Sociology. Anthony Giddens
dominated by a single theoretical tradition could be seen as a sign of weakness, but this is not the case. The jostling of rival traditions and theories is an expression of the vitality of the sociological enterprise. In studying human beings – ourselves – theoretical diversity rescues us from dogma and stagnation. Human behaviour is many-sided and it is unlikely that a single theoretical perspective could cover all of its aspects. Diversity in theoretical thinking provides a rich source of ideas which stimulate the creative capacities that are so essential to progress in social scientific work.
Levels of analysis: microsociology and macrosociology
One important distinction between different theoretical perspectives involves the level of analysis at which each is directed. The study of everyday behaviour in situations of face-to-face interaction is usually called microsociology, while macrosociology is the analysis of large-scale social structures and long-term processes of change. At first glance, it might seem that microanalysis and macroanalysis are entirely distinct from each other, but in practice the two are closely connected (Knorr-Cetina and Cicourel 1981; Giddens 1984).
Macroanalysis is essential if we are to understand the institutional backdrop of daily life. The ways in which people live their everyday lives are influenced by social institutions, as is obvious when we consider the impact on our lives of the education system, the political framework and the system of laws by which we live. Similarly, while we may choose to send an acquaintance an email message, we can also choose to fly thousands of miles to spend the weekend with a friend. Neither of these communications would be possible without the amazingly complex global infrastructure of our world and the many people, organizations and institutions required to build and operate them.
Microanalysis is in turn necessary for illuminating the details of such broad institutional patterns. Face-to-face interaction is clearly the main basis of all forms of social organization, no matter how large the scale. Suppose we are studying a business corporation. We can understand its activities by looking at face-to-face behaviour – the interaction of directors in the boardroom, workers in the various offices, or workers on the factory floor. We may not build up a complete picture of the whole corporation this way, but we could certainly make a significant contribution to understanding how the organization works ‘on the ground’.
Of course, people do not live their lives as isolated individuals, nor are their lives completely determined by large social structures. Sociology tells us that everyday life is lived in families, social groups, communities and neighbourhoods. At this level – the meso (or ‘middle’) level of society – it is possible to see the influence and effects of both micro- and macro-level phenomena. Many sociological studies of local communities deal with the macrosociological impact of huge social changes, such as economic restructuring, but they also explore the ways in which individuals, groups and social movements cope with such changes and turn them to their advantage.
For example, the 2008 financial crisis led to rising unemployment and falling living standards, but this also forced some people to learn new skills or start their own small businesses. Individuals are not simply at the mercy of large-scale social and economic changes but adapt creatively to them. Studying the community level of social life provides a window through which to observe the interaction of micro and macro levels of society. Much applied research (research with a practical aim) in sociology takes place at this meso level of social reality.
In later chapters, we will see further examples of how interaction in micro contexts affects larger social processes and how macro systems in turn influence more confined settings of social life. However, there remains one fundamental issue to be tackled in this chapter: what exactly is sociology for?
Sociology has practical implications for our lives, as C. Wright Mills emphasized when developing his concept of the sociological imagination. First, sociology gives us an awareness of cultural differences that allows us to see the social world from many perspectives. Quite often, if we properly understand how others live, we also acquire a better understanding of what their problems are. Practical policies that are not based on an informed awareness of the ways of life of people they affect have little chance of success. For example, a white English social worker operating in a predominantly Latin American community in South London will not gain the confidence of its members without being sensitive to the different experiences of ethnic groups in the UK.
Second, sociological research provides practical help in assessing the results of policy initiatives. A programme of practical reform may simply fail to achieve what its designers sought or may produce unintended consequences of an unfortunate kind. In the years following the Second World War, large public housing blocks were built in city centres in many countries. These aimed to provide high standards of accommodation for low-income groups from slum areas. However, research later showed that many people who had moved from their previous dwellings to large apartment blocks felt isolated and unhappy. High-rise apartment blocks often became dilapidated and provided breeding grounds for crime.
Third, many sociologists concern themselves directly with practical matters as professionals. People trained in sociology are to be found as industrial consultants, researchers in ‘think tanks’, urban planners, social workers and personnel managers, as well as in many other careers. An understanding of society and social relations can also be useful for future careers in law and criminal justice, journalism, business and the health professions.
Fourth, and in some ways most importantly, sociology can provide us all with self-enlightenment or increased self-understanding. The more we know about why we act as we do and about the overall workings of our society, the more likely we are to be able to influence our own future. Sociology does not just assist powerful groups or governments. The knowledge sociologists produce is made available to everyone and is often used by voluntary agencies, charities and social movements to bolster their case for change. However, sociological research findings, in themselves, are ‘neutral’. That is, they can tell us what society is like, how it ‘works’ and how it changes over time, but they cannot advise on whether it should be that way. That is the proper subject of competing political and moral debates that involve everyone.
Public and professional sociology
In recent years, some sociologists have argued that sociology has not engaged enough with the public and has concentrated too much on internal professional debates. In his presidential address to the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in 2004, Michael Burawoy argued for a new ‘public sociology’ that would forge relationships with audiences beyond the narrow confines of universities. He maintains that the professionalization of sociology in the twentieth century was beneficial, but it also led to sociologists talking more to each other than to the public ‘out there’ (Burawoy 2005).
Burawoy says there are four types of sociology: professional sociology, policy sociology, critical sociology and public sociology. Professional sociology is the conventional, universitybased, scientific sociology which generates large research programmes and bodies of knowledge and provides academic careers. Policy sociology includes all those studies which pursue goals defined by clients, such as funding bodies and government departments looking to tackle social problems. Critical sociology is ‘the conscience of professional sociology’, which points out the questionable assumptions of research projects and professional sociology (Burawoy 2005: 9). Feminist theory is one example of this strand, drawing attention to the gaps in scientific sociology and its unstated biases. Public sociology is the fourth type and is rooted in dialogue. That is, public sociology speaks with social groups such as trade unions, social movements, faith groups and organizations in civil society in a genuine conversation about the future direction of society. In this sense, the suggestion is that a more