Routledge Handbook of European Sociology

Sokratis Koniordos, Alexandros Kyrtsis

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9780415588805
• eBook ISBN: 9781136711206
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

The Routledge Handbook of European Sociology explores the main aspects of the work and scholarship of European sociologists during the last sixty years (1950-2010), a period that has shaped the methods and identity of the sociological craft. European social theory has produced a vast constellation of theoretical landscapes with a far reaching impact. At the same time there has been diversity and fragmentation, the influence of American sociology, and the effect of social practice and transformations. The guiding question is: does European Sociology really exist today, and if the answer is positive, what does this really mean? Divided into four parts, the Handbook investigates:

• intellectual and institutional settings
• regional variations
• thematic variations
• European concerns.

The Handbook will provides a set of state-of-the-art accounts that break new ground, each contribution teasing out the distinctively European features of the sociological theme it explores. It will be of interest to students and scholars across the social sciences and humanities.

1

Introduction

Alexandros-Andreas Kyrtsis and Sokratis Koniordos

The overall concern of this handbook is to provide a set of articulate state-of-the-art accounts that break new ground, with each contribution striving to tease out the distinctively European features of the sociological theme it explores and examines. The aim of the Routledge Handbook of European Sociology is to reveal the distinct aspects of the work of post-Second World War sociologists who have been working in European higher education and research institutions during the last 60 years (1950–2010).

This period has shaped the social, historical and cognitive identity of the craft. European social theory has produced a vast constellation of theoretical landscapes with a far-reaching impact. Concepts and ideas produced by Europeans, such as Zygmunt Bauman, Ulrich Beck, Pierre Bourdieu, Jon Elster, Michel Foucault, Anthony Giddens, Bruno Latour, Jürgen Habermas, Niklas Luhmann and several others, have defined the coordinates of social scientific discourses on a global scale.

At the same time, the third quarter of the twentieth century is a period during which American sociology became dominant to such an extent that older European sociologists re-learned the spirit of their masters. Also, young students and scholars made acquaintance with the main body of knowledge through the codification produced by eminent American sociologists. A famous example is the case of Max Weber, who was reintroduced in Europe, even in Germany itself, through the reading of structural-functionalist versions by German-educated Americans such as Talcott Parsons and Reinhardt Bendix. Emile Durkheim has also been partly reintroduced through Robert Merton’s monumental codification of sociological concepts (Fleck 2007). If we extend this argument to the relation between theory, methods and techniques, then the ‘American’ way of doing research by using sophisticated statistical and sometimes even harder mathematical techniques, or the inspiration these offered to the schematic representation of social structures and social processes, became an inescapable part of the formation of sociological communities. In the 1970s, when qualitative orientations, or even more so the post-modern turn, slowed down this trend, which had offered sociology its rigour as a field of production of knowledge, once more American theoretical and methodological approaches such as symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology defined the scene. In many of the latter cases we have had, again, a phenomenon of re-introduction. Champions of statistically oriented sociological research, such as Paul Lazarsfeldt and Otto von Neurath, were products of the Vienna Circle; others came from the Frankfurt Institute of Social Research. Sociological migrants fleeing from European totalitarianisms have significantly changed the stances of American sociologists, who were in the majority inclined towards rather institutionalistic and qualitative approaches. Also symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology started very early to mix with imported phenomenological streams of thought. The reception in Europe was enabled by widespread Husserlian philosophical reverberations and it was in fact channelled by an American re-elaboration of phenomenologically oriented social science inspired by the European émigré Alfred Schutz. Many of these traces of European origins have been swept away from the collective memory of younger sociological communities. What was thought to be purely American was to a great extent the product of a metamorphosis brought about by American sociological communities.

What were European sociologists doing in this climate, where the style of writing dominating the American Journal of Sociology or the American Sociological Review became the quintessential prototype of exposing mainstream sociological ideas or research results? Was there a unifying element differentiating European styles of doing sociology from the dominant American trends? Can one demarcate the various trends on this continent – and in this case we include also the non-continental British in the lot – from trends appearing in other parts of the world? Do these questions make sense in an era of transnational intellectual networks? What was the impact of the transformation of Eastern Europe after 1989, where most sociologists, perhaps with few exceptions, were cut off from developments and subdued to Marxist–Leninist social theory? We can summarise these questions into one main one: does post-Second World War European sociology really exist, and if the answer is positive, what does this really mean?

