More Than a Discipline

Social Theory has always had an uneasy relationship to disciplines. Early nineteenth century figures, such as Saint-Simon and Comte, never held university posts. Neither did Marx, Mill, or Spencer, in the late middle of the century. Much of the most original thinking in social theory was "outside the box" of the existing disciplines of their time -- such as philosophy, philology, law, and history -- by thinkers such as Nietzsche. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the present disciplines formed, by a more or less arbitrary division of topics. In this reshuffling, social theory became most closely related to academic sociology. Such rubrics as "philosophy of history" withered, and their subject matter became part of social theory as taught in sociology departments, which were created from the remnants of the failed attempt of the mid-nineteeth century to create a discipline of statistics and from reformist philanthropy, which later became "social work." This was an unstable mixture, and social theory never quite fit.

Attempts to recapture a space for discussion free of disciplines began in earnest in the late twenties and early thirties. The Frankfurt Institute for Social Research was the most successful example. The Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago followed in the forties. In the seventies, programs in Social and Political Thought were established at Sussex and York (Canada). Others followed, with various different emphases and structures, such as Social Theory and History (UC-Davis). Cultural Studies programs, notably that of Birmingham University, extended the concerns of social theory into the domain of culture. A chair and undergraduate program in social theory was established at the University of Melbourne.

Social Theory as a Field of Study

This document is an attempt to set down, as a starting point for discussion, some basic features of the situation of a graduate level instruction in social and political theory, some organizational peculiarities of existing programs, and some potential areas of common interests between the programs and more generally of the community, such as it is, of persons with scholarly and intellectual interests in this area. One feature of the situation that is basic, and will run through the discussion, is the rough division between two approaches or styles of social theory, which for convenience can be called "traditional" and "cultural studies." (The term "social and political thought" will be used here for the overarching area that includes the topics that are more or less shared, at least peripherally, by both). The rise of cultural studies has transformed social theory and attracted new interest to social theory topics, as well as served to establish new major and canonical figures, such as Foucault and Nietzsche, and provided common non-disciplinary ground on which writers of "traditional" social theory, itself divided within several distinct and longer disciplinary traditions, are able to meet and share common interests and concerns.

SECTION 1. Features of the Situation of Instruction
at the Graduate Level

The obvious feature of "traditional" social and political theory instruction at the graduate level is that instructions for the most part occurs within departments in which the topics are either marginal to the main activity of the department or (and usually and) taught in a way that is self consciously oriented to a particular discipline and disciplinary theory tradition. This pattern is most evident in political science, sociology, and philosophy, where the distinctive disciplinary traditions of political theory, sociological theory, and social and political philosophy make the teaching of these topics into quite different experiences with quite different sets of texts included in the canonical expectations of instruction. Someone trained in political theory in the US, for example, would be expected to know something about the federalist papers, Leo Strauss, and constitutionalism, all of which would be quite alien to classes in sociological theory, and unusual in departments of philosophy.

Nevertheless, there are a large number of thinkers who are taught in various "traditional" departments though doubtless in somewhat different ways, notably the two generations of the Frankfurt School, and there are other figures, such as Carl Schmitt, who have emerged as basic texts for advanced students in many fields. Similarly, students in each of these disciplines are routinely expected to be able to say something intelligent about Hegel, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein, such contemporary figures as Habermas and Foucault, and perhaps even about Derrida, Rawls and Searle. For "traditional" social theory, Weber is another thinker whose reach is transdisciplinary, and passing familiarity with Durkheim is probably an expectation across a variety of disciplines, albeit a different set of disciplines, as well.

The field of "cultural studies," has had an impact on that is not limited to English departments, composition programs, women's studies, or comparative literature departments, but plays a very large role in the discipline of sociology and to an increasing extent political science and philosophy, particularly by way of forms of feminism within each of these fields. On the one hand it has introduced new canonical figures; on the other it has reinvigorated and transformed the ways in which "traditional" thinkers have been understood, by focusing discussion on such topics as modernity, reflexivity, and forms of victimization and oppression. In addition, of course, the cultural studies side of social theory has its own domain of material to study, namely cultural artifacts understood as texts, a secondary concern at best for "traditional" social theory.

The rise of cultural studies has greatly expanded the number of students with the interest in these figures and in instruction in these thinkers. The figures are important for intellectual historians, management departments, and departments of communication, especially in the U.S., and provide important background to women studies and various ethnic studies departments, Geography departments, German and French departments, and so forth, for example, as well as in schools of education, the arts, and even in schools of law.

