Sociology: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #012

by Steve Bruce

Drawing on studies of social class, crime and deviance, work in bureaucracies, and changes in religious and political organizations, this Very Short Introduction explores the tension between the individual's role in society and society's role in shaping the individual, and demonstrates the value of sociology as a perspective for understanding the modern world.

Genres: Sociology, Nonfiction, Science, Social Science, Psychology, Philosophy, Audiobook

128 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1999

About the author

Steve Bruce (born 1951), Professor of Sociology at the University of Aberdeen since 1991, elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 2003 and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 2005, he has written extensively on the nature of religion in the modern world and on the links between religion and politics.

Reviews

[فؤاد · Rating 4 out of 5]

١.
كتاب با توضيح راجع به اعتبار علمى مطالعات جامعه شناختى شروع مى شه. نويسنده توضيح مى ده كه روش علمى چطور در فيزيك و شيمى جواب مى ده، اما در جامعه شناسى و تاريخ ديگه به همون شكل جواب نمى ده. نمى شه در جامعه شناسى گروه مورد مطالعه رو از باقى عوامل محيطى جدا كرد و تأثير يه عامل رو در آزمايش هاى متعدد روش سنجيد. چون جامعه حقيقى بافتى از هزاران عامله كه برهم كنش همه با هم نتيجه الف يا ب رو مى ده و نمى شه حدس زد كه حذف يكى از اين عوامل چقدر ممكنه تأثير داشته باشه.
از طرفى، روش پژوهش در جامعه شناسى امتيازى داره كه فيزيك و شيمى فاقد اونن: اين كه پژوهشگر خودش مثل موضوع مورد مطالعه ش انسانه، در نتيجه خيلى راحت تر پديده ها رو درك مى كنه، چون خودش تجربيات مشابهى داشته. و همين طور مى تونه با موضوع مورد مطالعه ش گفتگو كنه، چيزى كه فيزيك و شيمى ازش محرومن! هر چند نويسنده راجع به وجه گمراه كننده مصاحبه هم هشدار داده.

٢.
كتاب بعد از اين مى ره سراغ پژوهش هاى مختلف و نظريات مختلف جامعه شناسى. پژوهش هايى مثل پژوهش اميل دوركم كه نشون مى ده يكى از شخصى ترين تصميم ها، يعنى تصميم به خودكشى، چطور تحت تأثير عوامل اجتماعى قرار داره. يا نظريه برچسب كه نشون مى ده فرد چطور خودش رو آينه ديگران مى كنه، و هويت خودش رو مطابق نظر ديگران نسبت به خودش مى سازه. يا نظريات و پژوهش هاى انجام شده راجع به مدرنيته و خصوصيات جامعه مدرن، مثل نظريه بوروكراسى ماكس وبر، كه مى گه چطور سازمان ها در جوامع مدرن انتزاعى تر شدن، و به جاى اشخاص و روابط شخصى، پُست ها و ضوابط غيرشخصى جايگزين شده و اصولاً ملاك يك جامعه مدرن اينه كه چقدر سازمان ها به سمت اين الگو پيش رفته ن. و دست آخر پژوهش هاى خود نويسنده راجع به نظام سلسله مراتبى گروهك هاى تروريستى ايرلندى.

اين بخش، بخش جالب كتاب بود. هر چند تمام نظريات جامعه شناسى رو با نظم و ترتيب نياورده بود (بر خلاف كتاب اسطوره از همين مجموعه) اما در همين آشفتگى، آدم رو توى حال و هواى رشته جامعه شناسى قرار مى ده. خود نويسنده هم مى گه هدفش القاى همين حال و هواست، نه يه كتاب مقدماتى جامعه شناسى.

٣.
كتاب خيلى خوبيه و راحت يكى دو روزه مى شه خوندش. نبايد روش به عنوان كتاب آموزش جامعه شناسى حساب كرد، چون خود نويسنده اصرار داره كه قصدش اين نبوده. رشته جامعه شناسى به خودى خود اون قدر جذاب هست كه هر متخصصى بتونه بدون زحمت زيادى، يه كتاب جذاب در اين زمينه بنويسه.

