Sociological Theory. Bert N. Adams and R. A. Sydie. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine
Forge Press. 2001. 612 pages. $69.95
In her theory class, the instructor is confronted by a daunting task. Her students (at least
some of them) believe that theory is not only “dry” but too “abstract” to be related to the
everyday-everynight life. Sometimes students bring to her attention (of course jokingly)
that so and so—referring to the theorist under discussion—must have been too lonely to
create all these ideas! Besides, the material to be covered in the theory class is overly
extensive. Often the instructor encounters the problem of doing justice to the arguments
of a single theorist on a specific issue, let alone examining in detail the thesis of his/her
theory in its entirety. For instance, as Randal Collins has once aptly noted, one can
literally spend one’s entire life studying Weber’s Economy and Society. Put simply,
although the theory instructor has the paramount responsibility of acquainting her
students with major perspectives/concepts, the academic figures responsible for
constructing them and the intellectual and social conditions under which they theorized,
she needs a good deal of help. Adams and Sydie’s Sociological Theory is one of those
books that provide such prop—a good one for that.
Sociological Theory has nine sections, viz., The European Roots of Sociological Theory;
Conservative Theories; Radical Theory; Sociological Theories of Complexity and Form;
Sociological Theories of Politics and Economics; Other Voices in Sociological
Theorizing; Twentieth-Century Functionalism and Beyond; Criticism, Marxism and
Change; Transitions and Challenges. All in all, Adams and Sydie have covered 45
figures that have an important place in the intellectual landscape of social theory, the
advantage being that almost every noteworthy theorist is discussed, except the treatment,
at times, (for obvious reasons) is brief. The dilemma of balancing between extensive
coverage and discussing every theorist in some detail is something that all textbooks on
theory encounter. Although the contents of the book are uniquely organized and there is
wide-ranging treatment, Sociological Theory’s most important merit lies elsewhere.
The most important virtue of the book is that after the discussion of a particular thinker
there is a part in which race, class, and gender are discussed from the vantage point of the
same social theorist. These sections shed light on how sociological perspectives/concepts
are applied to the study of specific social categories. Often a separate reader
accompanying a textbook accomplishes this kind of task. With Adams and Sydie’s book,
the student has the advantage of simultaneously reading theory and being au fait with
sociological theory in action. The student thus understands that social theorizing is a
means to the purpose of exercising sociological imagination. Moreover, the treatment on
race, class, and gender allows the student with the opportunity to examine the relative
worth of a specific theory. Why is a particular theorist interested in the issue of one
social category and not in another? Does it mean that his/her theory is not rigorous
enough to address all of them? Or, if a theory is robust in many respects, why has a
theorist discussed one of the social categories extensively at the expense of others? Is a
social theorist consistent in his/her treatment of the issues of race, class, and gender? The
discussion of these and other pertinent issues stimulate the sociological imagination of
the student. In the end, the student develops the habit of observing the different facets of
social reality through the lenses of sociology.
The instructor can enhance the pedagogical benefits of the sections by giving writing
assignments pertaining to the issues of race, class and gender. For instance, the
discussion of the three major social categories can be used to compare and contrast the
views of two or more than two sociologists. In the light of this investigation, a number of
themes could be the subjects of discourse and reflection. What are the points of
convergence and divergence between the social theorists under discussion? Who has
done a better job? Can one extrapolate, say a theory of gender, out of a perspective that
(for whatever reason) has not dealt with the topic? Are there methodological differences
between two social theorists who might have the same perspective on the same social
category (for instance, class)? Does a theory set a limit on the nature of the topic to be
discussed? Or does the nature of a topic largely determine the type of theory one
utilizes? The age-old problem of scientific “objectivity” can also be the focus of
discussion: can one be “value-neutral” in the understanding of the themes of race, class
and gender? If not, what makes sociological investigation scientific? Additionally,
students can refine their understanding of race, class, and gender by examining how they
are intersected. The discussion of these and other topics helps students to appreciate the
value of theorizing.
