Popular in Social Sciences

Books

City Time: On Being Sentenced to Rikers Island

Independent Scholar David A. Campbell

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Economics

Gender and Economics

University of California Santa Barbara Shelly Lundberg

American Politics

Keeping the Republic

Boston College Marc Landy

Banks and Policy Organisations

Greening the financial sector

European Investment Bank Matteo Ferrazzi

British Politics

Entrepreneurial thinking: the politics and practice of policy impact

University of Sheffield Matthew Flinders

Culture and Society

Carceral Entrapments: Views from the Prison/Street Interface in India

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Mahuya Bandyopadhya

Moral Minefields

View more insights in Books - Social Sciences - Sociology

View more figures from City University of New York

View the page of Samuel Stabler

View the page of Shai Dromi

Read the Study

In “Moral Minefields,” Shai Dromi and Samuel Stabler examine sociology’s moral debates on race, genetics, secularization, nationalism, poverty culture, and parenting practices.

Image courtesy of interviewee. March 4, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video video discusses the motivation behind a book exploring the relationship between morality and sociology, inspired by discussions between the authors during their graduate studies. It highlights a longstanding debate within sociology regarding whether the field should align more closely with rigorous scientific methods (positivism) or adopt positions that emphasize moral and political engagement.

The authors examine significant controversies within sociology, particularly surrounding the works of figures like Alice Goffman. They focus on five contentious topics: religion, race, nationalism, gender, and reproduction, analyzing how moral frameworks influence research methodologies and the evolution of sociological thought over time.

Through historical analysis, the authors identify seven common ethical justifications that sociologists have used to support their research. They illustrate how arguments about what constitutes acceptable research can lead to innovation and new theoretical developments within the field. Specifically, the text discusses differing perspectives on secularization, nationalism, and global society, revealing how scholars have navigated the moral complexities surrounding their work.

Ultimately, the authors advocate for a recognition of moral pluralism within sociology, asserting that diverse viewpoints can enrich the discipline. They argue that disagreement is not necessarily detrimental; instead, it can be a catalyst for progress, encouraging critical examination and the exploration of new research avenues that contribute to the growth of the field.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.185 --> 00:03.925
So the book was really motivated by me

00:03.985 --> 00:05.925
and Chi's friendship in graduate school,

00:05.945 --> 00:09.005
and particularly, these debates that were going on

00:09.005 --> 00:10.885
around sociology, about,

00:11.265 --> 00:13.405
how moral ideas should guide research.

00:13.545 --> 00:16.325
So, sociology has had a traditional group that,

00:16.325 --> 00:17.965
that are called positivists, who tend to argue

00:17.965 --> 00:19.885
that sociology should be a rigorous,

00:20.485 --> 00:22.885
rigorous science like physics or some of the other sciences.

00:23.305 --> 00:25.685
Uh, and then more recently, people like Alvin Morris

00:25.745 --> 00:27.285
and Mary Romero have started arguing

00:27.355 --> 00:29.125
that sociology should be

00:29.145 --> 00:32.885
and has always been morally, politically engaged.

00:33.625 --> 00:36.725
Uh, and really this motivated us to think about

00:36.905 --> 00:39.525
and asked the this question about kind of what kind

00:39.525 --> 00:41.045
of discipline is sociology

00:41.225 --> 00:43.525
and what kind of values it should pursue.

00:44.225 --> 00:46.045
Uh, and as I said, when China were grad school,

00:46.045 --> 00:48.365
this became particularly problematic as,

00:48.445 --> 00:50.405
a few notable sociologists probably,

00:50.405 --> 00:53.205
most famously marked ous, Alice Goffman,

00:53.385 --> 00:55.765
became ensconced in controversy over

00:55.765 --> 00:56.885
the nature of their research.

00:57.305 --> 00:59.285
Its political values, its social values.

00:59.825 --> 01:02.725
Uh, and so our book really kind of came out

01:02.725 --> 01:04.205
of this conflict about, you know,

01:04.305 --> 01:07.005
so should sociology be scientifically oriented?

01:07.465 --> 01:10.965
Should it be culturally, politically, morally oriented?

