[Cet article est repris du site « I hate sociology » : https://www.ihatesociology.com/fakesocialjustice. Utilisez les boutons de langue du menu pour le lire dans la langue qui vous convient.]

Sociology has little credibility because it has evolved into a discipline which disdains value-free research and sacrifices research integrity for identity politics and social change activism. Sociologists speak of commitment to standards of scientific rigor, but their practice is mainly ideology and sloppy empirical studies. After decades of teaching and research, the distinguished sociologist Alexander Riley reached this mordant conclusion about his discipline:

“Today, sociology treats complex and contested questions with the most simplified framework imaginable. All questions about human life are now equations of victims and victimizers and the mechanisms by which the powerful oppress the powerless. No alternative explanatory models for the empirical outcomes we see in the world are entertained or even acknowledged as legitimate. All evidence that cannot be adequately twisted to fit the storyline is ignored. Outright mendacity about empirical matters is embraced, details of cases are occluded, and everything is furiously spun from the start in the direction desired.”

Universalism Has Been Replaced by Tribalism and Competitive Victimhood

Historically sociologists have expressed ‘class-based’ solidarity, seeking to elevate poor, low wage, and ‘marginalized’ people of all backgrounds. Studies of disparities in wealth and power primarily looked at social and economic determinants such as money, class, heredity and nepotism. The dominant concern of today’s sociology is rooting out any and all outcome inequality between groups defined by their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, immigration status, indigeneity and physical ability. Universalism has been replaced by a toxic tribalism and competitive victimhood.

Woke sociology is fake social justice. Social justice without economic class. More than any of the other social sciences, sociology centers wokism’s core tenet of ‘intersectionality’ which sees forms of injustice as linked, reinforcing and multiplying into a forest of trauma. Beginning as an insight into identity formation, intersectionality has evolved into a debilitating political fanaticism. It is at the very of sociology.

Much of Today’s Academic Sociology Deserves Contempt

The majority of sociologists support or have acquiesced to their discipline as an activist field with a grievance-based ‘social justice’ mission. Undoubtedly not all sociologists are in the critical social justice camp. Many are apolitical, and there are individual sociologists who have interesting and useful things to say.

No One has a Monopoly on the Truth

Higher education should aim to foster the development of students’ independent and critical thinking skills. Universities should be institutionally neutral and pluralistic, providing students with the conceptual tools for understanding the world.

There are always good arguments on both sides of any complex issue, and no one perspective has a monopoly on truth. What is ‘socially just’ or the best path to social betterment are not clear and easily agreed upon. Conflicting viewpoints should be presented in a fair and dispassionate manner. Ideas and beliefs should be freely and openly discussed. Failure to do so results in ideological dominance which breeds confirmation bias, groupthink and pressure to conform.

Sociology: The Academy’s Progressive Vanguard

Although progressives and woke ideology dominate much of the social sciences and humanities, they are most hegemonic in sociology. Numerous studies summarized by Professor Yanor show that liberals outnumber conservatives by forty-seven to one. Almost no one is openly right of center. One study found zero Republicans. Another found a grand total of 12 conservative sociologists out of 6,000 in the country. They are vastly outnumbered by self-identified “Marxists”.

Sociologists Start with a Conclusion and Find Evidence That Supports It

Numerous dissident sociologists including Professors Sakamoto and Iceland have shown how sociologists start with a conclusion, and then find evidence that supports it. Such statistical malfeasance and intellectual dishonesty are rife. Sociological ‘theories’ are political ideologies or bogus concepts. They base their claims and conclusions on weak empirical evidence, and rig their statistical methods in order to arrive at ideologically preferred conclusions.

Less than half of sociologists agree that “a dispassionate attitude in research is important for accuracy” and a majority believes that sociology “should analyze and transcend oppression”. This viewpoint shapes their research programs and academic journals where ideologies dressed up as explanatory theories champion their social justice agenda.

Top Sociology Journals Publishing ‘Absolute Crap’

Even the esteemed statistician Andrew Gelman, usually generous to sociology, finally had enough when a top sociology journal, Demography, published an article which he called ‘a hack job’ and ‘absolute crap’. The article argued that Trump’s 2016 election led to birth defects for non-white mothers. Gelman pondered “how this sort of paper with weak science and a crude political agenda can get published in legitimate journals”. A mystery for the ages.

Conservative Principles are Ignored

Nowhere is the ‘sociological imagination’ put to the service of promoting conservative or libertarian principles such as strong stable families, meritocracy, faith and market-based solutions, limited government, and controlling crime. Sociologists reject these values. Their enforced consensus is that social problems solely arise from “structural conditions”.