[Thanawat · Rating 2 out of 5]

ยอมแพ้

เพราะถูกทิ้งไว้กลางทางด้วยการเล่าอะไรก็ไม่รู้ อ่านแล้วไม่เข้าใจที่มาที่ไปและวัตถุประสงค์ของการเล่า จนอ่านจบก็ยังงงๆ ว่านี่คือความรู้ฉบับพกพาเรื่องอะไร

ยอมรับว่าเปิดเล่มด้วยบทนำที่น่าติดตาม แต่กลายเป็นว่าอ่านจบแล้วกลับจำรายละเอียดได้น้อยมาก

[Inge · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not really what I expected it would be: not an overview of sociology in theories and important authors, but much more of an essay that offers an opinion of what sociology could/should be and that only highlights a few of the issues that sociologists deal with. Also: the anti-postmodernist rant at the end of the book is a bit too much and does not really do justice to theories such as ANT..

So, if you really want an introduction to sociology: meh, don't read this.

[Mehdi Nabavi · Rating 4 out of 5]

بسیار جامع و بسیار کوتاه
اگر یک توصیه می تونستم به نویسنده بکنم این بود که یکم مباحث رو بیشتر شرح می داد چرا که این همه موضوع توی این مقدار کم از نوشته واقعن نمیگنجید
خواندنش بسیار لذت بخشه، برای شکاکین به علوم اجتماعی (من جمله خودم!) کتاب مفیدیه چرا که به پایه های علمی این رشته می پردازه و نقاط قوت و ضعف این رشته و اهمیتی که در تبیین واقعیت های اجتماعی رو به شکل زیبایی نشون میده

[Mostafa · Rating 3 out of 5]

برای آشنایی کلی و پیش زمینه داشتن برای مطالعات بیشتر خوبه

[Mizuki · Rating 3 out of 5]

One thing that I was reminded of by this book:

Roles and role models: everyone plays different roles in society, but we might not always have a choice to pick what role to play. Sometimes we learn our roles from adults when we are young.


It's a book that needs a lot of digesting, though it is supposed to be a beginners' book. There are plenty of theories, examples, questions and information for readers to take in. I don't think it's for casual read. I think it's better to take notes and keep thinking while you are in the process of reading this book.

[Sepinood Ghiami · Rating 5 out of 5]

یکی از جذاب ترین کتاب هایی که در زمینه ی جامعه شناسی (برای آماتورها البته) میشه خوند. در جای جای کتاب، آرزو کردم که کاش می تونستم بشینم و با نویسنده ش ساعت ها صحبت کنم. از نقاط قوت کتاب، به مثال آوری برای فهم مسائل پیچیده تر، خسته نکننده بودن، و از حق نگذریم، ترجمه ی فوق العاده ی آقای بهرنگ صدیق بود.
کتاب رو می تونین از اپلیکیشن فیدیبو تهیه کنین.

خوندنش رو به همه توصیه می کنم.

[Rozhan Sadeghi · Rating 3 out of 5]

این کتاب اولین کتاب بود که در زمینه جامعه شناسی خوندم.
موقع خریدنش از قصد یه کتاب تقریبا جیبی برداشتم که یه ايده کلی از بحث جامعه شناسی بهم بده که دقیقا هدف کتاب هم همینه.
کتاب خیلی بدی نیست برای شروع به خوندن در مورد جامعه شناسی چون تقریبا هر مبحثی رو که راجع بهش بحث میکرد بلافاصله بعدش، چند تا مثال قابل لمس میاورد تا شما موضوع رو کاملا متوجه بشی.
ولی چیزی که یکم من و از این کتاب زده کرد و طبعا باعث شد بیشتر از حد معمول خوندنش طول بکشه، پراکنده گویی بیش از حد و ویراستاری نه چندان خوبش بود!
شاید بعضی ها با این مدل نوشتن بتونن کنار بیان ولی برای من پروسه خواندنش ملال آور شده بود!

[Mosope · Rating 1 out of 5]

I enjoyed parts of it
However
Sociology isn't for me.

[S. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Part of me didn't like this book and it was anything except an introduction.
And I wonder if that's inherent to the "Sociology" itself since he describes it as something in progress and can be an amateurs job as well :

"If sociology is to be anything more than interesting (and not always that interesting) speculation, it has to be empirical. That is, its theories and explanations must be based on sound observations of the real world.
Hence my selection of great names has leant towards those who have combined theory with detailed empirical studies. If it is to be empirical, then sociology must model itself on the natural sciences."