01:11.665 --> 01:14.085
Uh, and really our idea was to try to develop a framework

01:14.085 --> 01:17.365
that could include all of this as sociology to think about

01:17.425 --> 01:19.645
how has sociology grown

01:19.985 --> 01:23.725
and really thrived by embracing the plurality

01:23.725 --> 01:27.525
of positions we take on our different, research

01:27.665 --> 01:29.485
and why it's morally worthwhile.

01:30.305 --> 01:33.125
Sam and I are really interested in understanding

01:33.425 --> 01:37.205
how debates over what's like morally okay to research,

01:37.205 --> 01:38.925
have influenced sociology over time.

01:39.705 --> 01:42.725
So, we focused on five topics that have

01:43.285 --> 01:44.885
historically caused a lot of disagreement.

01:45.065 --> 01:49.685
Uh, the study of religion, race nationalism, gender

01:50.025 --> 01:51.245
and, reproduction.

01:52.265 --> 01:55.605
And within each area, we analyzed

01:56.445 --> 01:59.005
historically the different types of, frameworks

01:59.685 --> 02:02.565
researchers used when they were, justifying

02:02.625 --> 02:06.565
or critiquing or defending different ideas about why is

02:06.565 --> 02:08.525
this, research morally okay.

02:08.825 --> 02:12.045
Why, why is this something that social scientists,

02:12.665 --> 02:13.845
can and should pursue?

02:13.845 --> 02:15.245
Through this historical research,

02:15.245 --> 02:18.165
we identified seven common, frames

02:18.165 --> 02:20.245
or what we call repertoires,

02:20.595 --> 02:23.245
that sociologists have drawn on when talking

02:23.245 --> 02:24.845
about proper research.

02:25.105 --> 02:28.525
So, for example, this research helps promote equality.

02:29.035 --> 02:31.325
This research helps, give voice

02:31.325 --> 02:32.765
to marginalized communities.

02:32.875 --> 02:35.685
This research addresses common concerns, that members

02:35.685 --> 02:38.165
of the public have and, and so on and so forth.

02:39.025 --> 02:42.805
Um, and so, so to research this, we dug deep into

02:42.805 --> 02:44.925
how discussions have played out within each topic.

02:45.625 --> 02:49.485
Um, how disagreements started, how scholars responded

02:49.485 --> 02:52.005
to criticism of their work, how they balanced, you know,

02:52.005 --> 02:53.765
wanting to do research,

02:53.825 --> 02:57.045
but also being, sensitive to the moral,

02:57.105 --> 02:58.685
complexities.

02:59.425 --> 03:03.485
Um, and ultimately what we, what we were looking for is

03:03.585 --> 03:05.285
how the fields change over time

03:05.475 --> 03:08.405
because of disagreement about what's, what's moral

03:08.465 --> 03:11.045
to research, therein,

03:11.345 --> 03:14.805
and the results of our, research in these different, of,

03:14.865 --> 03:18.525
in these different subfield, can shed light on

03:18.525 --> 03:21.165
how controversy can drive actually like new theories

03:21.185 --> 03:23.685
and innovations and move scholarly fields forward

03:24.225 --> 03:25.405
in, productive ways.

03:25.795 --> 03:27.885
I'll talk to you a little bit about, one

03:27.885 --> 03:30.005
of the central concerns that brought me

03:30.005 --> 03:32.685
to sociology was this question of secularization.

03:32.785 --> 03:36.205
So secularization is the idea that religion is declining.

03:36.745 --> 03:38.445
Uh, sociologists since Marx

03:38.445 --> 03:41.605
and Weber have argued that, religion is doomed to die,

03:42.105 --> 03:44.925
with modernity and with modern life.

03:45.465 --> 03:47.525
Uh, and of course, we pick up this picture,

03:47.665 --> 03:50.045
we pick up this story somewhere in the mid 20th century when

03:50.045 --> 03:53.805
there is this massive wave of religious revival

03:53.825 --> 03:56.725
and religious innovation, that begins with kind

03:56.725 --> 03:59.325
of the new religious movements in the 1960s and,

03:59.345 --> 04:01.165
and the, the flower power generation,

04:01.225 --> 04:04.485
but then evolves very quickly into, the kind

04:04.485 --> 04:06.885
of contemporary forms of evangelicalism

04:06.905 --> 04:08.365
and the religious revivals on the right

04:08.365 --> 04:11.125
that we also see still in our politics today.