A student seeking to become knowledgeable about social theory might learn about thinkers in this general area by taking courses in all of these departments. Yet there is nothing approximating a standard form for the maximal use of the intellectual resources (not to mention the instructional resources) devoted to this material, and there are only a few degree programs that attempt to specialize in producing students with credentials in social theory.

Yet there are good educational grounds for developing such programs. The potential advantages of a combined committee or program utilizing and bringing together faculty from different fields with interests in social and political theory are great. Not only would students with an exposure to a variety of perspectives benefit enormously but the existence of a common endeavor is a source of esprit de corps, solidarity, and intellectual pleasure for participants in the program.

SECTION 2. Markets and Student Interest

Why hasn't disciplinarization or the creation of specialized degrees happened? The situation is in many ways a paradoxical one. The main constraint is the existence of disciplinary markets. Clearly, it is highly advantageous for students pursuing an academic career to have a disciplinary credential in a traditional filed, such as English or Political Science, simply because academic jobs for the most part are disciplinary, and it is difficult to place students without disciplinary degrees. Interestingly, the grandfather of all Social Thought programs, the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago, despite the stellar reputation of its faculty, had difficulty placing its students precisely because there were no "social thought" programs for them to go into, and students were placed for the most part through the intervention of and because of the eminence of members of the committee, and in the most successful cases, such as Stanley Rosen and R. W. B. Lewis and Alan Bloom, into disciplinary positions in conventional disciplines. Not only was this strategy not terribly successful for the program, since many of its products were unable to be placed in this way, it does not represent a pattern that other programs with a less stellar faculty could or would wish to emulate.

Nevertheless, the disadvantages for students in pursuing degrees within traditional disciplines are very significant. To choose an extreme example, a student attempting to get a degree in sociology in a major department in the US would be expected to take a years worth of statistics courses as well as other courses in fields of sociology in addition to whatever training in social theory the student might attempt to acquire. Programs in Social Thought that have attempted to combine disciplinary Ph.D.'s with theory training at an advanced level after disciplinary requirements have been met, such as Penn State, have successfully produced students, and the existence of a formal Social Thought Program has made them more marketable than they would otherwise have been. But the demands of disciplinary program in themselves may be very considerable, and discouraging to prospective students with primary interests in social theory.

The effects of disciplinary market are themselves complex. Obviously most of the potential students have and interest in an academic career and must weigh the career implications of a path of study which restricts their access to jobs. On the other hand, there clearly is a pattern of students from targeted interdisciplinary or supradisciplinary programs getting jobs in either interdisciplinary departments with somewhat different titles and traditions, such as, in the United Studies, American Studies, as well as cases of students with interdisciplinary degrees getting positions in traditional departments teaching theory, for example the recent employment of Doug Aoki, a product of the University of British Columbia Department of Interdisciplinary Studies program and a Lacan scholar, to a position teaching sociological theory at the University of Alberta. If there was in fact a pattern of successful employments of this sort, it might be sufficient to sustain programs in social and political thought at the Ph.D. level.

A model for the development of social and political thought as an academic area might be science studies, although this is a model with some cautionary implications. Science studies programs developed out of the increasingly close relationships between history of science, philosophy of science, which together had in the sixties especially combined into history and philosophy of science departments, and subsequently the sociology of science, which, combined with history and philosophy of science has produced science studies programs, for the most part dominated by persons whose interests are in the sociology of science, though not sociology of science as traditionally practiced within American sociology departments. Growth in these programs has essentially stopped, and the likelihood that science studies can sustain itself as a discipline in the sense of creating a closed market which recruits first from individuals with degrees in science studies is an unlikely outcome. The present members of these departments are primarily persons trained in other fields, and growth in appointments from one program to the other has not been one science studies to another has not occurred, partly because of a slowdown in growth in the field itself and partly because the existence of conflicts and style between the existing science studies programs. Whether this will change on its own is an open question, and in fact very few science studies Ph.D.s have actually been granted.

Nevertheless there is an interesting pattern in the appointment of these Ph.D.s. Some have successfully been appointed to science studies-type positions in such programs as schools of engineering, but several others have been appointed in departments of philosophy and sociology. This suggests that students whose primary advisors were well-regarded in one of these areas and whose interests were congruent with disciplinary science studies interests can hope to be appointed in a traditional disciplinary departments, when there is competition between persons with traditional degrees and persons with interdisciplinary degrees. That this seems to be the case even in the present job market is extremely interesting. On the other hand, it is doubtful that this market could support a significant increase in science studies placements, and in fact many very good science studies students have experienced serious difficulties in placement, though it is not clear that their difficulties are markedly more severe than persons with traditionally disciplinary degrees and an interest in science.

