Why Sociology can never be a 'hard' science

Printed in the Hungappa- University Magazine

Why Sociology can’t be a ‘hard science’.

Sociology sounds like it could be quite profitable to society; to be able to view, interpret and thus predict society would allow us to know what works and hence advance society to the Utopian ideal of Well’s and not Huxley. This would make it a good candidate to be in the same league as physics- to explain the universe and particles, chemistry- to explain and understand the reaction of elements, and biology- to understand how plants and animals (including us) work. Unfortunately sociology has a few problems;

1. Unlike the other sciences aforementioned, sociology has no laws to speak of really (I know in physics technically they’re theories, but generally accepted as right until something better comes along). Instead it has a lot of good ideas that contrast each other, which also often have a gaping hole that resembles the logic of some university assignments.

2. It has many factions that despise each other, and unlike the constructive criticism shown in the ‘hard sciences’, sociologists tend to berate each other because they see society differently- much like religious groups. Even though the foundations of nearly all of these factions can be traced back to a small band of people who definitely should be in the next summer buddy blockbuster. Imagine Talcott Parson’s, Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber as the ultimate society analysing team, who then have to beat up their evil students for taking one of their ideas and then twisting it to all kinds of WTF. Or how about a collectable card game, either way it is not aiding in the self cohesion of their science, though neither did my ideas, but they would at least take their war of words to a different level.

3. The agency-structure dilemma. The major teleological paradox that has caused the splintering fanatical groups that tear each other apart thus reducing the possibility to forming laws. Basically do people construct society or does society construct people. Some groups go former, other later, in exams and assignments it’s a little of both. That’s right its one of the few sciences where you can fence sit and be rewarded.

4. Because of the previous debate we have either macro-structural: the bird’s eyes view of society, like Parson’s abstract Grand theory, or micro-interactional: the individual’s view, like the examination of common sense acts of the ethnomethodologists. Those groups that try to bridge them fail much like bridging astro and quantum physics. They usually commit the logical sin of teleology, that agency creates structures and then structures creates agency or the reverse. Creating the spin the wheel explanation of society, and links back to the previous point of fence sitting, that is incredibly looked down upon in the other sciences.

Hence sociology will not be taken seriously as a ‘hard’ science, and must retain its convoluted form in the ‘soft’ science till it gets its act together. But this need not be a bad thing sociology, you just need to believe in yourself, and make sure you build a few good strong fences, you’ll need them.

The Thinker. (aka Dale Stam)