04:12.225 --> 04:13.605
And we really chart

04:13.665 --> 04:16.565
how scholars view this transformation, right?

04:16.945 --> 04:18.805
Um, there is this growing realization

04:18.805 --> 04:20.445
that there's this disconnect between

04:20.995 --> 04:23.925
what the scholars are saying that religion is going away

04:24.545 --> 04:26.885
and what is actually happening, right?

04:26.885 --> 04:28.685
That religion actually appears to be flowering.

04:29.105 --> 04:31.525
Uh, and so we track how three different groups

04:31.585 --> 04:34.845
of people thought about this as scholars thought about this

04:35.235 --> 04:36.765
with different moral repertoires.

04:36.765 --> 04:38.445
So the first group we, we talk about are,

04:38.625 --> 04:39.925
rational choice scholars.

04:40.155 --> 04:41.965
They really embrace this idea that part

04:41.965 --> 04:44.845
of the reason there's such a religious revival is,

04:44.905 --> 04:47.005
the growth of reli new forms of religious freedom.

04:47.425 --> 04:50.325
So they point to America, certain changes in the law

04:50.385 --> 04:53.365
around religion in America in the 1960s, 1950s,

04:53.425 --> 04:54.525
and the early 20th century,

04:54.555 --> 04:57.205
that allow religious innovation and change to flourish.

04:57.305 --> 04:59.325
And they say secularization doesn't go away.

04:59.325 --> 05:01.765
It it just related to how much law,

05:02.265 --> 05:03.445
you put around religion.

05:03.465 --> 05:04.565
And, and obviously they argue

05:04.665 --> 05:05.965
for more and more religious freedom.

05:06.955 --> 05:08.325
They are met by a group

05:08.565 --> 05:11.765
of comparative historical sociologists, who argue

05:11.875 --> 05:14.205
that we can't just generalize from America.

05:14.345 --> 05:17.885
So they look at different regimes of religious freedom

05:17.945 --> 05:21.165
and religious change, and reli religious innovation,

05:21.185 --> 05:23.165
and really emphasize that,

05:23.455 --> 05:26.365
while certainly the secularization theory of yesterday,

05:26.365 --> 05:29.605
that religion is just going away, isn't here to stay.

05:29.665 --> 05:32.405
We can't just say everything should look like America in

05:32.405 --> 05:34.005
terms of religion, and that's the way forward.

05:34.185 --> 05:36.925
We should do comparative historical work to determine

05:37.035 --> 05:39.925
what is and isn't, a worthwhile way

05:39.925 --> 05:40.965
of thinking about religion.

05:41.385 --> 05:42.845
Shy and I sort of entered graduate school.

05:43.075 --> 05:46.725
There's kind of one or the other, which led to a kind

05:46.725 --> 05:49.405
of third, maneuver, which we kind of, we, we describe

05:49.465 --> 05:51.045
as the, the turn to marketability.

05:51.185 --> 05:54.125
So in our generation of sociologist religion, there are lots

05:54.125 --> 05:55.325
of people who started saying, well,

05:55.385 --> 05:58.685
I'm not really interested in if secularization is real

05:58.785 --> 06:01.005
or if it's here to stay, or if religion's doomed.

06:01.005 --> 06:02.965
All these questions, you know, there's kind

06:02.965 --> 06:04.485
of no real answer there.

06:05.025 --> 06:07.365
We should turn instead to trying

06:07.365 --> 06:10.365
to understand people's religion in their own terms.

06:11.185 --> 06:14.325
In a very famous passage, we quote, Fen Yang, one

06:14.325 --> 06:15.885
of the, the leaders in the sociology

06:15.905 --> 06:19.445
of religion at a presidential lead, at a, a conference,

06:19.665 --> 06:21.725
his presidential address where he sort of says, you know,

06:21.745 --> 06:23.805
how could you define

06:24.185 --> 06:26.565
or defend getting a job if you can't even

06:26.635 --> 06:28.085
explain what religion is?