The undergraduate student might find the preceding questions to be too abstract, or
he/she might be intellectually unprepared to deal with them. However, Adams and
Sydie’s book has interesting sections that ease this problem. The sections on “Nature of
Society, Humans and Change” and “Critiques and Conclusions” provide background
information for students to tackle the foregoing questions. The two sections discuss the
underlying assumptions and the ideological underpinnings of a social theorist, and
provide a synopsis of past and present criticisms. The sections have also another very
important value—the efficacy of understanding of how clusters of theories are distinct or
interrelated. Often students are confronted by the problem of looking into the connection
between the ideas of different theorists. In the absence of an organizing principle that ties
different ideas together, one can be lost in the web of manifold perspectives. What are
the central problems of a theorist? How is his/her theory related to somebody else’s
theory? What makes the arguments of a group of social theorists fall in the same
intellectual domain? What are the distinctive contributions of each social thinker who
belong in the same sociological province? These and other pertinent issues are dealt with
in the section on Nature of Society, Humans and Social change. On the other hand, the
section on Critiques and Conclusions has its own unique advantage of allowing the
student to reflect on the relative worth and weaknesses of each theory. In this
connection, one needs to emphasize that critique of a social perspective is not intended to
throw the baby with the bath water. Pointing out the strengths of a social theory must
precede the discussion of criticisms. In other words, to critique means to positively
transcend, that is, retain the salutary elements of a perspective while at the same time
seriously considering what might be its Achilles' heel. Finally, the instructor can also
take the occasion to show how, most of the time, the triangulation of concepts from
different theorists helps to have a better understanding of a social issue. For instance, in
the study of a social movement the symbolic interactionist perspective heightens our
grasp of its ideational dimensions, whereas conflict theory provides the intellectual
device to examine the social inequality that has, in the first place, conditioned its
existence.
One of, but not the least, important fortes of Sociological Theory is that Adams and Sydie
have taken pains to include a discussion on the salient intellectual inputs of women and
members of minority groups (for instance, Harriet Matineau, W. E. Du Bois, Marianne
Weber, Charlotte P. Gilman, and Rosa Luxemburg). Other theorists who are often given
scant attention in regular theory textbooks are also the subjects of discussion (for
instance, Niklas Luhmann, Theda Skocpol, Erik Olin Wright, Elman Service, Arlie
Hochschild, Dorothy Smith, Patricia Hill Collins and Immanuel Wallerstein). Most of
these thinkers may not be in par with the academic stature of giant social theorists, such
as Karl Marx or Max Weber. However, their theories are extremely relevant for a
number of reasons. For one thing, their impact within a particular field of sociology
could be enormous. Eric Wright and Theda Skocpol, for instance, are important figures
within the fields of social stratification and social movements respectively. The
undergraduate theory class thus meets the objective of preparing students for the
forthcoming classes that deal with specific areas of specialization. More importantly, the
treatment of these theorists (especially minorities and women) brings to the attention of
the reader issues and perspectives that are not normally addressed by traditional
sociologists. Indeed, the discussion of hitherto unexamined themes allows students to see
that sociological theorizing is not carried out in vacuum. Like any artifact, the nature and
shape of a social theory is determined by the social conditions of the thinker’s time and
even by the idiosyncrasy and the problems that a particular theorist has encountered in
person.
By and large, Sociological Theory is a readable text that undergraduate theory students
would find highly beneficial. Finally, however, I would like to note that the title
Sociological Theory is misleading. Rather, the title Sociological Theories is much more
preferable. The former gives the impression that sociology is a homogenous discipline.
It assumes as though all sociological approaches are cut out of the same intellectual cloth.
Thus, the title Sociological Theory defeats the rationale of the book—the purpose of
acquainting students with different perspectives. Sociology has always been a multi-
paradigm discipline, and that needs to be reflected even in the title of a book intended for
undergraduate students who have started tasting the wines of real sociology. Or if you
wish, and if as Jean Francois Lyotard has noted that the postmodern (assuming that this
trend is in favor of a multi-vocal condition) has existed within the modern, sociology has
been a "postmodern" discipline since its inception.