Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Forgetting the Founders? The Uses of Classical Theory Today

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is commonly held that the most laudable research is constructed around a healthy interplay among theories, methods, and data. Despite this long-standing consensus, many scholars have voiced concerns that theoretical frameworks are too often given inadequate attention and are generally underdeveloped. This impression has yet to be expressed with an empirical basis. For this reason, we evaluate this apparent disciplinary situation by creating a dataset made up of 217 articles from general sociology journals, as well as 22 US graduate-level classical theory syllabi. Through various means, we assess how often and to what extent sociologists apply classical theory in their research. Rather than intensive theorizing and/or earnestly striving to elevate historical consciousness, we find that sociologists typically reduce the theoretical dimensions of their analyses to thin commemorations of foundational texts. To our knowledge, this is the first empirically based assessment of the degree to which classical theory is used and cited in sociological research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Related discussions can be found in several Issues of the Swiss Journal of Sociology (e.g., Camic 1997; Sica 1998; Kaesler 1999).

  2. We are here describing what Stinchcombe (1982) refers to as the “developmental task.” According to Stinchcombe, the developmental task is one of the six distinct functions that sociological classics serve. The other functions are touchstones or models of aesthetic excellence, the small coinage function to indicate the tradition in which one is working, sources of fundamental ideas, the routine science function that provides sources for empirical puzzles, and the ritual function that serves to help realize disciplinary solidarity. For concerns of both space and thematic uniformity, we do not here explore each of these functions.

  3. If in the earlier history of empirical social research it was an article of faith that sound analysis could rely on the three-legged stool of theories, methods, and data, this confidence has been shaken by more sophisticated inquiries into the mechanics of research—how it is actually carried out, and the interrelation (as opposed to separation) between these three realms (Cartwright and Montuschi 2014).

  4. The most recent U.S. News rankings were from 2017 when this project began.

  5. Issues from 2018 were omitted for journals that publish considerably more articles per Issue in order to avoid an overly disproportionate representation of a particular journal.

  6. The final reference count simply represents the number of times that one of the classical theorists was cited. For example, if one article were to reference two of the classical theorists, then two cases would be added to the reference count. In the scope of this analysis, 34 of the 161 research articles cited at least one of the classical theorists, producing a final reference count of 51.

  7. For example, an article that cites Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism as well as Economy and Society is considered to reference Weber once. On the other hand, a situation in which an article cites two separate theorists (e.g., Weber’s Economy and Society as well as Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations) would result in the addition of two cases to the reference count.

  8. These sentences did not need to be consecutive, nor did they need to contain a citation to the given theorist in order to be considered a sentence that discusses said theorist. However, the theorist needed to be cited at least once somewhere in the article for any of the sentences to have been counted. An article’s discussion of two distinct works by the same theorist would be combined rather than separated in the production of this sentence count.

  9. The atheoretical orientation of the discipline may be more of a problem in the USA than in Europe (see indicative findings in Gartrell and Gartrell 2002), though more research is needed to assess this point of speculation. To this point, Camic (1997) makes a related observation when comparing the USA and France in terms of interest and knowledge in the history of social thought. In contrast to sociologists in France, who demonstrate great interest in sociology’s past, the American sociologist, according to Camic (1997, 228), “knows virtually nothing of his or her discipline’s history.”

References

  • Abrutyn, S. and A.S. Mueller. 2014. The socioemotional foundations of suicide: A microsociological view of Durkheim’s suicide. Sociological Theory, 32(4), 327-51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adamczyk, A., J.D. Freilich, and C Kim. 2017. Religion and crime: A systematic review and assessment of next steps. Sociology of Religion, 78(2), 192-232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albanese, A. 2023. The future of historical consciousness in sociology. The American Sociologist, 54(1), 147-75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, J.C. 1982. Positivism, presuppositions, and current controversies. Vol. 1 of Theoretical logic in sociology. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, L.L. 1932. Sociological research and the exceptional man. Publication of the American Sociological Society, 27, 3-19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besbris, M., & S. Khan. 2017. Less theory. More description. Sociological Theory, 35(2), 147-53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & H.D. Daniel. 2008. What do citation counts measure? A review of studies of citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45-80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. 2019. Empiricism and its fallacies. Contexts, 18(1), 47-53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camic, C. 1981. On the methodology of the history of sociology: A reply to Jones. American Journal of Sociology, 86(5), 1139-44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camic, C. 1997. Uneven development in the history of sociology. Swiss Journal of Sociology, 23(2), 227-33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, N., & E. Montuschi. 2014. Philosophy of social science: A new introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R., & M. Makowksy. 2010. The discovery of society. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, C.S., & C.M. Stockton. 2018. The central role of theory in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1-10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comte, A. 1988. Introduction to positive philosophy. Edited by Frederick Ferré. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crapanzano, V. 1986. Hermes’ dilemma: The masking of subversion in ethnographic description. Pp. 51-76 in Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography, edited by J. Clifford & G.E. Marcus. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dayé, C. 2018. A systematic view on the use of history for current debates in sociology, and on the potential and problems of a historical epistemology of sociology. The American Sociologist, 49(4), 520-47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, J.D. 1971. The rhetoric of science and the origins of statistical social thought: The case of Durkheim’s suicide. Pp. 44-57 in The phenomenon of sociology: A reader in the sociology of sociology, edited by E.A. Tiryakian. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, O.D. 1984. Notes on social measurement: Historical and critical. New York: Russel Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellwood, C. 1933. Methods in sociology: A critical study. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erikson, K.T. 1970. Sociology and the historical perspective. The American Sociologist, 5(4), 331-38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gans, H. J. 1992. Sociological amnesia: The noncumulation of normal social science. Sociological Forum, 7(4), 701-710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartrell, C.D. & J.W. Gartrell. 2002. Positivism in sociological research: USA and UK (1966-1990). British Journal of Sociology, 53(4), 639-57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, K. 2017. Fuck nuance. Sociological Theory 35(2), 118-27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, E. 1970. The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology: An introduction to phenomenological philosophy. Translated by D. Carr. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