This is extremely suggestive with respect to the area of social and political thought. It may be that a similar pattern involving an even larger range of disciplinary programs and also interdisciplinary programs might be open to Ph.D.s in social and political thought if their interests were compatible with these programs. To the extent that there is growth in interdisciplinary programs and opportunities especially at the undergraduate level such programs might serve to provide opportunities for a high proportion of social and political thought PhDs if they existed in any number.

Another straw in the wind is the suggestion that disciplinary boundaries generally are breaking down in the present job market as a consequence of diminished disciplinary based research funding and the general collapse of strong core identities in disciplinary departments. Something similar has taken place in the biological sciences and disciplinary labels of the traditional sort mean very little when primary funding and affiliations are in institutes for biomolecular science and degrees are in such areas as molecular biology. In this setting, departmental identities mean little and recruiting is done on the basis of research specialties and the needs of institutes of biomolecular science for collaborators with particular research skills. Departments become sets of research specialties rather than disciplinary. To the extent that this pattern emerges in the humanities and social sciences, there will be greater opportunities for programs such as social and political thought and their graduates.

Clearly there are some students with an interest in social and political thought, as such, who are for one reason or another students in particular departmental programs and would prefer to study social and political thought rather than these disciplinary subjects. Opinions obviously vary on such matters as a quality of students, one suggestion being that students in cultural studies presently are the best students and students of traditional social and political thought topics are presently the worst. So one question might be whether these students would be better served by a program with a different focus and label.

Who Studies Social Theory?

Programs in Social Theory attract serious students who are self-directed and able to make use of the resources of various disciplines. Social Theory programs usually bridge the social sciences and the humanities, and have the partipation of faculty members and students who are capable of crossing these bridges. Our students can speak for themselves. See what they have to say:

Michael L. Dorn
Department of Geography, Univ. of Kentucky

I am a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Geography at the University of Kentucky. My masters work in urban social geography at Penn State was devoted the forces that marginalized social groups in urban areas, initially focusing on disabled people and the impacts of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which was just then being implemented, on their ability to meet their financial and social needs. While a doctoral student at the University of Kentucky, I have pursued studies in medical and social geography, and combined them a specialization in social theory. I have found social theory to be very useful as I have developed my research interests in the history of representations of physically anomalous people, and as I have networked with other scholars in the emerging field of disability studies.

I view the 'disabled' category as a hegemonic construct that typically serves to stigmatize and preserve status quo social relations, while still potentially available for recapture under favorable circumstances, to became a locus of resistance by oppressed individuals and groups. In attempting to trace the history of disability activism in the United States, it became clear that there was tremendous historical and geographical variation the way 'disabilities' get defined. Social theory has been very useful in assisting me to conceptualize this shifting moral topography.

During my studies at the University of Kentucky I been active in the offerings of the Committee on Social Theory. The members of the committee-scholars in a wide array of departments in the humanities and social sciences-appreciate the usefulness of contemporary social and political theory as a lingua franca across disciplinary boundaries. The research seminars and lecture series sponsored by UK Social Theory foster exchange and collaborative research between areas of disciplinary expertise.

An example of this collaboration is the annual journal disClosure, edited by a graduate student collective. I have been a member of this collective for three years, writing book reviews, interviewing prominent social theorists, and, as head editor, supervising the production of the 1996 issue on reason and embodiment.

As a university professor, I plan to pursue a research program informed by contemporary social theory that will contribute to debates and open new lines in inquiry in medical and social geography, disability studies, and urban social history:

The relations between late-Enlightenment socio-medical ideas and current debates over the role of social theory in medical geography The emergence and diffusion of Enlightenment notions of rationality and civility Social marginalization as a historically contingent and contested process The historical geography of the Western body and city

Jeffery L. Nicholas
Philosophy Graduate Student Association, Univ. of Kentucky

I am a member of the Social Theory program at the University of Kentucky and its presence here was a major factor in my decisions to attend this graduate school. My primary field is philosophy; I am currently working on the intersections of reason/rationality and political theory. The Social Theory program here at UK has been vital to my research in this field. In particular, it has provided a larger number of faculty who are interested in the same sort of issues as I to work with - such issues as social reality, social institutions, liberation, marxism, modernity and postmodernity, fields of oppression and resistance, etc. The Social Theory program at UK has specifically allowed me to attend courses on the early Frankfurt School and another one on Habermas. It has also introduced me to areas and people that lie very close to my own research field. To find colleagues in different primary disciplines who work across the disciplines and can discuss and understand different areas of research on one topic has provided enormous research and social benefits - finding out that there are others with similar concerns, discovering different approaches and methods to the same problems, being baptized into new ways of seeing such problems.

