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

16 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019
Furthermore, without core knowledge, a
discipline lacks a standard set of methods with
which to resolve conflicts. Perpetual conflict
exists between competing theoretical
formulations, and little or no theoretical growth
occurs (see Cole, 2001b, pp. 52–54 Kuhn, 2012,
p. 26).
Overview of Kuhn-Cole Argument
According to Kuhn (2012, pp. 10–11), a
paradigm is a scientific achievement that is
“sufficiently unprecedented to attract an
enduring group of adherents away from
competing modes of scientific activity ...[and]
...sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of
problems for the refined group of practitioners to
resolve.” Paradigms provide the foundation upon
which a particular scientific community furthers
its practice of normal science.
Following Kuhn, Cole argued that core
knowledge provides the basis of progress in all
sciences. Cole (2001b, p. 37) defined core
knowledge as “a small group of theories,
methods, and exemplars that are almost
universally accepted by the relevant scientific
community as being both true and important.”
With core knowledge, a discipline can define
which problems are doable, select problems
using cognitive7 criteria, and resolve conflict
between competing theoretical formulations
with reason and evidence as opposed to politics
or ideology. Cole (2001b, pp. 39–40) attributed
sociology’s lack of progress to the absence of a
core of universally accepted knowledge that
unites the discipline.
Cole (2001b, p. 49) argued, “research will
advance and accumulate most rapidly when
cognitive criteria are the most significant
influence on the decisions made by scientists.”
the brainwashing term when discussing various programs of social
manipulation. Countless topics would be interesting to research
(such as bureaucrats’ development of social-manipulation
programs in various periods of history), but limitations such as
sparse documentation and few if any bureaucrats’ accounts make
these projects undoable.
7 Our sources use the term cognitive to mean scientific. We deduce
that their idea of scientific (and hence cognitive) is of empirically
generated data acquired through the use of current instrumental
techniques, which address a widely agreed-upon theoretical
problem in the discipline.
In sociology, however, noncognitive factors,
such as personal experience and political
values,8 strongly influence problem choice and
the decisions made to achieve attempted
solutions. The selection of research problems on
the basis of noncognitive grounds leads
researchers to undertake undoable problems.
Kuhn (2012, p. 96) explained the relation
between problem selection and scientific
development:
Normal research, which is cumulative,
owes its success to the ability of
scientists regularly to select problems
that can be solved with conceptual and
instrumental techniques close to those
already in existence. (That is why an
excessive concern with useful problems,
regardless of their relation to existing
knowledge and technique, can so easily
inhibit scientific development.)
The conceptual and instrumental techniques of a
paradigm define a set of problems as doable.
Therefore, with paradigms, it is possible to
determine which problems are solvable. The
research problems “may have no intrinsic
significance other than their importance for the
theory of the paradigm” (Cole, 2001b, p. 49).
Natural sciences, which have highly developed
paradigms, progress because the problems
undertaken are doable, given the conceptual and
instrumental techniques of the paradigm.
Without highly developed paradigms, a
discipline is unable to determine which
problems are doable, with noncognitive criteria
leading researchers to attempt undoable
problems, and no theoretical growth occurs.
Kuhn (2012, pp. 11, 38–42) and Cole (2001b,
pp. 49–56) further argued that, with highly
developed paradigms, researchers within a
discipline agree on cognitive standards with
which to assess solutions to problems.
8 By noncognitive, our sources mean nonscientific and/or
nonempirical. We deduce that their idea of nonscientific (and
hence noncognitive) is of data acquired and/or used to advance
agendas that are personal or ideological (e.g., political, religious,
economic) and, hence, disconnected from a widely agreed-upon
theoretical problem in the discipline.