Why is classical theory classical? Theorizing the canon and canonizing Du Bois

One of the most contentious debates coursing through sociology is what to do with the canon of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim: abandon the canon, start afresh with a new canon, or reconstruct the existing canon? In this paper I examine the claims of Connell, the foremost advocate of abandoning the cannon. She claims the canon is an arbitrary imposition that bears no relation to the actual history of sociology and we would be better off examining how the canon came to be. She does not consider the intrinsic value of the canon and instead advances the idea of Southern theory. It is not clear what is Southern about Southern theory nor what holds together the array of theorists she proposes. As an alternative I propose reconstructing the canon with the life and work of W.E.B. Du Bois who was propelled by precisely the issues that concern Connell. The canon is relational so that Du Bois is not simply added but brought into conversation with Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, leading to a rereading of each theorist. The canon has always been subject to revision when it atrophies, when it moves out of sync with questions raised by the world and by sociology. I agree with others that contemporary questions push Du Bois to the forefront—however, not at the expense of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim but in dialogue with them. I outline a possible direction of such dialogues from which all would benefit. Just as the inclusion of Marx had dramatic consequences for the recalibration of Weber and Durkheim, so the same will happen with the inclusion of Du Bois with regard to Weber, Durkheim, and Marx, and, at the same time, stiffening and advancing a Du Boisian sociology. Incorporating Du Bois into the existing canon may appear to be a reformist move but if attention is paid to the whole gamut of Du Bois’s oeuvre, then the consequences could be revolutionary, even to the point of sidelining one or more of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim.

Our friend Melvin Kohn

In the genre of oral history of sociology, the author narrates his experience of communication with the famous American sociologist, former president of the American Sociological Association (1987), honorary doctor of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy Melvin Lester Kohn (1928–2021). It is about the friendship and cooperation of Melvin Cohn with Ukrainian colleagues, his participation in the organization and holding of international research with the participation of Ukraine. The creative heritage of the American sociologist is important for the development of sociology in the world and in Ukraine, in particular for better understanding the social structure of Ukrainian society.

Towards a reflexive intelligence of emerging sociology in France around 1900 (Tome 142, 7e Série, n°3-4, (2021))

Recent years have seen a proliferation of publications reconsidering the emergence of sociology in France. The present review discusses and compares three of these works: S. Mosbah-Natanson’s bibliometric study on the fashion of sociology around 1900 (2017a); Th. Hirsch’s history of the idea of social time from the Durkheimians to Les Annales (2016a); and M. Joly’s enquiry into a purported sociological revolution in France and Germany at around the same time (2017a). Pushing respectively for a sociological, a historical and an epistemological history of sociology, they represent three distinct ways of renewing the historiography of the social sciences. The article argues that qualities and limitations of these works alike suggest two challenges for the history of sociology: (1) integrating sociological, historical and epistemological competences in a comprehensive intelligence of sociological texts; and (2) accounting for the reflexivity involved in a social history of the social sciences.

Tarihsel Gelişim Süreci İçerisinde Türk Sosyolojisi

This study, which contributes to the studies on sociologists and their works, which have an important place in the studies of determining the history of Turkish sociology, was formed by the theoretical combination of visualization and the history of Turkish Sociology. Studies to create a timeline are studies that cover the events that are effective in a certain period and which can be considered as a turning point in the development of, and their effects on, sociology. The aim is to select the events that are effective in the development of sociology as the main determinants and to bring to the fore among many factors. The process of creating a timeline differs from the history of sociology and falls within the scope of sociology of History. The integrity of a large number of variables is emphasized without looking for any linearity or causality relationship in the timeline studies. The most important part of the studies on creating a historical timeline is the visualization phase. A link should be established using visualization between Turkish sociology and the digital world. Thus, the history of Turkish sociology can be passed on to future generations. In this sense, narration, understanding and interpretation are important steps to be taken in the construction of society. In addition, the topics covered in the study that shape Turkish sociology are the events and phenomena that affect the structuring in the world.

Writing national histories of sociology: Methods, approaches and visions

There has been a renewal of interest in the writing of national histories of sociology, with dozens of histories recently published in both the global North and South. Despite this, there has been a dearth of discussion about the methods and methodologies appropriate to such a task. Indeed, few histories of sociology, and fewer still national histories of sociology, explicitly address methodology. In this study, we review the literature on histories of sociology from a variety of countries, focusing on how the authors have approached the writing of history, and their implicit use of methods and methodologies. We suggest the use of a content analysis as an additional, though perhaps unusual, method of historiography, and apply this in the case of an Australian history of sociology. Our content analysis reveals both similarities and differences in the Australian approach, indicating the impact of settler-colonialism on Australian sociology and its historiography.