What I was looking for is more of a summary on sociology, explaining the history, a few basic references that could help anyone memorize and organize their thoughts about the topic.
And this was the only thing that was close to my expectations :


Marx and Weber on class; Weber on rationality; Durkheim on anomie; Gehlen on instincts; Merton on the structural causes of crime; Mead and Cooley on socialization; Michels on oligarchy; Parsons on the family; Becker on labelling; and Goffman on roles and total institutions.

Anyway, wasn't so bad yet not perfect neither...

[Ireneo Funyes]

Sosyoloji üzerine okuma yapmayı seven bir insanım, uzun bir süredir de bu tarz "giriş" kitaplarını araştırıp iyi olanlarını bir kenara koymaya çalışıyorum ancak Steve Bruce'un yazdığı bu kitap onlardan biri değildi. Bir zamanlar Twitter'da "'ona giriyorum, buna girdim gireceğim' tarzı kitaplardan uzak durun" diyen bir tweet görmüştüm, bu kitap o iddiayı destekleyen kitaplardan biriydi.

Sosyolojiye giriş için okunabilecek en güzel eserlerden biri herhalde C. Wright Mills'in Sociological Imagination'ıdır, onda bile dönemin (1950'ler) baskın sosyolojik eğilimlerini eleştirdiği ve bunu kitabın yarısı boyunca yaptığı için sıkılabiliyordunuz, Sociology: A Very Short Introduction'da da yer yer hissediliyor bu. Verilen case study örnekleri çok sıkıcı; daha da kötüsü, sıkıcı bir şekilde sunulmuş. Zaman zaman devam etmek için kendimi zorladım bu yüzden.

Oxford Üniversitesi Yayınları'nın Very Short Introductions serisine başka bir kitapla, metafizik üzerine olanla başlamıştım aslında ve onu çok beğenmiştim, Graham Harman'ın eserlerini saymazsak, okuduğum en açık ve özlü kitaplardan biriydi. Serinin başka yerlerde de övüldüğünü görünce bu kitabı aldım elime ama beklediğimi bulamadım pek. Yazar sosyolojinin genel yöntemlerine ve özelliklerine değinmiş evet, "social construction" ve "unintended consequences" üzerine olan kısımlar güzeldi mesela, ancak kitabın sonunda postmodernizme bir giriş yapıyor ki sormayın. ABD'de son yıllarda çok popüler bir isim olan Jordan Peterson'ın postmodernizmi pek anlamadığı söylenir, hatta onu eleştiren videoları sayesinde popüler olan Cuck Philosophy isimli çok güzel bir Youtube kanalı bile var ama Peterson'ın görüşlerinin bu kitaptaki postmodernizm bahsinden daha tutarlı olduğunu söyleyebiliriz. Straw Man Fallacy'ye çok net bir örnek hatta. Steve Bruce kavram hakkındaki bütün yanlış görüşleri, saçma fikirleri alıp bir çöp adam yaratıyor ve sonra ona saldırıyor.

Öte yandan, kitabın başlarında sosyal bilimlerin geçerliliği üzerine söylediklerini ve sonlarında, her ne kadar biraz ekstreme kaçsa da, sosyolojiye politik bir gaye yüklemenin her zaman doğru olmadığı ve genç sosyoloji öğrencilerinin genelde "sorun" olarak gördükleri şeylerin çözümü üzerine araştırma yapma isteğinin yanlış olduğu, yapılması gerekenin sorunu saptamak olduğu fikri bana makul geldi. "Çözüm getirmenin" sosyoloji alanına (ya da herhangi bir bilime) içkin olması gerekmediğini düşünüyorum.

Kurgu dışı kitapları yıldızlamamaya devam edeceğim ama kitabı beğenmediğimi ve sosyolojiye giriş olarak çok daha güzel kitapların olduğunu söyleyerek bitireyim yazıyı.

[Ben Zhang · Rating 2 out of 5]

Bruce may be a great sociologist, but he's definitely not good at introducing Sociology in plain English. This is an introduction, not an academic paper for peer reviews. Sociology should be fascinating and intriguing subject, but the book really turns it to a boring sermon page by page, which is very sad. The text doesn't fit the name: "A Very Short Introduction".
First of all the book starts off without an overview of what Sociology really studies, and there are so many aspects Bruce could've talked about (family structure, modern life, social behavior, urban development, communities etc). And it's disappointing that the book never gives us a context why "there is Sociology". It doesn't introduce the history of this subject and the founding fathers, but just throws tons of names and their arguments and theories. Well, if you do so, there also should be some very brief explain action and intro about these theories. The book gets more disappointing by putting way too much arguments from different people (scholars in very very specific fields of sociological study) and author's opinions in the last chapter. Honestly, the readers of this book can't even focus on what you are saying if you don't give them a larger picture. Rather than arguing criminology should be studied in such and such ways and what kind of cases are "wrong" and "right", Bruce should define what "Criminology" is. Oh my god, there were just so many names, detailed terms, and so many different debates, and it ended up with author's own views.