Within departments, sociologists create their own ideologically aligned minors (“solidarity and social justice”), politically partisan programs and vocabulary (‘racialization’). Convinced of their moral mandate, they are not open to learning from conservatives whom they construe as hostile partisans, not worth a moment’s attention. Ideological cohabitation is not acceptable.

Conservative Professors and Students Face Isolation and Ridicule

Conservative sociologists, particularly cultural conservatives are thought to be morally reprehensible. They face a hostile climate including isolation and ridicule. Conservative and libertarian perspectives on contentious issues are denounced and belittled, but mostly just ignored. They are kept out of prestigious journals and course curricula. Sociologists take an inquisitorial stance against anyone who investigates a taboo subject, reaches a politically incorrect conclusion or supports a practice or outcome that strikes them as a ‘social injustice’.

To illustrate, a University of Texas sociologist reached a ‘wrong conclusion’ in an LGBT related study. His study was immediately discredited. Over 200 sociologists signing a letter questioning his motives, integrity, and funding, and vilifying his character. This harsh reaction also serves to intimidate other potential transgressors. Another well-regarded sociologist who held deep Christian convictions took a position on a ‘value issue’ that cost him his candidacy for a promotion.

Even moderate and liberal faculty water down their ideas, shy away from controversial topics and avoid situations where they would have to reveal their true beliefs. They are careful to approach ‘permitted’ topics in ideologically acceptable ways. Transgressing the field’s moral sensibilities, defying the language police or veering from the prevailing orthodoxy has resulted in shaming, ridicule, cancelled courses, retracted articles, and even the loss of one’s job and reputation. Students are also impacted. A self-described ‘apolitical’ graduate student specializing in the sociology of sports reported unwanted faculty pressure to engage in politics.

The Classroom as a Forum for Indoctrinating Students 

As Professor Riley contends, the teaching of sociology is often straightforward political activism under the guise of teaching and learning. Students are presented complex issues only through the lens of woke activism, oppressor and victim, and dogmatism. Conservative views are largely ignored. When they are given a hearing they are presented weakly or misrepresented to ensure their immediate dismissal. Students who challenge orthodox claims are often shouted down or shamed merely for expressing opinions that did not align with the dominant views. A pernicious groupthink (encompassing belief in their moral superiority and being on the right side of history, stereotyping of out-groups, etc.) closes off the possibility of rich debates on the interplay of social, economic and cultural factors.

The Cult of Sociology: The Sociological ‘Lens’ and ‘Imagination’

Sociology embodies what Professor Haidt calls an academic disciplinary ‘tribal moral community’. It also bears all the earmarks of a cult. One department calls itself a “community for social change, social justice, and equality” with “supportive peers”. A sociologist observes that his colleagues “comprise an emotive left progressive community with shared norms and a tribal loyalty to sacralized victims.” Another describes a “warm and welcoming community”. Sociologists view themselves compassionate and committed to social amelioration and the ‘defense of humanity’. Professor McCaffrey notes that students select sociology as a major because they want to change the world and usher in a utopian society where no racism, sexism, ableism, classism or discrimination of any kind exists.

Departmental mission statements exult how the ‘sociological lens’ is critical for ‘opening your eyes’ so you can see problems clearly and eliminate inequality. According to sociology, society operates on the basis of invisible power structures that those trained in their field are best qualified to detect.

Sociologists have their own esoteric language for ‘exposing hidden truths’ and showing students “the inner-workings of things they might have experienced every day”. Sociology augments the existing woke lexicon with novel terms such as agnotology, manosphere and racialization. A sociology student explains: “I felt like I was primed to understand what I was learning, and someone just needed to peel back the curtain and show it to me.”

Sociology’s Revered Canon

The most revered among sociology’s foundational sacred texts is undoubtedly “The Sociological Imagination” by C. Wright Mills. A graduate student recalls how his professor “used to take out his dog-eared copy of the book and read passages out loud to me like a catechist”. The current sociology guru is Pierre Bourdieu. Sociology, he avers, allows you to “think in a completely astonished and disconcerted way about things you think you had always understood”.

Like other cults, sociologists angrily reject or contemptuously ignore fact-based arguments opposed to their existing beliefs. The abuse and debasement of critics and deviationists are straight out of Stalin’s playbook. (From Soviet era documents: “Punish those corrupt in a moral and ethical sense”. “Punish those who do not inspire political trust”. “Punish those who take an anti-Party attitude toward Party documents”.)

Dominated by the White Man’s Gaze?

For a field obsessed with diversity and inclusion, the dearth of white men among sociology faculty and graduate students is striking. In an impassioned 2020 articles, the ASA president made the profoundly dishonest claim that sociology departments are very old, very white and “dominated by the white man’s gaze”.