06:28.085 --> 06:30.245
Because you're so caught up in these other debates about

06:30.815 --> 06:32.565
secularity and secularization.

06:33.185 --> 06:35.645
And so by tracing these three responses, we sort of show

06:35.785 --> 06:39.725
how do people respond to not only the fact that,

06:39.725 --> 06:41.885
sociologists may have been wrong about something,

06:42.385 --> 06:44.565
but also that, that that error comes

06:44.565 --> 06:47.925
with certain moral questions and moral preoccupations.

06:48.465 --> 06:50.325
So Sam, Sam came into grad school

06:50.355 --> 06:51.605
with an interest in religion.

06:51.805 --> 06:54.925
I was actually interested in nationalism and, nations.

06:55.505 --> 06:57.085
Um, so,

06:57.475 --> 07:00.965
accordingly, that's, that's also a second, case

07:00.965 --> 07:05.205
that we look at where, it, this, this is an area

07:05.235 --> 07:09.605
that has had a longstanding controversy over whether,

07:10.265 --> 07:12.605
the world is still composed out of,

07:13.085 --> 07:17.125
separate nation states, or are we, have we moved on beyond

07:17.125 --> 07:19.485
that to, to an era

07:19.485 --> 07:22.565
where we are actually living in a global society,

07:22.565 --> 07:25.165
where we really need to rethink how we we think

07:25.165 --> 07:28.285
and talk about, that the world order.

07:29.105 --> 07:30.325
Um, and,

07:30.465 --> 07:34.005
and in the late 20th century, some thinkers started arguing

07:34.315 --> 07:38.485
that, continuing to talk about nation states,

07:38.665 --> 07:41.605
in this, you know, area, era of, globalization

07:42.025 --> 07:44.285
and, social and political change,

07:44.305 --> 07:47.685
is actually harmful, that it's actually an endorsement of,

07:48.705 --> 07:53.005
you know, a a a political order that's regressive,

07:53.225 --> 07:56.965
that's outmoded, that, that that's even,

07:56.965 --> 07:58.725
violent occasionally.

07:59.345 --> 08:02.045
Um, and the argument was that instead, sociology

08:02.225 --> 08:05.165
and that social sciences in general should shift toward,

08:05.315 --> 08:07.845
like a cosmopolitan view,

08:07.845 --> 08:09.565
that looked past national boundaries

08:09.865 --> 08:13.405
and really focused on, a global society.

08:14.565 --> 08:18.545
Um, now this caused tension for researchers who, who

08:19.305 --> 08:22.425
actually had research on phenomena like immigrations

08:22.805 --> 08:24.505
or national politics or,

08:24.645 --> 08:27.945
or any other phenomenon that's that, that is about states,

08:28.525 --> 08:31.345
which, you know, in one way

08:31.345 --> 08:32.505
or another we're still around.

08:33.125 --> 08:36.945
Um, and what we can trace in the chapter is the way that,

08:37.085 --> 08:40.665
to keep studying these areas, sociologists had

08:40.665 --> 08:43.265
to find new ways to frame their work, is contributing

08:43.265 --> 08:47.545
to the greater good, while also acknowledging that times

08:47.565 --> 08:49.905
of change and that there are moral problematics

08:50.365 --> 08:52.065
around these,

08:52.765 --> 08:55.765
around res con conducting research this way.

08:56.425 --> 09:00.565
So, some, researchers appealed to the idea of,

09:00.875 --> 09:04.205
community and tradition that's, enshrined in,

09:04.345 --> 09:08.845
in nations, kind of showing how historically,

09:08.845 --> 09:12.605
nations provided, important markers of,

09:12.605 --> 09:14.805
collective identity empowerment

09:14.905 --> 09:16.605
for certain, populations.

09:17.145 --> 09:19.885
Um, other scholars emphasize the value of, kind

09:19.885 --> 09:21.925
of remaining objective in our science

09:22.145 --> 09:25.605
and, kind of understanding nationalism itself

09:25.945 --> 09:28.565
as a phenomenon without necessarily saying if it's good

09:28.565 --> 09:32.845
or bad or if it's still exists, or doesn't, and so on.

