Classic Sociological Theory (1848-1950)

Sociology G93.2111

Fall 2003

Craig Calhoun & Robert Max Jackson

Some Thoughts on Writing About Theory

We would like to offer a few general suggestions that might be useful to all. Here are a few considerations to keep in mind.. 

• A good sociological theory aims to show how some social processes work in the world. It does so by creating an abstract model of those processes, built from theoretical concepts, joined together with some claims about causation.
  Before you can effectively criticize a theory, you have to "discover" the theory. This might seem too obvious to state, but in reality, it is commonly a difficult and demanding task. However large or small the might be the materials you address in your papers, one of the first things you want to do is write a clear statement of the arguments. If you want to respond to Weber's piece on class and status, for example, you should write a simple summary of the goals, logic, and implications of the argument it presents. This includes figuring out the empirical phenomenon it seeks to explain. Often you will include such a summary in your papers, but even when you decide it does not fit the final organization of what you write, writing it out at the beginning will clarify your ideas (and where you are uncertain).
• Theories should not be confused with authors. A theory is both less and more than what a single author writes about it. It is less in the sense that an author will commonly write a great deal that is not really part of the theory (and may in fact produce many different theories). It is more in that a theory will commonly have assumptions, implications, logical connections, and applications that go beyond what any single author writes about it. Also, a productive theory will become the common property of all the scholars who contribute to its development, not solely the original author.
• While an author's conception of his or her theoretical goals is privileged, it cannot always dictate our interpretation. The significant theoretical contributions of a work can be quite different from what the author claims.
• Sociologists often refer to: theories, theoretical perspectives, theoretical models, theoretical frameworks, explanations, and sociological interpretations. While we have no consensus about the strict interpretation of these terms, most sociologists have some common understandings about the differences they imply. Notice which terms others use and try to use them clearly yourself.
• A good critique must be generous to the author being criticized. This is a rule commonly broken in sociology (and elsewhere). Often, the critic tries to present the work being analyzed in its worse guise, rather than its best. A good critic will note that an argument is ambiguous or point out that the original author said something foolishly inconsistent with the theory, but will also pass over these flaws quickly, mending the original presentation. To put it differently, a good critic is honestly concerned with advancing the theory, not with showing off the ability to find an error by the original author. (Of course, finding such errors is a legitimate exercise. But the overriding goal should still be to grasp and develop theory, not to put notches on some measuring stick by enumerating the errors found.) Figure out what it does well and what it does poorly; try to discern why it has the limits it does.
• Whenever you criticize work that others have judged important or well done, you should start with the assumption that the author, who probably worked on the issue for years, is unlikely foolishly to have overlooked something that you can figure out in a first reading. What does this imply? Well, among other things, it means that when you believe you identify some shortcoming in a work, you should initially assume that the author would have thought of that problem as well, but had some reason for discounting it. You want to try and figure out what this reason could be. Try to put yourself into the author's shoes. Think how you would defend yourself against the issue you raise if you were the author. If you cannot figure out a good defense for the author, it is possible do not understand something important. For example, people have many times criticized Marx's analysis for having a simplistic dichotomy of classes. Does this mean that Marx did not realize that there were more than two classes? Does it mean that if he returned to life in the 20^th century he would have been stunned and confused that more than two classes still existed and would simply admit that he had a stupid theory? If you answer no to these questions (as you should), then you should ask yourself why did Marx stress two classes and how would he defend that emphasis against the criticism that there were more classes?
• Remember, theories do not describe the real, concrete, historically experienced world. Theory is not description. Theories are always abstract constructs. Theory involves the creation of an abstract model of a process, a model that is meant to inform us about the working of that process in the real world, but not to mirror its historical specificity. It is therefore not legitimate to criticize a theory simply because its conceptual structure does not fully reproduce the social reality to which it applies. For example, a theory about the relationship between class organization and political power may act as if class membership is a permanent, unchangeable characteristic assigned to people at birth. But we know social mobility is common. This does not mean that it is appropriate to criticize the theory simply because it ignores mobility. To use this as a criticism, you must show that the neglect of mobility causes the theory to misunderstand or misrepresent the processes it seeks to model. Think about theories as practical devices, constructs meant to let us see how the world works, even to make predictions if we are lucky. If they succeed in this endeavor, they are useful theories even if suffering from epistemological flaws.
• Theories are not better simply because they have more stuff in them, because they refer to more of the things that we believe matter. Pure description always provides the fullest account of any process, referring to every ingredient that we know is relevant-but detailed description is theoretically trivial. Avoid this confusion.
• Be wary of adopting an authoritative voice you cannot defend. When writing about someone's work, young scholars are often tempted to say things like "this study's most important contribution to the field of X is Y" or "this classical theory has two major flaws, X and Y". Writing analytical criticism resembles writing research reports. When you make a claim, you need to supply evidence. If you want to say an argument has a weakness, you need to show that it does by stating the implications of the argument being criticized and demonstrating through logic and examples that if fails at some "test" you apply (e.g., it is not consistent, it contradicts some empirical example, or it is too ambiguous to apply to some situation). As you are editing your writing, try to pick out each of the claims you make. Then ask yourself what is the evidence you supply for each.
• Edit, rewrite, edit, rewrite, edit, rewrite, . . . 

««« Return to Classical Sociological Theory Syllabus