Again, this may be a great sociological paper or a long essay. But it's too scattered and to be a rigorous and interesting intro. Readers without a sociology background wouldn't even finish half of it -- they'll be seriously bored and fall asleep.

[Jamille · Rating 2 out of 5]

I did find this book interesting, however, in the previous book in this series I read (Foucault). It seemed different. Different in the sense that this book simply had many sociology texts just put together, there didn't seem to be a structure other than to topic.
Having said that this is a good book, to get you interested in sociology and I found the final sentences a very delightful way to finish off what was a rather dull book.

[Amin Ghaemi · Rating 5 out of 5]

سلیس و خوش‌خوان، برای کسانی که تا به حال هیچ مواجهه‌ای با جامعه‌شناسی نداشته اند. بی آنکه خواننده را درگیر پیچ و تاب مفاهیم و روشهای فنی کند، لحظاتی از کار جامعه‌شناسانه را نمایش می‌دهد و دست آخر از کل کرد و کار جامعه‌شناسی به مثابه یک علم دیدی کلی و نویددهنده بدست آوریم.

[Saber Khosravi · Rating 4 out of 5]

روان و ساده و صد البته با ترجمه اي خوب
براي انانكه قصد شروع خوانش درباره جامعه شناسي را دارند خوب است

[Kitsune · Rating 4 out of 5]

ამ სემესტრის დაწყებამდე რომ წამეკითხა თეონა მატარაძე ჩემი N1 მტერი ვერ გახდებოდა.

[Shahab · Rating 2 out of 5]

موضوع مورد علاقه من نبود 😊

[Muhamed · Rating 4 out of 5]

The last chapter saved the book for me.

[muthuvel · Rating 2 out of 5]

I would consider this work as farther away as possible from an introduction to Sociology. This work is a compiled essays of a sociology professor expressing his compliments and enmities towards some of the field theories acridly.

He deliberately writes himself in the final conclusion, "If sociology is to be anything more than interesting (and not always that
interesting) speculation, it has to be empirical". I wonder how anyone would find that motivating to take up understanding the topic.


From my exploring, I would recommend Sam Atkinson's The Sociology Book for providing a brief and nonetheless sublime introduction to the field of sociology.

[Yusuf · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bilmiyorum neden, belki uyku öncesi okuması yaptığım için, fazla bağlantı kuramadım ve bir noktada bıraktım. Antropoloji güzeldi, Ateizm de güzel gidiyor, ama bu kitap çalışmadı.

[M. Ashraf · Rating 3 out of 5]

I find sociology, social studies, to be a very interesting subject and though this book doesn't give much it was a good read, as the author said: "the text has been designed to present, not a summary, but a sense of sociology." and it was great doing that.
I think this is a very good VSI compared to the previous books in the series. but it is just fine on its own with more reading required on the subject.

Science thrives on the free exchange of ideas and on intellectual competition.

we could describe sociology as the study of social structures and social institutions.

culture does for humans what instinctual and environmental constraints do for other species

we make our own fate but not in the circumstances of our own choosing.

God revealed himself in forms appropriate to the social evolution of different

... Such conspiracy thinking is actually a misdirected partial understanding of social causation. It rightly supposes that there is more to life than meets the eye and reflects the sense of the powerless that there is an order that is not immediately observable to the untrained eye. But then it reverts to the idea that things occur because someone wanted them like that. It fails to understand unintended consequences and the supra-individual causes of action.

[Ji · Rating 2 out of 5]

Good reference as an introductory book. Organization of the material is a mystery. The last chapter is the best one in such a way that I could finally understand why it was written. Maybe it’s simply too much to ask for a small book to be opening a door for a subject area that’s hard to define and has a lot of moving pieces in it.