09:33.585 --> 09:36.765
Um, and you know, in the chapter we also trace

09:37.025 --> 09:41.645
how ironically cosmopolitan thinkers also faced challenges

09:42.295 --> 09:44.765
eventually when, you know, states

09:44.865 --> 09:47.485
and, nationalism seemed to persist in reality.

09:47.865 --> 09:49.165
So debates also emerge

09:49.165 --> 09:52.325
around whether cosmopolitan scholars were too disconnected

09:52.875 --> 09:55.125
from, most people's actual experience.

09:55.665 --> 09:59.165
Um, so in short, what we sh what we show,

09:59.635 --> 10:01.165
that I guess both in this case

10:01.345 --> 10:05.345
and in, the religion case, is that we see

10:05.345 --> 10:09.105
how moral controversy shaped not just what gets studies,

10:09.445 --> 10:13.985
but also how researchers justify, their work.

10:14.325 --> 10:17.065
And even like when there is a controversy,

10:17.325 --> 10:20.065
new ideas can emerge as scholars, you know, find ways

10:20.065 --> 10:23.865
to keep engaging with the issues, that are, that are

10:24.475 --> 10:26.545
being questioned or being criticized.

10:26.925 --> 10:28.945
And these dynamics are really important

10:28.965 --> 10:31.865
for understanding change, in a field over time.

10:32.605 --> 10:36.305
One of the main things we hope readers will take away is an

10:36.305 --> 10:39.785
appreciation for, moral pluralism,

10:39.785 --> 10:40.985
both in sociology,

10:41.245 --> 10:44.225
but also, more broadly in the social sciences.

10:44.805 --> 10:48.145
Uh, and what we mean by that is that, recognizing

10:48.145 --> 10:52.185
that there isn't just one, right way for researchers

10:52.245 --> 10:54.185
to think about ethics

10:54.325 --> 10:57.465
and the public good, that, there's scholarly work might,

10:57.565 --> 10:59.705
bring about,

11:00.015 --> 11:01.705
that different scholars will have valid,

11:01.725 --> 11:04.265
but competing perspectives on those questions.

11:05.285 --> 11:08.905
Um, and, the, the, this diversity

11:09.045 --> 11:12.305
of viewpoints is actually a strength and not, not a weakness

11:12.305 --> 11:15.905
because, you know, often we, you know, we, we,

11:15.925 --> 11:17.665
we naturally think about disagreement

11:17.685 --> 11:19.265
as something negative, right?

11:19.265 --> 11:21.985
It's something that holds a field back,

11:22.135 --> 11:23.785
that holds academia back.

11:24.325 --> 11:26.985
Um, but as the, the various examples

11:26.985 --> 11:28.985
that we cover in the book show,

11:30.115 --> 11:33.175
having alternate positions can also push new ideas forward,

11:33.795 --> 11:38.215
and, help think about new research methods,

11:38.795 --> 11:43.215
new theories, help, scholars look

11:43.235 --> 11:45.455
for new empirical findings.

11:45.455 --> 11:49.535
So challenges researchers to think more, critically

11:49.535 --> 11:52.295
and find innovative, either middle grounds

11:52.355 --> 11:55.365
or, alternate bouts for research,

11:55.375 --> 11:59.285
which end up contributing to the growth of, of their field.

12:00.105 --> 12:02.525
Um, so we want, so we want readers

12:02.525 --> 12:04.845
to recognize pluralism as a strength.

12:05.225 --> 12:07.525
Um, and to see disagreement really is a normal

12:08.185 --> 12:10.165
and possibly even necessary,

12:10.715 --> 12:12.645
element in progress at times.

12:13.465 --> 12:16.965
Um, and, you know, to understand sociology's role

12:17.705 --> 12:19.925
in navigating difficult issues,

12:20.195 --> 12:22.485
that it stems sparkly from its willingness to

12:23.645 --> 12:27.605
actually thoughtfully consider multiple perspectives on,

12:28.705 --> 12:31.845
on morality and on, on, you know, what's,

12:31.875 --> 12:32.965
what is good research.

