International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019 15
Overview of the Debate Over Theory and
the Sociology of Knowledge
Determining the extent to which social processes
influence the construction of sociological
knowledge is an overarching theme in the
ongoing debate over the state of sociology (Best,
2003 Cole, 2001a, pp. 9–10 Keith &Ender,
2004 Turner, 2006). Central to the debate is the
argument that sociology has become too
ideological (i.e., more influenced by “personal
experiences and values” [Cole, 2001b, p. 56]
than by empiricism, theory development, and
theory testing). Critics concerned with the state
of the discipline argue that ideology, power,
authority, and other social processes, rather than
evidence from the empirical world, influence
sociologists’ understanding of human behavior
(Cole, 2001a, pp. 8–13 see Smith, 2014). For
example, sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset
(2001, p. 247) attributed the “parlous” state of
sociology to the increasing politicization of the
discipline (see also Huber, 2001, pp. 299–300,
305). Joel Best went so far as to claim that
critics charge sociology with being “just
ideology, only thinly and disingenuously
disguised as science, that is the domain of ‘knee-
jerk liberals’ and irresponsible radicals who
would coddle criminals while blaming society”
(Best, 2003, p. 2).
A related concern is the problem of progress and
consensus (Cole, 2001a, pp. 13–20). Sociologist
Stephen Cole (2001b) argued that sociology
lacks a developed core of agreed-upon
knowledge.3 Many others concur (see Davis
2001 Huber 2001, pp. 301–302 Stinchcombe,
2001, p. 95). For example, a review of
introductory textbooks in sociology concluded
“sociology, at least at the introductory level,
does not appear to be widely grounded in a
common language of core concepts, in either the
1940s or the 1990s” (Keith &Ender, 2004, p.
28). Subsequently, respected theorist Jonathan
3 Unlike sociology, the natural sciences have core knowledge.
Examples of core knowledge in the natural sciences include the
Weinberg, Salam and Glashow theory of weak interactions
(physics), the Watson, and Crick model of DNA (molecular
biology), and Darwin’s theory of evolution (evolutionary biology)
(Cole, 2001b, p. 37).
Turner concluded, “sociology is not
symbolically unified. Its symbolic resource base
is fractured and cannot serve to integrate
sociology” (Turner, 2006, p. 25).
In the absence of core knowledge, political and
social processes have great significance. Power
within the discipline, rather than contributions to
the core, determines intellectual authority in
sociology. Thus, without core knowledge,
disagreeing sociologists engage in political
fighting (Cole, 2001a, pp. 29–30). Cole (2001a,
pp. 29–30) stated that sociologists “fight and
war among each other with the spoils going to
the most powerful (the extent to which
someone’s ideas are right or wrong has no
bearing on the battle).” Indeed, reported Joel
Best, “the history of American sociology is, in
part, a story of competition for social standing in
the discipline” (Best, 2003, p. 5).
Cole (2001b, pp. 39–40) argued that a
discipline’s progress is dependent on core
knowledge. Core knowledge (similar to Thomas
Kuhn’s [2012, pp. 43–51] concept of paradigm)
provides the foundation for the development of
science. With core knowledge, researchers know
which unsolved problems are solvable.4 Without
core knowledge, researchers select topics on
personal and ideological grounds,5 which leads
to “undoable” 6 projects (Cole, 2001b, p. 53).
4 “Solvable” problems are puzzles, the answers to which utilize
theoretically collected data related to a core disciplinary issue. A
solvable research investigation might involve validity and
reliability analyses of researchers’ use of the brainwashing concept
in relation to social-manipulation programs in an effort to
determine the concept’s scientific rigor. An unsolvable research
investigation would involve an attempt to determine a universally
accepted moral or ethical position on these programs. As
psychiatrist Robert J. Lifton observed, “it is important to realize
that what we see as a set of coercive maneuvers, the Chinese
Communists view as a morally uplifting, harmonizing, and
scientifically therapeutic experience” (Lifton, 1961, p. 15 [italics
in original] see Taylor, 2004, p. 5).
5 As Cole (2001b, p. 51) clarified, “physicists don’t decide to study
quarks because they have experienced them. Sociologists study
aspects of phenomena which they themselves participate in. The
problem with selecting topics for research based upon
noncognitive [i.e., ideological or personal] criteria is that it reduces
the chances that the results of the research will be important in
answering any significant theoretical questions.”