Of course, any Social Theory program worthy of the name can provide these general benefits. Social Theory allows cross-polination of disciplinary research programs, encourages dialogue. The reason I was originally attracted to an institution which toted a social theory program was because of the basic need for research in social problems and social institutions. What am I saying that I didn't say above-just that any social theory program provides one with tools to address the social ills and oppressive institutions which define our society. A social theory encourages the praxis that Paulo Freire discusses: one where reflection and action are combined aimed at transforming society.

Esther Neuwirth
Social Theory and Comparative History, UC-Davis

I am a Ph.d candidate at the University of California-Davis in the Department of Sociology, pursuing a special graduate certification program (called a designated emphasis) in Social Theory and Comparative History (STCH). The program is offered through the UC Davis Center for History, Society, and Culture (CHSC). The designated emphasis involves taking several graduate seminars, attending and presenting at conferences sponsored by the CHSC, and most importantly, working with CHSC faculty to complete a dissertation that integrates theoretical, comparative, and historical methods and analysis. In light of the programs offered by the Center, I have had the opportunity to take a host of really interesting and thought-provoking seminars. These include: "Comparative Methods in Historical Sociology" and "Political Movements" with Professor John Walton; "Historical Models of Western Modernity: What Happened in the Twentieth Century," with Professor Bill Hagen; and "Cultural Sociology" with Professors John Hall and John Walton. I've also attended and presented at several CHSC conferences, and participated in a CHSC affiliated "Editorial Workshop." Being a participant and active program committee member of the CHSC has given me a chance to explore my own research interests in an environment that encourages comparative and theoretical approaches to examining empirical social issues.

In my first year of study at UC Davis, 1993-1994, I enrolled in Professor John Walton's two quarter seminar on "The Comparative Methods in Historical Sociology." This seminar sparked my interest in comparative historical work. With Professor Walton's guidance, I read case studies where authors applied various methods to empirical and theoretical questions. I learned how exciting such research could be. In this seminar, I researched and wrote up a longitudinal comparison of two rebellions in Palestine: the 1936-1939 Arab revolt and the December 1987 Palestinian nationalist uprising, the Intifada. I discovered that although the 1936-1939 rebellion was relatively "unsuccessful," memories of this collective resistance were stored in the cultural history of the Palestinian people and were later called to mind by the leaders of the Intifada as a resource for mobilization. I found the research process exciting and personally compelling. After the seminar, Professor Walton encouraged me to participate in the STCH designated emphasis and the Center, and I have been actively involved ever since.

Prior to beginning graduate work at UC Davis, I completed my B.A. at Brandeis University in Sociology and Women's Studies. I also spent several years working with a U.S. based non-profit organization called the Overseas Development Network (ODN). My education at Brandeis University gave me a strong theoretical grounding in social theory; and working with an organization dedicated to international development and social justice gave me insight into the relationship between theoretical models and the empirical world. As an undergraduate, with the help of the Overseas Development Network, I travelled to the Philippines to conduct research for my thesis on Filipino women's historical role in land tenure struggles and grassroots development.

I have chosen to complete the STCH designated emphasis because working with the CHSC gives me a forum for learning how to develop theory in light of historical and ethnographic research. With the help of CHSC faculty affiliates John Walton, Diane Wolf, and John Hall, I recently completed a doctoral qualifying paper on social movements and collective action in Israeli society.

In my qualifying paper, "The Emergence of Mizrahi Collective Action in Israeli Society From 1959-1973," I explore two historical moments of collective action in the state of Israel: a 1959 urban uprising and the 1970s Israeli Black Panther Movement. I began this project wondering how and why collective action is possible. In the paper I argue that these two cases of collective action are not merely reactions to structural inequality or social strain. They emerge only indirectly out of structural processes but more directly from political opportunities, internal organization, and a collective belief in injustice that arose out of contradictions in state rule. In addition, although these two moments of collective action failed to change structural conditions of race and class inequalities, they actually paved the way for today's growing awareness of ethnic issues in Israeli society as well as national efforts at redefining the distribution of entitlements and the meaning of social citizenship. I presented my initial work on this project at the 1997 CHSC UC-wide conference on "Modernity's Histories." Now, I am continuing to explore the theoretical questions posed in my qualifying paper as I develop my dissertation project - a comparative analysis of the connected processes of privatization, collective action, and changing ethnic relations. Serving on my committee are a sociologist and a sociological anthropologist from UC Davis, as well as a historian from Stanford University.

