Sociology as a discipline sometimes seems pretty obsessed with its classical representatives, but which sociologist, in your view, deserves to be rated as the greatest living, contemporary sociologist ?

Of course, this question cannot be validly settled in a poll, but still, it would be fun to see which sociologist the users of Sociologically.net find to be the greatest of our contemporary times.

Feel free to add your comment to explain your vote if you feel like it.

Of course, if you have a strong argument for adding a candidate to the list, such comments are obviously also welcome.

By the way, I voted for Axel Honneth, since I find his attempt to reformulate, rethink and relaunch the whole Frankfurt School project admirable and I beleive that he makes some really good points, theoretically and methodologically.

And I voted too, but because the ones I've been working with the most were missing, I have chosen to open a thread about distinguishing between sociology and anthropology: http://sociologically.net/discussions/qualitative-sociology-vs-anthropology/96.

Too bad Pierre Bourdieu died a couple of years ago... I'll go for Habermas instead in this vote.

I too voted for Axel Honneth, mostly because of his attempt to highlight what core problems a sociological investigation most cover, i.e. problems with the structure and distribution of recognition.

However I think what we can see a theoretical, or philosophical bias here. I recon Hochschild as the best empirically grounded of the lot here, along with Sennett and Boltanski, but their contribution can still be seen as developing theoretical frameworks rather than conducting (new types of) empirical analysis.
Some would point out, that Latour provides exatly what i'm seeking here. However, I not sure weather Latour actually bring so much new to the table, or rather: that I understand, what his contribution is.

Of theorecally based sociologist I miss some of the neo-marxist, notably Zizek and Hardt & Negri. This leads me to wonder why no partnerships or research groups are here (I can't of the top of my head, mention anyone)? How is it possible, that a science of the social, still acknowledges "greatness" to the individual alone?

Well more questions, than critique actually. I would consider some more subject specific sociologist such as Butler, Howard S. Becker, Eric Olin Wright, Michel Callon, Loïc Wacquant for their perharps less general, but more in depth studies. Within my current field, examples could be Michael Hartmann or Frederic Lebaron for the way the rearticulate Bourdieus framework in new nation states and the global economy respectively.

Wow, this website is really driving home to me the extent to which US sociology is a different discipline from European sociology. I would consider a number of these people to be "barely" sociologists--more like philosophers with associations to sociology departments. The greatest sociologists in my book are people like Mark Granovetter, Duncan Watts and Paul DiMaggio on the theory end, and Nicholas Christakis, Peter Bearman and Stanley Lieberson on the empirics end.

Michael Mann ought to be on the list. His The Sources of Social Power and, especially, The Dark Side of Democracy are major achievements.

ECHOecho - Isn't sociology a broad enough church to incorporate both the economic sociologist you champion and the other approaches and perspectives represented by the members of this list?

@Rykalski, sure, to some extent that's true.

(By the way, the only economic sociologist on my list is Granovetter; Watts is math soc, Christakis and Bearman are medical soc, Lieberson and DiMaggio are sociologists of culture--the former with demographic methods, the latter with qualitative ones.)

I liked the idea of the poll, but I can't deny I am afraid popularity will have influence in the final result. Of course, some sociologists in the list are more popular than others, or have written much more books (not necessarilly bringing entire new thoughts to Sociology). Bauman, for example. At least in Brazil, where I live, he is mentioned everyday in every media to explain everything. Besides, I wonder who might be in mind of people who voted "I don't consider..." Will it be possible to have an option "others, tell us who" next time? The answers may be interesting.

In response to EBlankwater's comment "Too bad Pierre Bourdieu died a couple of years ago... "
My thoughts exactly! I think I'd vote for Habermas, as well, but it is a difficult choice given the list

Jon Elster! or Andrew Abbott

Good points you all make !

And of course, the poll list wasn't the perfect list to begin with, and I agree that many of the sociologists you mention, deserve to be on the list.

However, since most of you probably have voted already (and each user can only vote once in one poll), I guess it wouldn't make a lot of sense if I added new options to the poll ? Ideally, I guess we should have started a discussion first, in order to gather the list of candidates. Will do that next time. Who knows, perhaps the next poll should be "Greatest classical sociologists" ?

Unfortunately, I cannot, like you wisely suggest beauvoiriana, add "Others, tell us who" - the system can't handle this at its current state. Too bad :)
I also agree with your concern about popularity vs. greatness.