This question can be answered by focusing on theoretical trends, among others. In this direction the contributions of Nigel Dodd and of Peter Wagner (this volume) are most pertinent. Also, looking into intellectual dialogues, thematic orientations and forms of problem consciousness helps a lot, as in the work of Johan Heibron, of William Outhwaite and of Vassilios Romanos that are included here. This is so, notwithstanding the institutional and organisational aspects of teaching and doing research, which are examined in the chapter by Christian Fleck and Barbara Hönig. A parameter one must bear in mind is that Europe coincides to a great extent with the European Union, and even those who do not belong to it, such as the Swiss and the Norwegians, are very close to its institutional workings, looked into in Jan Spurk’s contribution that explores the sociology and European construction relationship. Similar things with various degrees apply also to former Eastern European countries which have been left outside the EU. What then has been, if any, the impact of EU research funding? Again, the chapters by J. Heilbron and C. Fleck and B. Hönig provide useful insights.

European sociology

It is well established that the emergence of a distinct ‘social’ sphere by the early nineteenth century (Donzelot 1994; Scott 2006) signalled modern sociology’s ascent in Europe. The idea was then taken up in the United States, which was to become the second most important region of this growing field and with a leading role after the Second World War. Sociology has been thought of as a response to ongoing social changes, and an outcome of a felt need to understand and respond to them (see, for instance, Coser 1977; Ritzer 2000). Sociology’s diverse non- academic origins and influences gradually subsided as it embarked on a course of institutionalisation as a scientific discipline. In Europe this started from Durkheim onwards (in Bordeaux, in France), but had significant precursors in the United States, starting with W.G. Sumner (who presented a sociology course in Yale as early as 1876). Besides, it is also widely accepted that academic sociology’s founding fathers, basic notions and approaches/perspectives were pre-eminently European – the list of big names of founders includes mainly French, Germans and Italians, such as A. Comte, A. de Tocqueville, K. Marx, E. Durkheim, G. Tarde, M. Weber, G. Simmel and V. Pareto. Overall, during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, most sociology was geographically and civilisationally European. Elsewhere, the sociological enterprise was almost from start an academic affair, notwithstanding the more localised needs to study social phenomena, as in the United States, for instance (Sorokin 1929; Eubank 1936).

Marked by the absence of a centre, early and mid-twentieth-century sociology in Europe proceeded on the basis of diversity of perspectives and national traditions, and in a context marred by socio-political upheaval and fascism. Nevertheless, it produced some significant outcomes. Besides, given its variability and plurality, sociology in Europe was quite influential in the reformist national policies and politics of several European countries. Learned societies with political ambitions, such as the Fabians in Britain and the Verein für Socialpolitik in Germany, are among the most prominent. The case of Hungarian sociology’s contours (Huszár 1994) is also important for illustrating this point. In fact, the political dimension of sociological societies is brought out in the chapter by José Luís Garcia, João Carlos Graça, Helena Mateus Jeró nimo and Rafael Marques (this volume) with respect to the contours of Portuguese sociology, and has been identified in other contexts too (e.g. with respect to Greece, see Kyrtsis 1998, also Koniordos 2010). In this sense, sociology’s non-academic influence and impact retained an importance.

By contrast, sociology’s development in the United States since the 1920s, particularly during the inter-war period, as well as after, which was thought of as a specifically American discipline (Gouldner 1968), was to a significant extend organised around a centre, that is, the elite sociology university departments and the American Sociological Association. It developed by drawing in sociological personnel of European stock, European approaches and perspectives, and by training in Europe (particularly in Germany and Austria) (Dahrendorf 1961). These have been integrated with the United State’s own generic developments of problem areas and research agendas as, for example, in the Chicago School, or Parson’s Social Relations Department at Harvard. In turn, as already indicated, US sociology has been heavily influencing the re-establishment and growth of sociology in the European continent during the post-war period, mostly in its western parts, and has played a role in Britain’s more discrete development too (Albrow 1993; Kumar 2001). Nevertheless, the influences exerted were certainly not one-way – see, for instance, the debates pertaining to the meaning of meaningful behaviour and action (Nollman and Strasser 2007a, 2007b; see also Chapter 25 by A. Kyrtsis in this volume). And certain US-specific philosophical origins of sociological thought, such as pragmatism, created a distinct intellectual stream (with G.H. Mead its lead figure), which has influenced the most important approaches in micro-sociological theory internationally (Habermas 1981, vol. 2).