00:00 - So the book was really motivated by me and Chi's friendship in graduate school, and particularly, these debates that were going on around sociology, about, how moral ideas should guide research. So, sociology has had a traditional group that,

00:16 - that are called positivists, who tend to argue that sociology should be a rigorous, rigorous science like physics or some of the other sciences. and then more recently, people like Alvin Morris and Mary Romero have started arguing that sociology should be and has always been morally, politically engaged. and really this motivated us to think about and asked the this question about kind of what kind of discipline is sociology

00:41 - and what kind of values it should pursue. and as I said, when China were grad school, this became particularly problematic as, a few notable sociologists probably, most famously marked ous, Alice Goffman, became ensconced in controversy over the nature of their research. Its political values, its social values. and so our book really kind of came out of this conflict about, you know,

01:04 - so should sociology be scientifically oriented? Should it be culturally, politically, morally oriented? and really our idea was to try to develop a framework that could include all of this as sociology to think about how has sociology grown and really thrived by embracing the plurality of positions we take on our different, research and why it's morally worthwhile. Sam and I are really interested in understanding how debates over what's like morally okay to research,

01:37 - have influenced sociology over time. So, we focused on five topics that have historically caused a lot of disagreement. the study of religion, race nationalism, gender and, reproduction. And within each area, we analyzed historically the different types of, frameworks researchers used when they were, justifying or critiquing or defending different ideas about why is this, research morally okay.

02:08 - Why, why is this something that social scientists, can and should pursue? Through this historical research, we identified seven common, frames or what we call repertoires, that sociologists have drawn on when talking about proper research. So, for example, this research helps promote equality. This research helps, give voice to marginalized communities.

02:32 - This research addresses common concerns, that members of the public have and, and so on and so forth. and so, so to research this, we dug deep into how discussions have played out within each topic. how disagreements started, how scholars responded to criticism of their work, how they balanced, you know, wanting to do research, but also being, sensitive to the moral, complexities. and ultimately what we, what we were looking for is

03:03 - how the fields change over time because of disagreement about what's, what's moral to research, therein, and the results of our, research in these different, of, in these different subfield, can shed light on how controversy can drive actually like new theories and innovations and move scholarly fields forward in, productive ways. I'll talk to you a little bit about, one of the central concerns that brought me

03:30 - to sociology was this question of secularization. So secularization is the idea that religion is declining. sociologists since Marx and Weber have argued that, religion is doomed to die, with modernity and with modern life. and of course, we pick up this picture, we pick up this story somewhere in the mid 20th century when there is this massive wave of religious revival and religious innovation, that begins with kind of the new religious movements in the 1960s and,

03:59 - and the, the flower power generation, but then evolves very quickly into, the kind of contemporary forms of evangelicalism and the religious revivals on the right that we also see still in our politics today. And we really chart how scholars view this transformation, right? there is this growing realization that there's this disconnect between what the scholars are saying that religion is going away

04:24 - and what is actually happening, right? That religion actually appears to be flowering. and so we track how three different groups of people thought about this as scholars thought about this with different moral repertoires. So the first group we, we talk about are, rational choice scholars. They really embrace this idea that part of the reason there's such a religious revival is, the growth of reli new forms of religious freedom.

04:47 - So they point to America, certain changes in the law around religion in America in the 1960s, 1950s, and the early 20th century, that allow religious innovation and change to flourish. And they say secularization doesn't go away. It it just related to how much law, you put around religion. And, and obviously they argue for more and more religious freedom. They are met by a group

05:08 - of comparative historical sociologists, who argue that we can't just generalize from America. So they look at different regimes of religious freedom and religious change, and reli religious innovation, and really emphasize that, while certainly the secularization theory of yesterday, that religion is just going away, isn't here to stay. We can't just say everything should look like America in terms of religion, and that's the way forward. We should do comparative historical work to determine

05:37 - what is and isn't, a worthwhile way of thinking about religion. Shy and I sort of entered graduate school. There's kind of one or the other, which led to a kind of third, maneuver, which we kind of, we, we describe as the, the turn to marketability. So in our generation of sociologist religion, there are lots of people who started saying, well, I'm not really interested in if secularization is real or if it's here to stay, or if religion's doomed.