[Sam · Rating 3 out of 5]

Having a background in psychology I’ve always seemed to have a natural aversion to sociology on the erroneous assumption that it’s a bridge between philosophy and psychology and therefore less sophisticated than my own discipline due to its limitations in utilising experimental methodology. It’s ironic because I’m absolutely fascinated by dystopian literature and media, due to the way society impacts on the individual’s freedom, and essentially this is the basis of sociology or what I assume is a main branch of it. Due to the restricted length of the book it was at times synonyms to a narrative and therefore the discussion of theoretical viewpoints lacked empirical evidence to substantiate it. It also suffered from an inattentive proof-reader who missed at least two typographical errors. That said three of its discussions did ignite in me a wondrous fascination; a distant lighted window sighted in the residual surrounding darkness of my mind.

The first of these was Weber’s theory of social mobility. I find it incredibly interesting that where you are in society in terms of class is very much determined by what you were born into and social mobility is affected by the changes in society at the time of your ascension to adulthood. Based on Weber’s theory I was born into a working class family but I am now part of the salariat (service class) suggesting that I have ascended the classes and have been socially mobile. However it is also suggested that the reason for this social mobility is due to societal changes catalysed by the industrial revolution. This change sparked a decline in manual labour and eventually a need to manage workers creating more white collar professional jobs which also needed further education. The reduction in religious influence in favour of secular control enabled more scientific advancements in areas such as industry and health; again splintering the job market. If these changes had not occurred at the time they did I may still be working class and share all the characteristics and values of that class. Personally I’m not judging one class as being better or worse than the other but they do have shared values and ideas and so are distinctive and separate. Although my brain, in a chokehold by psychology, does question why only some individuals transcend and others do not. Is there a geographical explanation as there is less competition in less populated areas to transcend? Why is it some people question their position in society and others accept it? For me that seems an individualistic problem answered more poignantly by psychology.

The second concept that fascinated me was the explanation of today’s increased divorce rate and the decline of the nuclear family. The climate of our society is very much the ‘pursuit of one’s own happiness’ and our choices and behaviour are often blinded by it; we become very selfish. Before the thought of gender equality, as I do not believe yet that it fully exists or ever will in my lifetime, we lived in a patriarchal society where property was only bestowed to men, and women had no choice but to sacrifice for the benefit of the family and their own survival. They could not survive on their own, would not be granted credit or any financial aid without the presence of a male, were shunned for having employment etc. Life for a woman was as an object and they belonged to the man along with all his other property to be done with as he pleased and passed from father to husband. Just as the Neanderthal male made the female submissive by greater physical strength so did modern culture by finance. But I do digress. The idea discussed in the book is that this group alternative of female empowerment which brought about a social change meant that both men and women didn’t have to stay married due to financial reasons (in modern society the woman would pool resources with the man and so both are tired together in unhappy matrimony). The economic climate and its impact on improved standards of living mean people are more affluent and again do not have the shackles of financial obligation upon their happiness. Another interesting explanation was that people married in the 1800s and 1900s stating ‘until death do us part’ but really they were likely to die at around 40 and at that time you believed religiously that a better life would await you anyway so why challenge the status quo because you are unhappy in your marriage? The removal of religious control and thus the ability for scientific advancements in medicine has meant that we live longer; we don’t have a sense of our impending mortality as much as we did and so we don’t want to stay unhappy. Or we don’t believe there is a life for us afterwards and we want to make the most of this one. We are selfishly enlightened at the downfall of our socially constructed reality.

The final interesting point which this book made was about how members of the natural sciences challenge the scientific credence of social sciences. Studying psychology I have often been accused of studying a pseudo-science much to amusement of those who study the natural sciences. Why is it most scientists believe this? How has it been passed down in their learning? Well their interests reflect those of the white male bourgeoisie who were the reigning class of such study at the development of the ‘pseudo-science’. So why would they want to challenge such ‘pseudo-sciences’? Well if a pseudo-science suggests theoretically a societally imposed pedestal from which they stand then it removes a loose stone threating their downfall. So of course initially they refuted social science on the basis of lack of scientific credence and thus it has indoctrinated all further scientists and barred them from understanding anything other than science.

Overall this book has been a wonderful ignition to many thoughts in my mind and I would for this definitely recommend it.

[Martin Keith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decent introduction to sociology. As the author puts it, it gives you more of a sense for sociology rather than an introduction to its methods or history. So it both was and wasn't what I was looking for. The author mentions his work researching Protestant terrorism in Northern Ireland - I wish he said more! But overall, this helped get into the sociologist's headspace.