So I guess, if one disagrees with the candidates on the list, the best thing to do, is to vote for the last option and put your arguments forth in the comments :)

Lars, you are right, it would be nice if everyone who votes for last option could let some comments. I particularly missed Howard S. Becker.

Of course you are right that good old Howard Becker should have been on the list too !

But we would reach a problem, even if we could technically rebuild the poll.

So far, according to the comments on this thread, the list lacks the following sociologists:

• Howard Becker
  
• Jon Elster
  
• Andrew Abbott
  
• Mark Granovetter
  
• Stanley Lieberson
  
• Slavoj Zizek
  
• Mark Granovetter
  
• Duncan Watts
  
• Paul DiMaggio
  
• Nicholas Christakis
  
• Peter Bearman
  
• Judith Butler
  
• Eric Olin Wright
  
• Michel Callon
  
• Loïc Wacquant
  
• Michael Hartmann
  
• Frederic Lebaron
  

It would become a huuuuge list of poll options, so we would have almost no grouping in the results , unless of course the number of users on the website suddenly explodes and every sociologist in the world decides to give his or her vote.

... and Michael Mann.

If you opt for a greatest dead sociologist poll in future I nominate Ervin Goffman.

Indeed, Michael Mann too. Thought I did put him on the "people who should have been in the poll" list, but I must have forgotten.

A greatest dead sociologists would be a great idea for the next poll, and yes, Erving Goffman would be an obvious candidate, though I am sure that there would be a close run among the classical sociologists.

We should try it a some point !

I would add Manuel Castells, I think.

roser

And what about Michel Wieviorka?

the great thing about this thread are all the interesting sociologists that i'd never heard of that have been suggested.

I'm just curious ECHOecho, but what is your exact definition of sociology and philosophy. Why is it that for instance Luc Boltanski doesn't live up to your measures? He, of all people has a rather large empirical base for his analysis. In his book New Spirit of Capitalism, anyway (which is the only one i have read)

And while we are naming names, i throw Nancy Fraser in the ring.

What a nice site this one. Just rediscovered it. Props to the creators

@christian, I wasn't speaking about all of the people on the list, just some of them. Sociology, in my definition, is simply the science of society. I think of science in general (and social science in particular) as unattainable ideal-states for which to reach--and so I think of research as being on the more scientific vs less scientific gradient. Since these are ideals I am talking about, I am going to state them prescriptively:

* Science consists of clear theory that leads to deductions with the least ambiguity possible. E.g., if a key theoretical statement has multiple equally plausible interpretations, it cannot be used for hypothesis formation, and is thus is not science. For this reason, ideally, theory should be defined formally. Scientific theory consists of a body of unambiguous falsifiable empirical generalizations.
* The body of theory rests on an empirical data-generation process (e.g., experiments, surveys, whatever) which generates reliable and valid data. The body of theory should be the only possible interpretation for the data in question. (This ideal in particular is never achievable in practice, but should always be pursued. Actual good science--even good social science--does succeed in at least making the theoretical statement in question appear far more likely than any given alternative).
* The scientific ideal for data is to be 'objective' in all three meanings of the term: it should refer to reliably-observable physical phenomena, it should contain the least possible observer interpretation, and it should be made to maximally avoid bias in favor of the interests of the scientist.
* The scientific community has a focus on falsification and competition between scientists. The progress of science rests on the conflict of ideas, so being nice to each other is bad for science. If a piece of writing requires being nice to it for it to work--for example, borderline incomprehensible social theory--then it cannot be science, because this interpretive process protects poor theoretical statements from falsification. The bad stuff just won't get weeded out.
* Finally, and perhaps most importantly, science exhibits a theoretical modesty. Science should go out of its way to not make statements of fact it cannot fully support by evidence, and also to not make statements that cannot be shown to be false by evidence. (This includes both unfalsifiable claims and claims that center around fundamentally contestable concepts.) In other words, science should always strive to make the weakest theoretical claim that does not contradict its empirical basis.

Once again, these are all ideals. No single piece of research meets all of them, but some come far closer than others. Latour and Habermas clearly flunk on the majority of these points (as, I should add, do Foucault and Bourdieu).

This post has gotten too long for me to define philosophy and society, but hopefully the above is sufficient.

@ECHOecho

Perhaps noble goals you put forth, but it seems to me, that you ignore the science about the social (unfortunately) can't use the epistemological model that has been so successfull in the natural sciences.

