The pursuit of neutrality and value-free objectivity in sociology, as opposed to critical approaches emerging from the Marxist tradition, raises fundamental questions about the nature of sociological inquiry. This perspective challenges the notion that society is merely a subject for sociology to adapt to, asserting instead that sociology, in itself, holds power. Drawing parallels with Marx’s philosophy, where understanding the world is insufficient, and changing it is imperative, this critical approach views sociology as a force capable of influencing societal dynamics.

Challenges to Neutrality

The idea of neutrality in sociology faces challenges from scholars like Max Feuerbach, who, echoing Marx, emphasized the importance of changing the world rather than merely interpreting it. Pierre Bourdieu later characterized sociology as a combat sport, suggesting that every scientific and political sociology study is inherently tied to an ideology or theory. Thus, the pursuit of neutrality in sociology, even if desired, seems unattainable. The very selection of research topics is linked to pre-existing value judgments, making complete objectivity elusive.

Influence of Personal Values

The determination of the research topic is just one aspect of the challenge to neutrality. The researcher’s personal preferences and personality play a significant role in shaping the course of the study. Even if a sociologist aspires to be neutral, the choice of research subject and the direction it takes are inevitably influenced by pre-existing value judgments. Liberation from these influences is nearly impossible, as the entire research process is grounded in the human factor.

Gouldner’s Perspective

Nur Vergin references Gouldner, who points out that the researcher, as a human being, undergoes change through the research process. This interaction between the researcher’s identity and the research subject challenges the idea of absolute objectivity. Gouldner suggests that complete objectivity is unattainable, highlighting the intricate relationship between the researcher’s personal choices, methods used, obtained findings, and their position within the study.

Etnometodology’s Answer

Etnometodologists respond to these challenges with a resounding “yes” to the question of whether absolute objectivity is possible. Douglas argues that the objectivity of a proposition is measured by its level of utility, suggesting a shift from the neutral external approach of positivists to a normative one rooted in openly stated value judgments. Etnometodologists contend that science should be useful, embracing the idea that objectivity should be evaluated based on its practical utility.

In the face of the challenges to neutrality in sociology, the question arises: Should the pursuit of absolute objectivity be abandoned in favor of acknowledging subjectivity from the outset? Etnometodologists advocate for embracing subjectivity and openly acknowledging value judgments, suggesting that the usefulness of scientific endeavors should be the yardstick for objectivity. As sociology continues to evolve, the tension between neutrality and subjectivity remains a central theme, urging scholars to critically examine their roles in shaping the discipline.

Historical Sociology and the State

Theda Skocpol and the Sociology of Revolutions

According to Skocpol, explaining major revolutions solely through the opposition of a specific social group to the existing power structure or through class struggles is inadequate. The conditions leading societies to revolution form a model, with examples including France, China, and Russia. According to this model, the coexistence of two different types of social contradictions is a significant factor for major revolutions. The power alliance between the state and the dominant class, coupled with the opposition of producers, leads to the state’s incapacity. The state falls into disarray as the dominant class begins to oppose it, and it can no longer implement the restructuring policies demanded by the international order.

The form of the state, weak or strong, is crucial for the occurrence of revolution. An event or events are needed to trigger the state’s transition to a revolutionary mode. Skocpol defines states primarily as administrative and military organizations. The state has internal duties to maintain order with resources obtained from society, and externally, it must acquire and protect competitive power. According to Skocpol, revolutions result in the emergence of a “professional-bureaucratic” state, characterized by a unified and centralized structure, deeply felt in society. Revolution aims to overthrow the state, which supports a specific societal dominance, as per Skocpol. However, her thesis is criticized for its generalization and failure to consider ideological differences among revolutions.

Conceptual Map of Europe and Nation-States

Territorial variables are crucial factors allowing the establishment of nation-states, according to Rokkan. The ability of a political center to extend its influence to the periphery through military and administrative power plays a role. Cultural variables also play a role. Rokkan sees the shaping of culture, particularly influenced by religion, as significant in the nation-building process. The Protestant Reformation, rejecting the universal claims of the Catholic Church, contributed to the formation of secular nation-states like Anglican, Lutheran, and Calvinist churches in England, Prussia, and Switzerland. These churches served as founding assemblies for secular nation-states and contributed to the modern state’s infrastructure.

War and the Formation of the State – Tilly

Tilly, analyzing Europe from 990 to 1990, emphasizes the role of large-scale comparisons in understanding significant social structures or processes. He observes the emergence of the nation-state system in Europe over a millennium. Tilly points out that the concept of Europe did not exist a thousand years ago, and people living in these lands did not identify themselves as Europeans. The nation-state system in Europe gradually formed from 990 onwards. Tilly argues that two main reasons for the dominance of the nation-state are the collapse of small traders and strong commerce in powerful states like England and France. The other factor is the development of economic resources and organizational skills necessary for war and war preparedness.

Loneliness Debate in Sociology

In social sciences, 100% neutrality is impossible; there is a difference between the nature of knowledge in natural and social sciences. The debate between Descartes and Gouldner in the 17th century highlighted the difference. Gouldner refers to A. Gouldner, an important sociologist, who emphasizes the need for sociologists to explain the sociological determinations within which the reader’s social consciousness, analyses, and propositions are developed. Gouldner terms this theory “reflexive sociology” or reflective sociology, meaning that sociologists and readers critically reflect on themselves and the text, considering their position in society, social determinations, and ideologies.

Classic Sociology – Durkheim

Emile Durkheim is considered the champion of positivist sociology, advocating objectivity and neutrality in sociological research. Durkheim argues that sociology should be free from personal values and prejudices to produce objective knowledge. He believes that sociology’s common sense, derived from assumptions and beliefs, should be free from personal values, biases, and political pressures. Durkheim suggests that sociology’s role is to ensure social integration, eliminate impediments to integration, and maintain social order. However, critics argue that Durkheim’s call for objectivity hides an ideological preference for the existing social and political order.

Weber: Separation of Science and Politics

Max Weber, in political sociology, claims a more sophisticated and detailed form of neutrality than Durkheim. He argues for the absolute separation of science and politics, stating that science and politics are two distinct fields and levels of action. Weber insists that sociologists must ensure their concepts are independent of values, leading to what he terms axiological neutrality or value-free sociology. According to Weber, sociology can provide enlightening information about causal relationships among social phenomena, explaining the fate of society. However, sociology, due to its neutrality, cannot determine this fate. Weber asserts that sociology is not a problem-solving practice; it does not answer questions about what should be done. He emphasizes that sociology is not a tool for intervention but rather a space where facts are presented without interference.

In conclusion, the debate on objectivity and neutrality in sociology is complex. While Durkheim advocates for objectivity with a positive view of the existing order, Weber presents a more sophisticated form of neutrality, acknowledging the challenges of fully separating values from research. Gouldner critiques both, arguing that true value-free sociology may not be achievable and that sociologists are always influenced by their societal context and ideologies.