6 “Doable” research involves investigations using available
techniques and existing theories to examine issues with existing or
discoverable data. A doable research investigation might be the use
of widely used coding techniques to identify how researchers use
Overview of the Debate Over Theory and
the Sociology of Knowledge
Determining the extent to which social processes
influence the construction of sociological
knowledge is an overarching theme in the
ongoing debate over the state of sociology (Best,
2003 Cole, 2001a, pp. 9–10 Keith &Ender,
2004 Turner, 2006). Central to the debate is the
argument that sociology has become too
ideological (i.e., more influenced by “personal
experiences and values” [Cole, 2001b, p. 56]
than by empiricism, theory development, and
theory testing). Critics concerned with the state
of the discipline argue that ideology, power,
authority, and other social processes, rather than
evidence from the empirical world, influence
sociologists’ understanding of human behavior
(Cole, 2001a, pp. 8–13 see Smith, 2014). For
example, sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset
(2001, p. 247) attributed the “parlous” state of
sociology to the increasing politicization of the
discipline (see also Huber, 2001, pp. 299–300,
305). Joel Best went so far as to claim that
critics charge sociology with being “just
ideology, only thinly and disingenuously
disguised as science, that is the domain of ‘knee-
jerk liberals’ and irresponsible radicals who
would coddle criminals while blaming society”
(Best, 2003, p. 2).
A related concern is the problem of progress and
consensus (Cole, 2001a, pp. 13–20). Sociologist
Stephen Cole (2001b) argued that sociology
lacks a developed core of agreed-upon
knowledge.3 Many others concur (see Davis
2001 Huber 2001, pp. 301–302 Stinchcombe,
2001, p. 95). For example, a review of
introductory textbooks in sociology concluded
“sociology, at least at the introductory level,
does not appear to be widely grounded in a
common language of core concepts, in either the
1940s or the 1990s” (Keith &Ender, 2004, p.
28). Subsequently, respected theorist Jonathan
3 Unlike sociology, the natural sciences have core knowledge.
Examples of core knowledge in the natural sciences include the
Weinberg, Salam and Glashow theory of weak interactions
(physics), the Watson, and Crick model of DNA (molecular
biology), and Darwin’s theory of evolution (evolutionary biology)
(Cole, 2001b, p. 37).
Turner concluded, “sociology is not
symbolically unified. Its symbolic resource base
is fractured and cannot serve to integrate
sociology” (Turner, 2006, p. 25).
In the absence of core knowledge, political and
social processes have great significance. Power
within the discipline, rather than contributions to
the core, determines intellectual authority in
sociology. Thus, without core knowledge,
disagreeing sociologists engage in political
fighting (Cole, 2001a, pp. 29–30). Cole (2001a,
pp. 29–30) stated that sociologists “fight and
war among each other with the spoils going to
the most powerful (the extent to which
someone’s ideas are right or wrong has no
bearing on the battle).” Indeed, reported Joel
Best, “the history of American sociology is, in
part, a story of competition for social standing in
the discipline” (Best, 2003, p. 5).
Cole (2001b, pp. 39–40) argued that a
discipline’s progress is dependent on core
knowledge. Core knowledge (similar to Thomas
Kuhn’s [2012, pp. 43–51] concept of paradigm)
provides the foundation for the development of
science. With core knowledge, researchers know
which unsolved problems are solvable.4 Without
core knowledge, researchers select topics on
personal and ideological grounds,5 which leads
to “undoable” 6 projects (Cole, 2001b, p. 53).
4 “Solvable” problems are puzzles, the answers to which utilize
theoretically collected data related to a core disciplinary issue. A
solvable research investigation might involve validity and
reliability analyses of researchers’ use of the brainwashing concept
in relation to social-manipulation programs in an effort to
determine the concept’s scientific rigor. An unsolvable research
investigation would involve an attempt to determine a universally
accepted moral or ethical position on these programs. As
psychiatrist Robert J. Lifton observed, “it is important to realize
that what we see as a set of coercive maneuvers, the Chinese
Communists view as a morally uplifting, harmonizing, and
scientifically therapeutic experience” (Lifton, 1961, p. 15 [italics
in original] see Taylor, 2004, p. 5).
5 As Cole (2001b, p. 51) clarified, “physicists don’t decide to study
quarks because they have experienced them. Sociologists study
aspects of phenomena which they themselves participate in. The
problem with selecting topics for research based upon
noncognitive [i.e., ideological or personal] criteria is that it reduces
the chances that the results of the research will be important in
answering any significant theoretical questions.”
6 “Doable” research involves investigations using available
techniques and existing theories to examine issues with existing or
discoverable data. A doable research investigation might be the use
of widely used coding techniques to identify how researchers use