A couple of things annoyed me though - he briefly mentions anthropology and relegates it to "primitive" societies. That's a very limited view of what anthropology's meant to be. He also very firmly dismisses any comments on society than come from other subjects. His strident defence of objectivism is admirable. But subjects like philosophy, anthropology and literary criticism are still necessary for elucidating the ideas that drive human behaviour.

[Petit Leo · Rating 2 out of 5]

"There can be no room in honest scholarship for trump cards" is a great quote but I am starting to notice a certain anti-pomo tendency in these short "pamphlets" that otherwise provide a good nuanced take on major fields like sociology. This is the only reason I would lower my rating to two, but this is another great addition to the AVSI series.

Also giving the greats of the field their respect and in that way urging people to read them is good, me likey likey likey

[Sivasothi N. · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short book of five chapters, but it did require focus, to let it all sink in! The author set out to give just “a sense of sociology”, and also disentangles it from some common confusions, dedicating the last chapter to this. I was gratified to hear the assertion of empiricism. Even as a brief time, it did clarify a few questions I had.

Ebook on Libby. Took me awhile mainly due to a busy semester.

[NaphTa · Rating 4 out of 5]

როგორც ავტორი აღნიშნავს ტექსტის მიზანი სოციოლოგიის არსის გადმოცემაა და არა მისი მიმოხილვა. ტექსტი ამართლებს მიზანს.
რელევანტური (და არა რელატივისტური;) და მეცნიერული ორიენტირია სოციოლოგიის შესასწავლად.

[زهرا · Rating 4 out of 5]

مقدمه‌ای مختصر و مفید از جامعه‌شناسی.

[Callie Wolsey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Does the job

[Robin Shakespeare · Rating 2 out of 5]

I would absolutely recommend reading this as a short contextual primer before engaging with sociological texts.

A great introduction to sociological concepts and priorities, and a useful overview of the main scholars and their ideas. The frameworks for thought that I’ve gained from this book will serve me well in a wide variety of disciplines ad contexts.

Bruce excels in the abstract- but for me was let down almost every time he tries to tie these down to examples.

To pick one example, his informal analysis of trans women and subjectivity reads:

“[...]the 21st century’s apparent acceptance (at least in certain class fractions) of social identity as a matter of personal choice. In the more metropolitan parts of modern societies it is increasingly common for people to claim to ‘identify as’ black, or American Indian, or male or female. Such identification may be claimed irrespective of objective reality but also irrespective of the part that groups traditionally play in deciding who belongs to them. So some people who were born biologically male identify as female without reference to any right of women-who-were-born-women to decide whether such claims are legitimate. Personal preference is treated by some as a card that trumps objective and intersubjective realities.”

The point about internal realities being increasingly privileged over objective or social, intersubjective reality under modernism is something I agree with, and is greatly useful to remember. However in picking trans-ness to illustrate it, his lack of experience and his cultural niche show. It's just not the right concept to describe this phenomenon, and certainly not applied in the ham-fisted way that he does.

He gets something wrong, that trans women are intersubjectively accepted as women. That this is extremely important to trans people is demonstrated by the concept of “passing”, whose validity is contested, but which is nonetheless culturally hugely important. This paragraph also shows that he has little experience of transition. Many people, previously to identifying as trans, have a long history of being intersubjectively accepted by others as ‘feminine’ or a ‘tomboy’. Some even say their friends or family knew they were trans before they did themselves. Often, trans identification follows a period of cross-dressing, drag, or identifying as non-binary. All of these might usefully be described as ‘testing the intersubjective waters’ of their identity.

It would take a book as long to thoroughly go through all the others, but they were, in brief: a trivialising attitude towards the social difficulties experienced by abuse survivors; disbelief of repressed traumatic memory; referring to ‘primitive’ societies in a way which was really not adequately critical; promoting the now debunked idea of the ‘career criminal’; a pretty egregious tu quoque about people who question the value-neutral status of sociology, as well as a handful chucked at postmodernism in general, feminist and critical sociologists.

He shares a lot of vocabulary with the band of critics of “cultural marxism”. As he points out himself, these conservative attitudes might make as much difference to his numerical practices as they would make to a natural scientist’s, but they nonetheless have no place in a reputable publication.

At least he seems halfway self-aware when he makes the reader aware that sociologists, as people, are not free from bias. Honestly, the book felt like a test. Please, please, don’t read this unless you are very good at separating opinion from fact.