Humanistic Sociology Phantom Movement Or Reality

Here is a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text:

The document, "Humanistic Sociology: Phantom Movement or Reality?" by Thomas Ford Hoult, addresses the question of whether "humanistic sociology" is a genuine movement or merely an illusion within the field of sociology. The author begins by recounting a personal experience where a sociology department chairman dismissed humanistic sociology as a "phantom movement," arguing that all sociologists are inherently humanists and therefore the term is redundant. Hoult uses this anecdote to frame his exploration of two key questions: Is there a phenomenon that can realistically be termed "humanistic sociology"? and Are all sociologists humanists?

Hoult defines humanism as the belief that every human has inherent worth and the right to develop to their fullest potential, provided it is consistent with the development of others. This necessitates a society that values equalitarianism, justice, democratic controls, due process, free inquiry, and freedom of speech and press. Consequently, humanistic sociology is defined as a branch of sociology that actively contributes to building such a society. This requires a value-committed approach, in contrast to the prevailing "value-free" or "ethically neutral" stance prevalent in sociology for much of its history. Humanistic sociology, therefore, must engage in radical analysis and action to achieve its goals, but this does not mean abandoning scientific rigor or embracing sentimentality. Hoult emphasizes that science can be a powerful tool for achieving humanistic objectives.

He posits that humanism, while a matter of faith, is viewed by its adherents as pragmatic and rooted in enlightened self-interest. The alternative, he argues, is a society increasingly dominated by a technocratic state focused solely on mechanical efficiency, exemplified by historical and contemporary examples of unethical experimentation and research conducted without consent. Hoult suggests that humanistic sociology's role is to provide analysis and measurement techniques that expose injustice, thereby motivating action.

The author then traces the historical development of sociology, highlighting the dominant shift towards making it a pure science rather than an applied one. Pioneers like Franklin Henry Giddings advocated for exact, quantitative studies, and by the 1930s, sociologists advocating for social improvement were often dismissed as naive "do-gooders." This led to the embrace of an "ethically neutral" and "value-free" approach, famously articulated by George Lundberg, who argued that social scientists should be equally useful to any political regime, including despotic ones, by remaining apolitical technicians. This perspective often aligns with the structural-functional viewpoint, which tends to analyze societal elements based on their contributions to the system, typically avoiding moral judgments and focusing on maintaining stability. While acknowledging that thinkers like Karl Marx used functional analysis critically, Hoult notes that many functionalists used it to uphold the status quo. The concept of "system" became popular, providing a framework for quantitative analysis and reinforcing the idea of stability as normal.

Hoult then discusses significant challenges to the value-free position. Robert S. Lynd, in the late 1930s, argued that a truly value-free stance is impossible and that inaction inherently supports the existing order. George Simpson, in 1953, advocated for "Science as Morality," asserting that science's highest loyalty should be to a rational society and that sociologists have a political role in defending the conditions necessary for social science, such as freedom of speech and assembly. C. Wright Mills, in the late 1950s, also offered sharp critiques of value-free sociology.

The revolutionary events of the 1960s, including civil rights movements and the Vietnam War, provided an impetus for a new sociology that evaluates and criticizes. Hoult cites Alvin Gouldner's "Anti-Minotaur: The Myth of a Value-Free Sociology" and Robert W. Friedrichs' "A Sociology of Sociology" as key contributions that challenged the prevailing functionalist paradigm. Both authors called for a "radical" or "reflective" sociology that actively engages in social action for human liberation. Hoult also points to the revival of conflict theory, which, unlike functionalism's consensus-based view, highlights power imbalances and the role of coercion in maintaining social order. Conflict theory is inherently critical of the status quo because it asks "for whom is it functional?"

Based on these developments, Hoult concludes that humanistic sociology is a real movement, evidenced by the emergence of sociologies labeled as "new," "reflexive," "radical," "existential," and "evaluative." He argues that a common thread among these is a pressing concern for the improvement of the human condition.

However, Hoult answers his second question – Are all sociologists humanists? – with a qualified "no." He believes that too few sociologists are meaningfully humanistic, with evidence of humane concern often buried beneath abstract analysis. He criticizes sociologists who avoid addressing pressing issues of injustice and exploitation, preferring to focus on abstract concepts or to offer euphemisms for oppressive actions, thereby lending a veneer of respectability to power politics. A true humanistic sociologist, in contrast, uses clear language to describe reality and actively declines to be a handmaiden for exploitative politics. They use science to ascertain the truth and advocate for the betterment of humankind.

In essence, the document argues that humanistic sociology is a necessary and emerging force within the discipline, distinct from the historically dominant value-free approach, and that its adherents are committed to using sociological knowledge and practice for the active improvement of human lives and societies.