A quick look at departmental websites reveals that white males are a shrinking minority in the field. This is obvious, self-documenting and most visible in the pipeline of new scholars. White males typically comprise between 3 and 15 percent of sociology graduate students. At Johns Hopkins 1 of 36 students is a white male. (University of North Carolina: 6 of 57; Georgia: 1 of 33; Yale: 4 of 44. Pick your department). The figures are slightly higher for junior faculty, but are undoubtedly lower for both groups if only white men who do not lay claim to other oppressed identities, such as “LGBTQ,” are counted.

They Reject Sociology’s Woke Ideology

Undoubtedly, white men are turning away from sociology due to the centrality of ideologies (critical race theory, ‘white hetero patriarchal violence’, ‘white supremacy culture’ etc.) which designate them as the permanent bad guys. It is hard to miss the proliferation of assigned readings such as: “White Male Mediocrity”, “White Supremacy, Patriarchy and Capitalism”, “White Man Falling”, “Angry White Men”, and “The White Man Victimhood of the Rabid Puppies”.

Ultimately, those white heterosexual males who complete the Ph.D program – often without the benefit of race and gender-based scholarships – will be disfavored in the job market. If they get a job, promotions and competitive research grants will be harder to obtain. This reverse racism starts at the top of the profession. In the name of ‘resisting oppression’ and intervening in ‘socio-political struggles’, the American Sociological Association eliminated white men from leadership positions 15 years ago. It will take generations, they argue “to overcome sociology’s roots in Eurocentric white male supremacy”.

The Ascendancy of Radical Sociologists

The decline of sociology has been unfolding over many decades. During its mid-20th Century heyday, sociology’s dominant theory was functionalism which views society as a system of interrelated parts that work together toward the goal of overall societal harmony and stability. This period was characterized by viewpoint heterogeneity and the flourishing of creative thinkers (Kai Erickson, Erving Goffman, etc.) who offered original analyses of social problems and insightful gems. Many viewed their professional role as to understand understand the actions of others by putting themselves in their shoes (verstehen), not to advocate.

This perspective endured into the late 1980s, when radical ideologies began to colonize the field. Established specialties like ‘marriage and the family’ disappeared from university catalogues, replaced by “gender studies” and “victimology”. Criminal justice became ‘Social Justice’ and ‘Carceral Studies’. Functionalism was repudiated for conservative biases. Stability and harmony were hardly desirable when the goal is to radically transform society.

At the same time, post-modernism and other intellectual movements resulted in a sea change in what counted as scholarship, and the questioning of the possibility of objective knowledge. Ideas that had been percolating for many years on the periphery of the field, moved to center stage. By the time of the Great Awokening, the left progressives, now updated to woke, completed the reorganization of academic sociology around their ideological principles of critical social justice and intersectionality.

Conservative, Centrist and Apolitical Sociologists

Historically, a small group of conservative sociologists – mostly libertarians and practicing Christians – taught in specializations such as military sociology, the family and religion. Over time these specializations shrunk, or the faculty abandoned sociology for more hospitable academic homes. A handful of conservative sociologists continue to teach, primarily in religious colleges or public universities in the South.

American Sociological Association: Sociology’s Extremist Governing Body

Consumed with woke ideology, sociology’s governing organization, the American Sociological Association (ASA) disregards professional standards of scholarship and exhibit contemptuous disregard for the views of any members who do dare not share their views. Their numerous ‘resolutions’ promoting their own conception of social justice are politically partisan, and outside the purview of any scholarly or professional association.

For an organization focused on outcome equality and ‘liberatory praxis’ they are elitist in their ‘academic caste system’ practices. Sociologists with degrees from non top-20 departments are almost never hired at elite departments.

Jonathan Turner is one of 40 University of California ‘University Professors’, a title reserved for scholars of the highest international distinction and teachers of exceptional ability. In 2024, Professor Turner resigned from the ASA with this poignant note.

After years of hoping that ASA would again embrace science rather than political activism, I have decided to terminate my affiliation with ASA and PSA (note: my politics are not that different than most activists). There is very little any more in ASA that would interest a serious scientist who believes in value neutral theorizing and research. The Justice Warriors have won the battle, but with many casualties as the declining membership of ASA documents. It is not that I oppose activism, per se, especially for the rights of individuals and categories of persons long subject to discrimination. Indeed,– I have been politically active in my personal life for over 60 years, but my personal life. I always believe and still believe with a passion equal to that of any Justice Warrior that a professional organization like sociology should be devoted to value-neutral understandings the dynamics of the socio-cultural universe providing knowledge that may prove useful in constructing and reconstructing societies. But activism is driven more by ideology than science. Since science is now marginalized in ASA, it is time to say goodbye. Indeed, sociology has self-destructed; and yet, something like sociology will have to be rebuilt again, by another name, to achieve the goal of having a true science of human societies.