Founders and classics of sociology
The key aim of this research is to review and assess a considerable body of literature that deals with the interpretation and reception of sociology’s “classic” texts. The concept of “classics” is a complex one, but essentially it draws our attention to a scale of judgement according to which a particular work is deemed to be especially worthy. A “classic,” in other words, belongs to a select pantheon of texts by virtue of its peculiar eminence and exemplary character. But what is the nature of this eminence? My research examines various responses to this question, notably those that focus on the functions classics perform for the scholarly community that employs them; the rhetorical or suasive force classics are said to possess; the conflicting or complementary ways in which they are best to be understood by modern interpreters; and the processes of reception through which they have been elevated to their current standing. Although these chapters are largely documentary in tone, they also suggest why attempts to establish abstract criteria of classicality are likely to fail. More positively, I provide an analytical framework by means of which classic formation is usefully charted.
The concept of classic is often equated with two other notions: “founders” and “canon”. The former has a well-established pedigree within the discipline, while widespread usage of the latter in sociology is much more recent. My research presents arguments against the use of founders and canons as ways of interpreting, defending and attacking, sociology’s great texts and authors. The research show why, in logical and historical terms, discourses and traditions cannot actually be founded, and why the term “founder” has limited explanatory value. Equally, they demonstrate that the analogy between a theological canon and sociological classic texts, though seductive, will not bear close scrutiny.
References:
The concept of classic is often equated with two other notions: “founders” and “canon”. The former has a well-established pedigree within the discipline, while widespread usage of the latter in sociology is much more recent. My research presents arguments against the use of founders and canons as ways of interpreting, defending and attacking, sociology’s great texts and authors. The research show why, in logical and historical terms, discourses and traditions cannot actually be founded, and why the term “founder” has limited explanatory value. Equally, they demonstrate that the analogy between a theological canon and sociological classic texts, though seductive, will not bear close scrutiny.
References:
- Founders, Classics, Canons: Modern Disputes over the Origins and Appraisal of Sociology's Heritage. (Author.) Preface by Steven Lukes. Critical Appendices by William Outhwaite, Adomas Puras and Philip Walsh, New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 2nd Paperback edn., forthcoming 2015.
- "The Honored Outsider. Raymond Aron as Sociologist," Sociological Theory, 31(2) 2013, pp. 93-115.