October 2024 – Jana Bacevic

You know which photo I am talking about. Yes, the one you had seen, and are now trying to unsee.

Of course, you, I, most of the people we know are objectively much more comfortable. We have water, electricity. We are not being bombed, daily. Half of our population has not been obliterated (well, likely). We have food. We are even, probably, comparatively healthy. I mean, at the very least we are not tethered to an IV while –

I know, I know. You are going to try to accuse me of generalizing individual pain. Nothing could be further from my intention. You can find out his name; you can find all their names. You can repeat them, post them, recite them. List their individual achievements. Think – covertly or openly – about all of the ways in which they are you, and in which they are not like you: for instance, highlight that he was a good student. That she was a mother. Or think that as a white person living in the ‘Global North’ this could under no circumstances be you.

What I am saying, however, is that under that order of moral complexity, outrage, guilt, certitude – all the things that wealthy, educated people in this part of the world have as a consequence of the fact (most of) their worlds had never visibly shattered – lies a deeper sentiment, and it is this sentiment you are now trying to unfeel. That sentiment tells you, with brutal precision of the consciousness of a species, that in addition to being a specific image of a specific person in a specific war in unbelievable agony – that picture is also you. That picture is what humanity is now, and if you are human, this is you.

That picture tells you, with brutal precision, that what you probably thought constituted basic precepts of humanity – that we help the ill and the wounded, that we do not attack unarmed civilians, that we do not under any conditions incinerate people tethered to an IV in a medical tent – is being burned alive, literally and metaphorically, as if there is a difference between the two anyway. That picture tells you that the order you thought protected you – yes, even you as a badass critic of liberalism, or whatever – no longer exists. That picture tells you that common humanity – however strongly or weakly you were invested in it – has no meaning as a term anymore.

That picture tells you that you will be obliterated tethered to a support system you have no recourse but to remain attached to.

Welcome.

Some of us have known that the world looks like this for a long time. But this isn’t about who is smart(er), or priority. It is about how – indeed, if – to go on living after this image. For living is the one thing that currently separates us from the dead. Hence live we must.

Under these conditions, there are about three options:

Try to ignore, or look away, as much as possible. Distract yourself with chats about culture wars, immigration, “the free speech crisis”. Talk about ceasefire, as if what has occurred was a random skirmish that can be smoothed out by some successful diplomacy.
Make the most of your own privilege. Buttress your fortresses, be they Europe’s Schengen zone, the wall alongside the Mexican border, the Mediterranean or the English Channel. Remind yourself, daily, that it-may-be-very-unfortunate-but, you, yourself, have worked so hard to earn a decent living for you and your family, and you deserve a nice car and a salary and a pension and takeouts and anyway all these images are so depressing and there is nothing we can do about it.
Own up to what is going on. Bid goodbye to the international order, the order that gave birth to you and whatever fiction by way of identity you are invested in – class, gender, language, nation – and the institutions that sustain them (state, church, bank, university), and remind yourself that (with few exceptions) they are making this possible. Think very carefully about how you want to live, and how you want to die. Think about the values you would stand by, even as the world bursts into flame.

I’ll see you on the other side.

This is a module I taught in 21-22, 22-23, and 23-24 as a 10-credit (one term), 3rd year undergraduate elective module at Durham (in Department of Sociology, but open to other students). The module was quite popular and had a growing student enrolment; some of the student feedback I got, especially in its final year, was among the best I ever received (thank you!).

Anyway, knowing the scarcity of available resources for theory that steps outside of the ‘canonical’ way of teaching that focuses on the exegesis of (predominantly, if no longer exclusively) whitemalewestern thinkers, I decided to make some of these available publicly – note that this is a significantly different version than what was provided for Durham University students, as it omits some resources (notably presentations/slides and videos). The module has, of course, evolved over the years; if I were to continue teaching it there are things I would do differently, but this version should be good enough to support anyone looking for ways to think or learn about theory that depart from those conventionally taught.

P.S. I am also writing a book on the topic, so if you like this approach, do keep an eye out for when it’s published – and if you would like to learn more or discuss other ways to support your theory learning, feel free to contact me.

Syllabus

(note: sessions will be added on a weekly basis, allowing you to ‘follow’ the course through the term).

Intro post:

The purpose of this module is to introduce you to the ways in which we think of the relationship between social theory (theories about the society) and the production of knowledge — including its uses, applications in contemporary politics and policy, and social significance.

Knowledge is sometimes seen as something we possess individually — it is ‘in our heads’. Yet, knowledge is also, inevitably and irreducibly, social: it is produced through collectively organized practices of transmission, innovation, circulation and certification (if you do not know what these words mean, look them up — and then think: what elements of higher education they speak to?)

The module builds on and significantly extends your knowledge of the range of contemporary social theories, in a way that enables you to understand, critically assess, and independently learn about the relationship between knowledge – including theoretical knowledge – and the social context of its production and application.

The main pedagogical objective of the module is to allow students to develop a deeper understanding of the origins, development, and contemporary discussions concerning some of the following themes:

What is ‘theory’?
The scientific status of sociology — is sociology a science? Why does this matter?
What is the relationship between knowledge and ignorance?
What does it mean to know ‘differently’?
How are forms of knowledge production related to governance?
Who owns knowledge?