Danish planning theorist Bent Flyvbjerg - drawning on exatly Foucault and Bourdieu) has writting a very compelling argument as to why: since everything a sociologist can study as data (i.e. a gift, a conversation, a certain (sequence) of action) is embedded historically (and thus not just a gift, but a gift depended on previous actions) we have to understand things though a historical ontology. This means that general, hypothesis-based theory is a mere illusion in sociology. Sadly.
So well have to bee scientific in another way. Hereby I by no means believe this justifies the theoretical bias within the recognition of the greatest sociologist.

Indeed any science of society must pay a great deal of attention to history. However, something located in one time period cannot actually have causal effect on something located in another time period. Therefore, history can only have causal power in the form that it takes in the present--e.g., as the full state of society. In other words, while "history" matters, thinking of it in terms of events in the past (as opposed to a state of the present) is simply an epistemological limitation of certain approaches.

State dependence is also not only a problem for positivist approaches. I don't have the time for a critique here, but take a look at some of the critiques of the historical-comparative methodologies by Stanley Lieberson. Essentially, if you make the case that some phenomenon is entirely contingent (e.g., it has no non-state dependent elemenets), you actually have to argue that no approach to the material is possible at all--you cannot condemn the scientific approach alone without condemning the entire knowledge-generation project.

The only thing that an author can prove by drawing heavily on Foucault and Bourdieu is that he has a high tolerance for incomprehensible nonsense.

@ECHOecho
I don't think this is the place to start a battle over epistemological questions. Why don't we start a new thread on this? This debate seems to create an important division between different sociological practices and could lead to really interesting contrasting viewpoints. Just one last word: I don't agree on your Bourdieu-bashing and I would suggest actually reading him. Then you probably wouldn't be so fond of this positivist myth you posted above.

first, Bourdieu relied on a vast base of 'empirical' data for his work, as you ought to know, ranging from his own ethnographic work in algeria and france through an incredible variety of social survey material.

second, Foucault utilised an incredible engagement with the materials of the past - i.e. he used a Historical methodology - to develop and establish his ideas and unless you are condemning all history as 'incomprehensible nonsense' you cannot dismiss his work so flippantly.

third, there is a whole range of sociological work that utilises a 'metaphorical mode' of analysis and explanation which is just as useful as the 'scientific' approach you

fourth, how would you go about 'falsifying' a sociological experiment? I realise that economics has retreated in to fantasy (the term they use is counterfactual but that is just code for 'fantasy') in its efforts to achieve the very 'scienticism' you champion but its is the shadow of the scientific rather than its actuality. In History (my home field) we are confronted by the problem that we cannot know what did not happen, cannot engage in 'experiments', and we are forced in to dependence on the 'less scientific' end of your gradient and yet somehow we develop work that seems meaningful.

fifth, causality? Are you really trying to claim that something from one place time can have no effect on something in another place time; really? Also is causality really all that important.

Your argument is really rather deliberately blind to the epistemological problems of the study of us humans.

To go back to the list; it ought to be pointed out that Giddens seriously damaged his reputation within the UK through his far to close for academic comfort identification with the Blair government in its first term and a half. Although most of the achievements of the current Labour government here in the UK before 2003 were socially beneficial it did look as though Giddens had been sucked into the glamour of victory and rather lost his intellectual independence.
Any of the other sociologist on the list been tainted in the same fashion?

What about Stanley Aronowitz? He's still alive and writing accessible and relevant books - about one a year, afaict. Fairly US-centric, but not only. His stuff is on science, class, culture, education, Mills, intellectuals… and always insightful and significant.

Baudrillard's dead (just) but he's my favourite. Then again, I suppose I'm very interested in mass communication theory and he struck a chord with me through some of his writings in 'Screened Out' and 'Simulations'. I understand he's not really considered a serious sociologist by some people, but I love his writings. I also believe that Barthes raised some interesting points in 'Camera Lucida'.

well, it's amazing. I'm a student of Republic of Korea(a.k.a South Korea) and we usually use same texts what American universities currently use. It's familiar for me to hear Mark Granovetter, or such scholars who are already mentioned upside. I also like Theda Skocpol, who is one of the greatest historical sociologests I've ever seen.

@blushbird - what does Skocplo work on?
@thecatsmeow - why Screened Out in particular?