Therefore, and despite the European roots of sociology, loans and counter-loans have been the norm in its disciplinary development when taken as a whole. Furthermore, with the gradual emergence in the post-1940s period of an international sociological community (partly though the good services of the UN-instituted International Sociological Association), this process has been enhanced. In fact, there has been an increasing interest in what has been termed ‘global sociology’, an issue which is taken up later.

In what sense then is one to speak of ‘European Sociology’ in the period after the Second World War, particularly after the early 1950s, which is the one that concerns us here? In attempting to do so, it is imperative to clarify what ‘European’ stands for or/and specify that it does have a variable meaning. Thus, one first issue that contributors to this volume have considered, and address in one way or another, is specifying in what sense they talk about or refer to a European sociology. Is it a matter of geographic locale (in terms of the origins of authors and schools), relatedly of national school/traditions that originate or/and flourish in Europe (Dahrendorf 1961); is it civilisational (rather than mere cultural); is it in terms of European Union-relatedness, or of the relevance of sociological work that pertains to European contexts or societies, or some other? All these factors are of importance, but the exact dose in the contributing ingredients is not settled nor are there any uniform views on the matter.

The absence of a tight cluster of centres of learning and research and the internal fragmentation of sociology in Europe have delimited the emergence of a more unified European sociology. Difficulties in obtaining research funding that have been greater than in the United States have also played a significant role in this respect. While citing rather different reasons, three contributors in the B. Nedelmann and E. Sztompka volume Sociology in Europe: In Search of Identity (1993), namely R. Boudon, R. Munch and C. Mongardini, in their respective contributions, seem to maintain that there is no unitary European sociology. Clearly, national and cultural/linguistic divides emerge as main factors of diversity plus the absence of a unified or dominant research agenda/programme.

For his part, Ch. Fleck (2010) maintains that a European sociology or sociological perspective, despite its diversity, may perhaps be said to exist only if it is restricted to sociological theory. Otherwise, it is quite fragmented. However, he notes approvingly that the EU quasi-state’s sponsorship of a European Research Area, funded via the Framework Programmes, may be seen to form the bedrock for a more unified sociological enterprise in Europe to come. One well-known sociologically relevant European-wide project is the European Social Survey (ESS) with its five rounds of data collection and analysis so far. If the trend continues, it is likely that for the foreseeable future the state-like EU apparatuses may act the role of a funding and agenda-setting centre for the social sciences and sociology in particular, although the last Framework Program (Horizon 2020) has cut back on social science funding. In this sense the prospects and potential for a European sociology seem not to be ‘bad’, notwithstanding the differential weight of specific national funding institutions/agencies and their impact.

One European sociology or many?

Given the contemporary diversification as well as fragmentation of sociological practice, one is justified to ask whether there is a unitary or single European sociology or many. A similar issue which is worth pondering has surfaced in relation to ‘global’ sociology. Indeed, there have been attempts for a global sociology that would be constructed from ‘above’, by a centre. However, it has been claimed that such a universal sociology is unattainable; it cannot work. Among the reasons given for negating such a prospect are that a global sociology cannot sufficiently consider the vastly variable specific contexts of different societies, and that it runs the risk of ‘justifying particularistic reactions and isolationist projects’ (Burawoy 2008: 442).

Now, in the European context some not dissimilar globalising attempts have surfaced. In the not so distant past, in Bourdieu’s circle appeared the idea of a European and global sociology (Bourdieu 1991). In addition, there has been a high-level attempt that coincides with the dawn of the present millennium, to set up a network committed to rigorous standards of excellence, as in the case of the European Academy of Sociology (2011). These attempts, apparently, have not been received particularly well by non-participants, and may even have triggered some old animosities. Besides, if the reasons just mentioned for negating the prospects for a global sociology are sensible, then by transposition it could be said that they do not seem to be less true when considering a European sociology.

For Michael Burawoy (2008, 2010, 2011), the alternative is to construct a global sociology from below. Pending receiving a response to the question of whether this is possible, he sets out a number of questions,¹ which he attempts to answer. If we take the analogy further, then perhaps Burawoy’s questions (and possibly answers too) could be of some use in ascertaining whether...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures and tables
• Notes of Contributors
• 1 Introduction
• Part I Intellectual and institutional settings
• Part II Thematic variations
• Part III Regional variations
• Index