The history of British sociology has always been a footnote to sociological research and literature; a footnote written and read by a tiny minority of historically minded sociologists. Only occasionally, most often to celebrate the anniversary of an institution or commemorate a renowned individual, does it attract a wider audience. Courses on the history of sociology in Britain, or in other countries, do not exist; while historical components of introductory sociological courses are usually limited to a brief discussion of the intellectual heritage of nineteenth-century bearded scholars such as Karl Marx, Max Weber or Emile Durkheim. A rounded history of sociology in Britain has rarely, if ever, been attempted: âThis still awaits its historianâ, Martin Bulmer (1985b: 3) wrote in 1985 and his words still have a familiar ring today. The most cited work on the history of British sociology remains Philip Abramsâ essay on The Origins of British Sociology: 1834â1914 published fifty years ago and a work which is limited not only in scope but which is also suspect in its historical judgment. Yes, there is still much to be learnt from an old piece of history writing; but even if it does not contain any inaccurate information which has been superseded by new research, with the passage of time all historical work itself becomes an historical artefact, a topic of history. All history writing, to a varying degree, reflects the concerns of the time in which it was written; Abramsâ essay is no exception. And while many sociologists in Britain are aware of Abramsâ essay, they are unaware of the much more specialised literature on the subject, conducted mostly in history departments, which would help them to put the history of sociology into its proper perspective (see below). Itâs hard to escape the feeling that the history of sociology in Britain still awaits recognition as a valuable tool in sociological teaching and research. But most importantly of all, the history of sociology in Britain still awaits its audience. What is needed is not just continuous updating of history writing but more appreciation of the value and power of historical understanding. And this understanding begins with an understanding of the reasons why sociologistsâ general neglect of the history of their subject really matters.1
To begin with, we need to understand, and history can help us in this respect, that the neglect of historical enquiry and the lack of up-to-date historical scholarship are not by any means a new problem, either for sociology, or for social science more generally. âThe great paradox of our ageâ, Ernest Gellner wrote thirty years ago, âis that although it is undergoing social and intellectual change of totally unprecedented speed and depth, its thought has become, in the main, unhistorical or anti-historicalâ (Gellner 1988: 12). Gellner was specifically referring here to philosophers and social scientists and their widespread neglect of the importance of employing an historical perspective in any type of analysis, be it philosophical or sociological; this despite the rise of history as an academic subject in the nineteenth century and its growing sophistication in the twentieth century. A specialist historian in the social sciences would be aware of the existence of a number of specialist essays on the history of sociology (Sprott 1957; Madge 1957; Little 1963; Halliday 1968; Banks et al. 1980; Soffer 1982; Albrow 1989; Kumar 2001) and longer monographs (Kent 1981; Evans 1986; Halsey 2004; Savage 2010) but as far as the wider sociological community is concerned these remain items on a curiosity shelf which would be examined only in rare circumstances.
The absence of any historical perspective is not at all new in sociologyâthis is evident from the lack of engagement with the history of sociology in some of British sociologyâs core institutions. For example, a recent examination of the archives in Keele of the first sociological institution in Britain, the Sociological Society, shows very little reference to the work of the social scientific institutions that preceded it, despite the important role they played in fostering social scientific research in Britain during the nineteenth century. The Social Science Association (SSA) (1857â1886) receives two passing comments in the private documents of the Sociological Societyâs organiser, Victor Branford (Branford 1903; Sociological Society [Victor Branford] 1903); aside from this, the Society, as an institution, made no acknowledgement of, and paid no tribute to, the SSA, neither to criticise nor praise its contributions. The Sociological Society also made no effort to engage seriously with the work of another important predecessor, the Statistical Society of London (now Royal Statistical Society (RSS)) which was established in 1834. The links between the two societies were weak to non-existent right from the startâtwo people, Edward Brabrook and Sir John Macdonald were engaged in leading positions in both Societies in the early 1900s but there is no evidence that either Brabrook, or Macdonald, or anyone else made any significant efforts to strengthen the connections between the Statistical and the Sociological Societies (for more details, see Panayotova 2018). It could, of course, be argued that the Sociological Society was reluctant to engage with the historical legacy and contributions of the SSA and the RSS due to its different focus and distinct understanding of sociology. However, the Sociological Society had no institutional links even with the only nineteenth-century institutions which shared its basic understanding of sociologyâthe London Positivist Society, established in 1867, and the closely related English Positivist Committee (like them, the Sociological Society embraced Auguste Comteâs view of sociology). And if the attitude of the Sociological Society towards the history of social science in Britain seems like an example of a remote past, too remote to remember, then we find parallels, a very similar attitude, in the British Sociological Association when it was first established in 1951. The BSA did not acknowledge the contribution or historical role of either the Sociological Society or the Institute of Sociology2 (cf. Carr-Saunders et al. 1951; Banks 1967; Platt 2003).