Throughout the module, we will consider these themes from a sociological angle, which means emphasizing the social processes, inequalities, and relations of power underpinning their contemporary manifestations and transformations. In addition to these, we will be drawing on a broad range of readings, concepts and ideas in history, philosophy, political theory and anthropology, reflecting the interdisciplinary nature of contemporary social theory.

Session 1: What is social about theory?

In this session, we introduce the module and its contents and modes of delivery, and the main topic – the relationship between social theory (and sociological knowledge more generally) and politics.

In preparation, think about what you have learned over the past two years and reflect on the following:

What is theory?

What does it mean to say that a statement is ‘theoretical’?

What is the relationship between theory and the social context of its production?

If you would like to learn more about my approach to social theory, you can read this interview.

Reading:

Mandatory (at least one):

Abend, G. (2008) The Meaning of Theory, Sociological Theory 26 (2), 173-199 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2008.00324.x

Krause, M. (2016). The meanings of theorizing’, British Journal of Sociology 67 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1468-4446.12187_4

Connell RW (1997) Why is Classical Theory Classical? American Journal of Sociology, 102(6): 1511-1557 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/231125

Additional:

Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1962). The social construction of reality. Introduction: The problem of the sociology of knowledge (11-33).

Haslanger, S. (2012). Resisting reality: social construction and social critique. Introduction;

Connell, R., Collyer, F., Maia, J., & Morrell, R. (2017). Toward a global sociology of knowledge: Post-colonial realities and intellectual practices. International Sociology, 32(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580916676913

Session 2: What is political about knowledge?

In this session, we begin to discuss different ideas about the role and purpose of theorizing and social-scientific knowledge more generally. What is the role of theory? How do we know if a theory is scientific? Is sociology a science?

Social sciences in the 20th century have mostly focused on the distinction between explanatory and interpretative approaches – one that seeks to postulate social mechanisms or universal ‘covering laws’ that should apply to all (or most) societies, equally, and the other that focuses on meanings of particular actions, institutions, and events within a social context. In some cases, these two modes of doing sociology have been associated with, respectively, objectivist and subjectivist ontologies – one that claims (social) reality exists independently of our perspectives and actions, and another that claims we are fundamentally involved in creating it:

Does sociology (‘only’) explain social events and processes, or does it aim to do something else – and what is that? Can sociology be objective in the same sense in which ‘natural’ sciences are held to be objective?In this session, we discuss some of the origins of these debates, their present transformations and uses, and the implications for sociological theorizing.

Preparation:

In preparation for the session, familiarize yourself (or refresh) background reading. Think about the following:

(1) What do you think is the role of sociology?

(2) How is sociological knowledge different from other kinds of knowledge – including ‘ordinary’ people’s?

(3) How do you understand the difference between explanation, interpretation, and critique?

Reading:

Background

Marx, K. (1845). Theses on Feuerbach. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm

Weber, M (1958 [1917]) Science as a vocation. In: Gerth, HH, Mills, CW (eds) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press, 129–156.

Hamati-Ataya, I. 2018. “The ‘vocation’ Redux: A Post-Weberian Perspective from the Sociology of Knowledge.” Current Sociology 66 (7): 995–1012. doi:10.1177/0011392118756472.

Mandatory (two of the following):

Hedstroem, P. Dissecting the social: on the principles of analytical sociology, Chapter 2: Social Mechanisms and Explanatory Theory (11-32).

Sayer, A. (2011). Why Things Matter to People: Social Science, Values and Ethical Life, Introduction: a relation to the world of concern (1-18).

Bacevic, J. (2021). No such thing as sociological excuses? Performativity, rationality and social scientific expertise in late liberalism. European Journal of Social Theory, 24(3), 394–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310211018939

Additional:

Glynos, J., Howarth, D. (2007). Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. Routledge.

Hamati-Ataya, I. 2018. “The ‘vocation’ Redux: A Post-Weberian Perspective from the Sociology of Knowledge.” Current Sociology 66 (7): 995–1012. doi:10.1177/0011392118756472.

Hammersley, M. 2017. “On the Role of Values in Social Research: Weber Vindicated?” Sociological Research Online 22 (1): 7. doi:10.5153/sro.4197

Shapin, S. (2019). Weber’s Science as a Vocation: A moment in the history of “is” and “ought.” Journal of Classical Sociology, 19(3), 290–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X19851408

Seminar activity:

(1) Reflect and comment on the following quote:

Within the academy, the word theory has a lot of capital. I have always been interested in how the word theory itself is distributed; how some materials are understood as theory and not others. As a student of theory, I learned that theory is used to refer to a rather narrow body of work. Some work becomes theory because it refers to other work that is known as theory. A citational chain is created around theory: you become a theorist by citing other theorists that cite other theorists…

I was concerned with how statements made by the teacher, like “This is not about women,” were used to bypass any questions about how the figure of woman is exercised within a male intellectual tradition. When the essay was returned to me, the grader had scrawled in very large letters, ‘This is not theory! This is politics!’ “

Sara Ahmed, “Living a Feminist Life: Introduction”, 2017: 11

(2) Debate: “This House believes that theory is political”.

In randomly assigned teams, discuss and come up with three arguments in support of/against the motion.