Attending CHSC sponsored lectures, workshops, and conferences has been very helpful for my intellectual growth. The CHSC gives me a chance to discuss my own interests and theoretical insights in an interdisciplinary manner with academics throughout the UC system, and at times with academics from around the world. At these conferences and colloquia, I've had in-depth discussions with other sociologists, as well as political scientists, anthropologists, historians, and area study specialists. Participating in the Center for History, Society, and Culture helps position me to think about my own work in light of other disciplinary approaches and contributions.

Working closely with the Center has also given me a chance to get to know the academic journal Theory and Society: Renewal and Critique in Social Theory. As part of my participation with the Center, I was introduced to the journal and its executive editor, Professor Janet Gouldner, who is affiliated with the CHSC. While working as the journal's Assistant Managing Editor from October 1995 - December 1997, I had first hand exposure to the editorial side of academic publishing. During this time, I learned how theoretically compelling research gets produced, and the practical stages of editing that are involved in the creation of substantive contributions to our understanding of empirical problems. I continue to be involved with the journal as a member of its editorial review committee.

Completing the designated emphasis in Social Theory and Comparative History and participating in the CHSC conferences and other events have been important learning experiences which have given me a good deal of insight into my work. The Center for History, Society, and Culture has been a vital part of my academic community. Throughout my endeavors as a scholar at UC Davis, its faculty and graduate students have been an important source of intellectual nurturing and guidance.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are "Programs in Social Theory"?
Programs in Social Theory typically include three basic elements: the the intellectual history of social theory, the theory of culture, and the theory of power. Foucault and Habermas, behind them the first generation of the Frankfurt School and Schmitt, and behind them the generation of Durkheim and Weber, and farther back Nietzsche, Marx and Hegel. By browsing the web pages of specific programs, one can see what sorts of topics the programs emphasize, and how they organize the domain.

What degrees do they offer?
Every degree, from B.A. to Ph.D., is offered somewhere in social theory. Some programs offer M.A. degrees, particularly as a track or concentration, for example in a Master of Liberal Arts Program, or in a Sociology department program. Some programs offer certificates for graduate students who will also receive a degree in a disciplinary program.

Previous Organizational Meetings

This is a brief report of the meeting held in March 1998 in St.Pete Beach/St. Petersburg of representatives of programs in Social Theory/Social & Political Thought/Cultural Studies.

Representatives of Programs at Warwick, York (Canada), Kentucky, Arizona, South Florida, and Humboldt (Berlin) met for two days. We discussed the fact that a significant number of programs already exist. 

After a useful discussion of the structure of various programs, which revealed striking similarities, as well as some differences, we discussed the question of how to develop the area. We agreed, essentially, that a field-- post disciplinary, transdisciplinary, the right term is not clear-- had emerged that was not reducible to any existing discipline. It was also agreed that there were things we could and should begin to do to develop the field through an organization.

We agreed on the following 2 key steps:
1. To write a letter to the programs we can identify that would be relevant, enlisting their co-operation and participation.
2. To hold a meeting -- understood as an organizing conference -- in June of 1999 including workshops directly on some of the adminstrative issues that constitute common concerns for these program and scholarly presentations, preferably with some headliners.
We agreed to hold open for discussion at this meeting and elsewhere such questions as what to call ourselves.

In addition, we plan to begin to promote the idea of social theory broadly construed as a coherent field of study, create a common web page with an invitation to link program web pages, make connections with journals in the domain, and develop "social theory" in this sense as a more coherent category for publishers to deals with.

Marv Waterstone has agreed to work on a draft letter to programs based on this agenda, and to identify relevant Cultural Studies Programs. J.P. Jones will work on the problems of hosting a conference, and to establish a listserv for the "Consortium." We plan to continue to keep in touch, and invite your participation in the discussion.

The meeting was very productive, and it is clear that beginning with programs and groups is a good way to start. A quite large group of people, world wide, is associated with these programs.

Stephen Turner
Department of Philosophy
University of South Florida
4202 E. Fowler Ave.
CPR 107
Tampa, FL 33620
(813)974-5549
http://philosophy.usf.edu/

Where we now are with respect to these Goals:

a) A listserv for programs and the concerns of the consortium now exists: please contact Stephen Turner at the link below for more information.
b) A letter was sent to programs that were identified in 1999. If you have a program that was not contacted, please contact us at the link below.
c) A Conference is scheduled for May 2000: Social Theory 2000. Information and links are available on the opening page for the consortium at socialtheory.org.
We want your participation and input!