can be useful to explain how the level of education is linked to social positions. Such sociologists, to repeat once again, are not impartial observers; there is an ongoing dialogue between their own visions or values, and rivalling others. In this way, they are obliged to question and re-question their commitments, hence avoiding the pitfall of reification. Hence, the attempt is not made to (literally) grasp society as a whole – in some complete, all-embracing, harmonious and systemic model of social order – but the somehow humbler endeavour is made to try to understand social aspects, dimensions, phenomena, or processes. This is how the different sociologies can be sources of knowledge.

Once the contradictions are recognized, certain theoretical claims – that, of course, always have practical implications – can be, ought to be, negated, so that theories can be 'purified' of well-established falsehoods and bias (Gouldner, 1976: 21). Negation is therefore a second dialogical activity. Through negation, the obstacles to theoretical development, such as arbitrary fixations, dogma, prejudice, cliché, arbitrary predispositions, and so forth, are removed and reflexivity is developed. Negation is the creative destruction of a (typically predominant) theory of society, with the view of creating a new theory. It is a demolishing scientific activity, needed to make a new scientific creation possible, in the form of a new theory of society that matches more with a current or new state of social existence. Hence, negation is inspired by social transformations, in the sense that the necessity of negation becomes obvious when some theorization turns outdated in the sense that such a particular theory of society no longer matches with changed social realities.

The negation of theories of society, however, does not imply a total demolishing. The creation of new theories may well contain elements of the old theory of society. On the contrary, negation does not imply that all known categories – such as the nation-state, class, capitalism, democracy, university, science, media, technology, European identity, and so forth – can be discarded. Instead, elements of the outdated theory are subsumed in the new theorization and are invested with a new significance, in a new movement, towards a new becoming of a new society (c.f., Couldry, 2009; Urry, 2010). In other words, negation implies both destruction and continuation. The four sociologies cannot be discarded as superfluous surpluses without damaging the sociological enterprise. Also in the act of negation, reflexive sociologists still stand on the shoulder of the great founders of sociology and work to constantly revitalize the sociological tradition as a representation of the European value of reason (Ossewaarde, 2007b).

Fulfilling the Promise of Sociology: Some Steps for Generating Reflexivity in Organizations 367

certain powers) that sustain or promote sociological dialogue. In other words, a value-empty sociology is not only a hollow concept, but is also undesirable and dangerous, since such sociology is typically allied to ideologies. C. Wright Mills ([1959], 2000) argues that the European values, reason and freedom, are important criteria to distinguish between true, liberating knowledge that is connected with the social form of the dialogue, and false, ideologically motivated knowledge that is connected with the social form of the orator. According to Mills, sociologists are, in their scientific activities, bound to the Delphic oracle, to a 'promise' as he calls it. This is the promise to expand the role of Socratic reasoning and genuine freedom in social affairs, to be achieved through developing a reflexive 'quality of mind' that will help people, including managers, professionals, citizens and consumers, 'to use information and to develop reason in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world and of what may be happening within themselves' (Mills, 2000: 5). This quality of mind is not the exclusive property of reflexive sociologists. Instead, the promise of sociology is to 'sociologize' the minds of a variety of people or 'publics' as Mills calls them (Ossewaarde, 2007a) – encounters where sociology and appliers of sociological

Sciences, in general, and sociology in particular, are in the first place a representation or embodiment of the European value of reason. Reason is the Socratic, dialogical capacity to search for truth, involving the intellect, imagination, consciousness, and empathy; it ultimately finds its expression in self-knowledge, and knowledge of the other, these two forms of knowledge being inseparable and intimately related. For reflexive sociologists, reason is not a one-off instantaneous faculty, but is developed through dialoguing; dialogue is the playground of reason par excellence. Irving Louis Horowitz (1993: 144) notes that the belief in the goodness of representing the value of reason in society, through dialoguing, and the corresponding Delphic quest for self-understanding as a European cultural force, ought to inspire scientific conduct: 'if one cannot believe in social science as a higher rationality, then all is lost'. Without Socratic reason as a supreme value, science is indeed devoid of intellectual and moral substance; and hence degenerates from being a cultural force into being a mere instrument that can serve all purposes, including destructive and oppressive causes. A 'higher rationality', however, constantly exposes people, including power holders, to scrutiny, and to the uncomfortable realization that, given the fundamental scientific obligation to embrace ambivalence and ambiguity, there is no simple solution to certain situations, no foolproof choice, and no social order that is exempt from reification

As a manifestation and servant of reason, sociology is a continuation and elaboration of the permanent Delphic quest for self-understanding; there can be no science (knowledge) without self-knowledge. Sociology, Alvin Gouldner (1973: 126) says, is a social activity in pursuit of 'the ancient human aspiration for self-knowledge. If that is not a high calling, then none is.' Sociology can be both the study of society and the aspiration for self-knowledge, also within organizations and through work, because the self and social life, that is, social processes and activities, are related. To fulfil the promise of sociology in organizations is to develop a quality of mind that would enable people, say, managers and professionals to locate their organization within a historical period. It is to link the most remote structural transformations (such as globalization or technological revolutions) to the most intimate features of their own existence in their organization. And it is to identify the major crisis of

insights come together.

(Bauman, 1991: 44-5).

A third dialogical activity, closely connected with negation, is the critique of the social conditions of sociological theorizing. Several sociologists, such as Anthony Giddens, Ulrich Beck and Zygmunt Bauman, have put forward 'critiques of modernity', and have developed new concepts like 'postmodernity' and 'late modernity', to point out that (early) modern theories of society, or particular concepts, that used to authoritative have lost their validity. Robert Nisbet (1966: 318), for instance, concludes that Ferdinand Tönnies' well-established *Gemeinschaft*-*Gesellschaft* distinction has lost much of its theoretical vitality for studying social experiences in the 1960s. Tönnies' ideal types were once useful to grasp the movements of society, but, the further individualization of the individualized society, has implied that the collectivities of the *Gesellschaft*, including the nuclear family, gender, nation, citizenship and class, have turned liquid (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2002: 18-19; Bauman, 2003). The ideal types that used to make it possible for sociologists to interpret the meaning of individualization have become 'zombie categories'. As social existence increasingly takes place outside the realm of classes, gender, nuclear family, or nation, these collectivities of the individualized society are accordingly increasingly insufficient to understand social experiences and identities. Instead, sociological concepts such as selfmanagement and lifestyle have been coined or re-introduced as more appropriate for enquiry into current social affairs.

According to reflexive sociologists, sociology therefore moves, or develops, as a science through three dialogical activities: recognition of contradictions, negation and critique. Through these activities, sociologists are able to move from practice to theories, and back to practice, back and forth; in this way, they try to do justice to rapidly changing social worlds. The problem of outdated concepts or theories lies not in their being outdated or old, but in the fact that sociological theories also constitute changing forces. By clinging on to old concepts, theories might simply become redundant, irrelevant to social practices, but they can also be harmful if they are used by policy makers for instance. They can serve to freeze social existence, or ignore important social dimensions. The identification of the vigour and weakness of current social structures, the denunciation of structures that are closed to reason and freedom, and the conceptualization of social alternatives constitute a dialogical sociological ethos. Several sociologists, however, have noted that in the current era of global capitalism, this particular sociological ethos is not at all appreciated by those in power, who hold power in the current acme of stability and would lose it if familiar certainties were undermined (c.f., Burawoy, 2005a: 263). Given the concentrations of power in the current era, there is a rather strong pressure from the power centres, ideologically supported by the ideology of neoliberalism, to destroy all imaginable social alternatives to the current state of (globalizing) social existence (Bauman, 1991: 269).