06:01 - All these questions, you know, there's kind of no real answer there. We should turn instead to trying to understand people's religion in their own terms. In a very famous passage, we quote, Fen Yang, one of the, the leaders in the sociology of religion at a presidential lead, at a, a conference, his presidential address where he sort of says, you know, how could you define or defend getting a job if you can't even

06:26 - explain what religion is? Because you're so caught up in these other debates about secularity and secularization. And so by tracing these three responses, we sort of show how do people respond to not only the fact that, sociologists may have been wrong about something, but also that, that that error comes with certain moral questions and moral preoccupations. So Sam, Sam came into grad school with an interest in religion.

06:51 - I was actually interested in nationalism and, nations. so, accordingly, that's, that's also a second, case that we look at where, it, this, this is an area that has had a longstanding controversy over whether, the world is still composed out of, separate nation states, or are we, have we moved on beyond that to, to an era where we are actually living in a global society, where we really need to rethink how we we think

07:25 - and talk about, that the world order. and, and in the late 20th century, some thinkers started arguing that, continuing to talk about nation states, in this, you know, area, era of, globalization and, social and political change, is actually harmful, that it's actually an endorsement of, you know, a a a political order that's regressive, that's outmoded, that, that that's even, violent occasionally.

07:59 - and the argument was that instead, sociology and that social sciences in general should shift toward, like a cosmopolitan view, that looked past national boundaries and really focused on, a global society. now this caused tension for researchers who, who actually had research on phenomena like immigrations or national politics or, or any other phenomenon that's that, that is about states, which, you know, in one way

08:31 - or another we're still around. and what we can trace in the chapter is the way that, to keep studying these areas, sociologists had to find new ways to frame their work, is contributing to the greater good, while also acknowledging that times of change and that there are moral problematics around these, around res con conducting research this way. So, some, researchers appealed to the idea of, community and tradition that's, enshrined in,

09:04 - in nations, kind of showing how historically, nations provided, important markers of, collective identity empowerment for certain, populations. other scholars emphasize the value of, kind of remaining objective in our science and, kind of understanding nationalism itself as a phenomenon without necessarily saying if it's good or bad or if it's still exists, or doesn't, and so on. and you know, in the chapter we also trace

09:37 - how ironically cosmopolitan thinkers also faced challenges eventually when, you know, states and, nationalism seemed to persist in reality. So debates also emerge around whether cosmopolitan scholars were too disconnected from, most people's actual experience. so in short, what we sh what we show, that I guess both in this case and in, the religion case, is that we see how moral controversy shaped not just what gets studies,

10:09 - but also how researchers justify, their work. And even like when there is a controversy, new ideas can emerge as scholars, you know, find ways to keep engaging with the issues, that are, that are being questioned or being criticized. And these dynamics are really important for understanding change, in a field over time. One of the main things we hope readers will take away is an appreciation for, moral pluralism, both in sociology,

10:41 - but also, more broadly in the social sciences. and what we mean by that is that, recognizing that there isn't just one, right way for researchers to think about ethics and the public good, that, there's scholarly work might, bring about, that different scholars will have valid, but competing perspectives on those questions. and, the, the, this diversity of viewpoints is actually a strength and not, not a weakness

11:12 - because, you know, often we, you know, we, we, we naturally think about disagreement as something negative, right? It's something that holds a field back, that holds academia back. but as the, the various examples that we cover in the book show, having alternate positions can also push new ideas forward, and, help think about new research methods, new theories, help, scholars look

11:43 - for new empirical findings. So challenges researchers to think more, critically and find innovative, either middle grounds or, alternate bouts for research, which end up contributing to the growth of, of their field. so we want, so we want readers to recognize pluralism as a strength. and to see disagreement really is a normal and possibly even necessary, element in progress at times.

12:13 - and, you know, to understand sociology's role in navigating difficult issues, that it stems sparkly from its willingness to actually thoughtfully consider multiple perspectives on, on morality and on, on, you know, what's, what is good research.

Faculti AI can make mistakes