These examples of a failure to acknowledge their heritage are brought up not to pass judgment on either the Sociological Society or the BSA; nor to argue that the members of the Sociological Society were unaware of the existence of the nineteenth-century institutions; but simply to emphasise that this in itself is a characteristic of British sociology that deserves attention and that has the potential to tell us something fundamental about British sociologyâwhy it is that the development of sociology in Britain created conditions not only for intellectual but also for institutional divides? Ultimately, an historical perspective on the problem of historical neglect in sociology saves us from wrongfully assuming that we are facing a new problem.
An important part of historical understanding is the ability to distinguish old problems from new; enabling us to tell the difference between the beginning of a new trend from a simple shift in an old one. This brings us to another reason why neglect of the history of sociology in Britain matters: knowledge of history is necessary to avoid simply repeating or arguing all over again what has already been said or argued. One aspect of sociology has suffered acutely in this respect, and with consequences.
The first official government report on the state of the teaching of social sciences in Britain was published in 1946, summarising the results of an investigation conducted by Lord Clapham and his advisers. Since then, numerous reports of similar nature have been published, with notable examples including Pearson (1947), Heyworth (1965), Rosenbaum (1971), ESRC (1987), Review Committee on Sociology (1989), MacInnes (2010), British Academy (2012). Despite differences in rationale, focus, scope and data all of these reports are remarkably similar in one respect: they all repeat, using more or less the same vocabulary, the argument that British social science, and especially sociology, do not utilise the potential of quantitative methods in teaching and research; something, which the reports argue is desirable and, if not improved, could damage the future of the subject. The legacy of these reports, at least with regard to the relationship between sociology and statistics, is precisely in these repetitions, as they indicate the existence of a consistent trend in British sociology characterised by an inability to resolve the complex issues involved in the development of quantitative research and training within academic sociology. Their remarkable repetitiveness is also an important indication that the direction of their recommendations was consistently at odds with what social scientists, notably sociologists, thought or wanted for themselves and their subject. But with regard to what this example tells about the dangers of the neglect of history, the recommendations, focusing solely on the present and simply repeating the failed proposals of the past rather than addressing the real causes of repeated failure, actually resulted in allowing a problem to continue. History can teach us how to build on and improve older strategies for action.
The value and power of historical knowledge is not limited to revealing that things and arguments supposedly new and exciting are often little more than failed repetitions of the past that has been ignored or forgotten. Neglect of the historical record can lead to distorted perspectives that affect present-day thinking in ways that are detrimental to good scholarship. For instance, even to this day it is commonly believed that the early post-war period in British sociology was dominated by âpositivistâ research and teaching. The veracity of such beliefs, however, was questioned early on, the best-known example being Jennifer Plattâs 1981 article The Social Construction of âpositivismâ and its Significance in British Sociology, 1950â1980. Plattâs analysis of the types of sociological research published in the three leading sociological journals in the early post-war period in Britain shows that âthe existence of a clearly defined positivist style is highly questionableâ (Platt 1981: 76). By the time Platt was writing, however, the âpositivismâ disputes had led to a widespread belief that some, if not all, quantitative methods are inherently âpositivistâ and, therefore, somehow âanti-sociologicalâ or âa-sociologicalâ. This was despite the fact that the term âpositivismâ was extremely ambiguous and unclear; that there were no self-proclaimed âpositivistâ sociologists; and that accusations aimed at quantitative sociologists were made without reference to empirical and concrete examples from research and teaching (for more details, see Panayotova 2018). Plattâs investigation was not totally successful in convincing the sociological community that early post-war sociol...