Value Freedom And Commitment

What has the issue of commitment that Weber has raised remained at the centre of?

Debates about the place of the sociologist’s values in research.

What have Marxists, interactionists and feminists argued for?

A ‘committed sociology‘ in which the sociologist spells out the importance of their values to their research.

Unlike Durkheim and Comte, who were openly committed to re-shaping society in certain ways, what did positivists tend to argue by the mid 20th century?

That their own values were irrelevant to their research. There were two reasons for this.

What were the two reason sociologists argued that their own values were irrelevant to the research?

• The desire to appear scientific.

• The social position of sociology.

What is science concerned with?

Matters of fact, not value. Therefore, sociologists should remain morally neutral - their job is to simply establish the truth about people’s behaviour, not judge it.

What have critics argued about the nature of science?

That it has reflected a desire to make sociology respectable. Science has a high prestige in modern society, so mimicking its ways would raise the subject’s status and earn its respectability.

What does Gouldner argue?

That by the 1950s, American sociologists in particular had become mere ‘spiritless technicians‘. Earlier in the century, sociology had been a critical discipline, often challenging accepted authority but by the 1950s, sociologists were no longer ‘problem makers‘ who defined their own research problems, but had become ‘problem takes‘ who hired themselves out to organisations to rake on and solve their problems for them.

What else does Gouldner argue?

That, by leaving their own values behind them, sociologists were making a ‘gentleman’s promise‘ that they would not rock the boat by criticising their paymasters. Because they were simply hired hands, they saw their own values as irrelevant.

By contrast with the positivists, what do some sociologists argue for?

A committed sociology.

What does Mrydal argue?

That sociologist’s should not only spell out their values - as Weber recommends - they should also openly ‘take sides‘ by espousing the values/interests of particular individuals/groups.

What do committed sociologists who argue for committed sociology, like Myrdal and Gouldner argue?

That it is neither possible nor desirable to keep values out of research.

In Gouldner’s view, what is value-free sociology?

• Impossible.

• Undesireable.

For Gouldner, how is value-free sociology impossible?

Because either the sociologist’s own values, or those of their paymasters are bound to be reflected in their work.

For Gouldner, how is value-free sociology undesirable?

Since without values to guide research, sociologists are merely selling their services to the highest bidder.

If all sociology is influenced by values, what does this mean for sociologists?

That they must take sides. By not choosing a side, the sociologist is in fact taking the side of the more powerful against the less powerful.

What does interactionist Becker ask and argue?

‘Whose side are we on?‘ - he argues that values are always present in sociology. Traditionally, however, positivists and functionalists have tended to take over the viewpoint of powerful groups like the police.

What does Becker argue?

That instead of seeing things from the perspective of these ‘overdogs‘, sociologists should adopt a compassionate stance and take the side of the underdogs - the criminals, mental patients and other powerless groups.

For Becker, why should we take the side of the underdogs?

This is partly because less is known about these groups and their story needs to be told in order to redress the balance. By identifying the underdog and giving them a voice, we can reveal a previously hidden side of social reality.

What is an example of siding with the underdog?

For example, by emphasising with the mental patient, we can show the hidden rationality of behaviour that the psychiatrist thinks of as irrational.

What does interactionist Goffman argue?

That to describe the situation of the mental patient faithfully, we have to take their side. We have to be biased in favour of the patient and against the psychiatrist.

What does the emphasis on identifying and empathising with the powerless have clear links to?

The kinds of research methods favoured by interactionists. They have a strong preference for qualitative methods such as participant observation, which they see as revealing the meanings of these ‘outsiders‘.

Why does Gouldner criticise Becker?

For taking a romantic and sentimental approach to disadvantaged groups. He accuses Becker of being concerned only with those who are ‘on their backs‘ - the misunderstood, negatively labelled, exotic specimens of deviant behaviour.

What perspective does Gouldner adopt?

A Marxist perspective. He argues that sociologists should take the side of those who are

'fighting back' - the political radicals struggling to change society. Sociology should not confine itself to describing the viewpoint of the underdog. It should be committed to ending their oppression by unmasking the ways in which the powerful maintain their position.

Who is most sociological research funded by?

Someone other than sociologists themselves.

What do funding sources include?

Government departments, businesses and voluntary organisations.

Often, what does the body that pays for the research control?

The direction it takes and the kinds of questions it asks - and fails to ask. Thus the sociologist's work is likely to embody the values and interests of their paymasters.

What else might influence a sociologist’s choice of topic?

Sociologists may also wish to further their careers and reputations, and this may influence their choice of topic (for example, choosing something that is in fashion), their research questions and how they interpret their findings.

What might a sociologist censor themselves in fear of?

That being too outspoken will harm their career prospects or even cost them their jobs.

What are sociologists in university departments likely to be under pressure to do?

Publish research, perhaps regardless of its quality or usefulness.

For Gouldner, what is all research inevitably influenced by?

Values - whether it is the values of the sociologist, or those of the funding body that pays for the research.

Do all sociological perspectives see society as the same?

No.

What does feminism see society as based on?

Gender inequality and promotes the rights of women.

What does functionalism see society as?

Harmonious, and espouses conservative values that favour the status quo.

What does Marxism see society as?

Conflict-ridden, and strives for a classless society.

What do the assumptions and values of sociological perspectives influence?

The topics that they choose to research, the concepts they develop and the conclusions they reach.

What is there a link between?

Sociologists’ methods and their value stance. For example, interactionists’ preference for qualitative methods fits with their desire to empathise with the underdog, since such methods give them access to the actor’s meanings.

What does the functionalist and positivist tendency to take the side of the establishment, and the viewpoint of those in authority fit with?

Their uncritical acceptance of official statistics produced by the government.

What can both interactionists and Functionalists be accused of?

Selecting methods that produce facts that reflect their views and outlooks.

What does relativism argue?

That:

• Different groups, cultures and individuals - including sociologists - have different views as to what is true. Each sees the world in their own way, through their own perspectives, concepts, values and interests.

• There is no independent way of judging whether any view is truer than any other.

What else does relativism argue?

That there is no absolute or objective truth - just truths plural. What you believe is true for you.

What view do postmodernists take of knowledge?

A relativist one that rejects the idea that any one account of the social world is superior to any other - there are no privileged accounts that have special access to the truth. Any perspective that claims to have the truth is simply a meta-narrative or big story. If this is true, we must also apply this to postmodernism.