  • Jacobs, J.A. 2016. Journal rankings in sociology: Using the H index with Google Scholar. The American Sociologist 47(2-3), 192-224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R.A. 1977. On understanding a sociological classic. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 279-319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R.A. 1981. On Camic’s antipresentist methodology. American Journal of Sociology, 86(5), 1133-38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R.A. 1985. Second thoughts on privileged access. Sociological Theory, 3(1), 16-19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaesler, D. 1999. Guardians of canonical wisdom: Why some of us care for the history of sociology. Swiss Journal of Sociology, 25(2), 149-59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R.K. 1968. Social theory and social structure: Toward the codification of theory and research. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R.K. 1996. On social structure and science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. 1950. The prospects of sociological theory. American Sociological Review, 15(1), 3-16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, I.A. & M.N. Zald. 2014. The unsettlement of communities of inquiry. Pp. 85-105 in Theorizing in social science: The context of discovery, edited by R. Swedberg. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • Seidman, S. 1985. The historicist controversy: A critical review with a defense of a revised presentism. Sociological Theory, 3(1), 13-16.

  • Sica, A. 1988. Weber, irrationality, and social order. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sica, A. 1998. The dire need for history: Amnesia and sociology in the U.S. Swiss Journal of Sociology, 24(2), 191-98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sica, A. 2016. Book matters: The changing nature of literacy. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sica, A. 2019. Classical sociological theory. Pp. 3-20 in The Wiley Blackwell companion to sociology, edited by G. Ritzer & W.W. Murphy. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorokin, P. A. 1965. Sociology of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. American Sociological Review, 30(6), 833-43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, A.L. 1982. Should sociologists forget their mothers and fathers. The American Sociologist, 17(1), 2-11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, J.W.N. 1933. The limitations of science. New York: The Viking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedberg, R. 2016. Before theory comes theorizing or how to make social science more interesting. The British Journal of Sociology, 67(1), 5-22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swedberg, R. 2017. Theorizing in sociological research: A new perspective, a new departure? Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 189-206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swedberg, R. 2021. Theorizing with the help of the classics. Journal of Classical Sociology, 21(3-4), 296-306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavory, I. 2019. Beyond the calculus of power and position: Relationships and theorizing in ethnography. Sociological Methods and Research, 48(4) 727-38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B.J., B. Cantwell, & S. Slaughter. 2013. Quasi-markets in U.S. higher education: The humanities and institutional revenues. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(5), 675-707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timmermans, S., & I. Tavory. 2012. Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167-86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J.H. 2006. American sociology in chaos: Differentiation without integration. The American Sociologist, 37(2), 15-29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S.P. 1985. Weltgeist, intention, and reproduction: A code. Sociological Theory, 3(1), 23-28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S.P. 2007. Defining a discipline: Sociology and its philosophical problems, from its classics to 1945. Pp. 3-69 in Philosophy of anthropology and sociology, edited by S. Turner & M. Risjord. New York: Elsevier.

  • Turner, S.P., & J.H. Turner. 1990. The impossible science: An institutional analysis of American sociology. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vico, G. 1990. On the study methods of our time. Translated by E. Gianturco & D.P. Verene. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

  • Warner, R.S. 1985. Sociological theory and history of sociology: Autonomy and interdependence. Sociological Theory, 3(1), 20-23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. 1948. Science as a vocation. Pp. 129-56 in From Max Weber: Essays in sociology, edited by H.H. Gerth & C. W. Mills. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. 2011. ‘Objectivity’ in social science and social policy. Pp. 49-112 in Methodology of the social sciences, translated and edited by E.A. Shils & H.A. Finch. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

  • Whitehead, A.N. 1917. The organization of thought: Educational and scientific. London: Williams and Norgate.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, 211 Oswald Tower, State College, PA, 16801, USA

    Anthony Albanese, Elise Wolff & Alan Sica

Authors
  1. Anthony Albanese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elise Wolff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alan Sica
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Anthony Albanese conceived of and designed the analysis, collected the data, performed the analysis, and wrote parts of the paper.

Elise Wolff organized the raw data and performed the analysis along with Anthony Albanese.

Alan Sica provided general supervision and wrote parts of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony Albanese.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

Not applicable

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Albanese, A., Wolff, E. & Sica, A. Forgetting the Founders? The Uses of Classical Theory Today. Soc 60, 722–732 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-023-00873-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-023-00873-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation